<<If Clinton could be shown to have a pattern of true and unambiguous sexual harassment, I would consider that quite serious.>>
The people you described are not the only employees that have claimed Clinton approached them in a sexual manner. Of course, there are also a number of non-employees that make such claims. Most of America seems to believe that Clinton is a womanizer of some repute.
When you attack the motivation behind the claims I begin to have problems. The attacks originated with the WH, and were part of the typical Clinton smear campaign. If you look at Clinton's motivation for lying, it's all about power and control. Why would you consider his claims to be more credible than theirs?
If what you are saying is that there is no legitimate civil or criminal case to be made against Clinton for his sexual behavior, I would probably agree. However, not being able to prove something is not the same as saying it never happened. Clinton could be very guilty, even if no one can prove it in court. Of course, he could also be totally innocent.
What strikes me about the Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky situations, is the consistency of what Clinton is accused of doing. Primarily oral sex (he slipped once with Flowers), "if you deny it, it didn't happen", and use of government empolyees to aid and abet. Based on his history, I think the Willey claim is credible, even if unprovable. |
