Jeff Sessions Resigns

[BugI02]

So that's awkward.

In my youth, I was in favor of the Starr investigation of Clinton because we should have faith in the office of the president. Lying under oath is bad and if the House believes it impeachment-worthy, that's a political decision. I had ABSOLUTELY no sympathy for Clinton.

In my current ... relative unyouthfulness... I question whether that was the right decision, the impeachment. I still don't have any sympathy for Clinton, but can't help but acknowledge who opened the lid on that particular one of Pandora's boxes.

I favor consistency in process. If the process allows for mission creep, then that cuts both ways.

I empathize. Back then, for me, standards of behavior for the the President actually seemed useful and good. While I thought schtupping the intern was wrong on many levels, it certainly didn't rise to high crimes and misdemeanors. I believe my commentary then was to the effect that Kennedy had Marilyn, that Clinton was lowering the standards for stepping out

I do find it instructive about the man's 'character', though, that he had only to admit the indiscretion and the most serious charge would never have been an issue. He was incapable of admitting anything

is
/iz/

• third person singular present of be.

 

[Leadeye]

So that's awkward.

In my youth, I was in favor of the Starr investigation of Clinton because we should have faith in the office of the president. Lying under oath is bad and if the House believes it impeachment-worthy, that's a political decision. I had ABSOLUTELY no sympathy for Clinton.

In my current ... relative unyouthfulness... I question whether that was the right decision, the impeachment. I still don't have any sympathy for Clinton, but can't help but acknowledge who opened the lid on that particular one of Pandora's boxes.

I favor consistency in process. If the process allows for mission creep, then that cuts both ways.

Bill really should have just fessed up to the Monica affair and moved on. It was either really bad advice or egotism to think he could deny it and skate on the issue.

 

[hoosierdoc]

Sessions is like a very loyal soldier eager to join the fight. You look his way and he jumps up, grabs his rifle, and shoots himself in the ankle.

 

[Ziggidy]

Bill really should have just fessed up to the Monica affair and moved on. It was either really bad advice or egotism to think he could deny it and skate on the issue.

If he fessed up to that, then he'd have to fess up to all of the other accusations.

 

[Ericpwp]

Rosenstein was only in charge because Sessions recused himself. The acting AG is not recused from the investigation.

 

[bwframe]

Many executives went to jail for sexual harassment in that era. Except for Bill Clinton of course...

...it isn't harassment if the person is willing.

Any third person involved can file sexual harassment charges. They don't have to even be a part of the issue, just affected.

No they didn't. Not "many." Not "jail." Not "sexual harassment."

Link or it didn't happen...

You must be too young to understand that there was no practical Internet, as we know it, in the 80's. There are no links to those executives who lost their jobs and or went to jail from that era, (Edit - last link below refers to a specific case at Harvard.) It was a huge issue at that time though, frequently in the news and trade publications. Sexual harassment training was a part of any business management training in the 80's.

As stated above, if a manager has sexual relations with a subordinate, they are subject to sexual harassment charges. The same as if they offer positions or advancement for sexual favors. Hence why third parties are involved. It is a given that staff not sleeping with the boss is not being treated the same as those that are.

https://www.employmentlawfirms.com/...e-safety-and-health/sexual-harassment-law.htm

Before Anita Hill: History of Sexual Harassment in the U.S. | Time

https://daily.jstor.org/the-pioneers-in-the-fight-against-sexual-harassment/

https://www.kornferry.com/institute/times-up

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/6/2/sexual-harassment-publicized-punished-in-80s/

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Gowdy asked him to investigate the FBI cover-up,and Sessions said no.Bye Dopey.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Any third person involved can file sexual harassment charges. They don't have to even be a part of the issue, just affected.

You must be too young to understand that there was no practical Internet, as we know it, in the 80's. There are no links to those executives who lost their jobs and or went to jail from that era, (Edit - last link below refers to a specific case at Harvard.) It was a huge issue at that time though, frequently in the news and trade publications. Sexual harassment training was a part of any business management training in the 80's.

As stated above, if a manager has sexual relations with a subordinate, they are subject to sexual harassment charges. The same as if they offer positions or advancement for sexual favors. Hence why third parties are involved. It is a given that staff not sleeping with the boss is not being treated the same as those that are.

https://www.employmentlawfirms.com/...e-safety-and-health/sexual-harassment-law.htm

Before Anita Hill: History of Sexual Harassment in the U.S. | Time

https://daily.jstor.org/the-pioneers-in-the-fight-against-sexual-harassment/

https://www.kornferry.com/institute/times-up

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/6/2/sexual-harassment-publicized-punished-in-80s/

There is nothing in those links that say anything about jail for sexual harassment. And nothing that says sleeping with a subordinate is automatically sexual harassment either. How about a link to the crime that provides for jail time?

 

[Trigger Time]

You must be a millennial and not yet born when Clinton was impeached by REPUBLICANS.
Or, that brain cell got wrapped around your amygdalic axle.

I'm not a millenial, thank goodness I'm spared that label
I remember the Clinton impeachment although I didnt study it until later years. The whole thing was a discrace to our country on both sides but the Republicans should never have impeached him. I've talked about it on ingo before but I dont expect you to see every post I make. It was wrong, period. And I'm no fan of Clinton. He lied yes, but come on, we all know what happened. He should have been prosecuted for rape long before he was president and hell, still should.

So is that what we are doing now? Payback politics? Payback for Clinton and payback for 2016 STILL? Ok, bring it. Seriously. Bring it dems. You will have hell to pay in 2020 I guarentee it. I personaly wish they would and I mean it. Short term bad for our country for longterm good because the Democrats wont see power again for close to 20 years if they do it mark my words

 

[Trigger Time]

The butt hurt majority.

The dems have ZERO interests in helping our country or preserving the constitution. It makes me sick when I hear the word constitution come out of a Democrats lying treasonous mouth

 

[T.Lex]

You must be too young to understand that there was no practical Internet, as we know it, in the 80's. There are no links to those executives who lost their jobs and or went to jail from that era, (Edit - last link below refers to a specific case at Harvard.)

I came of age during the 80s, so I well remember that time period. Well, most of it. I was also a news junky.

It was a huge issue at that time though, frequently in the news and trade publications. Sexual harassment training was a part of any business management training in the 80's.

Agreed. Thinks like "politically correct" were becoming the norm and there were real efforts to change the workplace. Including CIVIL cases.

As stated above, if a manager has sexual relations with a subordinate, they are subject to sexual harassment charges. The same as if they offer positions or advancement for sexual favors. Hence why third parties are involved. It is a given that staff not sleeping with the boss is not being treated the same as those that are.

https://www.employmentlawfirms.com/...e-safety-and-health/sexual-harassment-law.htm

Before Anita Hill: History of Sexual Harassment in the U.S. | Time

https://daily.jstor.org/the-pioneers-in-the-fight-against-sexual-harassment/

https://www.kornferry.com/institute/times-up

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/6/2/sexual-harassment-publicized-punished-in-80s/

Ok. Yes. The legal system became the lever to shift away from the Boys' Club mentality that existed at the time. (And apparently still does in some parts of the country/business world.)

Was sexual harassment a problem? Yes. Did executives get in trouble for it? Yes - even lost their jobs. Did they go to jail? No. MAYBE some that committed forcible rape - but I can't even think of any of those. I'm just not going to rule out that possibility, though, because I can't remember it.

Advanced google search technique: "site:newspapers.com [text string]" will limit the search to newspapers.com for whatever is the [text string]. So if I wanted to search that site for Bananarama, it would be: site:newspapers.com bananarama. The internet didn't really exist in the 80s, but we can still search for information from that time period.

 

[Alpo]

I'm not a millenial, thank goodness I'm spared that label
I remember the Clinton impeachment although I didnt study it until later years. The whole thing was a discrace to our country on both sides but the Republicans should never have impeached him. I've talked about it on ingo before but I dont expect you to see every post I make. It was wrong, period. And I'm no fan of Clinton. He lied yes, but come on, we all know what happened. He should have been prosecuted for rape long before he was president and hell, still should.

So is that what we are doing now? Payback politics? Payback for Clinton and payback for 2016 STILL? Ok, bring it. Seriously. Bring it dems. You will have hell to pay in 2020 I guarentee it. I personaly wish they would and I mean it. Short term bad for our country for longterm good because the Democrats wont see power again for close to 20 years if they do it mark my words

The Clinton/Lewinsky was considered outrageous by republicans AND democrats at the time. Not since Nixon had a president raised the question of morals, moral authority or American Values the way Bill Clinton did. He was an embarassment to the nation. While Ken Starr was viewed by most democrats as Torquemada and we felt he overstepped his authority, we felt Clinton should have resigned. No impeachment necessary. He showed himself unworthy to remain in office.

Is it any wonder that many of those folks who felt that way with Clinton feel the same way about Trump? I think not.

 

[Trigger Time]

I don't know where Americans ever got the idea of politicians as moral giants or role models? LOL
Not too many throughout history have lived their personal lives as examples I would want my children to look up to. But in fairness neither have a lot of regular citizens either.

 

[bwframe]

...Is it any wonder that many of those folks who felt that way with Clinton feel the same way about Trump? I think not.

We knew what we were getting when we elected President Trump. If Trump committed sexual harassment on a white house staff member while in office, he'd likely be in jail. Certainly not be allowed to stay in office.

 

[Alpo]

Yeah, you knew what your were getting....and so did I.

The difference is this agnostic takes moral behavior of people in power seriously. More seriously than a number of professed Christians.

 

[printcraft]

Tag for silliness to come.

 

[T.Lex]

If Trump committed sexual harassment on a white house staff member while in office, he'd likely be in jail.

What is the root of this idea that "sexual harassment" can result in jail?

I don't think "sexual harassment" means what you think it means.

 

[MarkC]

What is the root of this idea that "sexual harassment" can result in jail?

I don't think "sexual harassment" means what you think it means.

Doesn't this fit with the "words can be violence" theme?

 

[EMDX6043]

Welp, I found a decent article that brings up what I heard before. There was talk of Sessions leaving (by hook or by crook) after the midterms, and it also coincides nicely with Mueller's report that, shockingly, Rosenstein actually wants to be wrapped up, too. Article posted 17 Oct 2018.

Just in case anyone wants to push the narrative that President Trump wants to interfere in the investigation by getting rid of Sessions...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-17/mueller-said-ready-to-deliver-key-findings-in-his-trump-probe

 

[T.Lex]

I think my news feed is messing with me.

Chris Christie as AG?

That's the worst idea since "No New Taxes."