Because they did not sexually harass their subordinates.
They didn't? How odd, do you find a teacher's student or an aide to be something more than a subordinate?
INteresting. YOu seem to see no difference between sexual relationship and sexual harassment.
Oh I do, and those lines are not a dichotomy.
Oh, so are you claiming that Newt harassed his mistress, or that Bill did not harass Paul JOnes?
Not necessarily, I'd need to interview the mistress. But anyone in a position of power who engages in sexual activities with another, not of equal power, may violate the law which defines sexual harassment.
Clinton's behavior with Paul Jones and Monica Lewinsky was clearly an example of sexual harassment. That said the only harm (tort) was when both of these women were used by the media and pols for their benefit.
It's not as if this type of behavior is not ubiqutous, men cheat and some women find men in power to be an object of attention. That does not excuse the men who chase skirts, but let's not pretend Bill Clinton is the exception.
Keep in mind, Quid pro Quo can be a two way street.
"May violate" is not the equal of "clearly an example of sexual harassment".
And I will go so far as to disagree with the law. Just because there is a power inequity does not mean the relationship is harassment.
THus, the thread is a fail. Libs want to pretend the Impeachment was about sex, when it was about sexual harassment and the coverup.