Hillary Clinton is Done

[Loss Leader]

Ding...ding...ding!
Then Slick lied under oath, and the rest is history!
Lets not forget wicked witches HRC's role!

What role would that be?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What role would that be?

The one being fabricated where she somehow pulled strings to have these women's cases ignored.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nobody came out of that looking good, but ultimately who is to blame, the most powerful man in the world, or some 20-something intern? ...

To blame for what? Clinton admitted being a philanderer, Monica felt victimized by social media, not by Clinton. She didn't initiate any complaints against Clinton and if she hadn't gossiped about the affair to Linda Tripp, Ken Starr wouldn't have known about it. And if there weren't some right wingers funding Jones' expensive lawyers promising her a payout, she might never have complained publicly either.

By the way, for the 6 or 7th time, the court ruled against Jones, saying she couldn't prove any damage done. Clinton only paid her off to end the incessant legal shenanigans that were interfering with his ability to do the job.

 

[The Big Dog]

What role would that be?

I was just told that she had an active role as First Lady, and therefore we should pile that experience on top of whatever else she did to make a huge steaming pile of experience.

Unless it reflects badly on her, like this.

Or operation desert fox.

 

[Bob001]

....
By the way, for the 6 or 7th time, the court ruled against Jones, saying she couldn't prove any damage done. Clinton only paid her off to end the incessant legal shenanigans that were interfering with his ability to do the job.

Right. The ruling was that she couldn't prove that she was injured, not that the behavior by Clinton that she alleged didn't occur. And appealing a lower-court decision is hardly "legal shenanigans." It would be just as reasonable to argue that Clinton settled the case to avoid the prospect of an appeals court finding against him.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Right. The ruling was that she couldn't prove that she was injured, not that the behavior by Clinton that she alleged didn't occur. And appealing a lower-court decision is hardly "legal shenanigans." It would be just as reasonable to argue that Clinton settled the case to avoid the prospect of an appeals court finding against him.

No one said Clinton didn't hit on women in the workplace. But Jones' version of events was never supported with evidence in a court of law. Her lawyers tried to use Lewinsky to prove a pattern, but Lewinsky said she was not coerced, nor did she feel taken advantage of.

We're not talking Cosby here where every woman had a similar story and few had anything to gain. Clinton had a mistress (Flowers) and an affair (Lewinsky) and a bunch of encounters with other women that, who knows what went down given the interference of the right wingers trying to bring Clinton down.

 

[Foolmewunz]

No one said Clinton didn't hit on women in the workplace. But Jones' version of events was never supported with evidence in a court of law. Her lawyers tried to use Lewinsky to prove a pattern, but Lewinsky said she was not coerced, nor did she feel taken advantage of.

We're not talking Cosby here where every woman had a similar story and few had anything to gain. Clinton had a mistress (Flowers) and an affair (Lewinsky) and a bunch of encounters with other women that, who knows what went down given the interference of the right wingers trying to bring Clinton down.

C'Mon! You know how this works. The Conservatives, collectively, stand for moral righteousness. That's why an exact parallel with Trump has elicited such round condemnation from the paleos. (Ivana ACCUSED him of all sorts of badness during the divorce.)

Wait, what? You mean they haven't decided to treat Trump like a convicted felon just for being accused of rape and/or sexual battery. I'm sure they have. My browser must be broken.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

C'Mon! You know how this works. The Conservatives, collectively, stand for moral righteousness. That's why an exact parallel with Trump has elicited such round condemnation from the paleos. (Ivana ACCUSED him of all sorts of badness during the divorce.)

Wait, what? You mean they haven't decided to treat Trump like a convicted felon just for being accused of rape and/or sexual battery. I'm sure they have. My browser must be broken.

Actually what I was thinking was, which GOP candidate (for POTUS or other position) was being judged based on his wife's infidelity?

 

[logger]

We're not talking Cosby here where every woman had a similar story and few had anything to gain. Clinton had a mistress (Flowers) and an affair (Lewinsky) and a bunch of encounters with other women that, who knows what went down given the interference of the right wingers trying to bring Clinton down.

Lol

Blaming the right wing for Clinton's "encounters"

What about the women who were damaged?

 

[Darat]

Or he could be looking at it with an informed opinion of a prosecutor?

Being in Washington, he may actually know some FBI folks.

Which is what I said - he is either making it up or he is playing fast and easy with leaking information that is at least confidential. I'm sure you will be calling for a full investigation about his use of such confidential information. Or doesn't it count when he does it because he is on your "side"?

 

[logger]

C'Mon! You know how this works. The Conservatives, collectively, stand for moral righteousness. That's why an exact parallel with Trump has elicited such round condemnation from the paleos. (Ivana ACCUSED him of all sorts of badness during the divorce.)

Too bad she backed away from that.

Wait, what? You mean they haven't decided to treat Trump like a convicted felon just for being accused of rape and/or sexual battery. I'm sure they have. My browser must be broken.

Apples and oranges comparing the predator to Mr Trump.

 

[logger]

Which is what I said - he is either making it up or he is playing fast and easy with leaking information that is at least confidential. I'm sure you will be calling for a full investigation about his use of such confidential information. Or doesn't it count when he does it because he is on your "side"?

For giving an informed opinion?

Should there be an investigation for every reporter that has a source?

Its not about sides, its clear what she did was against the law, only corruption will save her from prosecution.

 

[Brainster]

Vox Explainer (part of the liberal Vox Media site) looks into the rape allegations by Juanita Broadderick and finds them very credible:

The basic answer is that some of the claims appear more credible than others. There are three main accusers, of whom it seems by far the most credible — based on the publicly available evidence — is Broaddrick.

They do a quite fair job of laying out the evidence pro and con, and conclude that by Hillary's own standard--that "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," Hillary should believe Juanita.

More startling, and perhaps more important politically, Vox reveals that Hillary may have helped her husband cover up the rape. Weeks after the incident, Juanita encountered Hillary at a political event:

"[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.

Note as well that NBC's Lisa Myers, who interviewed Broaderrick in 1998, confirms that the allegation about Hillary was mentioned in that interview, but it didn't make the final cut (probably because Hillary was seen as a somewhat less relevant public figure at the time).

Slate, another source that is hardly a bastion of conservatism, also looked at the allegations recently:

But our rules for talking about sexual assault have changed since the 1990s, when these women were last in the news. Today, feminists have repeatedly and convincingly made the case that when women say they’ve been sexually assaulted, we should assume they’re telling the truth. Particularly when it comes to Broaddrick, it’s not easy to square the arguments against believing her with the dominant progressive consensus on trusting victims.

When it comes right down to it, what is really the difference between Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton?

 

[Darat]

Nobody came out of that looking good, but ultimately who is to blame, the most powerful man in the world, or some 20-something intern?

...snip...

Blame for what?

Certainly in my view if you are in a relationship that is meant to be monogamous and you do "cheat" then you are doing someone a wrong, so I think that Clinton is to blame for that. Kudos to the Clintons for apparently being able to get over such matters, I certainly couldn't. If it had been me he "cheated" on there'd have been pictures of black bags of belongings at the door of the White House!

As for having a consensual sexual relationship with someone - there is no "blame" to apportion - the consensual part deals with that.

That he was a head of state that had an affair? Yeah well he was stupid about that - in my opinion.

But all of this is irrelevant to the current Clinton who is running for office. It's only those even more to the right than Clinton and other types of extremists that have this strange view that wives are the property of the husband and that the wife is stained by the actions of the husband.

 

[Darat]

For giving an informed opinion? ...snip...

Let me get this straight then - it is OK for someone to use information that is at least confidential if it is to attack someone that you don't like and that is just an informed opinion. Just want to know for future reference.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Here's how we play this game paleo-style...

Too bad she backed away from that.

Not too bad that you took the bait. Make it harder, m'kay? She backed away like Bill's honeys have backed away, I'd say. After a certain amount of lucre changed hands.

In short, "backed away" is conserva-speak for being bought off. Funny how she didn't retract the statements until her non-disclosed divorce agreement came through. Maybe you and 16.5 should demand FOIA releases of the terms of that settlement.

Hush money! Rather obvious.

Apples and oranges comparing the predator to Mr Trump.

You mean the accused predator and the accused rapist/sexual abuser. I realize you know nothing about Trump (because you've already told us so), but mightn't you want to examine his records a little more closely? It's almost like a serial bimbo-biffing divorcee sexual abuser doesn't get scrutiny as long as you agree with his politics, eh? (I threw that "eh" in there for our avid Canadian readers.)

 

[DavidJames]

Vox Explainer (part of the liberal Vox Media site) looks into the rape allegations by Juanita Broadderick and finds them very credible:



They do a quite fair job of laying out the evidence pro and con, and conclude that by Hillary's own standard--that "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," Hillary should believe Juanita.

More startling, and perhaps more important politically, Vox reveals that Hillary may have helped her husband cover up the rape. Weeks after the incident, Juanita encountered Hillary at a political event:



Note as well that NBC's Lisa Myers, who interviewed Broaderrick in 1998, confirms that the allegation about Hillary was mentioned in that interview, but it didn't make the final cut (probably because Hillary was seen as a somewhat less relevant public figure at the time).

Slate, another source that is hardly a bastion of conservatism, also looked at the allegations recently:



When it comes right down to it, what is really the difference between Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton?

That's easy, Bill Cosby didn't have Vince Foster killed.

 

[logger]

Let me get this straight then - it is OK for someone to use information that is at least confidential if it is to attack someone that you don't like and that is just an informed opinion. Just want to know for future reference.

AGAIN, are you saying every reporter who has a source should be investigated?

In case you haven't noticed this kind of thing happens every day, all around the news media.

How do you not know this?

 

[logger]

Here's how we play this game paleo-style...

You certainly know how to play games!

Not too bad that you took the bait. Make it harder, m'kay? She backed away like Bill's honeys have backed away, I'd say. After a certain amount of lucre changed hands.

They've backed away? Have you seen the news?
Get ready for the dam to break, things have changed how people look at these crimes.

In short, "backed away" is conserva-speak for being bought off. Funny how she didn't retract the statements until her non-disclosed divorce agreement came through. Maybe you and 16.5 should demand FOIA releases of the terms of that settlement.

Hush money! Rather obvious.

Or maybe it wasn't true.


You mean the accused predator and the accused rapist/sexual abuser. I realize you know nothing about Trump (because you've already told us so), but mightn't you want to examine his records a little more closely? It's almost like a serial bimbo-biffing divorcee sexual abuser doesn't get scrutiny as long as you agree with his politics, eh? (I threw that "eh" in there for our avid Canadian readers.)[/QUOTE]

 

[Loss Leader]

Vox Explainer (part of the liberal Vox Media site) looks into the rape allegations by Juanita Broadderick and finds them very credible:



They do a quite fair job of laying out the evidence pro and con, and conclude that by Hillary's own standard--that "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported," Hillary should believe Juanita.

More startling, and perhaps more important politically, Vox reveals that Hillary may have helped her husband cover up the rape. Weeks after the incident, Juanita encountered Hillary at a political event:



Note as well that NBC's Lisa Myers, who interviewed Broaderrick in 1998, confirms that the allegation about Hillary was mentioned in that interview, but it didn't make the final cut (probably because Hillary was seen as a somewhat less relevant public figure at the time).

Slate, another source that is hardly a bastion of conservatism, also looked at the allegations recently:



When it comes right down to it, what is really the difference between Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton?

If this is your best evidence, I'm not really worried for HRC. I am terribly worried about the disrepair of our political system when people looking for a reason to shore up their prejudices think this is evidence of anything but their own desperation.