Where's the indictment against Bill Clinton?

I don't know why you would either, much less defend him as you said you did.

I spent a fair amount of time defending him lo these many years ago, when, ahem, the context was quite a bit different. The impeachment was a ridiculous dog-and-pony show. The Republican party was led by reprobates yet awash in piety. There were truly insane and unhinged calumnies about the Clintons floating around in otherwise reputable circles. So, yeah, under those circumstances I defended Bill. Actually, on some points, I still would. To reiterate my earlier point, a defense of the Clintons under those circumstances does not preclude clearheadedness about who and what they are.

Am I defending him now, if all that I'm saying is that equating him to AN ALLEGED SERIAL RAPIST is a stretch? Criminy, man.

As for your voting plans, good on you. You must sleep well at night, being so prodigiously endowed with principle.
 
^^^ That's what I'm looking for without any need to give extended caveats. They aren't necessary, imho. He has been and likely still is (by the fact of his flying with Epstein) a predatory, adulterous, sexist pig. The allegations, the known abuse of his power, the pay-off, the repeated stories of victims being threatened, seem worthy to have his sins bumped up in the moral calculus from mere venial category, imho. The Clintons are a Arkansas, money-grubbing, power-couple with few scruples. I only have growing disdain for them.

Though of course I don't agree with him, support for President Obama, on the other hand makes sense and I commend it.

Put policy agreement/disagreement aside, if I had the opportunity to pull the lever for a Clinton, for a Hastert, for a Gingrich, etc., knowing what we know, I will not do it. That's me. If I were a D I'd pull it for Sanders. And not vote if it's Clinton.

I'm to this point with the Rs as well. My field is narrowing.

I realize there are no morally perfect candidates, but I'm done with considering supporting known deviants and their enablers who then hypocritically preach against sexism, or what have you.

As I said, I don't like it.

As you may have suspected, I voted for Obama when he ran against Clinton.

As you might guess, I'll be voting for Sanders in the primaries.

But—as echoes what Julio said—I won't choose to not vote for Hillary Clinton because of the crimes of her husband. I may not ultimately vote for her in the general election (though I'll certainly vote against Donald Trump, if he is the eventual nominee)—but if I don't vote for her, it won't be because I treat her as some "prodigal wife"; it'll be because she's too internationally hawkish* and too domestically corporation-favoring.

*(Though, I have to say, with every priceless historical artifact that ISIL destroys, I come closer and closer to embracing the dark-side of interventionist hawkishness. RIP Palmyra.)
 
^^I can and do respect that jp.

As you might guess, I suspect that Hillary not only tolerates her husband's behavior, she ran the machine that went after his alleged victims, a vicious political machine. I find her talk about rape and sexism particularly nauseating. So, it's not all about his crimes for me. Just don't see her as the aggrieved, long-suffering, wife. I see her as part of the problem.

If she were running as an R and Obama as a D, I'd likely vote for him or not vote.
 
I spent a fair amount of time defending him lo these many years ago, when, ahem, the context was quite a bit different. The impeachment was a ridiculous dog-and-pony show. The Republican party was led by reprobates yet awash in piety. There were truly insane and unhinged calumnies about the Clintons floating around in otherwise reputable circles. So, yeah, under those circumstances I defended Bill. Actually, on some points, I still would. To reiterate my earlier point, a defense of the Clintons under those circumstances does not preclude clearheadedness about who and what they are.

Am I defending him now, if all that I'm saying is that equating him to AN ALLEGED SERIAL RAPIST is a stretch? Criminy, man.

As for your voting plans, good on you. You must sleep well at night, being so prodigiously endowed with principle.

It probably has little to do with my sleep. It is something of an on-going quandary though isn't it? Are we pragmatists when it comes to voting? Swallowing a bitter pill for what we hope will be the greater good (which we inevitably seem to equate with the defeat of the opposing party's candidate). Or do we get to a point that we say, "no further." Especially knowing again that our political process and national culture militates against the decent and good politician. Maybe I'm justing getting too old and jaded.
 
Again, fascinating.

Let's look at just the ones we know of:

Flowers - consensual - Lied about it. 'He just had sex with her once' - yeah right, Billy! The Clinton machine vilified her (got to always blame the woman). After she went public, Flowers claimed her house was broken into three times and ransacked. And her mother was threatened.

Lewinsky - consensual, abuse of his power over a 22 year old, who has been subsequently ground up rather nicely in the Clinton machine - oh, and he lied about it

Gracen - poor Bill, she threw herself on him - oh, and oh, Clinton campaign manager Kantor "requested" (I'm sure sweetly) that she not go public. The machine has been working for a long time.

Browning - nice little 22 year affair. Here's her testimony of how it ended:



"Our relationship ended abruptly in January of 1992 when Billy would not return my telephone call. I told his secretary, Linda, that a tabloid had the story about me and Billy. I asked her to have him call me and he refused. Instead he had my brother, who was, at that time, working in the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, call me from Billy's New Hampshire apartment or office. My brother said that Billy was afraid to talk to me because everyone thought that I might record the conversation as Gennifer Flowers had done. He said "we" think you should deny the story. He finally said: "if you cooperate with the media we will destroy you."

Miller - Well old horn-dog has a thing for the beauty pageant gals. Would he learn not to be such an are-hole to his "bimbos?" Well, it is hard teaching an old dog new tricks:

"She told Ambrose Evans Pritchard of the London Sunday Telegraph that in 1992 she was visited by a Democratic Party staffer. "They knew that I went jogging by myself and he couldn't guarantee what would happen to my pretty little legs." (As further reported in the Wall Street Journal International, October 27, 1998.)"

"Trailerpark" Jones - oh yes, settle for $850,000. That took care of those harassment charges.

Willey - well, not so sure about that one. Did he grope her? I wouldn't be shocked either way.

Broaddrick - WaPo writes, "The nursing home administrator emerged after the impeachment trial to allege that 21 years earlier Clinton had raped her. Through an attorney, Clinton denied the claim, and there were inconsistencies in her story. However, several of her friends backed her claim. No charges were ever brought. (Here’s a link to the Dateline NBC interview with her in 1999.)"

And we all suspect the list is much longer. WaPo again writes:

Peter Baker, in “The Breach,” the definitive account of the impeachment saga, reported that House investigators later found in the files of the independent prosecutor that Jones’s lawyers had collected the names of 21 different women they suspected had had a sexual relationship with Clinton. Baker described the files as “wild allegations, sometimes based on nothing more than hearsay claims of third-party witnesses.” But there were some allegations (page 138) that suggested unwelcome advances:

“One woman was alleged to have been asked by Clinton to give him oral sex in a car while he was the state attorney general (a claim she denied). A former Arkansas state employee said that during a presentation, then-Governor Clinton walked behind her and rubbed his pelvis up against her repeatedly. A woman identified as a third cousin of Clinton’s supposedly told her drug counselor during treatment in Arkansas that she was abused by Clinton when she was baby-sitting at the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock.”


Then there's the Lolita Express. How many times do the log books show that Horn-dog Billy flew on Epstein's funship? "Repeatedly" - more than 10 times.

And then finally, there are a few other allegations floating around out there like Wellstone (she was a teenager, he was 23), Moffet, James, Zercher - all alleged assaults. And numerous other affairs.

Hey, but he's just a cad. They are all lying. Bimbos. So, glad Hillary stood by her man. Thrilled that the machine can get back to work - that's is if old Horn-dog's ticker still works well enough.

We've known he was a lech since the "cigar" incident.
 
Simply dismissing Clinton's behavior as 'lecherous' is practically enabling him. Dude has an addiction.
 
"Dude" is also a 69 year old man with a history of heart troubles.
and, everything else that goes (or doesn't go) with being a 69 year old man

My guess is he wishes your points were valid
////

Again it appears scratching the surface isn't her detractors strong suit
 
"Dude" is also a 69 year old man with a history of heart troubles.
and, everything else that goes (or doesn't go) with being a 69 year old man

My guess is he wishes your points were valid
////

Again it appears scratching the surface isn't her detractors strong suit

57, I know you live in an alternate reality, but you do realize that they make boner drugs now, right? Might be of some personal benefit.
 
Given Clinton's current health it likely wouldn't represent a significant obstacle.

How this is relevant is certainly intriguing though.
 
Back
Top