Throughout the various Clinton sexual scandals, law professor and Democratic activist Susan Estrich argued that although Clinton’s behavior may have been distasteful, it did not meet the legal criteria for harassment or battery. When last minute allegations turned up in the Los Angeles Times against gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger, Estrich reached a similar conclusion in an op-ed for the Times — Schwarzenegger may have acted in a distasteful manner, but there was no evidence that he violated any sexual harassment or battery laws.
Estrich wrote,
None of the six women interviewed by The Times filed legal charges. Four of the six were quoted anonymously. Of the two who were named, one, a British television hostess, had told her story to Premiere magazine years ago, and it has been widely known and largely ignored. The other recounts an alleged incident of fondling at Gold’s Gym nearly 30 years ago.
. . .
As a professor of sex discrimination law for two decades and an expert on sexual harassment, I certainly don’t condone the unwanted touching of women that was apparently involved here. But these acts do not appear to constitute any crime, such as rape or sodomy or even assault or battery. As for civil law, sexual harassment requires more than a single case of unwelcome touching; there must be a threat or promise of sex in exchange for a job benefit or demotion, or the hostile environment must be severe and pervasive.
Of course her op-ed was greeted by Democrats in much the same vein that her defense of Clinton was greeted by Republicans at the time. When it comes to political sex scandals, the only overarching ideology is that of hypocrisy.
Source:
A deplorable October surprise. Susan Estrich, Los Angeles Times, October 3, 2003.