Bill Clinton Dismisses Gillibrand Saying He Should Have Resigned

Linda Tripp Laughs Last at the Clintons
Townhall.com ^ | January 19, 2018 | Suzanne Fields / Posted by Kaslin

What fools (and hypocrites) these mortals be. Two decades have passed since Linda Tripp blew the whistle on sexual hijinks in high places with her tapes of Monica Lewinsky, the young intern who described to her confidant and colleague the passionate ordeal of a sexual liaison with the president of the United States. She blew the whistle, she says, to protect her friend. Twenty years on, she’s still a villain for many women who remember those times.
But history’s on her side.

Tripp withdrew to a private life after the scandal, and now she comes in from the cold to reappear on a changed landscape littered with the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey and Charlie Rose. She suggests that former President Bill Clinton should take his place on the pedestal of predators with current celebrities of stage, screen and politics.

“When the president gets a pass for something that egregious,” she tells DailyMailTV, “he essentially gave tacit permission to all those who followed to do the same.”

In the revival of memories of those dark days of revelation, Tripp emerges as the heroine before her time was ripe, who went out on a fragile limb to protect a friend who would hate her for what she was doing. “He was the leader of the free world and she was an intern, a kid, who happened to be extremely emotionally young for her age,” she says of Lewinsky. “This was part of his pattern where women were a means to an end. It was almost a servicing agreement, but she romanticized it.”

Although Bubba didn’t lose his job, as many of the current batch of exposed alleged offenders did, one U.S. senator, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, now says he should have. She thinks he should have resigned in shame. Now armed with fresh attitudes about sexual harassment, other women are reassessing their earlier conclusions.

The reassessment should put Tripp on the side of the good angels, but she told The Weekly Standard, “It’s a day late, and it’s a dollar short.” She wants to know what information the reassesors have today they didn’t have 20 years ago. The reckoning isn’t about black and white, left and right, but about right and wrong. Anyone familiar with the record remembers hearing how Lewinsky naively asked Bubba, “is this just about sex ... or do you have some interest in trying to get to know me as a person?” The plaintive cry of the child emerges.

But she had no appeal to sympathy when The Drudge Report broke the story in January 1998 with the power of a rotten egg, or when Hillary Clinton went on the attack on NBC’s “Today” show in January 1998. The accusations against her husband, Clinton said, were merely the work of a “vast right-wing media conspiracy.” The abuse of a young woman by a male boss twice her age was reduced to partisan politics.

The even vaster left-wing media conspiracy joined the White House and closed ranks with the first lady and the president, as they treated Lewinsky and Bubba’s “bimbo eruptions” like clay ducks in a shooting gallery. Maureen Dowd of The New York Times called the White House approach “a slander strategy.” But she observed, “at least some of the veteran Clinton shooters feel a little nauseated this time around, after smearing so many women who were probably telling the truth as trashy bimbos.”

One reader says writing about the Clinton scandals is “so yesterday.” Why bother with a rehash of the Clintons in the White House? But news of the Clintons is never yesterday’s news. Their story demonstrates over and over how power and the press create villains and heroines with exaggeration, distortion and truth rearrangement.

When Lewinsky decided to go public with her remembrance of things past four years ago in Vanity Fair, she learned how personal humiliation fits with our culture of humiliation, where gossip and half-truths take root on the internet, where nothing ever dies and instead festers on social media, giving everyone an opportunity to revel in schadenfreude.

With a 24/7 news cycle hungry for something, anything, to feed the hysteria for tales of the lowest human experience, the world in which Monica Lewinsky lived 20 years ago is revealed as the same world we live in today, only more so. The power centers are occupied by a different cast of characters, but everything is familiar. Amazon Studios has acquired the rights for a movie to be called “Linda and Monica,” to explore the intimate, confidential recorded telephone conversations about Bubba. It’s coming soon to a theater near you.

she’s living in a different context.

She's living in a context where the Dem party and Gillibrand don't need Bill to raise money for them anymore and where he is now more of a liability than an asset to their electoral prospects.

As Linda said, not only was Clinton given a pass, the Hollywood glitterati ponied up bigtime for Clinton's sex mess defense.

Herewith, for your edification, are the Certified Democrat Degenerates......the scum that vilify and destroy America's Judeo-Christian ethics and values in movies promoted as being "diverse, politically correct, and socially relevant."

HOLLYWOOD'S CERTIFIED DEMOCRAT DEGENERATES
FINANCED BILL CLINTON'S LEWINSKY SEX MESS

According to FEC Info, an Internet Web site (www.tray.com) that tracks federal political contributions, 176 individual donors actually contributed $10,000 or more to the lewinsky-era Clinton Legal Expense Trust fund through Dec 1999. Another 21 donors gave $10,000 in the first six months of 2000.

Thanks to Hollywood's generosity, a total of more than $2.2 million was raised in six months, which was notably more than was collected in funding during the previous four years of his presidency—combined. Hollywood producers and stars made up the bulk of the most generous givers. They included:

<><> Universal Studios tycoon Lew Wasserman and his wife, Edith, gave $60,000;

<><>DreamWorks trio Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, $20,000 each;

<><> producer Ron Burkle and his wife, Janet, $40,000;

<><> producers Peg and Bud Yorkin, $30,000;

<><> TV producer Norman Lear, $20,000.

Entertainment celebrities and executives giving $10,000 included:

<><> singers Tony Bennett and feminist Barbra Streisand;

<><><> actors Michael Douglas and Tom Hanks;

<><> director Ron Howard; producer Gail Zappa;

<><>Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson.

cont ////// cont

<><> How did the Hollywood elite list payments to Clinton's sex defense fund on their corporate statements AND on their tax returns?

<><>How did the "DreamWorks" trio, Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg, list their 60,000 dollars to Clinton's sex defense fund?

<><>How did BET list its contribution to Clinton on its corporate statements?

<><> Did Harvey's company list these payments as "business expenses?"

The biggie is the tax element.

<><> Did donors deduct it as a “business expense”,

<><> was it included in assets, payments listed on organization balance sheets as a "liability?"

<><> Did Clinton document it as "income"?

<><> Were the donors given a tax-free certificate from the Clinton Foundation?

cont

Sex criminal still at large on the streets.

cont

When Bill Clinton was at the height of the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, Hollywood was by his side, offering donations for his legal fees, and one significant donor was a man who is now going through his own sex scandal—Harvey Weinstein.

Billionaire Harvey Weinstein raised $1,422,683 for federal candidates and political entities between 1990-2016. That’s small potatoes for his 27 years of rank Democratism, sucking up to feminism and upholding so-called abortion rights as he rampaged and assaulted young women. Adds up to about $5300 a year.

Something tells me there are a lot of cash payments off-the-record being paid. (hat tip outpostinmass2) Crunching the numbers as outpost did does give us a sharper look at the political money game as played by the conniving Clintons.

Harvey also gave a bundle to the nefarious tax-exempt Clinton Foundation and perhaps to offshoots of the Clintons tax-free entities.

Did Harvey's donations to the C/F go to "do-good projects"? Or did they make a circuitous route? Maybe landing back into the Clintons eternal political scams?

That kid, if she is his, but we know she is the Hildabeast’s kid, is going to be EXACTLY LIKE HER MOTHER. She might be like her so called daddy there, and hump everyone in town to gain more and more position. But, she WILL BE a Klinton. Just like her slob of a mama, the Beast, with a number like 666.

The scumbag never should have been elected in the first place.

H. Ross Perot gave us a gift that just kept on giving.

The Democrats’ Creed ---what they really believe (hat tip Michael Kelly)

Democrats believe President Bill Clinton. And have always believed him. Democrats believed it when Clinton said he had never been drafted in the Vietnam War and believed him later when Clinton said he had merely “forgotten to mention” that he had been drafted in the Vietnam War.

Democrats believed him when Clinton he said he hadn’t had sex with Gennifer Flowers and believed him later, when Clinton reportedly said he did bed her down.

Democrats believed the president did not rent out the Lincoln Bedroom to celebrities, did not sell access to himself and the vice president to hundreds of well-heeled special pleaders and did not supervise the largest, most systematic money-laundering operation in campaign finance history, collecting more than $ 3 million in illegal and improper donations.

Democrats believe that Charlie Trie and James Riady were motivated by nothing but patriotism for their adopted country.

Democrats believed President Clinton when he conceded that his administration mistakenly obtained the FBI files of more than 300 people, including many top Republicans and believes it was the result of a “completely honest bureaucratic snafu” involving security clearances.

Democrats believed Clinton’s chief of staff, Leon Panetta, when he told reporters that “obviously a mistake was made” and apologized to the people whose FBI files wound up at the White House. Democrats believed Clinton when he said “I completely support” what my COS Panetta said about the affair.

Democrats believed Vice President Gore when he said that he had made dunning calls to political contributors “on a few occasions” from his White House office, and believed him when he said that, actually, “a few” meant 46.

Democrats devoutly believe in "no controlling legal authority"....but not for Nixon or Trump.

Democrats believed Bruce Babbitt when he said that the $286,000 contributed to the DNC by Indian tribes opposed to granting a casino license to rival tribes had nothing to do with his denial of the license. Democrats believed the secretary when he said that he had not been instructed in this matter by then-White House deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes.

Democrats believed him when he said later that he had told lobbyist and friend Paul Eckstein that Ickes had told him to move on the casino decision, but that he had been lying to Eckstein. Democrats agreed with the secretary that it is an outrage that anyone would question his integrity.

Democrats firmly believe in the “Clinton Standard” of adherence to the nation’s campaign finance and bribery laws, enunciated by the president on March 7, 1997: “I don’t believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution.” Democrats noted with approval the use of the word “evidence” and also the use of the word “solely.” Democrats devoutly believe, as Clinton does, that it is proper to change government policy to address the concerns of people who have"given the president money, as long as nobody can find "evidence" of this being the "sole" reason.

Democrats believe president Clinton lived up to his promise to preside over the most ethical administration in American history that indicted former agriculture secretary Mike Espy did not accept $35,000 in illegal favors from Tyson Foods and other regulated businesses.

Democrats believe that indicted former housing secretary Henry Cisneros did not lie to the FBI and tell others to lie to cover up $250,000 in blackmail payments to his former mistress.

Democrats believe that convicted former associate attorney general Webster Hubbell was not involved in the obstruction of justice when the president’s minions arranged for Hubbell to receive $ 400,000 in sweetheart consulting deals at a time when he was reneging on his promise to cooperate with Kenneth Starr’s Whitewater investigation.

Democrats believe, as Harvey Weinstein does, that Paula Jones is a cheap tramp who was asking for it, that Kathleen Willey is a cheap tramp who was asking for it, and that Monica Lewinsky is a cheap tramp who was asking for it.

Democrats firmly believe Monica Lewinsky was “just fantasizing” in her 20 hours of taped conversation in which she reportedly detailed her sexual relationship with the president and begged Linda Tripp to join her in lying about the relationship and that any gifts, correspondence, telephone calls and the 37 post-employment White House visits that may have passed between Lewinsky and the president are evidence only of a platonic relationship. Journos believe that such innocent intimate friendships are quite common between middle-aged married men and young single women, and also between presidents of the United States and White House interns.

Democrats see nothing suspicious in the report that the president’s intimate pal, Vernon Jordan, arranged a $40,000-per-year job for Lewinsky shortly after she signed but before she filed an affidavit saying she had not had sex with the president.

Nor did Democrats read anything significant into the fact that the ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, visited Lewinsky at the Watergate to offer her a job.

Democrat believe the instructions Lewinsky gave Linda Tripp informing her on how to properly perjure herself in the Willey matter simply wrote themselves.

Democrats believe, as does Hillary, that The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS and NPR are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to malign the saintly Clintons.

Of course he would say that. One expects him to be defensive, not contrite. He’s Bill Clinton, after all, albeit a decrepit version of Bill.

GOOD GRIEF SOME PLEASE MAKE THIS STOP???? Please let us all wake up tomorrow not in bazarro land!! Who gave him massive doses of B-12 to even make him able to do this interview? What advantage does he get from this?? Why do it??

Did he do this because Chelsea Hubble wants her job? Killary?

Funny thing. The left (and feminists) were all up in arms about sexual harassment before Bill Clinton with Clarence Thomas. They are all up in arms now, after Bill Clinton. But when Clinton was president, all forms of deviancy and sexual harassment were okay. The irony is, of course, Bill was the worst offender of them all.

Resign over Lewinski??? Hell, he should have been put into federal prison for his treason in CHINA GATE!!! That would have been the fitting end.....

Nixon had more honor than Clinton.

There are alpha males who need to indulge in regular sexual intercourse. These men are often the greatest leaders we have in society and their sexual release is to help them cope with the pressure of leadership and the chemical imbalance which sees their testosterone levels being many times higher than th average man

BJ Clinton is not an alpha male, and his sexual indiscretions are purely because he is a pervert with fiendish fetishes

Bill Clinton wishes he were back in the White House so he could continue making the Oval Office the ORAL office..whenever the left says that President Trump is destroying the dignity of the White House I say “Really, you voted for Bill Clinton..TWICE”

“You have to—really ignore what the context was,” Clinton says, according to a CBS transcript. “But, you know, she’s living in a different context. And she did it for different reasons. So, I—but I just disagree with her."

"It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is," added the former President.