Posted on 01/17/2016 3:41:40 AM PST by reaganaut1
...
Then there's the narrative that I suspect most Americans believe, in which the former president was much more of a tomcat in Arkansas, and probably has tomcatted occasionally in his post-presidency -- but always consensually, and lately in ways that have minimized exposure or embarrassment.
If either of these narratives are true, then Clinton's sex life will be a non-issue in 2016. If an adulterer, even a frequent adulterer, is all he is, then an America that didn't want him impeached in the 1990s isn't going to object to having him as the First Gentlemen today.
But suppose you believe the Broaddrick story. Liberals dismissed it during the impeachment days, but if you read the summary of the case from the (mostly liberal) Dylan Matthews at the (mostly liberal) website Vox, this dismissal looks unfair. There's an inescapable he-said/she-said dynamic, but one need not be a "believe all rape allegations" absolutist to find her claim persuasive.
If she's telling the truth, then Clinton's sexual past becomes something more predatory. The slippage between a powerful man's dalliances and straightforward predation is something that could happen just once. But looked at in the light of a credible rape allegation, there are all sorts of Clinton stories -- the Willey and Jones cases, the rumors collected by Jones's lawyers, the old tales of state troopers being used as procurers, the 2002 globetrotting on the jet of a billionaire who's also a convicted statutory rapist -- that could suggest a darker pattern, tending toward the Cosby-esque.
The truth about Bill Clinton's past, then, is that we don't actually know the truth. And even in our tabloid-driven age, it's quite possible that we simply never will.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If the Russians had gotten hold of Monica they could have turned her into an amazing source. It was not just about sex.
Monica was one of a group of female volunteers. She was the one converted to a full time government job. You know why. That is sexual harassment.
Bill paid her with our tax dollars. That is theft.
Maybe I missed the part about why he didn’t need to be fired for taking sexual advantage of a person in his employ (Monica). At that time, were he an officer in any public corporation in America and had taken advantage of his secretary, he would have been out the door.
Is working for the federal government different?
“...then an America that didn’t want him impeached in the 1990s...”
That was *not* America. It was a conspiracy that first made Kenneth Starr a Special Prosecutor on condition that he waste as much time and money as possible, while ignoring all the serious crimes and misdemeanors; and then only presented the House with a petty embarrassment, which when they still wanted to impeach, went to a senate full of RINOs and Democrats who wouldn’t want to convict him even if he raped and murdered a child on national television.
“Out of respect for the office”, an expression that should make America want to collectively vomit.
You’re right, he was impeached! I am disgusted with the way things are reported now, claiming that Clinton was not impeached (he has even said himself that they “tried” to impeach him) when Andrew Johnson was listed in the history books as the only president ever to be impeached until Clinton came along. Johnson was not removed from office either but no one ever claimed that he was not impeached. For years Clinton was called, “the first ELECTED president to be impeached because Johnson became president on the death of Lincoln.
Some people are so confused now that they think Richard Nixon was impeached and Clinton was not!
For anyone interested impeachment is the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal court. Anyone who has been indicted goes to a trial and if they are found not guilty that does not ever change the fact that they were indicted.
I might rhetorically ask, ‘Is the pope Catholic?’, but then that would be very much in doubt.
Billy Goat is a sick puppy who has drained himself to the point of collapse. He may be checking himself out soon and embark on a trip across the River Styx. His old friend awaits his arrival.
Soon thereafter, a little chubby woman, giggling with little girl laughter will be joining him to spend an eternity with her erstwhile husband.
Neither will get 72 virgins, but Bella Abzug may be waiting on Billy Goat, while Eleanor Roosevelt will be anxiously awaiting la Hillary’s arrival.
Isn’t this just a new leftist diversion to neutralise the deadly Bill Clinton accusations, now that they’ve taken on a new seriousness?
“Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, we’ll probably never know the real truth .... oh well, time to move on, people”
??
Several things the author misses.
1. He talks about consensual cheating but leaves out the non-consensual incidents that aren’t rape but qualify as sexual molestation/assault on Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Ward Gracen and possibly others.
2. Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury in the Jones Lawsuit so his credibility in he-said she-said cases is poor to say the least. His public denials about the Lewinsky affair were also PROVEN to be lies.
3. The women who accused Clinton were not political operatives or enemies as often claimed, but were either supporters, or innocent bystanders.
4. Before Bill Clinton the left used to talk about how even consensual sex in the workplace was sexual harassment if it was between people at different power levels (power differential). By that definition the Clinton Lewinsky relationship certainly qualified.
5. Hellary’s involvement in the smearing of Bill’s accusers has been well documented even before she started running for public office.
Good point. Yes, this could be the MSM's devious plan.
“...and probably has tomcatted occasionally in his post-presidency — but always consensually...”
He knows this? Douche hat is a moron. Consensually is not clinton’s style. He takes, pays thugs and threatens. Then again, this may very well be what Douche Hat means by consensually.
The question ought to be, does clinton’s trysting conform to the modern university’s affirmative consent laws?
We all know the Times mentioned "a billionaire who's also a convicted rapist".... BUT - the Times did not mention the Name of this billionaire!!! Was this because they know people would be able to google the name Jeffrey Epstein and - -up would pop- - all the articles about the possibilities that Bill Clinton was on Epstein's island participating in orgies with 12-16 year old kids!! In other words New York Times, is Bill Clinton not only a rapist, but is Bill Clinton also a pedophile!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3381458/posts?q=1&;page=101
bttt
The commie NY TIMES says
always consensually, and lately in ways that have minimized exposure or embarrassment.
yes.,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.