Interesting read, but one of the paragraphs in the story really misses the mark.
A judge dismissed the lawsuit in 1998, saying Jones could not demonstrate what damages were caused by Clinton’s alleged harassment. After Jones appealed the dismissal, Clinton paid her a settlement of $850,000 to drop the lawsuit.
It failed to mention that the judge had a prior personal relationship with the president and failed to recuse herself. It didn't explicitly mention, but the trial dragged on for 4.5 years of Clinton fighting the charges... including notoriously lying under oath, before settling out of court for more than she was asking for.
But the worst thing is imagine trying to claim that someone who went through what Paula did and saying she "could not demonstrate what damages were caused" now in 2016. Was she "asking for it"?
[–] ShowMeThePunny [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Interesting read, but one of the paragraphs in the story really misses the mark.
It failed to mention that the judge had a prior personal relationship with the president and failed to recuse herself. It didn't explicitly mention, but the trial dragged on for 4.5 years of Clinton fighting the charges... including notoriously lying under oath, before settling out of court for more than she was asking for.
But the worst thing is imagine trying to claim that someone who went through what Paula did and saying she "could not demonstrate what damages were caused" now in 2016. Was she "asking for it"?