Equally detested, however, are people who abuse the law and strive to use it for their own self-serving interests. The distortion of sexual harassment laws as written has given less- than-ethical people a door to openly ruin another person’s life and to gain financially while doing so.
The distortions have caused a great inequity in justice, a move of power so great that the victim is not the person alleging sexual harassment but is, instead, the person sexual harassment charges have been levied against.
In the case of Jones Vs Clinton, only two people know what went on, if anything, in the motel room. One is lying, one is telling the truth. It is that simple. At least, it would be that simple if we all told the truth.
Far too many people believe any woman who makes any claim against a man, whether there is proof or not of any transgressions. Very few actually believe a man who makes like charges against a woman supervisor. That seems to be in our nature and is indicative of inequality.
In the case of Jones, let’s look at certain events. First, I understand why women are reluctant to come forward with charges. Obviously, their job would be in question plus there is the fact that many accusations will follow attempting to portray her as being promiscuous. Granted, she may be promiscuous but that has absolutely nothing to do which valid charges.
Prior sexual activities of the woman are usually not allowed by the court. Or, in the case of extremely high-profile cases (the only ones we hear about), public pressure from various women’s organizations prevent the use of the woman’s past. This held true in the case of Jones Vs Clinton. Jones of course stated and has tried to guide people in believing she was extremely offended and practically ruined psycholigically. This has been played to the hilt.
But, would a woman who had been as offended as stated left smiling (as witnessed and
testified to) with the comment along the lines of her becoming the man’s ‘girlfriend’? If the act by the man had been so upsetting
that it preyed on her mind for years, wouldn’t she have left in a huff, not smiling?
It is documented she had months of employment without any threat to her job whatsoever or
confrontations while on the job. But, her attorneys stated, "His
subsequent come-ons could be viewed by a rational jury not as the charming excesses of an
affable rogue ..., but as the systematic posturing of a predator,...", a
statement made absolutely without any support whatsoever.
Jones’s allegations simply do not add up. I think this is a case where distortion has
resulted in abuse of the laws, where despicable people found a means of attempting to
discredit while furthering their own careers or pocketbooks.
Furthermore, unless I can absolutely be proved wrong in my allegations, I will always
believe Jones's case, from start to finish, was the brainstorm of the Republican party. I do
not believe her story as the scenario presented clearly shows otherwise.
You, of course, Ladies and Gentlemen, have the choice of believing otherwise, but Jones
was part of a Republican conspiracy to undermine Clinton's
effectiveness.
