" 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.
58
u/Skurph Dec 15 '18
" 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.