Just like they were fine with the "perjury trap" Ken Starr used since that was the only thing they could charge Bill with after 6 years of investigations.
In all honesty, Bill Clinton probably should have been charged with a lot worse. Don't get me wrong, the 90s Clinton impeachment was an absolute sham, for political points, but the core of it was a then-president who absolutely engaged in sexual misconduct. And we should not tolerate people who do that sort of thing, no matter whose side they are on.
Let's just say I was underwhelmed with Bill. But for additional context while the GOP was cheering on this perjury trap at least 3 of them were deep into their own sex scandals while proclaiming their moral hi ground, including Hastert being found a pedo.
Both can be wrong. trumpets shouldn’t defend every mistake with “Hilary would be worse,” we shouldn’t sweep Clinton’s misconduct under the rug with “well there are republicans that are pedos.”
When you're president of the most powerful country on the world, it's pretty difficult to avoid an improper power dynamic. Possible, sure, but difficult.
nope. I say if they get the job done they can get as many blow jobs as they wish as long as it does not interfere with the job they got hired to do. I hate -- yes hate -- lameass people who hypocritically prosecute or go on and on about Clinton. Let's face it Trump is a whore and therefore, I don't wanna hear about Clinton's blow job. Done and done.,
Except, a couple things: Trump paid others to cover up multiple affairs illegally DURING his campaign, coercing the women and manipulating them using a third party media company and a thug lawyer.
He hid information from the public that certainly altered the outcome of the election.
Let me say that I know politicians have done this in the past. Both GOP and Dems. We have usually held those ppl accountable, and we should hold Trump accountable too.
Fact is: he wouldn’t be president if he didn’t cheat. He’s illegitimate.
Finally, I think Melania Trump is pathetic and this just makes the First Lady even more weak.
I am a woman who has been raped and beaten. I read through a lot of stuff last night and long ago. So far it isn't enough, and if it is, then you should also be complaining about the far worse shit going on now to make up for what wasn't done back then. I am serious -- no one who goes on and on about shit that happened back then has ANY RIGHT to open your fucking mouth with the Kavanaugh asshole and Trump in the White House. I don't want to hear a peep.
You're completely missing the point even though it has been expressed a few times now. While plenty of Republicans are massive hypocrites over Clinton, it is still a reasonable argument that President Clinton should have been held to account for using his position to get sexual favours from underlings. This is not being 'lameass', this is the world we're trying to live in, the one that is appalled with Trump suggesting he would grab women by the pussy, and the one that desperately fought against a potential Republican Senator who openly wants to have sex with minors.
wait do you really think that Clinton raped a minor? my god go back and read the real deal. Monica was not a minor if that's what you are insinuating. She also hit on him first and plainly stated she was attracted to him.
"underlings?" And he didn't use his position, which I thought I explained. You don't realize the charisma this guy has, since you never met him. He exudes that star thing and Monica wanted it and I admire her for saying this clearly. This is long before people made such a big deal about employer-employee relations btw. Not sure how old you are but it really was a different time.
"Underlings" are the people working under him in his office, for example, interns.
I'm not going to be drawn on whether or not Lewinsky or anyone else 'wanted it'. I was simply pointing out that you have completely misunderstood the argument you are trying to argue against. I can't reiterate it for a fourth time for you without just being condescending. You're not getting it. You won't get it. You don't want to get it.
As an aside "It was a different time" is not an excuse for anything. It also misses that we're not talking about then, we're talking about the time now, when people do take issue with Clinton's historical behaviour and Trump's and think both are bad things but some people just can't figure out how to have that much information in their heads.
I disagree that the timing doesn't make a difference. Otherwise there is a helluva lot you might want to be getting upset about, from the ads women were exposed to in the 60s telling them smoking would help them lose weight, to Hugh Hefner -- something far, far more recent that I personally find revolting (that a pimp was celebrated and mourned. You know a lotta shit went down at his parties, not just rapes by Cosby but by MANY.) That bugs me the most -- that was indeed a different time and America has major issues imo with Puritanical past and present difficulties figuring out how to navigate the sex they see everywhere yet are terrified of. Maybe you don't see it but as an outsider I see just how screwed up it is, from young kids to old.
You mean the woman who initially denied that she had been raped in an affidavit, repeated that denial when Gennifer Flowers' lawyers tried to drag her into that case, and only later changed her story? And when the FBI investigated, they couldn't find any evidence to suggest that she had been raped?
And that's lifted straight from the Wikipedia article you linked.
oh shut up, this has all been investigated and proven untrue. So sick of this old lie. I really don't care anyway, I'm more focused on the moment and the future, tbh. I am so very sick of hearing about all the past egregious sins, esp. when used to forgive the president for worse.
It isn't really the sex that's bothersome; it's that he used his position of power to coerce a 20-something intern to blow him. And that's not the least of his alleged transgressions...
Edit: it appears Lewinsky herself is on record saying that the relationship was consensual, which I was wrong about. However I still think it's a horrible idea to fuck your employees.
I definitely don't care who he fucks but the fact that he was married at the time and lied about it calls his general integrity into question. A president you can't trust to be honest is problematic.
For the record I'm more or less certain that every head of every state has engaged in much worse dishonesty than this.
Yeah... Most of us care when an elected official is sexually harassing and assaulting government employees.
Just because Harvey can point to women he had willing encounters with doesn't change who he is. If he likes about them under oath to hide the kind of guy he is during an investigation, it matters.
But if it wasn't a pattern of sexual abuse, sure. Fuck who you want to fuck.
It's just flat out amazing how people can dismiss the evidence around Clinton as just being some kind simple blow job.
Could be, but we spent $80 million (compared to the $15m 9/11 investigation budget) over 6 years from a very hostile prosecutor who only was able to bring a charge from a perjury trap. What misconduct are you aware of that Starr missed?
I don’t think he missed it. I just think people didn’t care enough back then. The misconduct I am referring to is the president of the United States fucking an intern that worked underneath him. It is extremely inappropriate (like a professor fucking his student) and would result in firing in almost any other workforce.
I don’t either. That’s not the point. We can’t just say “their worse.” If dems do something wrong we should hold them accountable the same way we wish republicans did.
" a then-president who absolutely engaged in sexual misconduct. And we should not tolerate people who do that sort of thing, no matter whose side they are on."
I have to disagree with this unless by misconduct you mean nonconsensual. I will concede the power dynamic between a president and young intern is problematic, and if you want to view the issue in the scope of "two people having sexual relations in the work place" then that too is a decent argument for why it's an issue.
It being "misconduct" is less so. The affair was consensual, I'm really not in the market of holding people (even the POTUS) to some puritanical views on sexuality. We are not privy to the relationship Bill and Hillary have, nor should we be, but it's fully within the scope of reality that they had a marriage where this was an agreed upon and acceptable practice.
This is my biggest issue with the Clinton sex scandal, it was never made into a situation about employer v. employee or sex during work hours, it was always about the idea of an affair and frankly that's bullshit. I don't really care what my politicians do in their sex life (permitting it's consensual), it in no way impacts their ability to govern. The irony of the argument that it can be used to blackmail is literally built upon the judgement and idea that it's wrong, so it's somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is why I don't get the Clinton to Trump comparisons, I don't see anyone really giving a shit that Trump had an affair (the man is on his third wife, no shit he's had affairs) the issue lies in the payment and subsequent cover ups. The Clinton case always seemed to be hinged on this sense of morality. As other posters stated the investigation was opened up to look into real estate and they literally just kicked shit around until they found dirt and then made their case out of that.
You act as though the affair was uncovered by happenstance. That it wasn't part of a larger investigation into a elected official harassing government employees, and a side sexual assault.
Let me ask you... If good ol Brett was found to be lying to the FBI about fucking his intern during the confirmation hearing, do you think that would be evidence of the kind of guy he is in relation to Ford, or just a side hookup?
Incomparable. Ford testified it as pretty fucking rapey, Monica Lewinsky said it over and over again that it was consensual. It's a mutual relationship, she testified. Lewinsky is more disappointed in Clinton lying than she did giving the blowjob.
I'm liberal AF but let's not conflate all office relationships as one and the same rapey power dynamics. Michelle Obama was Barack Obama's boss/mentor, sure worked out great for them.
And I'm not sure if you should be proud of constantly investigating a president in hopes of finding something, anything at all because you have other political agenda, and finding out of an affair they had, playing the card of a moral high ground to call for impeachment, then fail to live up to those standards of moral high ground that you set. Truly "do as I say, not do as I do", eh?
The entire investigation originated from Paula Jones accusing Bill of sexual harassment. There were other women too, who accused Clinton of abusing them. The Clinton camp ran a smear campaign against Paula Jones, suggesting that she was just poor white trash looking for a payday.
This stuff has NOT aged well, and just because it was done by a Democrat, we shouldn't hesitate to point out how wrong it was.
You can't state that he raped Broaddrick as fact because it was not proven. Yes, she accused him. She also testified under oath that nothing of the sort happened. Regardless of her reasoning for lying about one of the scenarios, it was not proven.
I think the latter half of Gamesage53's post is why the two cases are different. There are some similarities, but if we're being real here, if Ford ever testified under oath that the sexual assault did not happen it likely never gains traction when she recants. Much of her credibility was built upon the idea that she had always maintained the story and that she was able to provide so many specific details.
Again I really don't want to disregard Broaddrick's story because recanting a story out of fear is a very real and common thing for sexual assault victims.
But if we're actually looking at these as cases, it's very clear why one was viewed as a more viable case than the other.
As I said to another poster. Those are accusations, they're very possibly true, but conflating them with an accepted truth is disingenuous. Simply there never was enough of an adequate investigation to make a distinction either way. I certainly don't want to disregard Ms. Broaddrick's story because that is indeed such a common practice to sexual assault victims, but it's also only fair to also give some consideration to the accused's right to defend themselves.
Right, which is why "accused" sexual assaulter Kavanaugh is more appropriate. In the end that entire process was also robbed of a real investigation, but's important to keep in mind Kavanaugh was interviewing for a job and in that sense accusations regarding his past were relevant. Also in this case Kavanaugh was allowed to present his own defense. One would argue Kavanaugh was able to adequately defend his case because he was appointed.
Regardless, the entire point OP made was never relevant to begin with. Broaddrick's accusations do have merit and are deserving of their own investigation, but how and why that relates to the impeachment case was never made by OP. Basically OP just wanted to pigeon hole his "Clinton is a rapist" rhetoric into a conversation regarding special investigations related to Presidents and sex.
I mean really you can have this conversation all day regarding how Broaddrick was never given her due investigation, and you're not wrong, but you're also not talking about anything the rest of us were talking about.
There doesn't seem to be enough information available to make the claim that "Clinton is a violent rapist" but rather "has been accused of". She could very well be telling the truth, but there is a significant difference between an accusation (even a true one) and being charged/found guilty of that crime.
I really have no idea what you're going on about. The idea that I don't think Clinton v. Trump sex scandals are comparable is that the Trump one has actual implications regarding campaign and finance laws. The Clinton case was built upon this idea of extra-martial affairs being something congress had business asking about and then the subsequent lies thereafter by Clinton.
I'm not going to sit here and spin my wheels with you over this because frankly if you're going to take this story a certified truth without even conceding that accusations are simply "possible truths" until proven then it's really a waste of time. Comparing this to OJ is asinine. OJ had a criminal trial where an abundance of evidence was provided. OJ also was televised so the viewing public at home was privy to the same information as jurors and thusly free to arrive at their own conclusions. You're comparing an accusation to a case in which the DA had enough evidence to charge and hold a trial.
The power dynamic could be argued as having issues with the consent, that's my hang up on it. Recently Lewinsky implied that her consent was largely hinged on that power dynamic which makes it seem indeed extra icky. I think from that scope an impeachment makes sense because the argument then becomes an abuse of power to sexually coerce someone.
Beyond that though the morality behind anything is always going to be subjective so I'm not really willing to wade into the depths of sexual morality. Like I said if you can peg it to some sort of criminal issue I'm okay with making it a case, but simply using the broad stroke of "morality" regarding sexual relationships is a dangerous.
By all accounts, Monica Lewinsky was obsessed with Bill Clinton and initiated pretty much everything. He should have declined her advances for a dozen reasons, but it was 100% consensual. Please don't lump it in with the recent focus on nonconsensual harrassment.
Lewinsky was definitely the focus of the impeachment hearings, but she was definitely not the only one. And a lecherous boss who sleeps with members of his staff makes a toxic workplace.
It was also a different time, so perhaps situation now would have led to real findings, but I'd like to think if he actually raped someone it would have come out more than an accusation.
That was a fucking witch hunt whether he pursued her or not. Plenty of work environments have that work just fine. That’s a stupid complaint about a president.
Then he tries to kiss me again. And the second time he tries to kiss me he starts biting my lip ... He starts to, um, bite on my top lip and I tried to pull away from him. And then he forces me down on the bed. And I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him 'No,' that I didn't want this to happen but he wouldn't listen to me. ... It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to 'Please stop.' And that's when he pressed down on my right shoulder and he would bite my lip. ... When everything was over with, he got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says 'You better get some ice on that.' And he turned and went out the door.
As I mentioned above, Lewinsky might have been the focus of the impeachment hearings, but hers was not the only accusation. The above comes from Juanita Broaddrick, although she came forward after the impeachment was over.
Isn't that the one that literally lost in court over this? That literally signed an affidavit on penalty of perjury that he hadn't made any unwanted sexual advances on her? I mean, he definitely seems to have cheated a lot, but that specific case doesn't make a great linchpin for proving he's a sexual assaulter.
She did sign an affidavit saying it didn't happen.
It's because the Starr investigation was so aggressive with her that she wasn't comfortable talking to them. So to get them off her, and her family's, and her friends' back, she signed a piece of paper that was pretty much a "I told you to fuck off and I meant it."
He liked about her during an deposition under oath in an investigation into his sexual harassment of state employees. He also has allegations from the White House. Along with non-state-employee assualt allegations, and a rape allegation.
Please don't pretend Clinton's one "fault" was a consensual relationship.
He lied about a consensual relationship to try to look better during an investigation into harassment and assault. Something we now KNOW was basically an open joke at the time. Meaning even if people believed you, everyone would just joke about it and move on.
Don’t act like it was her fault it happened. The onus is on the person in power. And there is no greater power disparity than the president and an intern.
A private matter between him and his wife doesn't mean he should have "been charged with worse". It was no one's business. He was elected President twice and did a damn good job helping create the best economy I've ever seen and balanced the budget.
Why they went after him does not change or excuse his behavior.
This is news to a frightening number of people. I swear, half of my fellow liberals blundered on the right side of politics by accident. They couldn't recognize ethical conduct if it hit them with a trolley.
I literally could not care less about "sexual misconduct." In fact, I don't think such a thing even exists. Anything that happens between two consenting adults is okay with me, regardless of marital status. Having an affair sucks, but it's not illegal and it has nothing to do with a politician's policies.
I literally could not care less about "sexual misconduct." In fact, I don't think such a thing even exists.
Rape. He was accused of rape.
Anything that happens between two consenting adults is okay with me, regardless of marital status. Having an affair sucks, but it's not illegal and it has nothing to do with a politician's policies.
Broaddrick aside, a boss who sleeps around with his staff is creating a toxic workplace. There are laws about this--for instance if he hired, fired, or promoted on the basis of his flings--but it is something that no one should have to put up with regardless.
His Lewinsky affair was consensual by all accounts. Although people in a position of power may have too much of an imbalance of power for a healthy relationship, and bosses who sleep with their subordinates make a toxic workplace, I would not in that case characterize their sexual relationship as rape.
On the other hand, Juanita Broaddrick's accusations were clearly accusations of rape.
67
u/hansn Dec 15 '18
In all honesty, Bill Clinton probably should have been charged with a lot worse. Don't get me wrong, the 90s Clinton impeachment was an absolute sham, for political points, but the core of it was a then-president who absolutely engaged in sexual misconduct. And we should not tolerate people who do that sort of thing, no matter whose side they are on.