Hillary Clinton is Done

[sunmaster14]

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.

Clinton lied under oath, and he encouraged Lewinsky to lie under oath. He sat right next to his lawyer while his lawyer made (unintentionally from the lawyer's perspective) material misrepresentations to the court. The fact that the defendant thinks a lawsuit lacks merit (and Jones' lawsuit was by no means frivolous, or even a long-shot to succeed) does not entitle the defendant to subvert the judicial process. This goes double for a licensed lawyer. Quadruple for the guy the head of the Department of Justice actually answers to.

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.

Actually, I think we are talking Cosby here. Cosby no doubt had consensual extramarital affairs as well, and Clinton no doubt has committed sexual assault. Cosby just doesn't have as many powerful defenders as Clinton.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

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

Cosby is funny, and Clinton is black.

 

[sunmaster14]

Blame for what?

Subverting the judicial process by lying under oath.

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!

Does anybody here really believe that Hillary patched things up with Bill for reasons other than her ambition for political office? Staying married because getting divorced would be bad for "business" is hardly a feather in one's cap.

<snip>

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.

Well, aside from the light it shines on her character (which, frankly, doesn't bother me so much, since I already know that she's a ruthless, power-hungry, politician), the behavior of her husband is important because there is no doubt he will be something of a co-President. Would anybody really believe he won't be the most powerful man in the country again, if she becomes President? He might even be the most power person in the country (and the world) again, depending on how resistant Hillary is to his opinions.

 

[Trakar]

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.

And yet you support putting another establishment, corporatist candidate into office whom you know ahead of time has integrity/honesty issues. Fixing politics in the U.S. is as much about fixing the voters as it is about finding new types of candidates to stand in our elections.

 

[The Big Dog]

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.

Irony meter explodes

 

[DavidJames]

He might even be the most power person in the country (and the world) again, depending on how resistant Hillary is to his opinions.

You say that like it's a bad thing. I know Republicans refuse to give Democrats credit for anything, but this county could use another set of Bill Clinton years. Best time for America in many decades

 

[sunmaster14]

You say that like it's a bad thing. I know Republicans refuse to give Democrats credit for anything, but this county could use another set of Bill Clinton years. Best time for America in many decades

I didn't say it like it's a bad thing. I think he was a decent President all things considered, and he's certainly experienced and competent. If Hillary were President, I would definitely prefer Bill be alive and in the White House than not. I was only pointing out that since we would be getting two Presidents for the price of one, Bill's character and past is definitely relevant to Hillary's candidacy. Far more so than for any Presidential candidate spouse in history.

 

[Dog Town]

Does anybody here really believe that Hillary patched things up with Bill for reasons other than her ambition for political office? Staying married because getting divorced would be bad for "business" is hardly a feather in one's cap.

Nobody with an IQ above room temp!
I said this in the prediction thread. If this run for HRC fails, they are divorced within a year!

 

[Darat]

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?

I think I see part of the reason you are confused, I've not said a word about reporters.... I've talked about a politician making public confidential information. Personally I'm of the mind he's making it all up but I'm sure you'd want any politician who may be releasing confidential information to be investigated? I take it you think he should disclose his emails?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Re Bill's perjury: fabricated outrage. Given the circumstance, no one except political enemies considered lying about an affair to have any outrageous significance, under oath or not.

From Brainster's Slate link:

The cases of Jones, Willey, and Broaddrick have been very thoroughly investigated and endlessly chewed over. No evidence against Bill Clinton was ever found, though he did settle Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit for $850,000.

Let’s recap. In 1999, Broaddrick publicly claimed that Bill Clinton had raped her in a hotel room 21 years earlier. She reportedly told a few people about the alleged assault at the time, and right-wing operatives shopped the story during Clinton’s first presidential campaign. Broaddrick refused to talk, however, and she later denied the rape in an affidavit in the Paula Jones case. It was only when she was interviewed by the FBI in the course of Kenneth Starr’s investigation that she changed her story and said the rape had in fact happened. (In the New York Times, she explained the about-face by saying she hadn’t wanted to go public but felt she couldn’t lie to federal investigators.) Shortly afterward, frustrated with rumors that had begun to circulate about her, she gave several high-profile interviews....

Three weeks after the alleged assault, she attended a fundraiser for Clinton. Speaking to Klein, she says she was traumatized and blamed herself for what happened. “I felt responsible. I don’t know if you know the mentality of women and men at that time. But me letting him come to my room? I accepted full blame.”...

We will probably never know the truth of what happened between Broaddrick and Clinton.

This is hardly a case of 'believe the victim' in the same way as the Cosby accusations. She makes a sworn affidavit for a legal proceding it didn't happen, then claims she couldn't lie to federal investigators?

Let's not forget those 'investigators' were Ken Starr's minions. Starr for those of you not around at the time, was the equivalent of Darrel Issa and Trey Gowdy.

Who knows whether she truly resisted or reluctantly accepted or had sex and felt badly afterwards. It's a tough call. But clearly there wasn't anything close to clear evidence of a rape.

Jones lost in court and was paid off to end the distraction that appeals would have caused.

And Willey:

Kathleen Willey, the former White House volunteer who claims that Bill groped her. Willey—who, according to the independent counsel report on Whitewater, gave false information both in a legal deposition and to the FBI—has launched a website seeking other women willing to publicly accuse Clinton of sexual impropriety.

What do you do with that?

Was Bill a creepy boss to some employees? Probably. Did he actually rape anyone? That's a stretch. Should the women be believed and given the benefit of the doubt? If there wasn't so much overt intervention and egging these women on by the right wing political machine, the credibility of the women might have more merit.

But what do you do with the complete tainting and mishandling of the evidence? We also have the presumption of innocence of the accused to consider and that leaves the accusations at a draw, not at a 'no one believed the women' conclusion.

 

[sunmaster14]

I think I see part of the reason you are confused, I've not said a word about reporters.... I've talked about a politician making public confidential information. Personally I'm of the mind he's making it all up but I'm sure you'd want any politician who may be releasing confidential information to be investigated? I take it you think he should disclose his emails?

There is a lot of confusion to go around, but I suspect you are the only one who is confused but doesn't realize it yet.

 

[sunmaster14]

Re Bill's perjury: fabricated outrage. Given the circumstance, no one except political enemies considered lying about an affair to have any outrageous significance, under oath or not.

From Brainster's Slate link:


This is hardly a case of 'believe the victim' in the same way as the Cosby accusations. She makes a sworn affidavit for a legal proceding it didn't happen, then claims she couldn't lie to federal investigators?

Let's not forget those 'investigators' were Ken Starr's minions. Starr for those of you not around at the time, was the equivalent of Darrel Issa and Trey Gowdy.

Who knows whether she truly resisted or reluctantly accepted or had sex and felt badly afterwards. It's a tough call. But clearly there wasn't anything close to clear evidence of a rape.

What kind of "clear" evidence are you looking for? A video of the attack? A semen-stained dress that hasn't been cleaned in 35 years? There are at least 3 people (and I think a few more) who have corroborated her story based on what she told them within hours of the event, as well as based on the evidence of physical and emotional trauma at the time. Every detail of her story (including the aftermath, and Bill's and Hillary's subsequent interactions with her) is eminently plausible. Accused rapists have been expelled from college for accusations made weeks, months, or even years after the alleged assault, with an interregnum of cordial, even warm, relations between the rapist and his victim. Absent surviving physical evidence, or an actual video, her claim is about as credible as it gets. Not up to the reasonable doubt standard, to be sure. But it is well beyond preponderance of the evidence standard in my view. I would probably lay 5 to 1 odds that her claim is accurate and that Bill Clinton remembers it that way too. I actually think he has a conscience, and if the topic is brought up again, you'll see him squirm a bit (in a way that he wouldn't with Paula Jones because he probably doesn't feel any guilt over that).

<snip>

Should the women be believed and given the benefit of the doubt? If there wasn't so much overt intervention and egging these women on by the right wing political machine, the credibility of the women might have more merit.

You have cause and effect backwards. The right wing political machine has to get involved because the left wing political machine has been programmed to attack anybody who would try to besmirch the reputation of their political heroes. No single individual would possibly be willing to subject themselves to such an assault without powerful political support. Look what happened to Monica Lewinsky. She was in the process of being successfully vilified as a delusional stalker and right wing pawn until being saved by the miracle of the blue dress. There was no spin machine on her side, either from the left or the right, which is why she was left twisting in the wind, even after being proven to be relatively normal and completely sane.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

You say that like it's a bad thing. I know Republicans refuse to give Democrats credit for anything, but this county could use another set of Bill Clinton years. Best time for America in many decades

True, other than the dot com bubble and the precursors to the housing industry collapse, yes. Good times.

 

[Dog Town]

True, other than the dot com bubble and the precursors to the housing industry collapse, yes. Good times.

Worse, if not for the effects the computer industry and the internet had on the economy! That "giant sucking sound" Ross predicted by NAFTA & GATT would have been devastating to the economy.

Lucky for US, his VP invented the intertubes!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What kind of "clear" evidence are you looking for? A video of the attack? A semen-stained dress that hasn't been cleaned in 35 years? ....

A complaint from someone who hasn't changed their story a half dozen times and who complained long before some right wing 'investigators' heard rumors then egged the women on, sometimes with money (funding Paula Jone's lawsuit lottery), sometimes with coercion (in the case of Ken Starr's minions who possibly threatened Broadrrick if she didn't tell the story the way they wanted it told).

 

[Loss Leader]

Clinton lied under oath, and he encouraged Lewinsky to lie under oath. He sat right next to his lawyer while his lawyer made (unintentionally from the lawyer's perspective) material misrepresentations to the court. The fact that the defendant thinks a lawsuit lacks merit (and Jones' lawsuit was by no means frivolous, or even a long-shot to succeed) does not entitle the defendant to subvert the judicial process. This goes double for a licensed lawyer. Quadruple for the guy the head of the Department of Justice actually answers to.



Actually, I think we are talking Cosby here. Cosby no doubt had consensual extramarital affairs as well, and Clinton no doubt has committed sexual assault. Cosby just doesn't have as many powerful defenders as Clinton.

Good gravy, man. Clinton "no doubt has committed sexual assault"?

No investigation, criminal or civil, has ever found enough evidence to conclude Clinton assaulted anyone. You might as well say that Clinton's infidelity leaves No Doubt he starred in the TV show I Spy. Shall we also remove from doubt the question of whether Bill Clinton did the voices for Fat Albert?

Simply lobbing accusations do not make them true.

 

[The Big Dog]

Good gravy, man. Clinton "no doubt has committed sexual assault"?

No investigation, criminal or civil, has ever found enough evidence to conclude Clinton assaulted anyone. You might as well say that Clinton's infidelity leaves No Doubt he starred in the TV show I Spy. Shall we also remove from doubt the question of whether Bill Clinton did the voices for Fat Albert?

Simply lobbing accusations do not make them true.

“Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

 

[Dog Town]

“Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

No fair! Using HRC's own words, against her religious followers!
Hallelujah!

 

[logger]

I think I see part of the reason you are confused, I've not said a word about reporters.... I've talked about a politician making public confidential information. Personally I'm of the mind he's making it all up but I'm sure you'd want any politician who may be releasing confidential information to be investigated? I take it you think he should disclose his emails?

Joe diGenova is a lawyer who has his own practice with his wife Victoria Toensing. He is a private individual not a government official. He is free to have an opinion.

 

[logger]

What kind of "clear" evidence are you looking for? A video of the attack? A semen-stained dress that hasn't been cleaned in 35 years? There are at least 3 people (and I think a few more) who have corroborated her story based on what she told them within hours of the event, as well as based on the evidence of physical and emotional trauma at the time. Every detail of her story (including the aftermath, and Bill's and Hillary's subsequent interactions with her) is eminently plausible. Accused rapists have been expelled from college for accusations made weeks, months, or even years after the alleged assault, with an interregnum of cordial, even warm, relations between the rapist and his victim. Absent surviving physical evidence, or an actual video, her claim is about as credible as it gets. Not up to the reasonable doubt standard, to be sure. But it is well beyond preponderance of the evidence standard in my view. I would probably lay 5 to 1 odds that her claim is accurate and that Bill Clinton remembers it that way too. I actually think he has a conscience, and if the topic is brought up again, you'll see him squirm a bit (in a way that he wouldn't with Paula Jones because he probably doesn't feel any guilt over that).



You have cause and effect backwards. The right wing political machine has to get involved because the left wing political machine has been programmed to attack anybody who would try to besmirch the reputation of their political heroes. No single individual would possibly be willing to subject themselves to such an assault without powerful political support. Look what happened to Monica Lewinsky. She was in the process of being successfully vilified as a delusional stalker and right wing pawn until being saved by the miracle of the blue dress. There was no spin machine on her side, either from the left or the right, which is why she was left twisting in the wind, even after being proven to be relatively normal and completely sane.

It is impressive how well said this is!!!

Especially the highlighted part.