Clinton: Standards Have Changed Over “What You Can Do To Someone Against Their Will”

Democrats and media figures continue to struggle with the truth of the abuses of former President Bill Clinton who has been accused by multiple women of everything from sexual harassment to rape.  Dozens of reporters have interviewed Clinton without seriousness questioning him on these past allegations until recently.  Even after a year of “MeToo” stories, only this month did an interviewer risk the ire of Clinton supporters to press the former president.  Clinton became immediately condescending and dismissive.  The continued muted response to Clinton’s past is evident after a rather shocking claim in a new interview with PBS NewsHour where Clinton explained that “what you can do to someone against their will” has simply changed.

In the interview posted by RealClearPolitics., Clinton says:
“I think the norms have really changed in terms of, what you can do to somebody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work. You don’t have to physically assault somebody to make them, you know, uncomfortable at work or at home or in their other — just walking around. That, I think, is good.”
Clinton previously has insisted that his conduct occurred at a different time and even said recently (while defending Al Frankin) “I am just an old-fashioned person.”
Clinton insisted that he was vindicated and continues to parse words to excuse his inexcusable conduct:

While some are praising this interview, how about the hundreds of interviews conducted over the last 20 years that entirely ignored Clinton’s past in hitting on subordinates and being accused of physical assaults against women?  Now one interviewer finally pushed Clinton (as opposed to asking a feeble questions and then moving on in the interview). It is being treated as long overdue by the very people who did nothing for decades of favorable coverage.
His co-author James Patterson has also testily dismissed all of the allegations by all of the women as old news and chastised the reporter by saying “stop already.”  So Patterson believes that it is sufficient that a matter was “20 years ago”?  If that were the standard for Harvey Weinstein, he would still be making movies rather than facing a rape charge.
Nevertheless, the long and concerted effort to protect the Clintons has been evident for years.  Clinton is only now being questioned when there is no alternative due to the coverage. Notably, the exchange of the reporters in the clip above gave credit to Clinton for “acknowledging that the standards had changed.”  The standards haven’t changed. It was an outrage then as it is now. Clinton was simply not held to the same standard by Democratic supporters and media.  Indeed, none of this has stopped his supporters from flocking to his events and buying his new book. In that sense, not much has changed.

 

198 thoughts on “Clinton: Standards Have Changed Over “What You Can Do To Someone Against Their Will””

    1. David Benson owes me two citations after three weeks, one from the OED. – I don’t think you have ever had either the hat or cattle. You are way out of your field here, David. And, as is usual, you make a broad-brush statement with nothing to back it up. Did you hear Dennis Rodman when he told CNN that he told Obama 5 years ago that Un wanted to meet with certain conditions? And that Obama and his people brushed him off? It was only in the original live broadcast interview from Singapore. That section was cut from later versions broadcast on CNN. Rather than jump on that very interesting tidbit, Cuomo wanted to know if Un spoke English.

      Un is living under the stick. They have shown him the carrot and told him how to get it. The choice is his.

        1. David Benson owes me two citations after three weeks, one from the OED. – They are all Mr. Kim, Un is third in line. I use Un to make sure we know which of the three we are talking about. Does that clear things up for you? As I said, you are out of your field, way out of your field.

          1. All hat, no cattle.

            The current dictator of North Korea has no living parents. In case you hadn’t noticed.

            1. David Benson owes me two citations after three weeks, one from the OED. – The mother is a state secret who died in 2004.

                1. David Benson owes me two citations after three weeks, one from the OED. – You STILL do not understand the concept of the Gish Gallop. You and L4D ought to get together. She learns a new logic fallacy term and drives it into the ground for a week, however, she really does not understand it.

                  1. Having listened to Gish do his Gallop, I understand it quite well. As I wrote previously, thickhead.

                    1. David Benson still owes me two citations after three weeks, one of them from the OED. – David, you cannot do a Gish Gallop with a single true statement. You may have seen Gish in action, however, you clearly did not understand what was going on.

  1. Bill should have known better than to do a publicity tour. The Clinton’s are poison to this country. They have no common sense and no sense of decency. However, I have no earthly idea why these media personalities insist on re-litigating this nonsense.

    It would be incredibly decent if the Clinton’s, the McCain’s, the Bush’s and The Obama’s would exit the public stage, for the good of the country.

  2. For anyone to actually say what Bill Clinton is quoted as saying in the headline renders said individual as a very sick person indeed. I have heard later that Clinton denies the obvious meaning of those words as being something other than what he meant, but he’s the one that said it!

    Words have meaning, Bill. And sometimes they mean things different than what you think they mean. Some people were apparently fooled by your statement of, “It all depends upon what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” Not me; it showed you as a contemptible liar. Now I think I can add “creep” to your character description.

  3. There are many issues which this statement and Clinton’s actions bring to the forefront. First, he is a sexual predator. If he did not have money and connections he would be in jail. And that’s the problem. He’s not in jail.

    Powerful people of both legacy parties are getting away with rape, harrassment and sexual predation. Many times, this is out of the control of ordinary people, even people in law enforcement who are told to shut up and move on. That’s what lack of the rule of law does FOR the powerful and TO victims.

    This has happened with sexual predation, torture and murder. If you have enough power, although you commit far worse acts than most criminals, you simply aren’t called a criminal. Victims have little recourse because the rule of law does not apply to the powerful. This is injustice in one of its most brutal forms.

    There is however, an aspect of this situation which ordinary people could help. Instead, too often we completely fail other human beings who are the victims of the powerful. This isn’t specific to either major party. The failure to hold the powerful to account because they belong to “your” party is, frankly, despicable. The worship of celebrities, political or otherwise, is ignorant and damaging. Every person should be accountable for their cruelty, injustice and unlawful behavior towards others. Because we as a group of citizens tend to defend wrongdoing when done by “our” camp, this wrong doing simply continues and more victims are racked up. Bill Clinton is a prime example of this but by no means is he the only example.

    We may not have the ability to end the lawlessness of powerful men and women, but we could at least try. The first step is stopping the defense of actions which are indefensible.

    1. And, on cue, we get the issue of Jill’s imagination. Natacha’s gambit was to bob and weave in attempt to craft some sort of standard which would exonerate the Clintons and the Kennedys while condemning the Trumps. Jill’s now attempting the everyone-is-doing-it gambit.

      1. N,
        I do not read in Jill’s statement that “everyone is doing it”.

        She is advocating that we actually hold to the concept that all are equal under the law and that she is tired of the inequality, especially when it is irrationally defended because the accused has a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ after their name or serve some other political role for a ‘team’. Both Clinton’s have gotten finger-waggings because of their position. They are the most egregious examples, but there are others– examples of which we read about on this blog. She does not need to write the long and annoying list of those who are held to different metrics than the rest of us simply because of position or wealth.

        1. Jill’s not offering any argument in good faith and she has lurid fantasies about the world in which she lives. The impunity of the Clintons is quite unusual.

          1. N,
            They may be the most egregious. However, if you or I lied to Congress, I doubt it would be ignored. Clapper lied with impunity. Comey mishandled government documents, and looked the other way as Hillary Clinton did too. I believe there is a sailor who is suing because of the flagrantly unfair way his case of mishandling information was handled compared to Hillary’s.

            You may disagree with most of Jill’s other perspectives, but on this one, there should be some common ground.
            Jill is chastising those who excuse the famous or the powerful’s wrongdoing because they are liked. That is a very non-partisan stance. How has that been offered in bad faith? Because you disagree vehemenently with so many of her other views?

            1. You may disagree with most of Jill’s other perspectives, but on this one, there should be some common ground.

              No, there shouldn’t. You’re describing people out of a tiny and well-connected circle. Go ask Conrad Black if he could ever operate with impunity.

              1. N,
                “You’re describing people out of a tiny and well-connected circle.”

                Who should not be above the rule of law either.

                Obviously, Conrad Black was expendable or not in that well-connected inner circle. Not one person should be above the rule of law for any reason, not if ‘you’ agree with their politics, their art, their athletic skill, no reason should exempt anyone from being subject to the rule of law–that was her point.

      2. And Nii’s gambit remains the abject denial that sexism exists or has ever existed, because all men, according to Nii, are supposedly driven by forces beyond their control to misbehave in the manner of sexist pigs. The only existent things that are relevant to Nii are community standards. The more repressive, the better. Unless and until, that is, women dare to promulgate those “repressive” community standards. And then the community of men must repress “that” community of women. But even then Nii would still not “categorize” that last mentioned behavior as “sexist” nor “sexism.” Let’s call that the pretzel-logic gambit.

        1. ‘Sexism’ is not a coherent concept. It is a rhetorical thrust. Invoking it does not advance any discussion.

          because all men, according to Nii, are supposedly driven by forces beyond their control to misbehave in the manner of sexist pigs.

          Again, Diane, you’re attributing to people things they’ve neither stated nor implied. Because you’re dishonest and never stop playing games.

          1. Thanks for overlooking a stellar opportunity to attribute my dishonest gamesmanship to the fairer sex writ large. It’s just me and Jill and Natacha and . . . whoever else. Likewise, it’s not all men who are sexist pigs driven by forces beyond their control. It’s just Trump and Clinton and Hart and . . . whoever else.

            Needless to say, locker-room talk supposedly remains just about anything else besides a mere rhetorical thrust, because invoking locker-room talk supposedly advances the discussion. In any case, the notion that those endowed with a uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes and the like are naturally inferior to those with other endowments is supposedly not a coherent concept that had ever advanced any discussion. Because . . . purportedly honest gamesmanship.

  4. No, the standards haven’t changed. Rape was still considered wrong a few decades ago. Making someone “miserable at work” was still a recognizably rotten thing to do. You either have ethics and morals, or you don’t. The difference is that back then, it was a girl’s father, brothers, cousins, and friends who would beat the crap out of the perp if the legal system did nothing. His celebrity status protected him from that. His comments were highly disturbing and show an entitled mentality devoid of empathy for his victims. I am glad that Juanita Broderick lived to see the day when she was finally believed.

    Now women can handle most of these issues ourselves. Consequences are required as a deterrent.

    What about the infamous “waitress sandwich” between Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd? They were in a private room at a restaurant, grabbed a waitress, threw her down on Chris’s lap and trapped her there while Ted ground his privates against her from behind. She was rescued only when someone else walked in. Is Bill implying that no one thought this was wrong back then? Because I’m pretty sure the sobbing waitress thought so.

    The only thing that changed is that it is no longer politically expedient to ignore Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct, or Hillary Clinton’s attacks on his accusers.

    As for Trump, the allegations of his cheating 10 years ago with a porn star are wrong and gross, if true. With his history of failed marriages, I tend to think it’s true. I don’t know. Stormy Daniel’s constantly changing the story and her financial motivations don’t help her credibility. The problem when you cheat is that if you are accused of cheating in the future, people tend to believe it. His infidelity is something we all knew about, and most people disliked. Hopefully he doesn’t cheat while in the White House. The French are expected to cheat, but they are more discrete. They don’t sell their stories to tabloids. I also dislike their paradigm. Trump bragged about girls allowing him to do anything he wanted, including grabbing them, because he was famous. I took that to mean that he was talking about groupies who are, by definition, ready and willing to do anything to get together with famous men. It’s consensual. If he ever did walk up to a non consenting woman and make a waitress sandwich like Kennedy did, then I would expect it to be treated like assault just like any other person who isn’t a Kennedy or a Clinton. But I certainly don’t get worked up over a man bragging about groupies. I live in CA, the land of movie stars, rock bands, and groupies. It’s not something I would get involved in, but it’s also not something I’d clutch my pearls over. I’ve met movie stars and bands. Treat yourself with respect and others will, too.

    1. The difference is that back then, it was a girl’s father, brothers, cousins, and friends who would beat the crap out of the perp if the legal system did nothing.

      Don’t think that was particularly common in 1975, and where you did find that sort of rough justice, it was among wage-earners, not professional people. There’s a sequence of events in The Great Gatsby where the protagonist is warned away from an object of his interest by the woman’s brother. Keep in mind, The Great Gatsby is set in 1922.

      1. That was a good book.

        I agree that his status was Bill Clinton’s shield.

        And, yes, rough justice still happened in the 1970s, as well as today, and not only among the blue collar. However, it typically happens spur of the moment. Someone sees a girl get abused and gets involved. A girl came home injured and someone would drag the perp to jail, worse for wear. The legal system is the right way to go instead of vigilantism. I only support brining an abuser to justice, not taking it into your own hands. It doesn’t do the victim any good for her family to get into trouble. One has only to do a casual search of this year’s headlines and you will find a father charged the pedophile doctor who abused gymnasts in court, as well as other stories. Of course, the justice system was working, and he was merely expressing frustration.

        Mostly, such warnings in modern times are in the form of, “I have a desert and a shovel. No one would miss you.” (I think the Dad in Clueless quoted that common line.)

        Clearly, Bill Clinton feared no consequences, not from the law, and not from loved ones of his victims.

  5. TRUMP AT SINGAPORE NEWS CONFERENCE:

    CAN’T SAY ANYTHING WITH ANY CERTAINTY

    President Donald Trump spent over an hour answering questions from reporters in Singapore after his historic handshake with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

    But when it came to offering any sort of timeline for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula – or anything else – he left himself plenty of exit chutes.

    Kim will begin dismantling his nuclear arsenal “very quickly,” Trump said vaguely. Throughout the press conference, however, he even hedged when it came to offering any definition of his concepts of “quickly” or “long.”

    Trump said he wants to withdraw the American troops currently stationed in South Korea. When, exactly, will that be?

    “At some point…I want to get our soldiers out,” he said. “At some point, I hope it will be, but not right now.”

    Trump expressed interest in traveling to North Korea’s capital, Pyongyang, to continue talks with Kim – but again demurred on a timeline. “At a certain time, I will,” he said. “I said that will be a day that I look very much forward to, at the appropriate time.”

    Kim might also visit Washington – date also TBD. “I also will be inviting Chairman Kim, at the appropriate time, to the White House,” Trump said.

    Trump promised that “ultimately, we’ll agree to something.”

    But the main timeline that Trump hedged was the one concerning denuclearization. “It takes a long time,” he said. “Scientifically, you have to wait certain periods of time.”

    At another point in the press conference, Trump actually disputed his own use of the words “long time.”

    Edited from: “Trump Is A Commitment-Phobe On North Korea Timeline

    Today’s POLITICO

    1. According to Politico’s account, Trump held a press conference and then proceeded to draw one long blank with regards to anything he ‘negotiated’.

      One must note that “Art Of The Deal” was penned by a ghostwriter.

    2. Peter – Obama and Kerry delivered pallets full of unmarked bills to Iran in exchange for an unsigned document in which they promised to behave themselves and not build nuclear weapons or fire ICBMs. They then proceeded to fire ICBMs at Israel with “Death to Israel” written on it. Iran started renegotiating immediately. Didn’t hold up their promises. There were no consequences. They basically got paid, and sanctions lifted, for nothing. And then this terrorist nation used our own money to fund terrorism and their military.

      Is that the bar which Trump will be judged by? Because that’s pretty easy. Trump could walk away from the summit, without a single accomplishment. As long as he doesn’t pay North Korea millions of dollars, he’d still be ahead of the game.

      Kim Jong Un is a spoiled, malevolent, homicidal maniac. He kills people by firing rockets at them. It might not be possible to negotiate decent behavior out of someone indecent and dishonorable. We will make nice and try, but I don’t know how much we’ll get. We’ll have to see. I do not want empty promises while he makes like Iran and continues to try to plot our genocide. How would promises he doesn’t intent to keep do us any good for our longevity?

      1. Karen, that was Iran’s money that Obama gave back. It had been frozen in U.S. banks since 1979. Every mainstream press account emphasized that point. But you obviously don’t follow mainstream media.

        1. They had no obligation to give Iran any money.

          Would you give money to ISIS to which they felt they had a claim? What about to a terrorist nation? Or would you hold that cash on ice indefinitely? Perhaps give it to victims?

          Are you defending giving pallets of cash of unmarked bills to a terrorist nation? Because if you are, we disagree.

          1. Karen,

            Obama was negotiating a nuclear accord. That frozen money was used as a bargaining chip. It wasn’t ‘our’ money to begin with. Furthermore, Iran is a Shia Muslim nation. They aren’t linked to ISIS. Nor are they linked to Al Queda or the Taliban. But Saudi donors have funded all three of those groups. Saudi Arabia is no better than Iran.

            And North Korea is quite arguably worse than Iran. Why is Trump complimenting such an evil dictator?

            It’s ridiculous to think Trump’s summit with North Korea is somehow honorable while Obama’s pact with Iran was ‘irresponsible’. Iran never had any nukes! They weren’t developed yet. North Korea has like 30 nukes. They were threatening us with nukes as recently as last winter.

            One should note that John Kerry and Obama spent ‘two’ entire years negotiating with Iran on that nuclear accord. Trump has only ‘begun’ negotiations with North Korea. It could easily take two years to achieve an agreement like Obama had with Iran. And we know Donald Trump has no grasp of details.

            It was clear, at his press conference in Singapore today, that Trump barely understands the issues at stake. He doesn’t know ‘what’ he’s negotiating. Nor does Trump really care. He’s just improvising! Like a reality show. That’s his background, you know.

            1. Peter:

              “Obama was negotiating a nuclear accord. That frozen money was used as a bargaining chip.” He got nothing for it. The agreement is an unsigned document, and they immediately violated their word when they launched ICBMs. They spent 2 years making suckers of themselves.

              Under no circumstances do you give a terrorist nation pallets of unmarked bills before they have done anything to earn it, other than say they will be really, really good. Is this even a question? If they suddenly became a democracy with relatively Western values, stopped funding terrorists, stopped the “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel” chants with which they open every elementary school in the country, and actually stopped their nuclear aspirations, then great. Did that happen? No. They continue to say, publicly, that they desire the destruction of the US and Israel, and they contravened their word when they launched ICBMs with “Death to Israel” scrawled on them. Does that sound like success to you, or like Obama and Kerry had been had?

              I’m sorry. If ISIS said, hey, we promise we’ll stop throwing gay men off of buildings and torturing and beheading people, now give us millions of dollars, would you do it without waiting to see if they actually turn over a new leaf? Would you think it was the most savvy deal in history if you gave in?

              It was a bad deal that was not only embarrassing, it made the world a more dangerous place and advanced the nuclear war countdown. We cannot afford to fail to rein in the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. The former is lead by an evil maniac with delusions of grandeur who may actually think he would survive a nuclear war with the US, and the latter values martyrdom and sacrificing its own innocent civilians for the cause of the destruction of the West and Israel. We were actually better off in the Cold War, because at least the USSR wasn’t suicidal.

              1. Well again Karen your views are purely right-wing media. I haven’t the time nor inclination to counter all that. We American’s now spend all our time just arguing over what the truth really is. And that’s because right-wing media presents ‘alternative facts’ to every single issue.

                1. Peter Hill, Just curious….care to share one or two of the sources of ‘unbiased’ and purely factual information you rely on to formulate your own opinions?

                2. Peter Hill – I hope this does come as too much of a shock to you, however, we conservatives are also Americans. 🙂 As conservatives, we do not have to argue over what the truth really is, we know what it is.

            2. Peter Hill – it has been reported that Obama has tried to call Kim but his number has been changed. Now, what would Obama be calling Kim about right before a summit?

        2. I would add that your assumption that I did not read their excuses, like most assumptions, was incorrect.

  6. We Interrupt This Discussion For A Treason Update

    TRUMP ALIENATES ALLIES IN CANADA..

    THEN HANDS KIM JONG UN VICTORY IN SINGAPORE

    By far the most substantive result of the summit was Mr. Trump’s sudden announcement of a freeze on U.S.-South Korean military exercises — a concession that apparently took the South Korean government and the U.S. military by surprise. With backing from China and Russia, which seek to diminish U.S. strategic standing in Asia, North Korea has long sought an end to the exercises — and until Tuesday, this and previous U.S. administrations had flatly rejected the idea. Now, Mr. Trump has adopted it — and, remarkably, used Pyongyang’s language in describing the “war games” as “provocative.”

    Mr. Trump portrayed his concession as an exchange for North Korea’s destruction of a test site for missile engines. But that demolition took place before the summit — and it is in no way comparable to the freezing of exercises, which could signal that the U.S.-South Korean security relationship is up for negotiation alongside North Korea’s arsenal. Mr. Trump’s further contention that stopping the maneuvers “will save us a tremendous amount of money” will deliver another shock to Asian and European countries that depend on the United States for defense.

    Edited from: “No More Concessions” by The Washington Post’s Editorial Board

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. First Trump sabotages the Nuclear Pact with Iran; claiming Obama “got nothing”.

      Then Trump goes to the G-7 Summit and alienates our historic western allies

      From G-7 Trump goes directly to Singapore where hands North Korea a stunning diplomatic victory.

      WHOSE INTERESTS IS TRUMP REPRESENTING???

      1. EVEN FOX NEWS IS UNSETTLED BY TRUMP’S PERFORMANCE IN SINGAPORE

        President Trump, as part of the historic summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, reversed longstanding U.S. policy by calling for an end to military drills on the Korean Peninsula and saying he wants to bring U.S. troops home from the region – the president’s latest convention-defying move on the international stage in less than a week.

        “We will be stopping the war games, which will save us a tremendous amount of money unless and until we see the future negotiation is not going along like it should,” Trump said after his meeting with Kim. “But we’ll be saving a tremendous amount of money. Plus, I think it’s very provocative.”

        He also said he wants to “bring our soldiers back home” from the region, though added this is not “part of the equation right now.”

        TRUMP, KIM AGREE TO RECOVERING AND RETURNING US MILITARY REMAINS FROM KOREAN WAR

        While both moves would align with Trump’s general principles of cutting costs and pulling soldiers back from conflicts where possible, they are sure to cause concern in Seoul, which views the presence of U.S. troops and the military exercises as important to regional security.

        The South Korean government seemed to express nervousness about Trump’s remarks.

        “At this current point, there is a need to discern the exact meaning and intent of President Trump’s comments,” Seoul’s Defense Ministry said, according to the Associated Press, adding that there have been no discussions yet with Washington on modifying military drills set for August.

        A spokesman for U.S. Forces Korea, which has approximately 30,000 troops in the peninsula, said they’ve received “no updated guidance” in regards to military exercises.

        “The USFK has received no updated guidance on execution or cessation of training exercises — to include this fall’s scheduled Ulchi Freedom Guardian,” the spokesman said in a statement.

        Edited from “North Korea Summit: Trump Stuns Region With Call To End Military Drills”

        Today’s Fox New website

      2. Peter Hill – the meeting went so quickly that you have to realize that everything had been worked out in advance. They had probably met secretly in China earlier and worked out the details. Besides, if Un does not play ball, the games are back on.

        1. Paul, why did the meeting ‘go so quickly’..?? And ‘no’, it doesn’t sound like things were worked-out in advance. The Pentagon and South Korean government were caught totally by surprise when Trump said he was suspending military exercises.

          1. Peter Hill – it is not up to the Pentagon to have a say one way or the other right now. The SK government might have been surprised but Trump did call the SK president just before the meeting.

            1. The series of meetings between President Trump and the filthy little NK dictator will be judged by their results.
              If NK does not abandon its nuclear program and give up existing stockpiles it will have failed.
              If they do, Trump ought to get the Nobel prize.
              I hope for the latter but expect the former.

              1. wildbill99 – my understanding is that Un has to hit a series of performance markers for the sanctions to be lifted. This is a beginning, not an end. Pompeo is working out the details and timelines. Everyone is cautiously optimistic except the Lame Stream Media.

                1. wildbill99, my understanding is that Un has to hit a series of performance markers before Trump is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

                  1. L4D is enabling David Benson – Obama didn’t have to hit any performance goals, why should Un? Besides, the committee will probably give it to the Mayor of London for imprisoning Tommy Robinson.

                    1. There’s a new prize awarded every year, year after year. What’s the rush? If needs be, Trump could be awarded the prize after he’s out office.

                    2. L4D is enabling David Benson – if Trump got the Nobel Peace Prize at any point, Bill Clinton would commit suicide. He has been trying to get it for years.

                2. All that counts now is results. The only result that matters is the denuclearization of NK. I will gladly give Trump all the credit for that when and if it occurs.

                  1. wildbill99 – they have shown him both the carrot and the stick. The choice is Un’s. I am keeping my fingers crossed he will take the carrot.

    2. you wanna talk treason look no further than Congress members & Obama who tried to get the TPP through. More recent treason can be found straddling both sides of the aisle – DWS and Jeff Sessions – Awan bro’s cyber spying operation.

    3. Does anybody think the war games are not provocative? Of course they are. That is their purpose, show the other guy how strong you are.

      If peace comes from this, it’s a good thing. Trump may be an ass, sometimes asses do the right thing. Will peace come? Time will tell. The war games are provacotive.

        1. I just read a whole slew of opinions and it was really sad. They pretty much all agree that maybe something good might come from this, time will tell. But they all seemed to hope it doesn’t work out because trump is an ass.

          I find that very sad. I thought peace would be a good thing. Boy am I wrong.

          1. Trump is winning on every issue, including nuclear peace – that can’t be good! Right ?

            Seems ‘the resistance’ still haven’t figured out they are making daily in-kind donations to the committee to re-elect Trump …… for that we are grateful…….

        2. Peter Hill – if you were the Lame Stream Media would you give Trump credit for anything?

  7. Whatever Bill Clinton was accused of or did has no relevance to Trump, who is an unmitigated pig. Clinton’s affair with Lewinski was consensual, and she seduced him. Whatever JFK, FDR or Bill Clinton did, they never bragged about it or claimed any perceived right to grab womens’ private parts to a reporter. That is a key difference. They all had just one wife, and none of their wives was an uneducated foreign super model who posed naked. Oh, and they were all well-educated, understood how the U.S. government works and they were patriotic. There is no comparison whatsoever. Bill Clinton is old news, and there exists no valid reason for pivoting to him about his sexual misconduct all of these years later. That is a Fox News/Kellyanne maneuver, and it doesn’t validate Trump.

    1. It’s fitting that the most dishonest poster on this blog chooses this moment to post a load of nonsense. Bill’s criminal conduct with Juanita Broaddrick(raped), Kathleen Willey(groping), and Paula Jones(exposing himself) were not consensual. JFK asked his 19 year old secretary to blow another employee out by the pool while he watched from behind the curtains. JFK slept with men’s wives. It doesn’t matter that they never divorced…that’s silly of course. Melania is obviously well educated. She speaks five languages after all. The reason Bill is in the news is because he has just cowritten a book and is in the middle of a media tour! Natacha, you are such an obvious hack.

      1. JFK has been dead since 1963. How does what he did or didn’t do have any relevance to Trump and his personal and professional failures? I’m sorry–did I miss Bill’s conviction for raping Juanita Broaddrick? No? Then shut up about it because it’s nothing but an allegation, as opposed to Trump bragging about grabbing womens’ genitals on tape. Trump is the current story, not Bill Clinton, JFK, FDR, Julius Caesar or anyone else. Clinton’s book tour is not relevant to Trump, who is currently stinking up the White House and alienating our allies.

        Trump, et al, have lied about Melania’s education. First, they claimed she had an engineering degree. Trouble is, there is no university in Slovenia offering an engineering degree. Next, they claimed they spoke in error–they meant to say it was a degree in architecture. The only Slovenian university offering an architecture degree has no record of any Melania Knaves as a student. Trump lies about everything, so I doubt she’s actually fluent in 5 languages, but the nude photos don’t lie. Melania could be intelligent–I don’t know–but she’s not educated beyond high school, and she did pose nude and for lesbian porn. How long before someone shows Barron photos of his mother, if they haven’t already? She’ll never be a Jackie Kennedy, no matter how many designers dress her in expensive clothes. She’ll never be an Eleanor Roosevelt, who could have run for President and won after FDR’s death. There is nothing about this woman to admire. She married for money.

        1. She’ll never be a Jackie Kennedy, no matter how many designers dress her in expensive clothes. She’ll never be an Eleanor Roosevelt, who could have run for President and won after FDR’s death. There is nothing about this woman to admire. She married for money.

          Nutchacha thinks Jackie Kennedy was a romantic heroine. Read a little bit about the life-skills education Janet Lee Auchincloss imparted to the children of her 1st marriage, ignoramus.

          1. Jackie Kennedy was elegant, well-educated and made a positive impression everywhere she went. She didn’t pose for nude photos or do lesbian porn. Yes, I’m familiar with “American Geishas”, that criticized Jackie and Lee’s upbringing, which was part and parcel of the period and environment in which they were raised, but Jackie is still very well-respected. After Onassis’s death, she became a book editor. She was an excellent mother. At least JFK respected her, which is more than Melania has received from her husband. There is no comparison to Melania Trump.

            1. At least JFK respected her, which is more than Melania has received from her husband. There is no comparison to Melania Trump.

              Nothing says ‘respect’ like seducing a 19-year-old intern and passing her off to Dave Powers. Or attending a liquid party on a boat while you’re wife is giving birth.

              that criticized Jackie and Lee’s upbringing, which was part and parcel of the period and environment in which they were raised,

              Mothers are quite generally concerned with what they call their daughters’ ‘future’ and mothers and daughters look on men as providers (or put themselves through ‘interesting times’ when they fail to look on men as providers). That having been said, Janet Lee Auchincloss was just this side of Zsa Zsa Gabor, but not so hypergamous. And her daughters learned their lessons from her. An ordinary woman would have secured an annullment from JFK in 1954. Jackie didn’t. She had expensive tastes (and verry cynical views of men, the decency of her step-brother notwithstanding).

              1. Nothing says “respect” like walking away from the limo and ascending the stairs to the White House, leaving your wife to fend for herself. Nothing says “respect” like bragging to Billy Bush about grabbing womens’ genitals and kissing them without their permission at or near the time your child is born. Melania was purchased as an accessory. We all know that, so don’t try to pretend there are any family values involved.

                Jackie and Lee were brought up with the wealthy set and their values at Newport, Rhode Island. Her mother’s second husband, Hugh Auchincloss, was President of Standard Oil. Jackie was well-educated and well-traveled, and genuinely fluent in French, having spent one year there during college. Jackie worked as a photojournalist before she married JFK. After Onassis’s death, she saved Grand Central Station from developer trash like Trump. She had class and style, and was and still is respected. JFK respected her, too, even though he cheated on her. Where’s the proof of seduction of the 19 year old intern?

                I cannot fathom how you could criticize this woman who sat next to her husband when his head was blown apart by a sniper’s bullet. In her confusion, she grabbed chunks of skull, with his hair attached. She refused to change out of her blood-soaked clothes, to show the world what Oswald did to him. She suffered from PTSD the rest of her life, and after RFK was murdered, was convinced people would come for her children next. That’s why she married Onassis–he had the wealth and power to protect her and her children. She was a marvelous mother and person of genuine quality.

                1. Nothing says “respect” like walking away from the limo and ascending the stairs to the White House, leaving your wife to fend for herself.

                  You’re really scrounging at this point.

                  Nothing says “respect” like bragging to Billy Bush about grabbing womens’ genitals and kissing them without their permission at or near the time your child is born.

                  You seem to fancy this (private) conversation in September 2005 was the most significant historical event of the last generation.

                  Melania was purchased as an accessory. We all know that, so don’t try to pretend there are any family values involved.

                  No, you’re emotionally invested in that idea, which does not establish it’s truth. May-December marriages are quite unremarkable for wealthy men over a certain age. If she’s a purchased accessory, so’s Ted Kennedy’s 2d wife, James Webb’s 3d wife, and Robert Kennedy Jr’s 3d wife.

                  Jackie and Lee were brought up with the wealthy set and their values at Newport, Rhode Island. Her mother’s second husband, Hugh Auchincloss, was President of Standard Oil. Jackie was well-educated and well-traveled, and genuinely fluent in French, having spent one year there during college. Jackie worked as a photojournalist before she married JFK. After Onassis’s death, she saved Grand Central Station from developer trash like Trump. She had class and style, and was and still is respected. JFK respected her, too, even though he cheated on her. Where’s the proof of seduction of the 19 year old intern?

                  I’m afraid Mimi Alford’s story has been well known for nearly 20 years. A decade or so after her identity was made public by a Kennedy biography, she offered her own memoir. For someone so opinionated about the personal foibles of prominent politicians, it’s interesting what gets past you.

                  I cannot fathom how you could criticize this woman who sat next to her husband when his head was blown apart by a sniper’s bullet. In her confusion, she grabbed chunks of skull, with his hair attached. She refused to change out of her blood-soaked clothes, to show the world what Oswald did to him. She suffered from PTSD the rest of her life, and after RFK was murdered, was convinced people would come for her children next. That’s why she married Onassis–he had the wealth and power to protect her and her children. She was a marvelous mother and person of genuine quality.

                  No clue why you fancy this emotional blurt is anything but non sequitur. Nor why you fancy that suffering an unusual trauma grants someone a plenary indulgence.

            2. She was an excellent mother.

              Integral to her successes was keeping her children away from Ethel’s children. The Shrivers followed the same policy.

              When you read about Jackie, what impresses you is the degree to which upper class families of a certain era were anything but child-centered.

        2. JFK has been dead since 1963. How does what he did or didn’t do have any relevance to Trump and his personal and professional failures?

          Look at your 1:03 pm post, and you’ll see the matter of JFK was raised by the poster who signs herself ‘Natacha’.

          For progressives, yesterday is another country, and borders are closed.

          1. Nope. The majority of Americans are repulsed by Trump, his egotism, his disrespect for this country, his pathetic ego needs, his misogyny, racism and general crudeness. Trump is the relevant story, and no amount of pivoting to criticize Bill Clinton, FDR, JFK or anyone else excuses or mitigates his behavior.

            1. Aside from being false in toto, your response here is non sequitur.

              You really shouldn’t attribute your emotional states to others. You’re damaged. They’re not.

            2. Nope. Trump’s most recent approval numbers are higher than Obama’s were at the same time in his first term. Can you imagine grandma Hillary pulling off what Trump just did in Singapore? She just broke her foot and then her wrist and now she’s walking around hiding a volkswagon under her long jackets with giant scarves draped across her shoulders. Much of the country is quite happy with Trump. We dodged a dam bullet by keeping Hillary and the old tongue-chewin’ Bill out of the White House. No question about it.

              Nothing wrong with a world leader having a big ego, but now how is Trump a misogynist? Answer? He’s not. The man loves women and has appointed many women to positions of power within his administration – including the head of the CIA. Exactly how is he a racist? Answer? He’s not. How is he showing disrespect for this country? Answer? He’s not. You couldn’t be more wrong in your analysis. Better turn off MSNBC for the sake of your own mental/emotional well-being.

                1. Surprise suprise. Google is scrubbing search results to help hide creepy groper Joe Biden videos? Say it isn’t so.

                  1. TBob – if it helps you any, Creepy Uncle Joe got called out on his groppiness at one off his campaign stops.

                  1. If you watched the video, it shows a disturbing pattern of inappropriate ‘touchiness’ with Joe Biden groping young girls he doesn’t know, smelling their hair, caressing their faces, getting ‘in their personal space’ and clearly making them uncomfortable as he violates their personal boundaries. All of Washington DC knows that Biden is a serial groper and it is not normal behavior in the least. If Biden runs in 2020, he will get slammed for it.

        3. Natacha – Jackie Kennedy was not a virgin when she married and had as many affairs as Jack. Eleanor had at least two affairs while in the WH, one with a female, one with a male.

          1. and had as many affairs as Jack.

            Uh, no. I’m not sure any have been identified reliably other than Maurice Templesman. As for JFK, Adela Rogers St. Johns put it thus: “He screwed anything that didn’t have four legs..and I’m not sure he didn’t do that”. The only people you’re going to find as promiscuous as JFK are homosexual men steeped in the bathouse / toilet-trading culture.

          2. Where’s the proof for either of these specious claims? Also, did any of them pose naked or do lesbian porn? Were either of them purchased as an accessory because of their youth and super model looks? I didn’t think so.

                1. The “lesbian porn” consisted of two shots published in a French laddie magazine over 20 years ago.

                    1. A magazine which might have published such a photograph would have been a strictly underground phenomenon prior to 1965. You may have noticed that Rosalynn Carter in 1965 was 38 years old and had been through three pregnancies. There are only four 1st ladies who have been young at any time since 1965: HRC, Laura Bush, Michelle Obama, and Melania. HRC wasn’t particularly attractive as a young women. Laura Bush was handsome enough, but not the least bit voluptuous. So, you’re looking at a sample of…two.

    2. Whatever Bill Clinton was accused of or did has no relevance to Trump, who is an unmitigated pig.

      It doesn’t seem to occur to you that the private conversations of Friend of Jeffrey BC might be a trifle raunchy. (e.g. telling an Arkansas state trooper that Gennifer Flowers could ‘suck a tennis ball through a garden hose’).

      Clinton’s affair with Lewinski was consensual, and she seduced him.

      There is no credible evidence that Trump’s had ‘non-consensual’ encounters with anyone . (There is incredible evidence, but that’s of no account). OTOH, there is Juanita Broaddrick.

      Whatever JFK, FDR or Bill Clinton did, they never bragged about it or claimed any perceived right to grab womens’ private parts to a reporter.

      Actually, John Kennedy told the Prime Minister of Britain, “If I don’t get a strange piece of ass each day, I get a headache”. Mr. MacMillan was asked about the new Administration and said, “Rather like the Borgia brothers have taken over a respectable north Italian town”. And, of course, Trump said nothing about ‘rights’. He said women will allow you to be fresh and invasive when you’re a celebrity. Because they will.

      That is a key difference.

      It’s not a difference at all, and no one who thinks rather than emotes would claim it was.

      They all had just one wife, and none of their wives was an uneducated foreign super model who posed naked. Oh, and they were all well-educated, understood how the U.S. government works and they were patriotic.

      There’s no indication that Bill Clinton is notably ‘patriotic’. He’s a hedonist out for his next blow job. Unlike Trump, Clinton actually was a draft dodger. FDR was quite familiar with the Navy as an institution and admired it. He was never in uniform, however.

      Trump has an Ivy League degree. Kennedy was no more extensively educated than Trump, just educated in different subject matter (and much less accomplished). Clinton and Roosevelt had law degrees. Clinton’s never been a working lawyer and Roosevelt practiced only from 1907 to 1913.

      As for Mrs. Trump, she has more tertiary schooling than did Eleanor Roosevelt, Bess Truman, Mamie Eisenhower, Betty Ford, or Rosalynn Carter (none of whom were comfortably multi-lingual).

      1. The Donald is best accomplished at telling multiple untruths daily.

        Goes to show that an Ivy League degree doesn’t mean quality.

        1. You’ve been busy reminding us that the state colleges in Washington are pleased to hire people who can barely utter coherent remarks in online fora.

            1. David Benson owes me two citations after three weeks, one from the OED. – I am with DSS on this one. Your eyesight appears to be going and you are losing your coherence in your sentences. That is if you can consider “Nope” a sentence.

      2. Was JFK mentally ill? Was everything he did based on self-aggrandizement and the need for attention, like Trump? Was he married 3 times? I’m sorry, what reporter did JFK allegedly brag to about his sexual escapades? I missed that one. What is the source for this allegation?

        I’m sorry–exactly just how and when did Bill Clinton allegedly rape Monica Lewinsky? When did she report this to anyone? Did he drag her into the Oval Office and rip her clothes off? Where was the Secret Service? I also missed that one. Bill was raised by a single mother and was a Rhodes scholar and graduated from law school and practiced as an attorney. Trump was given a million dollars to start a business by his rich daddy.

        Trump’s father bought his way into Wharton Business School. After graduating from Harvard with a degree in government, Kennedy took post-graduate courses at Stanford, and traveled to Germany to investigate, first-hand, the rise of Nazis in Germany. He met with Hitler youth and questioned them about how they came to support Hitler, so he could understand this for himself. He, personally, and not via a ghostwriter, wrote several books, and they weren’t all about him, like “The Art of the Deal”, that was ghostwritten. He didn’t need to brag or self-aggrandize, because he was a genuine war hero and admirable man. Trump was indeed a draft dodger, using his pathetic alleged heel spurs as an excuse. He seems to walk OK now. You should be criminally charged for claiming that JFK was “much less accomplished” than Trump, who is stinking up our White House, causing turmoil and chaos with our allies, and generally screwing up royally. JFK personally saved lives. JFK’s life didn’t revolve around money, conspicuous consumption and egotism, and neither did RFK’s life. Republicans couldn’t understand how anyone as wealthy as JFK and RFK could care about black people, poor people, veterans or anyone else who wasn’t filthy rich. It’s called integrity, something Trump has none of. At the rate we’re going, we’ll be lucky not to end up with a major recession and war because of Trump’s big mouth and yuge ego.

        Eleanor Roosevelt was educated at private girls schools and had a college degree and was dignified and refined. She did things like go into coal mines to highlight the plight and dangers coal miners faced every day. She invited Marion Anderson to sing at the Washington Monument. Marion was a black soprano. None of the other first ladies posed for nude photos or lesbian porn, and we have no idea whether Melania is “comfortably” multi-lingual. We do know she is comfortable posing naked, however.

        1. Eleanor Roosevelt finished her schooling at the age of 17. (Nothing wrong with that from my perspective. You’re the one making a fetish of time spent in college).

          Republicans couldn’t understand how anyone as wealthy as JFK and RFK could care about black people, poor people, veterans or anyone else who wasn’t filthy rich.

          One of your problems, Natacha, is that you fancy the tape you run in your static-infested head has some relationship to reality. It’s your imagination, Natacha.

          Trump’s father bought his way into Wharton Business School.

          Again, Natacha, because you want something to be true does not make it true.

          After graduating from Harvard with a degree in government, Kennedy took post-graduate courses at Stanford, and traveled to Germany to investigate, first-hand, the rise of Nazis in Germany. He met with Hitler youth and questioned them about how they came to support Hitler, so he could understand this for himself. He, personally, and not via a ghostwriter, wrote several books, and they weren’t all about him, like

          Kennedy was able to complete his degree at Harvard because Arthur Krock was hired to edit his senior thesis, which Krock later related was a disorganized mess when he was presented with it. The thesis was then reworked into a trade book, Why England Slept. Joseph Kennedy put it on the bestseller lists by having minions make bulk purchases at retail stores and stashing the inventory in warehouses. As for Profiles in Courage, the research was undertaken by Kennedy’s Senate staff and the text was written by Theodore Sorensen. Geez, Natacha,all this has been known in schematic outline for four decades, though historians like Thomas Reeves have elaborated on the basic story.

          Trump was indeed a draft dodger, using his pathetic alleged heel spurs as an excuse. He seems to walk OK now.

          Again, Natacha, if you repeat a lie, it is not rendered true, no matter how emotionally satisfying the lie is to you. Trump received an ordinary I-Y deferment. About 200,000 such deferments were awarded in a typical year at that time, for problems of similar severity to Trump’s bone spurs. You may think Selective Service policy was stupid, but that was the policy. He didn’t go out of his way to get this deferment bar asking his doctor for a summary of his problem. (James Fallows starved himself for weeks in order to receive a I-Y deferment for being underweight. That, sister, is draft dodging).

          JFK personally saved lives. JFK’s life didn’t revolve around money, conspicuous consumption and egotism, and neither did RFK’s life.

          LMAO. I’m afraid, sister, there were no Benedictines around the pool at Hickory Hill. None of Joseph Kennedy’s children restricted their expenditures to their earnings. They all had a considerable private income, which financed the bulk of their consumption. The Shrivers of all of them were the least dependent on interest and dividends.

          You should be criminally charged for claiming that JFK was “much less accomplished” than Trump, who is stinking up our White House,

          Again, sister, Kennedy’s pre-political employment history consisted of his military service and about seven months as a wire service reporter. Trump spent four decades building a business which has $9.5 billion in annual revenue.

          I’m sorry–exactly just how and when did Bill Clinton allegedly rape Monica Lewinsky?

          The complaint is that he raped Juanita Broaddrick. Do try to keep up.

          Was JFK mentally ill?

          He was a roue with a horrid case of satyriasis. (And, no, Trump is not mentally ill, except in the mind of shrews who seem rather unbalanced themselves).

          Was everything he did based on self-aggrandizement and the need for attention, like Trump? Was he married 3 times?

          Kennedy was married for 10 years. Trump’s first marriage lasted 15 years and his third has been ongoing for 13 years. Kennedy remained married because his wife didn’t react the way an ordinary woman would have.

          1. Who are you to make any claims about why Jackie Kennedy didn’t divorce her husband? Many women choose to stay on after sexual indiscretions for a variety of reasons. Those reasons are their own business.

            When was Bill indicted for raping Broddrick? I didn’t see this story in the news. Did she report it to law enforcement? Why didn’t they do something, or is this more Kellyanne pivoting?

            Multiple psychiatrists and psychologists have expressed concerns about Trump’s emotional issues and believe he is narcissistic and needs help, based on his chronic lying, his insatiable need for attention, and his immature inability to enter into any dispute without resorting to insults and name-calling. JFK saved lives and was a decorated war hero. His sex life is irrelevant at this point. “Annual revenue” and “profit” aren’t the same thing. How many times did he file Chapter 11 bankruptcies? How many creditors were cheated?

            1. Who are you to make any claims about why Jackie Kennedy didn’t divorce her husband? Many women choose to stay on after sexual indiscretions for a variety of reasons.

              Who am I? An ordinary citizen with an opinion, just like you, except that I haven’t your problems with accuracy, with forming and sustaining coherent arguments, and with rude and shrewish expression.

              Kennedy’s satyriasis was quite extraordinary. An ordinary woman would have walked out on that in 1954 because an ordinary man would never have engaged in 1/10 th the quantum of misconduct which was his daily fare.

              Those reasons are their own business.

              Sayeth the woman who issued a condemnation of Melania Trump for mercenary behavior just a few hours ago.

              When was Bill indicted for raping Broddrick? I didn’t see this story in the news. Did she report it to law enforcement? Why didn’t they do something, or is this more Kellyanne pivoting?

              Broaddrick’s complaint has been a matter of public record for 20 years. You’re less than well-informed.

              Multiple psychiatrists and psychologists have expressed concerns about Trump’s emotional issues and believe he is narcissistic and needs help,

              No, quack psychiatrists who issue diagnoses of people they haven’t met have ‘expressed concerns’, though the only prominent one is some dame at Yale. The American Psychiatric Association has a guild rule against this sort of thing. I think the clinical section of the American Psychological Association might as well.

              JFK saved lives and was a decorated war hero. His sex life is irrelevant at this point. “

              Somehow his 4 years of military service is salient and his 25 years of gross sexual misbehavior are irrelevant. Got it.

              Annual revenue” and “profit” aren’t the same thing. How many times did he file Chapter 11 bankruptcies? How many creditors were cheated?

              The Trump Organization has never filed for Chapter 11. Trump was an equity investor in a set of Atlantic City properties which filed for Chapter 11 4x over a period of 22 years. Trump eventually gave up trying to make them profitable and sold the assets. This story isn’t that obscure, but you continue to misrepresent it.

        2. Natacha – we know that most of the people who contribute to the DNC and Clinton are comfortable posing and acting in the nude. Some have even committed sex acts on screen. I am not sure where you are going with this.

          1. Who is “we”? Fox News disciples? Melania did pose nude and for lesbian porn. Those are facts.

            1. Natacha – anyone who watches films knows that donors to the DNC and Hillary Clinton are comfortable posing nude and doing sex scenes, including lesbian scenes.

  8. I don’t approve of either of the Clintons nor the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party. Too much like the Gilded Age.

  9. That Newt was a serial philanderer. Henry Hyde was pretty darn clean. Hastert was a pig.

    But let me ask you. Were they accused of rape? Juanita Broderick said he hit her and bit through her lip. Wow! One brutal guy that Bill Clinton

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/opinion/juanita-broaddrick-bill-clinton.html

    I can give Bill and these other guys a pass on cheating and I think a lot of “sexual harassment” is exagerrated accusations…. but not actual rape. That’s a very serious crime and always was

  10. HYPOCRISY ON TRIAL: 3 REPUBLICAN SPEAKERS

    The Clinton impeachment drive originated under Speaker Newt Gingrich who left his first wife while she was recovering from cancer surgery. Gingrich later admitted he was having an affair with a congressional aide during the impeachment drive.

    After the disastrous 1998 midterm elections, Gingrich resigned and was briefly succeeded by Bob Livingston of Louisiana. But Livingston was almost immediately engulfed in his own sex scandal when “Hustler” publisher Larry Flynt exposed him as a philandering husband.

    Livingston resigned and handed the Speaker gavel to Dennis Hastert of Illinois who seemed dull enough to be scandal-free. But years later Hastert was convicted of making an ‘Illegally Structured Payment” to cover-up his relationship with a male student during Hastert’s days as a high school wrestling coach.

    1. A key leader of the Clinton impeachment drive was House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, an Illinois Republican. During the impeachment drive it was revealed that Hyde had an extramarital affair years earlier that he dismissed as a “youthful indiscretion”. Hyde, however, was 41 at the time of said affair; not exactly ‘youthful’.

      Another key leader of the Clinton impeachment drive was House Majority Whip Tom Delay of Texas. Delay would later face a number of legal questions regarding his association with lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

    2. For every Anthony Weiner there is a David Hastert, for every David Vitter there is a Ted Kennedy. Debauchery in high office is a bipartisan phenomena.

      1. actually there is a well known phenomenon where wimpy geeks curry favor with girls by pretending to be gay or feminists and they are just looking for some crumbs of attention. tendency among such soyboys is that they become left wingers of various types.

      2. David Vitter? David Vitter’s name was in the address book of a prostitute. IIRC, he wasn’t a current client of said prostitute at the time his name was discovered therein, nor was he spending 5-figure sums on her services. Visiting prostitutes is wrong, but it’s about the least damaging end run around certain marital problems that there is. There’s also no indication that Vitter’s an alcoholic, or makes waitress sandwiches, or celebrates Easter with his nephew at Au Bar, or has ever drowned a campaign staffer by driving his car off a bridge.

        Hastert wasn’t guilty of ‘debauchery in high office’. There was a hearsay contention (delivered up by a woman with a purblind hatred of him) that he had a series of homosexual trysts with her brother between 1967 and 1971. (The brother is deceased). There were three other contentions that he had made passes at male students at that same high school between 1971 and 1981, though it’s not clear he did anything other than handle their genitals. Hastert at age 47 wasn’t sending dick-pix to teenagers (again and again and again).

        1. Dennis Hastert Sentenced to 15 Months, and Apologizes for Sex Abuse

          “CHICAGO — J. Dennis Hastert, once among the nation’s most powerful politicians, was sentenced on Wednesday to 15 months in prison for illegally structuring bank transactions in an effort to cover up his sexual abuse of young members of a wrestling team he coached decades ago.

          In a hearing that was by turns harrowing and revelatory, Mr. Hastert publicly admitted for the first time to abusing his athletes, was confronted in emotional addresses by one of the former wrestlers and the sister of another, and faced a long, scathing rebuke from the judge.”

          https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/us/dennis-hastert-sentencing.html

          Senator Admits Use of an Escort Service

          WASHINGTON, July 9 (AP) — Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, apologized Monday for “a very serious sin in my past” after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service that operated here for 13 years.

          Mr. Vitter’s spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement to The Associated Press.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/washington/10escort.html

          Let’s not pretend the two Republican politicians are any lees guilty of shabby sexual behavior than the two Democrats, shall we? Republicans and Democrats have both proved themselves fully capable of disgracing their offices thruout the years. One would have to be blinded by hyperpartisan fervor to contend otherwise.

          1. Let’s not pretend the two Republican politicians are any lees guilty of shabby sexual behavior than the two Democrats, s

            I’m not pretending. I’m pointing out to you how their behavior actually was less shabby. It’s just that you’d prefer to not acknowledge that. Because dishonest.

              1. They can. You’re not managing as of this moment.

                If you fancy David Vitter visiting a call girl during a bad patch in his marriage is the equivalent of Ted Kennedy’s vehicular manslaughter (and decades of excess drinking and adultery), you’re just not very serious. Weiner v. Hastert are closer to the mark, but you’re comparing 40 year old skeleton in a retired man’s closet to an ongoing issue.

                1. Got your excuses ready for Larry Craig? Bob Packwood? Mark Foley?
                  Here’s a nasty one, Tim Murphy, formerly Republican Rep for Pa 18. As you may recall
                  “Murphy first publicly admitted in early September to having an affair with Shannon Edwards, a woman half his age, a revelation that dealt a blow to his reelection prospects in 2018. Murphy was first elected to the House in November 2002.

                  In a Jan. 25 text message obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Edwards said Murphy had “zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options.”
                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/rep-tim-murphy-resigns-from-congress-after-allegedly-asking-woman-to-have-abortion/2017/10/05/7a68a414-aa08-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.3b0fc8a85045
                  Go ahead, tell us why Murphy was treated unfairly…

                  1. Got your excuses ready for Larry Craig? Bob Packwood? Mark Foley?

                    I do. Larry Craig was given an appearance ticket. The only evidence against him was a creepy police officers word that he’d given the officer secret hand signals. You take that charge seriously because you’re obtuse. Mark Foley exchanged dirty talk via text message with congressional pages and there was one incident where he showed up drunk at the page residence. The complaint against Packwood was that he had velcro mittens and tried to get dates out of employees. A take-down of the complaints against him was published in The New York Review of Books.

                    So, you’ve given me an example of one man who likely wasn’t guilty and two men who made pests of themselves. This is supposed to compare to Ted Kennedy? Again, you’re not very serious.

                    1. You ignored Murphy, the Right to Life stalwart who tried to importune his mistress into having an abortion.
                      Attempted infanticide no big deal?

                    2. I don’t care for Murphy and I’m pleased he’s out of public life. He was never a right-to-life stalwart, just a cheesy careerist.

Leave a Reply