Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[Foolmewunz]

This is the kind of rhetoric used to marginalize us. We have just as much of a right to participate in this political system as the Republicans and Democrats do.

We are marginalized. Get over it and enjoy your tilting-at-windmills symbolic voting or try to find a way, as Karl Marx would've recommended, to find a shell from within which you can work, and take it over. Seeing as to how that's been an open tactic of the various wings of the minor socialist parties, that's quite likely Bernie's vision. If he'd stop *********** crusading and concentrate on getting those people into the party and into the voting booth, he might actually have a chance of achieving that. The Dems have run away from both "liberal" and "progressive" for too long. It's time they stood up from that left wing and said, "Yep, and damned proud of it."

Hoping that the party where that could potentially happen crashes and burns and leads to the election of a half-wit demagogue, is the worst possible strategy I've ever heard. I don't think I want to find myself in the position of the German CP in '32, giving up the fight and hoping the courts would stop the evil-doers for us.

 

[catsmate]

These women have accused Slick Willie of sexual assault/rape or sexual harassment:

Juanita Broaddrick
Kathleen Willey
Paula Jones
Eileen Wellstone
Sandra Allen James
Christy Zercher
Carolyn Moffet
Helen Dowdy
Becky Brown
Regina Blakely Hopper

Hillary's and Team Clinton's response has been to unleash the full fury of their political machine to smear them and vilify them, and Clinton supporters have joined in in smearing these women who dared speak out against their hero.

http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/bill-...st-women-mistresses-scandals-photos-pictures/

Fascinating how, when it suits their interests, right-wingers are perfectly willing to accept any allegation.
The only one of these accusations that has any degree of credibility is Broaddricks and that was dismissed fifteen years ago. She is, as I'm sure you remember, the one who claimed that Clinton's penis had a "distinguishing mark" that doctors said wasn't there. She also accepted an advisory board position in 1979 as a Clinton appointee. Her accusations were investigated by the FBI during the Starr affair [remember Ken Starr?] and found no evidence to support her claim. Broaddrick also swore an affidavit when approached by Paula Jones's lawyers stating: "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton".

Wiley lied numerous times to federal investigators and changed her story dramatically between grand jury testimony and her deposition in the Jones case (and that's not all the problems).

I suggest you do some actual research of your own and cease mindlessly parroting the lies and unsupported claims of right-wing websites.

 

[catsmate]

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is declining to debate rival Bernie Sanders in California ahead of the state’s June 7 primary.

She probably is too busy attending private fundraisers and hiding from the press.

Coward

Who else refused to debate Sanders recently? Oh, yes the Trumpeter. So he's a coward too then?

 

[sunmaster14]

Fascinating how, when it suits their interests, right-wingers are perfectly willing to accept any allegation.
The only one of these accusations that has any degree of credibility is Broaddricks and that was dismissed fifteen years ago.

Dismissed? By whom? Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall? That's pretty much it. Lisa Myers, who did an extensive interview with her in 1999 for NBC, found her story credible.

She is, as I'm sure you remember, the one who claimed that Clinton's penis had a "distinguishing mark" that doctors said wasn't there.

That was Paula Jones.

She also accepted an advisory board position in 1979 as a Clinton appointee. Her accusations were investigated by the FBI during the Starr affair [remember Ken Starr?] and found no evidence to support her claim.

Evidence? Link? Anything?

Broaddrick also swore an affidavit when approached by Paula Jones's lawyers stating: "I do not have any information to offer regarding a nonconsensual or unwelcome sexual advance by Mr. Clinton".

Not exactly a denial, is it? In any case, aggressively (read coercively) seeking affidavits from Bill's victims in order to undermine other sexual harassment claims against him was standard operating procedure for the Clinton team. Giving a misleading affidavit is far from dispositive. Monica Lewinsky also was induced/coereced into denying under oath that she had had sexual encounters with Bill.

Wiley lied numerous times to federal investigators and changed her story dramatically between grand jury testimony and her deposition in the Jones case (and that's not all the problems).

I suggest you do some actual research of your own and cease mindlessly parroting the lies and unsupported claims of right-wing websites.

You should take your own advice.

 

[DavidJames]

You should take your own advice.

catsmate is looking at the evidence and being skeptical, something encouraged on this forum.

How many people did Bill Clinton have killed? Do you agree with Trump about the Clinton's and Vince Foster? History suggests you would.

 

[sunmaster14]

catsmate is looking at the evidence and being skeptical, something encouraged on this forum.

catsmate claimed to look at the evidence and concluded that it was Juanita Broaddrick who was the one who claimed that Bill Clinton's penis had distinguishing characteristics (i.e. curved to one side) rather than Paula Jones. So I think a true skeptic would conclude that catsmate is a rather unreliable source.

How many people did Bill Clinton have killed?

My guess is zero, unless you count various military actions taken when he was President. I'm not 100% confident of that, however.

Do you agree with Trump about the Clinton's and Vince Foster? History suggests you would.

What did Trump claim? I doubt he claimed what you're implying he claimed. As for Vince Foster, I believe he committed suicide. However, his suicide was certainly provoked by his entanglements with the Clintons. They dragged him down ethically and morally, and he probably couldn't stand to live with the hit to his reputation.

 

[The Big Dog]

Who else refused to debate Sanders recently? Oh, yes the Trumpeter. So he's a coward too then?

Yes, he is a coward too.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are complete cowards who are afraid of debating Bernie Sanders.

Clinton and Trump, two peas in a pod!

Great POINT! Look out shillaries are going to accuse you of having HDS!

 

[Fudbucker]

catsmate claimed to look at the evidence and concluded that it was Juanita Broaddrick who was the one who claimed that Bill Clinton's penis had distinguishing characteristics (i.e. curved to one side) rather than Paula Jones. So I think a true skeptic would conclude that catsmate is a rather unreliable source.



My guess is zero, unless you count various military actions taken when he was President. I'm not 100% confident of that, however.



What did Trump claim? I doubt he claimed what you're implying he claimed. As for Vince Foster, I believe he committed suicide. However, his suicide was certainly provoked by his entanglements with the Clintons. They dragged him down ethically and morally, and he probably couldn't stand to live with the hit to his reputation.

There are so many accusers, it's easy to lose track.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's a pretty thorough (aka both sides discussed at length) discussion of Bill's sexual accusations in this Vox article: The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained

Jones was offered money and got it in addition to getting the penis mark wrong and having lost the first court case. Her claims are too tainted, like it or not.

According to the article:

Willey repeatedly lied to federal investigators and changed her story dramatically between grand jury testimony and a deposition in the Jones case (among other issues).

Again, like it or not her accusation is not viable.

That leaves Broaddrick. She says it was non-consensual. Clinton supporters suggest it was consensual. She signed an affidavit saying nothing happened before signing one saying it did. Her friends say she told them about it at the time, but she had to be coaxed by Bill's political enemies before she went on her talk show rounds decades later. Ken Starr declined to pursue it as not enough evidence, (probably the most damaging thing for the accusation's viability).

In the end what are you supposed to do with that?

Broaddrick also made the accusation Hillary knew and through some kind of code thanked her for keeping quiet.

"[Hillary] came directly to me as soon as she hit the door. I had been there only a few minutes, I only wanted to make an appearance and leave. She caught me and took my hand and said 'I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill.' I started to turn away and she held onto my hand and reiterated her phrase -- looking less friendly and repeated her statement — 'Everything you do for Bill'. I said nothing. She wasn't letting me get away until she made her point. She talked low, the smile faded on the second thank you. I just released her hand from mine and left the gathering."

I'm not buying that at all. Why would Bill have ever told Hillary, "gee I raped this lady but she's keeping quiet about it"? It's not even likely Bill confessed to having sex with Broaddrick to Hillary.

If it weren't for the right wing digging up and encouraging these reports, you might have a pattern. But it's nothing like women consistently telling the same stories with the exception of hotel rooms being involved.

Did Bill have sexual encounters with these women and others. Almost certainly. Is he a groper? There's a good possibility he comes on to women with groping before going through the polite preliminaries of flirting and getting positive reception.

Did he actually rape Broaddrick. It's inconclusive. Even Ken Starr didn't find enough evidence. Was Broaddrick believed? Yes, and she had her charges investigated. She may not feel vindicated but then it's also not fair to Bill not to have the benefit of the doubt. It's a lose lose situation.

Is Hillary supposed to believe without enough evidence that her husband is a rapist? Of course not. And this happened in 1978. That's almost 50 years ago. There have not been more accusations of rape, just the groping.

Again, like it or not, it isn't something that disqualifies Hillary as an advocate for women's rights, on which she has a good track record. And it certainly doesn't disqualify her as a candidate for POTUS.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

And this happened in 1978. That's almost 50 years ago.

Almost 50 years? So, arithmetic isn't your strong suit?

The same must be true for Crooked Hillary too. That would explain why she plans to have her cigar-at-the-ready husband run the nations economy; she has yet to learn 5th grade math.

 

[DavidJames]

There are so many accusers, it's easy to lose track.

Especially if the facts are inconvenient.

 

[DavidJames]

catsmate claimed to look at the evidence and concluded that it was Juanita Broaddrick who was the one who claimed that Bill Clinton's penis had distinguishing characteristics (i.e. curved to one side) rather than Paula Jones. So I think a true skeptic would conclude that catsmate is a rather unreliable source.



My guess is zero, unless you count various military actions taken when he was President. I'm not 100% confident of that, however.



What did Trump claim? I doubt he claimed what you're implying he claimed. As for Vince Foster, I believe he committed suicide. However, his suicide was certainly provoked by his entanglements with the Clintons. They dragged him down ethically and morally, and he probably couldn't stand to live with the hit to his reputation.

of course, guilty even when not guilty. There is a TLA for that.

 

[sunmaster14]

There's a pretty thorough (aka both sides discussed at length) discussion of Bill's sexual accusations in this Vox article: The rape allegation against Bill Clinton, explained

Jones was offered money and got it in addition to getting the penis mark wrong and having lost the first court case. Her claims are too tainted, like it or not.

What penis mark? The allegations are that Bill Clinton has (or had) symptoms of Peyronie's disease, which has not been discredited in the least. Also, the theory of Peyronie's disease fits (no pun intended) with Bill's history of promiscuity and rough sex.

According to the article: Again, like it or not her accusation is not viable.

I think Paula Jones' accusations are quite believable. On the other hand, it's not exactly some great crime for a man to invite a woman up to his hotel room, drop his drawers and ask her to perform a sex act. It's a little rude maybe. It's also entirely consistent with Bill Clinton's well-established history of horndoggedness. Paula Jones suffered legal setbacks only because she couldn't show that being exposed to Bill's disfigured member was such a trauma that it was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution.

That leaves Broaddrick. She says it was non-consensual. Clinton supporters suggest it was consensual. She signed an affidavit saying nothing happened before signing one saying it did. Her friends say she told them about it at the time, but she had to be coaxed by Bill's political enemies before she went on her talk show rounds decades later. Ken Starr declined to pursue it as not enough evidence, (probably the most damaging thing for the accusation's viability).

How do you investigate something like that which happened 20 years before? To get a conviction in a criminal case, you'd need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There's no way to get that, and so there's no point for a prosecutor to waste resources on it.

In the end what are you supposed to do with that?

Broaddrick also made the accusation Hillary knew and through some kind of code thanked her for keeping quiet.
I'm not buying that at all. Why would Bill have ever told Hillary, "gee I raped this lady but she's keeping quiet about it"? It's not even likely Bill confessed to having sex with Broaddrick to Hillary.

If it weren't for the right wing digging up and encouraging these reports, you might have a pattern. But it's nothing like women consistently telling the same stories with the exception of hotel rooms being involved.

Did Bill have sexual encounters with these women and others. Almost certainly. Is he a groper? There's a good possibility he comes on to women with groping before going through the polite preliminaries of flirting and getting positive reception.

Did he actually rape Broaddrick. It's inconclusive. Even Ken Starr didn't find enough evidence. Was Broaddrick believed? Yes, and she had her charges investigated. She may not feel vindicated but then it's also not fair to Bill not to have the benefit of the doubt. It's a lose lose situation.

Sorry, but Bill Clinton does not deserve the benefit of the doubt, at least not outside of a courtroom. I think it's more likely than not that he raped Juanita Broaddrick, and so I'll tend to believe that, at least when he was younger and more vigorous, he was a sexual predator. I also think it was more likely than not that Hillary was aware of Bill's nature, but made a cold-blooded business decision to stay with and protect him.

Is Hillary supposed to believe without enough evidence that her husband is a rapist? Of course not. And this happened in 1978. That's almost 50 years ago. There have not been more accusations of rape, just the groping.

Again, like it or not, it isn't something that disqualifies Hillary as an advocate for women's rights, on which she has a good track record. And it certainly doesn't disqualify her as a candidate for POTUS.

Does it disqualify Hillary as an advocate for women's rights? No, of course not. Her ruthlessness has nothing to do with gender, and I have no doubt that she is a feminist. Her record does speak to the larger issue of her lack of a moral compass however. Or at least the one she has points in whatever direction is most convenient.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Bent penis or mark, who cares. Where's your citation that it was confirmed?

 

[sunmaster14]

Bent penis or mark, who cares. Where's your citation that it was confirmed?

I never claimed it was confirmed. I claimed it had not been disproved. Even for a urologist, the diagnosis is hard, if you know what I mean.

 

[newyorkguy]

...also think it was more likely than not that Hillary was aware of Bill's nature, but made a cold-blooded business decision to stay with and protect him...Her record does speak to the larger issue of her lack of a moral compass however. Or at least the one she has points in whatever direction is most convenient.

What record? Her deciding to stay with Bill was a cold-blooded business decision? Maybe they have an open relationship. They're from the 1960s and 1970s, open relationships were very popular back then. No one knows why they have stayed together and no one is going to know. It's their private business. It's going to stay private.

The fact of the matter is, you have demonstrated unrelenting hostility towards Hillary Clinton. It's long since become obvious you despise her. Anything she does or says, if there is anyway to possibly cast it in a negative light, you're going to find it. I think most of the posters know that. If you continually bash someone at some point it ceases to be a credible, intelligent argument and instead becomes mere dogma.

Sunmaster I think you passed that threshold a l-o-n-g time ago.

 

[sunmaster14]

What record? Her deciding to stay with Bill was a cold-blooded business decision? Maybe they have an open relationship. They're from the 1960s and 1970s, open relationships were very popular back then. No one knows why they have stayed together and no one is going to know. It's their private business. It's going to stay private.

The fact of the matter is, you have demonstrated unrelenting hostility towards Hillary Clinton. It's long since become obvious you despise her. Anything she does or says, if there is anyway to possibly cast it in a negative light, you're going to find it. I think most of the posters know that. If you continually bash someone at some point it ceases to be a credible, intelligent argument and instead becomes mere dogma.

Sunmaster I think you passed that threshold a l-o-n-g time ago.

That's utterly ridiculous. I don't hate Hillary Clinton in the slightest. I actually have a modicum of sympathy for her. I reserve my hatred for those who are successful at deceiving the public, not those who have proven woefully incompetent at it.

I far prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Or to Elizabeth Warren. Probably not to Joe Biden though. I'm going to vote for her, by the way, although I'm really starting to think she's not going to be the Democratic nominee.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never claimed it was confirmed. I claimed it had not been disproved. Even for a urologist, the diagnosis is hard, if you know what I mean.

And I posted a link noting 2 doctors & Lewinsky all discredited the claim. What does a diagnosis have to do with anything? If it's about a bent penis you don't need a diagnosis, you just need witnesses.

 

[sunmaster14]

And I posted a link noting 2 doctors & Lewinsky all discredited the claim. What does a diagnosis have to do with anything? If it's about a bent penis you don't need a diagnosis, you just need witnesses.

You need hard evidence, if you know what I mean. You're not going to get that in a doctor's office, believe me. As for Lewinsky, I don't think she has described her experiences in the detail required. At least not in any testimony that has been unsealed.

Now that I think about it, I'm starting to wonder how Hillary got her name, Crooked Hillary. It might not be because she's dishonest and corrupt.

 

[newyorkguy]

...I'm going to vote for her...

Yes I know.

Not because I want her to win, but because I lost a bet with my wife.

ETA - I didn't accuse you of 'hating her,' I said you were relentlessly hostile. There's a big difference.