First, sexual harassment was (see addendum below> defined as a supervisor using his position to obtain sexual favors from a female subordinate. The intent, unless the person defining it was wrong, was sexual harassment only occurred when a woman's job, promotion, things of that nature, were threatened unless sex acts were performed with the supervisor.

Second, sexual harassment had a statute of limitations of six months. At least it did during the Hill-Thomas hearings. (This in spite of the fact Hill never claimed sexual harassment for ten yers.) One would think 6 months is a long enough time period as it allows a woman plenty of time to press charges if her supervisor did use threats to obtain sexual favors.

Plus, if a women is later fired, say a year or more later, it would prevent her from suing for sexual harassment which, in all probability, never occurred. The statute of limitations prevented a vindictive woman to get back at her former place of employment in an after-the-fact manner.

Now, it seems as women, and the courts allowing it, are far exceeding the intent of sexual harassment laws. The statute of limitations is ignored and a woman can say whatever she wants without any sort of corraborating evidence. It is then the responsibility of the accused to prove his innocence. This violates the principle of presumed innocence.

The writer once read that Mr. Clinton had asked the woman for a date. Is asking a woman for a date sexual harassment? Or, does, for example, Jones have sex with every date she has had so she interprets being asked for a date as "Hi, would you like to have intercourse with me?"

Personally, because she never brought up any charges at the time, the writer assumes Jones has fabricated the entire situation excepting the visit to Mr. Clinton's motel room. She apparently wasn't offended at the time as she didn't file charges and continued working for Mr. Clinton.

Why did she wait several years until Mr. Clinton became president? One could easily think that she would be more apt to get publicity and big money deals from various publishers. And, the infamy. She will now be written into history for all time. Quite a coupe, is it not?

For certain, it would be hard for anyone to believe that Mr. Clinton threatened her job if she didn't perform sex acts with her, just as it was with Hill and Judge Thomas. Her employment continued and, if reports and rumors are correct, Mr. Clinton had enough women coming and going to satisfy the needs of several hundred men.

Why risk his position with just one woman who isn't actually out of the ordinary and not really even good looking, even though she may be under the impression she is?

Methinks she thinks too highly of herself and is trying to use a trend in our society, the trend of the woman always being right and all men as being lechers, to gain financially without a stitch of truth in the fabric of her fantasies as to what actually occurred.

And, no doubt she will profit greatly. Two or three years ago, no one even knew who she was other than people she had grown up with, worked with, partied with, and, apparently, had sex with. Now, the probabilities are even with Mr. Clinton being innocent of the allegations, the woman will end up being financially set for life.

There is another possibility. The writer in the past has been in positions in which women were attracted to him because of perceived power. What if, Ladies and Gentlemen, Jones was strongly and sexually attracted to Mr. Clinton because of his power as governor. What if she were the aggressor and Mr. Clinton refused her advances?

The author did so once with a rather insistent woman and the anger it caused in the woman was unbelievable. Luckily, that was long before sexual harrassment became a common tool for women to get back at men. The fact is that hell indeed does not have any fury like a woman scorned.

Going along with this is the possibility that she did have sex with Mr. Clinton, willingly and with great enthusiasm. After all, she did leave the room in great humor. But, what if Mr. Clinton broke it off against Jones' wishes?

Then, another possibility for her delay is it is a political maneuver by the Republican Party. Some force, whether internal or external, resulted in her coming forward long after the fact. A conspiracy such as this is not beyond one's expectations of the type of politics played in Washington.

"Damn the truth, let's just do as much damage as possible to the other party. Jones, we know you had sex with Clinton or at least that you were in a motel room alone with him when he was governor of Arkansas. Here's what we will do for you if you claim sexual harrassment."

If one considers possibilities, which logical people are prone to do, one must conclude, first, Jones to be just a money grubbing, fame-seeking dastardly person unless there is corroborating evidence that Mr. Clinton psychologically forced Jones to have sex acts with him.

If one further considers probabilities, and has followed the lack of truth out of our politicians, it is highly likely the latter possibility is the most probable, that the Republican Party is behind her claim. Both she and they stand to gain by having the allegations made public.

And, of course, you realize, Ladies and Gentlemen, that any claim of sexual harassment usually boils down to her word against his word and cannot be proven by actual facts.

Thus, if it is a conspiracy to undermine and/or destroy President Clinton, his advesaries selected a near-unprovable means of doing so, a means not depending on bonafide evidence but only supposition. And, quite frankly, Ladies and Gentlemen, that is an abuse of sexual harassment laws meant to protect women (and men), not give them a means of merely being vindictive.