Hillary Clinton is Done

[The Big Dog]

Paula Whatsherface was paid $600,000 by the GOP to bring a sexual harassment suit against Clinton. That seems a tad suspicious.

You probably don't want to get me started. Clinton was hounded long before his infamous BJ. Then the GOP obsession with scandal and entrapped perjury wasted 6.2 million dollars and interfered with Clinton's ability to address Bin Laden given every time Clinton acted he was accused of wagging the dog.

If you read Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, that same attack on anything Clinton resulted in GW rejecting everything that was in progress including Clinton's war on terror. While it may not have prevented 911 given the FBI's screw up not investigating the computer of the guy taking flying lessons but not wanting to learn landing or takeoffs, we'll never know. But we do know GW's dropped the ball he was handed by that demon Clinton.

I mean really, did you want a handicapped President all in the name of a sex scandal? Monica was over 21 and she never said she felt manipulated.

His behavior should have been addressed outside of the house.

we have a conspiracy section.

"vast right wing conspiracy." reason number 27 why Hillary is an idiot

 

[NoahFence]

Paula Whatsherface was paid $600,000 by the GOP to bring a sexual harassment suit against Clinton. That seems a tad suspicious.

??
I never heard of that. Link?

 

[jhunter1163]

What do you think is going to happen when Hillary brings her hundreds of millions of dollars to bear on the GOP clown car? It's not gonna be pretty for the clowns, for sure. She's in no particular hurry to do this; the e-mail scandal is already starting to lose steam and there are still several months even before she has to get serious about Bernie Sanders. I stand by my prediction that she will win the Presidency with 400+ EV.

 

[Belz...]

Electron-Volt?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Electron-Volt?

Win with over 400 electoral votes. It confused me at first as well.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah but winning with Electron-Volts would be a lot more shocking.

 

[The Big Dog]

What do you think is going to happen when Hillary brings her hundreds of millions of dollars to bear on the GOP clown car? It's not gonna be pretty for the clowns, for sure. She's in no particular hurry to do this; the e-mail scandal is already starting to lose steam and there are still several months even before she has to get serious about Bernie Sanders. I stand by my prediction that she will win the Presidency with 400+ EV.

She gonna buy the election then?

Email scandal losing steam? That is simply wishful thinking, hell even the campaign has finally started to take it seriously (after embarrassing the **** out of themselves, "wipe it with a cloth" HURR DURR) So much so that Biden is considering entering the race.

She's a bad candidate running a bad campaign, and she will be lucky to stay out of jail.

By the way, calling your opponents clowns is not an effective argument

 

[Belz...]

She gonna buy the election then?

I think it's a well-known fact that the candidate with the most money in the campaign usually wins. Zig would argue that this is because billionaires bet on the candidate they think will win, but since they bet on a lot of horses, and the horses wouldn't win without money, that's an empty claim.

 

[kmortis]

Do not personalize the topic.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Bob001]

Paula Whatsherface was paid $600,000 by the GOP to bring a sexual harassment suit against Clinton. That seems a tad suspicious.
....

Evidence? In fact, Paula Jones reached an out-of-court settlement with Clinton in which he agreed to pay her $850,000 (later reduced).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

.....
You probably don't want to get me started. Clinton was hounded long before his infamous BJ. Then the GOP obsession with scandal and entrapped perjury wasted 6.2 million dollars and interfered with Clinton's ability to address Bin Laden given every time Clinton acted he was accused of wagging the dog.

If you read Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, that same attack on anything Clinton resulted in GW rejecting everything that was in progress including Clinton's war on terror. While it may not have prevented 911 given the FBI's screw up not investigating the computer of the guy taking flying lessons but not wanting to learn landing or takeoffs, we'll never know. But we do know GW's dropped the ball he was handed by that demon Clinton.
....

How old are you? Every President has been subjected to wildly over-the-top criticism by the other party. Clinton never faced the unending drumbeat that President Obama has lived with since before he was elected -- and in Obama's case, there's no basis at all for the accusations. Look back at some of the things Lincoln's opponents said about him. Franklin Roosevelt was accused of being a Communist tool. John Kennedy was called a puppet of the Pope. The difference in Clinton's case is that he really did behave in ways that many people felt were unfit for a President, and he lied about it in federal court. Before that, the Whitewater business raised questions about the Clintons' financial dealings with associates who went to prison after felony convictions. The activities of the Clinton Foundation -- particularly its fund-raising practices with foreign governments -- have never been closely scrutinized. The Clintons might have decided long ago that "If everybody's watching us, we better behave ourselves." Instead, they have a long history of toughing it out against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that impedes their portrayal of themselves as great-hearted saviors of America.

And consider this: If Bill Clinton had not become enmeshed in a scandal of his own making, he would have ended his second term pointing to a record of eight years of peace and prosperity. Al Gore would have won in a walk. There would have been no Supreme Court decision. The Clintons gave us George W. Bush. That's hard to forgive.

 

[SezMe]

She gonna buy the election then?

As you well know, at this stage of the campaign, the punditacracy uses money as one surrogate for how a candidate is doing. By the measure, HRC is doing very well. And as you also know, money does make a difference. In this day and age, it takes A LOT of money to mount a political campaign. Even in my town (<100K population) city council candidates raise tens of thousands of dollars. At the federal level, we're talking hundreds of millions to run an effective campaign.

In short, you asked a foolish question.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Evidence? In fact, Paula Jones reached an out-of-court settlement with Clinton in which he agreed to pay her $850,000 (later reduced).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

So you are saying she cashed in one way or the other.

This may get too far off-topic for the thread but I'll present some evidence.

She initially filed a defamation lawsuit against Clinton and the state trooper (who was, along with another trooper, trying to shop a book by the way) because the trooper said she seemed pleased with the hotel encounter.

http://www.economist.com/node/150846

Much of the new evidence undermining Ms Jones comes from Daniel Traylor, the Little Rock lawyer who first represented her (and who quit the case in late June). Mr Traylor says that, during the four months in which he originally represented her, Ms Jones never mentioned the “distinguishing characteristics in [Mr] Clinton's genital area” that formed part of the complaint she filed, with the help of two new lawyers, in May 1994. Mr Traylor also says that Pamela Blackard, a witness who told journalists that Ms Jones had returned “shaking” from Mr Clinton's hotel room, had told him that Ms Jones's account of what happened was in fact much less dramatic—and that Ms Jones had added the most lurid details several days later. Mr Traylor also claims that, in early 1994, Ms Jones and her husband received a payment of $1,000 from a right-wing film maker.

Nonetheless, the allegations come at a bad time for Ms Jones. An article in the latest New Yorker uncovers new evidence about Danny Ferguson, an Arkansas state trooper who leaked the first salacious account of the alleged tryst between Ms Jones and Mr Clinton (and whom Ms Jones also sued). Mr Ferguson—and other troopers who worked for the governor—knew that more dirt on Mr Clinton might mean higher sales for a planned book. The article also corroborates Ms Phillips's tale. Pam Hood, who in 1991 worked with Ms Jones (whose nickname then was “Betty Boop”) at the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission, says Ms Jones displayed “bubbly enthusiasm” after her meeting with Mr Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones041298.htm

Even now, Jones's motives remain murky, her own identity overshadowed by an incendiary spokeswoman and the high-profile conservative legal organization financing her suit. Mostly, there are contradictions: Her case has become a rallying cry for the right, yet her advisers portray her as naively apolitical. She said an apology from the president was her only goal, yet she split with her previous lawyers over divvying up the money in a settlement offer. Her story about Clinton's unwanted overture in 1991 has become more inflammatory in the retelling; the hand on the leg, for example, became two hands "running up my culottes."
Her friends say she struggles to make ends meet, yet recent reports have suggested that she has control of a legal defense fund that she dips into for her personal use. And she hardly seemed needy after her suit was dismissed when she was photographed wearing fashionable spandex and speeding away from her beach-side condo in her big Mercedes.

http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2056&context=lawreview

Indeed, most observers would agree that at least some of the persons behind the suit—whether Paula Jones, her lawyers, or her financial backers—had political or other aims in bringing suit that were in addition to, or even in lieu of, obtaining relief for Ms. Jones’s alleged injuries. For this reason, Jones v. Clinton is a nearly perfect case for assessing the tension between Rule 11(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which bars plaintiffs from bringing civil suit for “any improper purpose,”1 and the Petition Clause, which guarantees persons the right to petition courts for redress of grievances.2

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/08/opinion/journal-the-real-paula-jones.html

But what if Mr. Brock did have the story right the first time? If so, what happened between the December publication of The American Spectator story and Mrs. Jones's contradiction of it in February? Is it possible that the Clinton bashers, belatedly realizing that Americans are sick of bimbo stories, decided to repackage one of those stories as a sexual-harassment case with the hope that a new angle would be more damaging to the President with both the public and the mainstream media?

I've seen the reference to the 600K payment but I can't find it currently and a lot of the information has rolled off the Internet screen. Regardless of the amount, financial motive is fairly well documented.

How old are you? Every President has been subjected to wildly over-the-top criticism by the other party. Clinton never faced the unending drumbeat that President Obama has lived with since before he was elected -- and in Obama's case, there's no basis at all for the accusations.

How old am I? Certainly not old enough to remember Lincoln.

Look back at some of the things Lincoln's opponents said about him. Franklin Roosevelt was accused of being a Communist tool. John Kennedy was called a puppet of the Pope. The difference in Clinton's case is that he really did behave in ways that many people felt were unfit for a President, and he lied about it in federal court. Before that, the Whitewater business raised questions about the Clintons' financial dealings with associates who went to prison after felony convictions. The activities of the Clinton Foundation -- particularly its fund-raising practices with foreign governments -- have never been closely scrutinized. The Clintons might have decided long ago that "If everybody's watching us, we better behave ourselves." Instead, they have a long history of toughing it out against the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that impedes their portrayal of themselves as great-hearted saviors of America.

And consider this: If Bill Clinton had not become enmeshed in a scandal of his own making, he would have ended his second term pointing to a record of eight years of peace and prosperity. Al Gore would have won in a walk. There would have been no Supreme Court decision. The Clintons gave us George W. Bush. That's hard to forgive.

This is getting too far off topic.

Clinton was not the first philanderer in the White House. Your argument fails on that basis alone. But it's not how wild the accusations were, it's the relentless way the personal attacks were pursued.

Clinton was harassed relentlessly (hellooo, impeachement, Ken Starr). And yes, the right has continued in the same vein with Obama. It appears to be their mainstay game plan from Obama all the way to Hillary. It's very obvious.

Unfortunately it works, not because the Clintons are evil incarnate anymore than Obama is a socialist Muslim born in Kenya. It works because it's amplified and relentless, like any good marketing is.

 

[The Big Dog]

So you are saying she cashed in one way or the other.

This may get too far off-topic for the thread but I'll present some evidence.

.

You were asked to provide evidence of this claim:

Paula Whatsherface was paid $600,000 by the GOP to bring a sexual harassment suit against Clinton.

I have reviewed your evidence and you have clearly failed to provide any evidence of that claim at all....

must be that tricky "vast right wing conspiracy."

 

[Trebuchet]

...must be that tricky "vast right wing conspiracy."

That phrase is one of the main reasons I'm an ABH (Anyone but Hillary) Democrat. Even if true, it sounds stupid and paranoid.

 

[wareyin]

You were asked to provide evidence of this claim:



I have reviewed your evidence and you have clearly failed to provide any evidence of that claim at all....

must be that tricky "vast right wing conspiracy."

Did you miss this part?

ndeed, most observers would agree that at least some of the persons behind the suit—whether Paula Jones, her lawyers, or her financial backers—had political or other aims in bringing suit that were in addition to, or even in lieu of, obtaining relief for Ms. Jones’s alleged injuries.

Granted, it is not evidence of $600k, or of who did pay her, but it is evidence that someone(s) paid her to file suit.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That phrase is one of the main reasons I'm an ABH (Anyone but Hillary) Democrat. Even if true, it sounds stupid and paranoid.

What do you call it then, the group (perhaps that's loosely defined) that has promoted relentlessly Bill and Hillary scandals from Whitewater to the Travel Office employee replacements to Bill's infidelity to Benghazi to email-gate?

It's not like any of the Clinton attacks involve A) proven crimes (short of entrapped perjury); B) something not done by the majority of politicians and legislators, and C) things ignored by the same bellyaching hypocrites when said offenses involved Republicans. It's not like taking us into a needless war, replacing half of the Dept of Justice with lackeys and installing cronies in hundreds of positions, and ignoring a drowning city after a disaster were minor offenses. Why aren't these same people crying evil over the Downing St Memo, why aren't they outraged about voter caging and disenfranchisement, and the utter lack of treatment for wounded war vets?

You can focus on Hillary using the term, conspiracy, or you can look at the actual facts, not the heavily marketed facts, about the relentless attacks on the Clintons.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Skeptic is correct. The media has been after Hillary since forever. They want something to come up, but it has yet to happen. For some reason, the main-stream media and the GOP are teaming up on this one, even though the media is supposedly liberal.

Reality is, the media want a story. The GOP needs a story. The media is controlled by conservatives.

 

[The Big Dog]

Skeptic is correct. The media has been after Hillary since forever. They want something to come up, but it has yet to happen. For some reason, the main-stream media and the GOP are teaming up on this one, even though the media is supposedly liberal.

Reality is, the media want a story. The GOP needs a story. The media is controlled by conservatives.

That is probably why "skeptic" ginger could not find any evidence whatsoever to support her frivolous attack on Paula jones.

Vast right wing conspiracy. Check.

 

[Brainster]

What do you think is going to happen when Hillary brings her hundreds of millions of dollars to bear on the GOP clown car? It's not gonna be pretty for the clowns, for sure. She's in no particular hurry to do this; the e-mail scandal is already starting to lose steam and there are still several months even before she has to get serious about Bernie Sanders. I stand by my prediction that she will win the Presidency with 400+ EV.

Alright, I have called you on this before. Simple question: What states can Hillary win in 2016 that her husband lost in 1996? To make this easy for you, I will post the states that Bill lost:

Idaho
Montana
Wyoming
Utah
Colorado
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Indiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia

Hillary has to pick up 21 electoral college votes on Bill even before we start to talk about the 2000 and 2010 redistricting which shifted quite a few electoral college votes into the states above and away from those Clinton won. And before we talk about Arizona, where Bill was the only Democrat to win since Truman. Or Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia, all of which went against Obama by very large margins in both elections, but were persuaded to vote for Bill Clinton's reelection.

I generally respect your posts, but you are deluding yourself if you think Hillary could get to 400 against even Trump. who I see as an exceptionally weak candidate.

 

[Puppycow]

Alright, I have called you on this before. Simple question: What states can Hillary win in 2016 that her husband lost in 1996? To make this easy for you, I will post the states that Bill lost:

Idaho
Montana
Wyoming
Utah
Colorado
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Indiana
Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina
Virginia

Hillary has to pick up 21 electoral college votes on Bill even before we start to talk about the 2000 and 2010 redistricting which shifted quite a few electoral college votes into the states above and away from those Clinton won. And before we talk about Arizona, where Bill was the only Democrat to win since Truman. Or Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia, all of which went against Obama by very large margins in both elections, but were persuaded to vote for Bill Clinton's reelection.

I generally respect your posts, but you are deluding yourself if you think Hillary could get to 400 against even Trump. who I see as an exceptionally weak candidate.

400 seems unlikely, but 4 of those states did go for Obama in 2008. I bolded them.