What If Monica Actually Had Taken The Stand?

Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the issue of witnesses at impeachment trials and how they can have a determinative impact on the outcome of such trials. The best example remains the Senate trial of Bill Clinton and the ultimate “what if.” What if Monica Lewinsky actually took the stand in the Senate trial?

Here is the column:

Imagine if Monica Lewinsky had taken the stand as a witness in President Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial. Imagine the drama of the young former White House intern sitting in the well of the Senate recalling how the president encouraged her to sign a false affidavit after learning that she would be a witness against him. It would have been an unforgettable moment. But it didn’t happen for the simple reason that few in the Senate wanted to hear such evidence.

During the Clinton trial, the House impeachment managers were surprised to learn that the upper chamber’s Republican majority agreed with Democratic demands not only to bar live testimony but to limit depositions to three witnesses and take them in private. It was a decision that might have determined the outcome of the trial. Soon the Senate will have to decide whether to replicate the same constraints on the trial of President Donald Trump.

Whether witnesses are required at a presidential impeachment trial is an open question. The 1868 trial of Andrew Johnson resembled a criminal proceeding. The House managers called 25 prosecution witnesses and Johnson’s defense team called 16 witnesses. During the Clinton impeachment, the issue of witnesses came up during House Judiciary Committee hearings. As an expert called to address the constitutional standards, I explained that the Framers didn’t explicitly require witnesses in the House or the Senate but there was likely an expectation — drawn from English impeachments — that witnesses would be called at a Senate trial.

While I favored calling witnesses, the issue wasn’t clear-cut because the underlying investigation into Mr. Clinton had spanned years. Two independent counsels had interviewed dozens of witnesses. Rather than call the same people to testify again, the House decided to rely on the massive record supplied by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Senate Democrats not only opposed calling witnesses; all but one voted to dismiss both articles without any trial. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — who has demanded that witnesses be called in the Trump impeachment trial — as a freshman in 1999 disdained witness testimony as “political theater.”

In the end, the senators considering whether to remove Mr. Clinton from office heard only excerpts from depositions by three witnesses — and even that was over Democratic objections.

Here is what they — and the public — didn’t hear. Ms. Lewinsky gave an interview to A&E last year revealing that Mr. Clinton encouraged her in a 2:30 a.m. phone call to submit a false affidavit to the independent counsel. This raises the possibility that the president committed a variety of crimes, from suborning perjury to witness tampering. Apparently, when Mr. Clinton learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list in Paula Jones’s sexual-harassment lawsuits, he did what many Democrats have accused Mr. Trump of doing: He called a witness to influence her testimony.

Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky claimed in the interview, she called Vernon Jordan, one of his friends and political allies, and he took her to meet Frank Carter, a lawyer who had her sign an affidavit denying any intimate relationship with the president. She says Mr. Jordan also offered the inexperienced 24-year-old a job with Revlon, where he was a board member.

Ms. Lewinsky said that she was terrified and that the president had assured her that “I could probably sign an affidavit to get out of it.” She also said that Mr. Carter assured her that if she signed the false affidavit, she might avoid being called as a witness. Messrs. Carter and Jordan have denied that they urged Ms. Lewinsky to lie.

Imagine, again, the most riveting moment that never occurred in an impeachment. Ms. Lewinsky might have taken the stand and told senators that Mr. Clinton not only had an affair with a young intern but also pressured her to lie under oath. She might then have described how her lawyer had allegedly advised her to sign a false affidavit. Even before the GBP MeToo movement, such testimony would have put many Democratic senators in a difficult position.

While one of the articles of impeachment referred to Mr. Clinton’s “encouraging” Ms. Lewinsky’s false statements, had she publicly testified about what the president said in his early morning phone call, it would have been evidence of subornation, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. It would have destroyed the argument made by his defenders that he did nothing but lie about a personal affair.

Now we are debating again whether to call witnesses at an impeachment trial. While Mr. Schumer has argued that witnesses are essential in a trial, he only means Democratic witnesses. The witnesses that Republicans could be expected to call — like Hunter Biden — would be, says Mr. Schumer, a “distraction.” Only in an impeachment trial can the jury protect itself from testimony it doesn’t want to hear.

Mr. Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. He served as lead defense counsel in Judge Thomas Porteous’s 2010 impeachment trial. He testified as an expert witness in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.

113 thoughts on “What If Monica Actually Had Taken The Stand?”

  1. Lest anyone forget the numerous dirty deeds Bill Clinton committed to merit stoning and quartering. He got off scott free with impeachment because the Dems are that corrupt

    Article I, charging Clinton with perjury, alleged in part that:

    On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following:

    the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate government employee;
    prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him;
    prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil rights action; and
    his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.[33][34]
    Article II, charging Clinton with obstruction of justice alleged in part that:

    The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

    … corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.
    … corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.
    … corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.
    … intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.
    … at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.
    … related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.
    … made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.[33][35]

    Wiki

  2. Hunter Biden is the new Bill Clinton. Probably has genital Herpes just like Bill. And this from Hunter while he was dating his dead brother’s widow.
    Something about moral cripples and Democrats using women as objects of pleasure.

    – My name is Hillary Clinton and I debunk this statement.

    🧛‍♀️

    The woman suing Hunter Biden for paternity was a stripper at a Washington, DC, club he frequented around the time he was dating his brother’s widow, sources told The Post.

    Biden was repeatedly seen at the Mpire Club in the capital’s historic Dupont Circle neighborhood — where Lunden Alexis Roberts, the mother of his alleged love child, worked under the stage name “Dallas,” the sources said.

    “He was well-known,” a source said of Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, the Democratic front-runner to challenge President Trump next year.

    Several Mpire workers said they recognized Roberts, 28, who last week filed court papers that say DNA testing proved Hunter, 49, fathered the child she gave birth to in August 2018.

    Roberts worked there around the time she got pregnant — and when Hunter broke up with former sister-in-law Hallie Biden, the widow of his brother, the late Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, sources said

    pagesix.com

  3. Interesting isn’t it how politics is and always has been a blood sport of sorts. It matters not whose lives may be destroyed as long as the side they are on wins. Mr. Smith certainly isn’t in Washington today (or Ms. Smith for that matter).

    1. It is and always has been about power. E.g. King Herod pursued the Infant Jesus out of fear and sense of being threatened by the future King.
      Like with King Herod, todays politicians are blind to the Way, the Truth and the Light

      Merry Christmas Phyllis and to your “patient”. I too had a head injury that resulted in a coma and it took 2 years to recover. Doctors told me I would work again. I earned a 6 figure income as a consultant years later

      Know the Divine Physician and you will know Peace!

      Amen?

      😇

      1. I’m so glad for your recovery. It’s been over 8 years now for us. My husband practices his classical guitar daily, but unfortunately still struggles because he insists he must memorize the pieces. He has virtually no short-term memory, however. His IQ has improved little from the baseline of 70 two years after his injury.
        I find I am not as patient as I should be sometimes. I’ve begun to pray for the “Serenity to accept the things I cannot change and courage to change the things I can.” It seems to help when I’m overwhelmed.

  4. Impeachment is over…Trump won. The next election is over…Trump won. No amount of whining and wailing from the commie losers on the left can change that.

    Our focus should shift to 2024 and who will succeed Trump.

  5. Another post by Turley that shows his MO everytime, BUT…BUT…BUT… the Clintons. Two-thirds of the country have been hoping that Trump supporters would have a epiphany and they would see that Trump is a liar and con-man and really unfit for the office. But their support shows beyond any doubt that supporting Trump is their character, and Turley bringing up Hillary should remind people what she said about his supporters.

    1. Supporting Trump at this stage of the game only shows that you are a character, and not that you have character.

      1. Reminding people of what Hillary said about the basket of deplorable in 2016 only shows that you are a fool, Fishwings.

    2. Fishwings,
      I think that you and others should go out of your way “to remind people” what Hillary said about Trump supporters.
      That was such a brilliant and effective😁 political move by her in 2016, so the Democratic nominee and you and others should dust it off the shelf and recycle it for 2020.

        1. It was pretty clear what you were referring to from your 9:50 AM comment, Fishwings.
          But if you think you can say something, then simultaneously deny saying it, that’s also a brilliant strategic move🙄.

          1. Fishbreath is following in the traditions taught by his religious leaders of the Church of Antichrist: B. Clinton, H. Clinton, Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer and the rest of the DNC cult

        1. For a while there, I thought that I’d be limited to only responding to the Two Stooges on the different
          issue of retelling history.
          I thank Fishwings for volunteering as the Third Stooge.

  6. Monica had lichen on her limbs. Where is Monica today? Hillary should choose her as VP candidate and they run as a team. Bill would be all for it. Bill would be First Lady if Hillary won. If Buttgag wins then his husband can be called First Lady. Why would anyone gag their butt and or take that on as a last name?

  7. To all the JFK lovers out there: would the Congress ever criticized John F. Kennedy for having sex with Marilyn Monroe at the White House? Would they have impeached him?

  8. Monica wasn’t about impeachment, the Clinton impeachment wasn’t about impeachment, the whole event was an orchestrated planned distraction away from Clintons pay to play use of the US military for backdoor bribes from Muslim nations.

    While everybody was distracted by the semen stained blue dress the US was planning the bombing of Serbian civilian targets on behalf of the Islamic jihad who were waging jihad against all non-muslims across Bosnia and Kosovo.

    Yugoslavia was fighting a terrorist insurgency which included Osama Bin Ladin and Hesbollah, Christians were murdered, churches burned.

    Nobody questioned why we were bombing Serbia on behalf of Islamic jihad, that was the beginning of mass US sponsored islamic invasion of the EU.

    The EU is going “Islamic” as result of Clinton bribery and a US sponsored refugee invasion.

    The US is still footing the bill with troops in the former Yugoslavia and the islamic terrorism has spread to all of the EU.

  9. Clinton should well have been convicted. Perjury is something you should lose office over. That said, what Trump did is orders of magnitude more serious. Obstruction, bribery, for personal gain, endangering a country like Ukraine that is at war with Russia for personal gain, it defies understanding. Not that I’d rather Pence, or any Democrat, but you shouldn’t be able to get away with what he has done.

  10. What a farce this current impeachment is. As far as Monica Blewinsky taking the stand, she should have. And as far as Nutjob Natacha, if perjury doesn’t apply to sexual stuff, then how come people have to take an oath before testifying in them.

    The Dems are laughable, and their arguments childish and emotional.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – the testimony of Monica in the Starr Report should be rated-X.

      Merry Xmas and Happy New Year. You owe us Xmas powems, gurl. 😉

  11. Sorry, Jon, your attempt to compare Clinton’s sexcapades with Trump’s fundamental illegitimacy, treason and obstruction of justice just won’t work for the simple reason that at the end of the day, Clinton’s conduct boiled down to a matter of marital infidelity between him and his wife, and it did not have national security implications. This is the reason no one wanted to receive evidence at the trial-what purpose would be served by further humiliating Ms. Lewinski and her family? Clinton admitted fault and apologized, so what purpose would be served by live witness testimony? The two situations couldn’t be more different: Clinton’s impeachment was solely politically motivated. Trump is a crook who cheated to get into the White House, and was attempting to cheat again to stay in the White House when he got caught. He hamstrung Ukraine, a U.S. ally, in its efforts to fight back against Russian aggression to serve his personal political agenda, and people died as a result. Russia annexed the Crimea and has acquired Ukrainian territory, as a result.

    One other note: this is classic Kellyanne pivoting. It stinks and is beneath you, Jon. The constant harping about the Clintons as a feeble attempt to excuse Trump is getting tiresome.

    1. The Russian annexation of Crimea was during the Obama Administration.
      As was the Russian support of separatists in Eastern Ukraine, and the Russian incursion into Georgia.
      I think all of these happened in 2014; Trump took office in 2017.
      Maybe Natacha can explain how Trump is to blame for these 2014 events. And also tell us how much territory Russia has seized in the Obama Administration v. the Trump Administration.

    2. “He hamstrung Ukraine, a U.S. ally, in its efforts to fight back against Russian aggression to serve his personal political agenda, and people died as a result. Russia annexed the Crimea and has acquired Ukrainian territory, as a result.”

      @Natacha

      Care to retract?

      You discredit yourself and Dems when you misstate the record.

      1. If you like bending history to suit a particular narrative, more power to you, Bill McWilliams.
        Those who distort history can always use more “Amens”.

        1. Jim Jones followers said Amen all the way to their Kool Aid induced death. If only Dems had as much principle.

          Bwahaha…yeah right

  12. I listened to that trial and it was fixed from the beginning thanks to the right wing of the left we know as RINOs. Too much time on Monica and not enough hammering home the charge of lying to a federal judge while under oath. At the most the other was a misdemeanor to the GOP and did not even rate the Democrats famous appearance of wrong doing or some such claim they used to bandy about.

    So Clinton went on lying and the most famous was failing to honor the War Powers Act but then the Democrats who passed that Act didn’t mind as they never honored that Act. While both Bush’s did comply something not done by any of the Socialists.

    First there were three budgets and he could, would, and did point to which ever one suit the current fairy tale. White House, Congressional under Congressional rules such as off budget, and Treasury Department who were the most accurate;

    He complained of finishing up in debt but failed to mention the 18 year write off which he used first for himself, followed by NY Times and of course the Tax Attorneys working for now President Trump.

    He claimed a balanced budget with a surplus but only got it …. sort of… by passing off his administrations debts to the next administration and one way that directly helped his rich friends was very high interest rates on T Bills in a very short time span among others similar actions.

    And so it went with Obama folllowing suit and lying just the same except when he gave us the slashed by 30% value of the dollar and attacked the elderly with a slliced, diced, and trashed COLA he almost got away with his economic depradations except for being exposed of using the circle of repression in an economic war first formulated by Carlos Marighella as a tool learned at Patrice Lumumba University.

    The biggest coup which I see by examining what used to be an honest annual book The World Almanac and Book of Facts showed a 1.14 budget deficit and gradually under new ownership has whittled that down to match the Clinton claim.

    But the major charge of lying to a federal judge while under oath remains the focus of the impeachment and correctly defined his, his wife’s, his administration, and his successors equally criminall activities.

    Remember Tesoro Bono? His Treasury Secretary solved that by raiding the Social Security Fund and the Railroad Retirement Trust. Why? That Secretary was from the business of Goldman Sachs who stood to lose the major share of the losses and under Clinton’s approva Ruben went on to become a multi millionaire just llke his protector. .

  13. A sub-title of Jonathan Turley’s column might read: “How Bill ‘Slick Willie’ Clinton narrowly escaped American history’s second Senate impeachment trial to become the first American president to be rightfully convicted and justifiably removed from office.”

    But for the hypocrisy of politicians we should have been given to know then what we know now. Clinton was guilty of much more than merely lying about a personal affair with Monica Lewinsky. His inducing her to commit perjury and with it the clearly criminal act of witness tampering would have been well enough to have sealed his just fate.

  14. The Clinton Impeachment combines so many issues. Bill Clinton acknowledged he committed a crime of perjury, and lied to the American people.

    The American people, myself included, were not interested in impeaching a President for an affair. It’s a character flaw and a private matter. They did not consider lying under oath about an affair to be a crime high enough to warrant impeachment.

    Many in Congress had no stomach for the impeachment, not only for political reasons. They are a hedonistic, entitled bunch of powerful men and women. I’ll bet many were tugging on their collars and clearing their throats at the allegations of their president having affairs.

    The problem was the allegations of sexual harassment and rape that the Clintons successfully managed to sweep under the rug. Those were very different than a consensual affair by a man who was a serial cheater. The Epstein allegations were unknown at the time, at least to me.

    I did not know at the time that Clinton had asked Monica Lewinsky to lie. I assumed she was protecting him and trying to avoid embarrassment. Getting her to file false documents affected the Jennifer Flowers case. I don’t remember knowing about Juanita Broderick at the time, although I was young and didn’t follow much politics.

    The Clintons never seem to be held to justice for their actions. Once Hillary Clinton proved she was able to hide a server in her bathroom in order to circumvent the Records Act, upload classified information to the Cloud and yet be outraged at the very suggestion that Russia might have her data, wipe her server with BleachBit and smash her laptops and phones with hammers while under subpoena, and not go to jail or face any consequences…she established herself as either a brilliant criminal or she has some serious leverage. No average citizen could get away with any of it and remain free.

    I would say that the only consequences Hillary Clinton ever faced was her low popularity, that allowed Trump to win the election. When she blames us women as “self hating” or controlled by our husbands, or denounces anyone else who did not vote for her, she needs to take a good, long look at her life and take responsibility.

    1. Gee, Karen, Hillary’s “low popularity” still got her 3 million more votes than Don the Con. How does Hannity explain that one/

      1. How does Hannity explain that one/

        I can’t speak for Hannity, but your contributions on this blog over the last 3 years would be Exhibit A.

        1. The Left thinks the Flyover States are subhuman individuals worthy of being gassed

          Adolf Hitler killed 6 million Jews, but the DNC wouldnt bat an eye eliminating 150 million Americans who live in States between NY and CA

          1. Well, I’d be one of them, and you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. There are anti-Trump marches here in deep red redneckland where I live.

            1. There are anti-Trump marches here in deep red redneckland where I live.

              Yeah, I realize you’re desperate for a talking point, but only Lefty loonies would consider flash-mob looting as an anti-Trump march.

              1. Olly, I’m still trying to figure out how Natacha concludes that the Russian seizure of Crimea in 2014 and Russia’s advance into Eastern Ukraine in 2014 was Trump’s fault.
                That really “takes some doing” to come up with that; just pretend that Trump took office a few years earlier than he actually did.

                1. Ya see, he has this flux capacitor thingy hidden in the POTUS golf cart at Mar-a-Lago where he golfs 382 days a year and…

                  How am I doing so far?

            2. Natacha, compare and contrast how the Left and conservatives handle dissent and criticism.

              Anti-Trump sentiment is common. Leftist can walk around in t-shirts emblazoned with murderous Leftist dictators – Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara, Maduro, as well as modern Leftists like Warren, Bernie, Hillary, with confidence. They are not troubled that they will be jumped or screamed at. Leftist speakers routinely speak at college campuses, and the professors themselves openly show Leftist bias and bigotry against conservatives. They do so confident that there will be an answering riot to their abusive behavior.

              Now, let’s see how you Leftists handle dissent and criticism. A Trump supporter would expect to be threatened, harassed, or assaulted if they wear a MAGA hat, both in person, and by Hollywood and the media should their picture ever be in the news. A Disney producer fantasized about murdering teenagers, shoving them screaming, MAGA hats first, into a woodchopper, spewing blood and tissue onto pristine snow. Even made a meme about it. Very graphic. Conservative speakers are routinely harassed or assaulted on college campuses. Leftists threaten riots, and sometimes follow suit. It requires significant security for a conservative speaker to set foot on most college campuses across the United States. Leftists call conservatives racist, xenophobe, anti-semite (ironic, with the rising Leftist antisemitism), Nazi, fascist, etc, merely for disagreeing with them on any policy. They do not debate facts. They go for character assassination. If you disagree with a Leftist, you are evil.

              Leftists seek out, target, and try to destroy little mom and pop conservative businesses. They promoted gay marriage as a sweet, tolerant gesture to the gay community. Then they set out to drive anyone who disagrees out of business. It’s not good enough that you are perfectly fine that gays wed. Unless you are willing to actually participate in the ceremony, creating a custom cake for it, you’re evil. One Leftist has systematically targeted a Conservative Christian baker. He won’t make Halloween cakes, or anything else that he feels violates his freedom of religion. Yet a Leftist constantly bombards him with cake requests. One was for a Satanic figure. Another was to celebrate him having the mental disorder of gender dysphoria, where the cake was blue on the outside but pink on the inside. It’s not enough to have sympathy with those who suffer these delusions and serious disturbance in their own bodies. You have to celebrate it and accept that delusion as truth or you’ll be impoverished and on welfare.

              You are a good example of Leftist intolerance for dissent. You obsess to a disturbing degree that Fox and Hannity exist. Your bitterness that any conservatives show dares to exist rears its ugly head in virtually all of your posts. By contrast, I think MSNBC in general and Rachel Maddow in particular are morons. I occasionally watch as much of her show as I can stomach, to get a feel for what the other side believes. It’s very ugly and hateful. The Left seems to have a habit of this – dehumanizing their enemies and stirring up real enmity. They did it towards blacks and Jews and dissenters. They’re at it again with conservatives.

              God help us

              1. I mentioned MSNBC but didn’t finish my thought.

                As stated, I have determined MSNBC to have very low journalistic standards, if any. It is nothing more than a propaganda site, the pinnacle of which is Rachel Maddow. She does not attempt to understand the other side, but instead repeats rumors and gossip and tries to give it them weight. She was humiliated by all of her allegations falling apart with the Mueller Report and the Horowitzt Report. After assuring her viewers that Trump colluded with Russia, she was disproven. That’s what happens when you go further than merely reporting, and instead get into crazy conspiracy theory territory. I don’t know if she even comprehends her shame.

                In any case, MSNBC has a right to exist. You don’t see me, or really anyone here on the blog, constantly, incessantly harping on how much we loathe Rachel Maddow or MSNBC. We make occasional comments on how the mainstream media has become a Democrat propaganda machine, but we aren’t bitter that they exist. We want them properly labeled as opinion pieces, and we want more straight news. The answer is access to accurate news and the opinions of the opposing side.

                It is important for me to understand where Democrats are coming from, and so I watch Democrat news from time to time. Without them, and the hard Left comments on blogs like this, I’d have no idea where Democrats get their strident hatred for Republicans. I think Democrats are moving in the wrong direction, but I don’t think they’re evil. They have Avenging Angel syndrome, in which someone is misguided, thinking they are defending the weak, but they are a bully, themselves.

                Note the difference. I want viewers to have access to truthful information, including insight to where conservatives are coming from. The proliferation of straight news, and conservative media, provide those sources. So many Democrats want Fox, Trump, Hannity, Ben Shapiro, and all the other major Republican figures to cease to exist.

                1. Karen,

                  Rachel Madcow has been clinically depressed with psychotic features patient since her childhood. MSNBC employs people like her, Joyless Reid, and a whole looney tunes cast of clowns because Democrats go ape sh!t for circus acts. Its what gets the mongrels uppity and screaming…all this for peanuts.

                  Not sure how PETA feels about circus animals being subjected to torture but as with everything Democrat, if it satisfies their number 1 rubric, i.e. by any means necessary, who gives a frack

                  😜

                  1. I’m certainly not a fan of Rachel Maddow and MSNBC, but the comment by Anonymous at 4:04 is another “nutty” one.

                    Turley’s blog seems to attract those on the “nutty” fringe.

      2. Easy. Coastal elites in highly populated cities voted for Hillary Clinton. Just a handful of countries.

        The overwhelming number of counties in the United States voted for Trump.

        Per our Constitution, the electoral college voted Trump President. Otherwise, a couple of states would be kingmakers, and the rest would be permanently ignored.

        You seem incapable of grasping how the electoral college works, and want a retroactive rule change that would disenfranchise millions of voters across the country. No one location is allowed to become a permanent kingmaker. That would make us no longer a republic, but an empire controlled by the oligarchy of a couple of states.

      3. If you look at the enormous swath of red in voting districts across the country, it becomes embarrassingly clear that Hillary Clinton lost most of the country. She was unpopular even in some districts that usually voted Democrat.

        It doesn’t matter if she’s supported in NY and CA if the rest of the country didn’t want her. A President has to represent all states, not just a couple of dense ones, pun intended.

        Otherwise, it’s the Hunger Games, with a couple of Capitols and 48 impoverished districts in tribute.

  15. Bill Clinton broke a 24 year old naive woman and his moral cripple defenders continue to do today to anyone in their way

    “it was not only just the slut shaming, not only having had an intimate relationship with someone (bill clinton) who is now describing me in a way that no young woman would want to be described.”

    1. The moral cripples also blame rape victims saying they had it coming because of the way they dressed

      Such is the irreligious left…they say they do not know truth then question anyone who shows they do

Leave a Reply