• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Bill Clinton going to get jammed at this late date for his abuse of women?

You are avoiding at least one situation that wasn't consensual. There are more out there but one that was settled in court. He has a behavioral pattern that people will and should believe.

You mean how he settled with Paula Jones ?

The woman who used the accusations to get in the national spotlight so she could sell books and pose for playboy ?

I find it hard to take that woman seriously. I think President Clinton just paid her off to shut her up. Iirc, the settlement ended up not even covering her attorney fees, and the judge scolded her for not having a case.

Broaddick or w/e never said anything until there was no evidence except her word. And she didn't give that for a loooooong time. And she was cheating on her husband at the time.

Like i said, i can't rule out their accusations, that would take a leap of faith. Still, presuming he's guilty would be another leap of faith. This is a big part of the reason why i think victims of rape have a loose obligation to confront their aggressors, if not for themselves, but for other, potential victims. Waiting 20 years to mention it makes the case much weaker on evidence while also looking more like a potential publicity stunt for someone in the public eye like President Clinton.
 
You dont think people who know the Clinton and have an opinion of them dont remember the Monica Lewinsky scandal or know about Bill Clinton's sexual antics?

The Clintons count on people not remembering. If it is as you say then it doesn't matter. I disagree. I think it will hurt Hillary's campaign. So do most journalists and pundits.
 
You mean how he settled with Paula Jones ?

The woman who used the accusations to get in the national spotlight so she could sell books and pose for playboy ?

I find it hard to take that woman seriously. I think President Clinton just paid her off to shut her up. Iirc, the settlement ended up not even covering her attorney fees, and the judge scolded her for not having a case.

Broaddick or w/e never said anything until there was no evidence except her word. And she didn't give that for a loooooong time. And she was cheating on her husband at the time.

Like i said, i can't rule out their accusations, that would take a leap of faith. Still, presuming he's guilty would be another leap of faith. This is a big part of the reason why i think victims of rape have a loose obligation to confront their aggressors, if not for themselves, but for other, potential victims. Waiting 20 years to mention it makes the case much weaker on evidence while also looking more like a potential publicity stunt for someone in the public eye like President Clinton.

I agree that he DID pay her off to shut her up. It wasn't a nuisance amount. It was 850k. Her attorneys got most of that. That is a lot to just get someone to shut up, unless they had a solid case. Look at it this way, feminists say that the way a woman dressed doesn't open them up to rape. The same would apply to posing for Playboy. just because she posed for Playboy doesn't mean she wasn't sexually assaulted. Hillary was also complicit in smearing Jones, who should be believed because Hillary said she should be believed.

Another point that we haven't addressed yet is your first post where you ignored the Jones case and only referred to the Monica situation. Is this selective memory or did you honestly forget?
 
Last edited:
Yes and no.

Trump's current supporters aren't going to be perturbed by such an action.

Certainly, if he aggressively attacks her husband, our former president, that could alienate a good number of potential Trump supporters in the general.

I think it is going to stick because he has a pattern that the public in general knows about. Hillary made a big mistake trying to point fingers at Trump. The only ones that it won't have any influence on is the strong liberal base.
 
I agree that he DID pay her off to shut her up. It wasn't a nuisance amount. It was 850k. Her attorneys got most of that. That is a lot to just get someone to shut up, unless they had a solid case. Look at it this way, feminists say that the way a woman dressed doesn't open them up to rape. The same would apply to posing for Playboy. just because she posed for Playboy doesn't mean she wasn't sexually assaulted. Hillary was also complicit in smearing Jones, who should be believed because Hillary said she should be believed.

Another point that we haven't addressed yet is your first post where you ignored the Jones case and only referred to the Monica situation. Is this selective memory or did you honestly forget?

$850k is a lot but the judge dismissed the case before the trial even took place. President Clinton paid her off so she'd give up her lengthy attack of appeals. Further, i'm pretty sure she was claiming sexual harassment, not rape.

Like i said, i can't prove that any of the allegations are definitively false. All i can say is that we have no good reason to take any of the criminal allegations entirely at face value, either. Extramarital affairs are not illegal.

I don't know what your last paragraph is referring to. I started by responding to the Juanita Broaddrick link from Crovax. I am familiar with the Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Juanita Broaddrick allegations. The one i take most seriously is Juanita Broaddrick's. Unfortunately, all she has is heresy, and i think false rape allegations are horribly destructive. They often destroy the recipients lives even if they are subsequently proven innocent.

Lastly, you could be justified in considering President Clinton a scumbag. After all, we do KNOW he had a number of extramarital affairs, that's a fair reason to think less of him. Still, i don't think it's a good thing to hold against Hillary.
 
$850k is a lot but the judge dismissed the case before the trial even took place. President Clinton paid her off so she'd give up her lengthy attack of appeals. Further, i'm pretty sure she was claiming sexual harassment, not rape.

Like i said, i can't prove that any of the allegations are definitively false. All i can say is that we have no good reason to take any of the criminal allegations entirely at face value, either. Extramarital affairs are not illegal.

I don't know what your last paragraph is referring to. I started by responding to the Juanita Broaddrick link from Crovax. I am familiar with the Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Juanita Broaddrick allegations. The one i take most seriously is Juanita Broaddrick's. Unfortunately, all she has is heresy, and i think false rape allegations are horribly destructive. They often destroy the recipients lives even if they are subsequently proven innocent.

Lastly, you could be justified in considering President Clinton a scumbag. After all, we do KNOW he had a number of extramarital affairs, that's a fair reason to think less of him. Still, i don't think it's a good thing to hold against Hillary.

Charges of perjury and obstruction of justice were brought against Clinton. Eventually, the court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000.

Judge Susan Webber Wright granted President Clinton's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages. As to the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, Wright ruled that Jones failed to show that Clinton's actions constituted "outrageous conduct" as required of the tort alongside not showing proof of damages caused by distress.[8] Jones appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where, at oral argument, two of the three judges on the panel appeared sympathetic to her arguments.

Clinton and his defense team then challenged Jones's right to bring a civil lawsuit against a sitting president for an incident that occurred prior to the defendant's becoming president. The Clinton defense team took the position that the trial should be delayed until the president was no longer in office, because the job of the president is unique and does not allow him to take time away from it to deal with a private civil lawsuit. The case went through the courts, eventually reaching the Supreme Court on January 13, 1997. On May 27, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Clinton, and allowed the lawsuit to proceed.[3] Clinton dismissed Jones's story and agreed to move on with the lawsuit.
In April 1999, Judge Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court for misleading testimony in the Jones case. She ordered Clinton to pay $1,202 to the court and an additional $90,000 to Jones's lawyers for expenses incurred,[16][17][18] far less than the $496,000 that the lawyers originally requested.[18]

Wright then referred Clinton's conduct to the Arkansas Bar for disciplinary action, and on January 19, 2001, the day before Clinton left the office of president, he entered into an agreement with the Arkansas Bar and Independent Counsel Robert Ray under which Clinton was stripped of his license to practice law in Arkansas for a period of five years.[19] His fine was paid from a fund raised for his legal expenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

It is a little more complicated than what you presented. 850k is a lot of money which the attorneys got the largest part of.

Hillary's involvement with enabling Bubba's behavior continued in the next post for length.
 

Hillary's enabling, cover up and smearing:

More from the wiki article about Bill, to set a pattern:
Lewinsky scandal connection

Jones's lawyers decided to show to the court a pattern of behavior by Clinton that involved his allegedly repeatedly becoming sexually involved with state or government employees. Jones's lawyers therefore subpoenaed women they suspected Clinton had had affairs with, one of whom was Monica Lewinsky. In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Based on testimony provided by Linda Tripp, which identified the existence of a blue dress with Clinton's semen on it, Kenneth Starr concluded that Clinton's sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

During the deposition in the Jones case, Clinton was asked, "Have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" The judge ordered that Clinton be given an opportunity to review the definition. It said that "a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person".[20][21][22] Clinton flatly denied having sexual relations with Lewinsky.[23] Later, at the Starr Grand Jury, Clinton stated that he believed the definition of sexual relations agreed upon for the Jones deposition excluded his receiving oral sex. It was upon the basis of this statement that the perjury charges in his impeachment were drawn up. Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. But despite Republican control of the Senate, Republicans were unable to muster the required two-thirds supermajority to convict, with 50 Senators voting guilty on the obstruction charge and 45 senators voting guilty on the perjury charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

in an appearance on NBC's Today she said, "The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewinsky_scandal
That is after she knew that Bill had screwed around with Monica and she blamed it on the "vast right wing conspiracy" but no blame for her husband. She was mad at him but she blamed it on the VRC and Monica.
What Donald Trump was referring to is one of the least attractive elements of Hillary Clinton’s personality — a take-no-prisoners approach to destroying anyone who gets in the way. Her close ally Sidney Blumenthal smeared Lewinsky as a “stalker” in conversations with reporters. Hillary herself described the young woman as “a narcissistic loony toon,” according to the personal papers of Diane Blair, a close Hillary friend from Arkansas.
When Paula Jones, an Arkansas state worker, and Kathleen Willey, a Democratic volunteer at the White House, accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment, minions of the Clintons systematically set out to discredit them. Ditto with Juanita Broaddrick, the owner of an Arkansas nursing home, who said Bill Clinton raped her when he was Arkansas attorney general in 1978. Indeed, Errol Louis of the New York Daily News stunned a CNN interviewer last week by noting that 14 women have accused Bill Clinton of some form of sexual abuse.
But to the extent that Hillary Clinton accuses Republicans of waging a “war on women,” the history of her husband’s record with women will blunt the effectiveness of her attack. Voters may have extended sympathy to Hillary as a wronged spouse back in the 1990s, but the one-third of voters who don’t remember the impeachment of Bill Clinton well may be surprised to learn just how big Hillary’s role in discrediting Bill Clinton’s accusers has been.
Read more at: Donald Trump & Hillary Clinton & Women
Continued next post for length
 
$850k is a lot but the judge dismissed the case before the trial even took place. President Clinton paid her off so she'd give up her lengthy attack of appeals. Further, i'm pretty sure she was claiming sexual harassment, not rape.

Like i said, i can't prove that any of the allegations are definitively false. All i can say is that we have no good reason to take any of the criminal allegations entirely at face value, either. Extramarital affairs are not illegal.

I don't know what your last paragraph is referring to. I started by responding to the Juanita Broaddrick link from Crovax. I am familiar with the Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, and Juanita Broaddrick allegations. The one i take most seriously is Juanita Broaddrick's. Unfortunately, all she has is heresy, and i think false rape allegations are horribly destructive. They often destroy the recipients lives even if they are subsequently proven innocent.

Lastly, you could be justified in considering President Clinton a scumbag. After all, we do KNOW he had a number of extramarital affairs, that's a fair reason to think less of him. Still, i don't think it's a good thing to hold against Hillary.

What Hillary says about the situation:
Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.
Except for those who survived your husband?
Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, & supported
What do you think the over/under is on the number of women your husband raped?
Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.
Hillary Tweets All Sexual Abuse Accusers Deserve To Be 'Believed,' Is Reminded Of Her Husband | The Daily Caller

Okay, done. That is a lot of research and the power didn't go out. It tried. We have a snow storm and are getting brown outs.
 
Worth remembering as The Donald makes another run at the Clintons abuse of women problem is this very important journalism piece from 08. I pasted the best half, but there is more at the link.


Only, she won't ever give that speech, will she? Because as much as Hillary Clinton the wife and the woman and the mom no doubt hates it, Hillary Clinton the candidate has largely benefited from her husband's extracurricular activities. That's because—and this is the tragic part—America seems to like her best when she's being victimized—by Bill or Rick Lazio or the media. In that sense, her husband is a useful prop who reminds us of the extent of her suffering.

She won't give that speech because the whole narrative of her candidacy—and more broadly, her life—is as rooted in grievance as Obama's is in getting past grievance.

Her biggest supporters are the women who see themselves in her and who feel that she is/they are owed this; after all she has/they have endured. But she won't give that speech because those women don't have as much in common with her as they think. Sure, her husband's behavior has humiliated her. But she has also helped him humiliate the women he's been involved with.

She won't give that speech because she has been on the wrong side of gender bias. OK, there is no right side, but she consistently relates to and protects and stands with the oppressors in the gender wars, not the victims. It isn't only that she stayed with Bill Clinton, but that she invariably sees him as the victim, preyed upon by a series of female aggressors.

According to Carl Bernstein's A Woman in Charge, as her husband prepared to run for president, she pushed to get sworn statements from women he'd been rumored to have been involved with, statements in which they were supposed to say they'd had no relationship with him. She even interviewed one of these women herself, at her law firm. She also led efforts to undermine Gennifer Flowers, whom she referred to as "trailer trash."

In an interview she gave after the Monica Lewinsky affair became public, Hillary spoke about how horribly her husband had suffered in his childhood as the result of being torn between the first two women in his life—his mother and grandmother. (Note: Again, in this scenario it's the women who are victimizing the poor little guy.)

Hillary Clinton can't give the speech because she has not always been so sisterly, and if her biggest fans knew who she really blamed—other women—they might not still be fans.

One of the most laudable things about Obama is that he always elects to rise above the politics of victimization. One of the most troubling things about Hillary Clinton is that she is never above cashing in on it.

What if Hillary Clinton gave a speech about gender? (And why she won't.)


Note: Hopefully this is not too long for DP. There are so many rules around here but a rule on this I do not see.
 
Worth remembering as The Donald makes another run at the Clintons abuse of women problem is this very important journalism piece from 08. I pasted the best half, but there is more at the link.
What if Hillary Clinton gave a speech about gender? (And why she won't.)
Note: Hopefully this is not too long for DP. There are so many rules around here but a rule on this I do not see.

It isn't too long.

It looks like the Clintons are trying to run from Trump. He is hitting the soft spots and they don't have a counter for it.
Hillary' Clinton's New Year's resolution: Ignore Trump | Daily Mail Online
Trump Spells Trouble for Clinton | The American Spectator
Trump and McCain Comment on Ted Cruz's Citizenship Video - ABC News
 
The Clintons count on people not remembering. If it is as you say then it doesn't matter. I disagree. I think it will hurt Hillary's campaign. So do most journalists and pundits.

It hurting Hillary's campaign at the current time or not is irrelevant. My post you originally quoted was in response to the OP when he seemed to be stating that Bill Clinton is viewed generally negatively by the American public...
 
It hurting Hillary's campaign at the current time or not is irrelevant. My post you originally quoted was in response to the OP when he seemed to be stating that Bill Clinton is viewed generally negatively by the American public...

Back pedaling big time.
 
Ignoring our more gender-fluid society, the skyscraper-obsessed Trump has hectored male rivals for being girlie men. But he knows Hillary is tough. So he’s wielding his knife on her most sensitive pressure point: her hypocrisy in running as a feminist icon when she was part of political operations that smeared women who told the truth about Bill’s transgressions. Hillary told friends that Monica was a “troubled young person” getting ministered to by Bill and a “narcissistic loony toon.” Hillary’s henchman Sidney Blumenthal spread around the story that Monica was a stalker and Charlie Rangel publicly slandered the intern as a fantasist who wasn’t playing with “a full deck.”

Trump may be a politically incorrect Frank Sinatra ring-a-ding type with cascading marriages to hot babes, but he knows that a retrospective of the Clintons’ cynical campaigns against “bimbo eruptions” will not play well in a politically correct society sensitized by epidemics of rape in colleges and the military and by the Cosby effect.

Bill hid behind the skirts of feminists — including his wife and esteemed women in his cabinet — when he got caught playing around. And feminists, eager to protect his progressive agenda on women, allowed the women swirling around Bill to become collateral damage, torched as trailer trash or erotomaniacs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/o...region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

Maureen Dowd, on point as almost always.
 
Monica Crowley

The conventional wisdom has long been that Mr. Clinton’s lewd, abusive past is itself a thing of the past. His serial extramarital affairs, including the one with the barely legal intern, Monica Lewinsky, his textbook sexual harassment of subordinates like Paula Jones, his alleged assault of Kathleen Willey and the rape alleged by Juanita Broaddrick, were considered old news, episodes litigated in the court of public opinion and dismissed for three reasons: 1) His piggery was already widely known; 2) a strong economy absolved many of his sins; and 3) the public took cues from his wife. “Hey, if she’s OK with his piggery, who are we to judge?”

This cleverly constructed protective shield is now crumbling because Mrs. Clinton, after enlisting her husband on the campaign trail in a retread of 1992’s “two for the price of one” deal, is oblivious to the political ground shifting beneath her.

Republican candidate Donald Trump does not play by anybody else’s rules, least of all Clinton-enforced ones, but apparently no one has informed Mrs. Clinton. So she gleefully and blindly launched an attack on his “penchant for sexism.”

You could almost see Mr. Trump’s rhetorical gun turret turn slowly toward her before he opened fire. “Be careful,” he warned on Twitter. And then, on MSNBC, he blasted her husband as “one of the great women abusers of all time,” adding, “I think Hillary is an enabler.” He then released an Internet ad tying her to the sex scandals of her husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner (husband of her closest aide, Huma Abedin) and Bill Cosby.

He dared to go where no traditional politician would — hitting the Clintons’ grotesque hypocrisy — and made it acceptable to question both Clintons’ character and judgment on women’s issues. Suddenly, Mrs. Clinton — self-styled champion of women and girls — came under criticism, particularly from news organizations such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, MSNBC and others that have long protected both Clintons.

Liberals are now far less inclined to defend them, perhaps because she is the candidate this time and he, the charming rogue, is not, or perhaps because the Democratic Party and the broader culture have changed. But the cosseting they once enjoyed and exploited is disappearing, and they are floundering without it.

Bill Clinton, a man never at a loss for words, was rendered speechless when asked by an ABC News reporter if his past were fair game. Later that same week, he dodged another reporter who asked him specifically about Mrs. Broaddrick’s charge of rape. Having never before had to account for his behavior, Mr. Clinton’s usual veneer of calculated unflappability dissolved.
MONICA CROWLEY: The deal with the Clinton devil is over - Washington Times
 
But Bill’s sex life, and the Clintons’ gifts for brazening it out, and, their ever-renewable get-out-of-jail card with the party elite (read white men), may now represent part of a larger schism within the Democratic Party. It’s amoral boomer former yuppies vs. ethical Millennial hipsters.
.
.
.
The new generation of Democrats — whom Hillary Clinton is not only a long way from winning over, but whose self-righteous identity, and startling embrace of Sanders, seem in part a response to her ethical quislingness — might appear to be a lot more like the family-values right wing than the polymorphous liberals who gave her husband a pass two decades ago. These new Democrats are virtuous, correct, ever-more doctrinaire, and inclined to lump unreconstructed white men of a certain age into a catchall of reactionary villains whom true believers must reflexively oppose.

Bill Clinton, in the view of this hardcore, is hardly different from Bill Cosby. (Juanita Broaddrick recently noted that Cosby accusers had helped revivify her own cause.)

It is an unforgiving time warp in which liberals of the present moment find themselves with nothing but contempt for liberals even of the recent past, with their sexual histories, attitudes, assumptions and various, unfortunate, passing utterances, the harshest litmus test.

Donald Trump throws a further wrench into this generation gap.

Well of course that is right....I have a daughter recently graduated UW Seattle who lives in seattle, UW being a VERY liberal school on a mission to spread their political views all across this land and hopefully infect the Chinese students, and to top it off my daughter took a women's studies major (two majors/three minors, a very smart hard working kid)....she and most of her friends barely considered Hillary she tells me.

Hillary has got to be a bit gobsmacked, because this came out of nowhere..Hillary has spent much of her adult life accumulating feminist bonafides, she expected to be the star of young women especially, treated like royalty by them for all the great things that Hillary imagines that she has done for young women, and then just like they abandoned her for Obama (which was supposed to be fluke because he is supposed to be a force of nature he is not, he actually kinda sucks) now they are ditching her for Bernie.

BERNIE SANDERS!


And Trump has much the same problem, as he expected to get a ton of young males who have been raised in this anti-male society where the women are advantaged on purpose and they are largely ignored unless they are making trouble and who have little going for them economically or educationally , far too many spending way too much time way too late in life sitting in the parents house playing video games , with far too many of them not getting sex and not even at this point even much liking women because women keep treating them poorly. These were supposed to be some of the strongest supporters of Trump, but it is not happening. Now maybe they are so beat down that they cant, and we know that they have spent all their lives being punished if they ever dared to show anger, so maybe they can not relate to the Anger of Trump as a rallying cry like older white men do. Maybe once Trump has been around long enough and thus is respectable enough (which will happen, no matter how much screaming we hear from some that he is not qualified) maybe then they will come around and support Trump, IDK.

Hillary has few political skills, she makes a life of being wrong so her being wrong about how to win over young people is notable but not surprising. But with Trump also misjudging the situation this question of why the young are reacting as they are has gone to near the top of the list of things that I am watching.


Wolff: That Clinton problem, once more
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom