CNN and Other Media Outlets To Feature Bill Clinton Despite A History Of Sexual Misconduct

225px-Bill_ClintonWe have previously discussed how the media and many Democrats have struggled to address not only their largely muted response to the sexual assault allegation against former Vice President Joe Biden but also the support shown Bill Clinton who was accused by a long list of women for everything from sexual harassment to rape. Many have noted that the Clinton allegations were before the “MeToo” movement as if rape allegations were shrugged off in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Many insist that they would oppose him today based on the accounts of these women. The media however continues to contradict these claims by featuring Clinton prominently.  Today CNN will feature Clinton as role model for young people across the country as part of a graduation special.  A+E Networks Group President Paul Buccieri has announced that the company has given Clinton a series on how presidents show leadership in times of crisis. Clinton was also featured as part of the “Call to Unite” special with Oprah. Thus, despite the spin on the Biden allegations, it really does not matter how many women come forward or a proven case of an affair with a young intern in the White House.  Clinton remains someone that the media feels should be emulated by young and old alike.

This-is-cnn-

It seems that the only greater force in American politics than celebrity is hypocrisy.  Thousands still flock to hear Clinton speak, including many who have supported the “MeToo” movement and the call to “just believe women.” Many in these audiences no doubt still denounce the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.  Appearing on the 7 p.m. program are figures like Amy Schumer who was arrested in protests against Kavanaugh.  At the time, Schumer declared “Today I was arrested protesting the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a man who has been accused by multiple women of sexual assault.” She will now appear with a man accused by more women and has a documented history of an affair with a young White House intern and then lying under oath about it (while refuting the statements of “that woman.”).

CNN will air a two-hour, primetime special honoring the class of 2020 and featuring former President Bill Clinton with others. This is the same network that regularly hammered Justice Brett Kavanaugh and his supporters as insulting all victims of assault.  When Clinton was raised, CNN hosts and commentators would just say that it was a different time and that, yes, he should have been condemned. Many segments raised why women are not being simply believed in such cases. Now that the Kavanaugh confirmation fight is over, CNN is back to featuring Clinton as a role model.

A+E Networks has gone even further to pay Clinton to offer guidance on the ideals of a president in being a leader.  Buccieri gushed over the series and never felt that he had to mention the well-documented sexual misconduct of Clinton throughout his public service career. He will serve both as a producer and on-air personality.  Buccieri does not show a hint of irony in discussing a project described as Clinton showing how “Presidents lead[] through challenging times and the character that they have to put forth to come out of it.”

That is right.  Clinton will be doing a series on the importance of character and his effort to preserve “the perfect union.”

For full disclosure, I testified at the Clinton impeachment and maintained that lying under oath is an impeachable offense regardless of the subject matter (here and here).  Recently, it was disclosed that Clinton may have also suborned perjury and committed obstruction of justice.  None of that matters however.

210 thoughts on “CNN and Other Media Outlets To Feature Bill Clinton Despite A History Of Sexual Misconduct”

  1. Ok so Clinton is past. The Orange One, is present. How many women have accused him.?
    What’s being done about that.?????

  2. Professor Turley: It matters the most. (I know you know that). This issue of double standard, or maybe hypocrisy is a better term, on both sides is ruinous to civil public discourse which is essential to a healthy democracy. The Monica Lewinsky scandal was sobering for me. Up to that point, I believed the cry of “It’s a Republican Conspiracy” because I trusted the Democratic states people who made that cry. Hillary in particular. In Sam Donaldson interview with Paula Jones, he questions her about being supported by a Republican legal team and she comments “no one else offered to help me.” No one in the democratic party (which I am a member of) the party that champions feminist and women’s issues, would talk to Paula Jones. Similarly Hillary, the champion of women, never acknowledged the power dynamic at play between the leader of the free world and a 21 year old intern not to mention the accusations of sexual harassment, assault and rape by Bill. It is a hypocrisy akin to the coverup of gross sexual misconduct by the Catholic Church or Conservative Evangelicals, because they avow something different. How can we have healthy public discourse, if party affiliation is the only determinate of the discourse. Trump is a Republican and a pussy grabber. Joe Biden is a Democrat and may be the same. I am a registered democrat because presently I align more with democratic ideals, and yet I appreciate many of the values of the Republican party and recognize many valid positions. Political affiliation being the sole determinate of discourse and evaluation is eroding Democracy in America. And it matters. It matters the most.

    1. And I am a great admirer of Hillary Clinton’s powerful intellect, astute policy and achievements over her storied career.

      1. Are you also an admirer of her lies, international terrorism, defending of her husbands misdeeds, global new world order villages, ………….. That’s one powerful intellect alright. Right out of Satan’s hand.

    2. Funfact: You are a communist who believes in the principles of communism, distinctly not the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance. The American Founders never intended for women to vote (presumably, their influence, if ever they found themselves in a calm and intelligible condition, was on the “family vote” of their husbands in the home). There is no such thing as a “healthy democracy” and, to be sure, the American Founders established a restricted-vote republic, distinctly not a one man, one vote democracy. American women would have done well to fulfill their duty to their country which is to make Americans – to have babies…lots and lots of babies, to grow the population and defend the nation. The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral,” the population is being imported and women are the elemental existential threat. Women don’t need to be men. Women don’t need to vote. Women need to make America. In fact. women are causing America to disappear. China has 1.4 billion Chinese and India has 1.3 billion Indians, as but two glaring examples of the deficiency and peril created by American women.

      Women and other communists are driving America into the inevitable “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      America is the frog lulled into a delightful bath of cold water, only to soon find itself fully cooked.
      ___________________________________________________________________________

      “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

      – Alexander Fraser Tytler
      ____________________

      “the people are nothing but a great beast…

      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      – Alexander Hamilton

  3. A review of the history of rule 48 (a) governing “leave of the court” responsibility and limits to the judges actions in a situation like the Flynn case by a Harvard Law lecturer are at this link.

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674

    In short, the Barr motion in the Flynn case argues that the of the 2 possible reasons for dropping a prosecution this late in the process – to benefit the defendant or to allow the DOJ to then submit new charges – the court’s ability to review the decision by the prosecutors is only available for the latter of the those 2 types. The author finds and cites the history of the commission which devised the rule back in the 1940s, along with SC contributions to the discussion, and finds that it centered entirely on the former type case – where it was for the benefit of the defendant. The reason was why many states automatically require judicial review then and now – to guard against a connected defendant receiving corrupt favoritism. There is no doubt that based on it’s history, that the rule should require judicial review of the motion. Surely, if he doesn’t know this already, Judeg Sullivan will learn of it.

    A link to the entire document (12 pages) is at the page I linked above.

    Abstract
    The conventional view of Rule 48(a) dismissals distinguishes between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. In United States v. Flynn, the Department of Justice argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies on forty-year-old dicta in the sole U.S. Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a), Rinaldi v. United States. There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”

    But the Government’s position—and the U.S. Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: its purpose was to empower the Judiciary to limit dismissal in cases where the district court suspects that some impropriety prompted the Executive’s decision to abandon a case.

    To be clear, there may be good reason for the district court to grant the Government’s motion to dismiss in United States v. Flynn. But the fiction that Rule 48(a) exists solely, or even chiefly, to protect defendants against prosecutorial mischief should be abandoned. This brief Essay recounts Rule 48’s forgotten history.

  4. Judge blocks Governor Cooper’s coronavirus-related orders on indoor church services

    The order from Judge James C. Dever III came Saturday, days after two Baptist churches, a minister and a Christian revival group filed a federal lawsuit seeking to immediately block enforcement of rules covering religious services within the Democratic governor’s executive orders.

    The plaintiffs argued the limits violate their rights to worship freely and treat churches differently from retailers and other secular activities. Cooper’s office says it won’t appeal the ruling.

    It comes just days after dozens of pastors and other religious leaders from across North Carolina met in Raleigh Thursday, calling on the state to lift its tight restrictions on churches so they can reopen for in-person services.

    https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/state/nc-churches-temporary-restraining-order-governor-coopers-order/275-0f34621c-44a5-4df9-94ba-4963171e0f0f

  5. Obama criticizes nation’s leaders for bungled handling of coronavirus pandemic
    A disease like this just spotlights the underlying inequalities and extra burdens that black communities have historically had to deal with in this country,” Obama said. “We see it in the disproportionate impact of covid-19 on our communities…”
    – WaPo

    Fact:
    Health of Black or African American non-Hispanic Population
    Percent of Black women aged 20 and over with obesity: 56.1% (2013-2016)
    Percent of White women aged 20 and over with obesity: 38.8% (2013-2016)

    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/black-health.htm

    speaking of nation’s leaders bungling COVID-19:
    Fact:
    Federal judge rules that North Carolina governor’s coronavirus restrictions violate religious expression
    – WaPo

    Fact:
    Roy Asberry Cooper III (born June 13, 1957) is an American politician and attorney who has served as the 75th Governor of North Carolina since January 1, 2017. A member of the Democratic Party…
    -Wiki

    It is a relief that Obama is now irrelevant given the damage he did to America, set back race relations and lied to create a divisive, poisonous agenda.

    1. “It is a relief that Obama is now irrelevant given the damage he did to America, set back race relations and lied to create a divisive, poisonous agenda.”

      Don’t relax too soon. Obama is still causing trouble.

      1. Young, your agenda, on these threads, is as poisonous as we’ve ever seen. So it’s comical you accuse Hillery of being ‘poisonous’.

        1. This sounds like Peter Paint Chips type of complaint. Paint Chips likes to accuse others of what he is guilty of.

      2. Don’t relax too soon. Obama is still causing trouble.

        I think (hope) his movements today are inconsequential. He shoots blanks. He lost the US House, Senate, Executive, unimpressive SCOTUS appointments, and retreated like the coward he is to a palatial mansion by the sea at Martha Vineyard. The only group lauding him are the discredited corporate news media organizations who are languishing to be taken seriously by someone… anyone

        Trump would not have won had any of the aforementioned had had any influence. They don’t anymore.

  6. Jonathan Turley tweeted:

    Jonathan Turley
    @JonathanTurley

    “President Trump responded to a video of protesters abusing a reporter with “People can’t get enough of this. Great people!” We clearly have a different opinion of what constitutes great or, for that matter, presidential conduct…

    https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-eggs-on-coronavirus-protesters-who-stalked-and-abused-reporter-calls-them-great-people/ …”

    And I’ll add — about Trump’s comment — and agreeing with Jonathan Turley:

    #NotPresidential

    1. Anonymous, that video is disturbing. Trump encourages his base to abuse reporters, then praises their abuse.

      I’m glad that Turley acknowledged the wrong. But it makes you wonder why Turley provided cover for Trump all week. Trump has been crazier than usual promoting ‘Obamagate’. Turley never even scrutinized that claim.

      1. “that video is disturbing. ”

        They objected to FAKE NEWS and maybe the killing of their grandparents by the Cuomo administration

        FAKE NEWS disparages Gov. DeSantis while praising Gov Cuomo. Lets compare the two

        Fl. 22,000,000 NY. 19,500,000
        Fl. No income tax NY. 8% tax
        Fl. covid 40,000 NY. 325,000
        Fl. covid death 1,670 NY. 26,282
        Fl. balanced budget NY. In Debt and wanting all of us to bail them out.

        Fake news praises NY and criticizes Fl.

        Florida is open and NY is trying to keep people in.

        66% of the deaths in NY were among shut ins.

        Paint Chips is such a prolific liar that he is forced to post under numerous names.

  7. Jonathan: It always gets my juices flowing when the subject of “sexual misconduct” is raised–especially the marital infidelity variety. Other presidents have committed adultery–notably John Kennedy with Marilyn Monroe. But millions of Americans still revere him. If marital fidelity was a requirement to hold public office there would be few candidates who could qualify. But why do you pick on poor Bill Clinton? He paid the ultimate price for his sexual encounters with Monica Lewinsky. He was impeached. But now you claim: “Recently, it was disclosed that Clinton may have also suborned perjury and committed obstruction of justice.” I seem to recall that these were the two charges in the articles of impeachment which you enthusiastically supported. So what is this with your continuing obsession with Bill Clinton? Is it because he continues occupy the public arena and CNN and A&E Networks eagerly seek his views on presidential leadership in a time of crisis? The thrust of your argument seems to be that the networks are hypocrites because of their unfair coverage of Brett Kavanaugh,someone you support. I’m not sure that is the case but that is a subject for another comment. The question is should a former president be banished from the public arena because he committed extra-marital sex in the Oval Office? Frankly, I don’t care about someone’s past sexual misconduct but whether they have something relevant to say today about presidential leadership in this time of the cornonavirus pandemic. God knows we need real leadership right now with Donald Trump occupying the Oval Office. Trump’s own “sexual misconduct”, which you conveniently ignore, will have to wait for a future comment. I suggest you stick to legal analysis because discussing the sex life of a former president is definitely not your forte.

            1. For sure, they were bonking. 😉

              Speaking of which, it has been 57 years since Kennedy was assassinated. Great Van Sustern tweeted out that those sealed records should now be released to the public. I agree. Release the records!

              1. What’s to know? Dulles, Hoover, Johnson, Marcello et al. gave an order for executive action. Johnson was headed to prison for Billy Sol Estes and the rest were just pi–ed. The hit team was Mob. The primary patsy was Oswald with back-ups. The triangulation was the fence on the grassy knoll, the Daltex Building and the staged Book Depository sniper’s nest to be assigned to the final patsy choice. The front and rear shots were almost straight, easy. The Secret Service was given orders to change the route and slow below 11 mph. The fake autopsy and photo session took place in the Bethesda basement. Dallas Police Dept. was as corrupt as every other police department and politician – like Joe Biden. The Umbrella Man failed to signal abort. It was a go. Loose ends like David Ferrie have been tied up for decades afterward.

            2. Paul- Yes, that Happy Birthday scene is pretty telling. The Kennedys were like over-sexed rabbits. Not likely to take a pass on Marilyn.

      1. JFK, Monster
        By Timothy Noah

        “I knew that John F. Kennedy was a compulsive, even pathological adulterer, given to taking outlandish risks after he entered the White House. I knew he treated women like whores. And I knew he had more than a few issues with his father about toughness and manliness and all that. But before I read in the newspaper that Mimi Alford’s just-released memoir, Once Upon A Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy And Its Aftermath, described giving Dave Powers a blow job at JFK’s request and in his presence, I didn’t know that Kennedy had an appetite for subjecting those close to him to extreme humiliation.”

      2. This is absurd x XXii says:May 16, 2020 at 8:15 PM
        “The notion Kennedy bedded down Marilyn Monroe is a fantasy.”

        How in the hell would you know.

    1. @Dennis – This isn’t about an extramarital affair. Bill Clinton lured a young intern to give him oral sex his White House office. He and his allies smeared the young woman as unstable and a liar. Clinton lied to the American people and under oath. He thought he would get away with it, except she kept a blue dress with his semen on it. Clinton’s lies were exposed only when he endured the humiliation of failing a DNA test.

      The Democrats claim to be the party that empowers women. They should stop deflecting. If Clinton’s behavior is what they expect from their leadership, they should call it for what it is and own it.

      1. Epstein – Monica seems to have been the predator in the relationship. 😉 If not, she didn’t need much luring.

        1. @PCS- I’m hoping you’re just pulling my leg. This was a 21 year old intern who was abused by her 50 year old boss, a man who just happened to be the most powerful man in the world. Bill Clinton lured by a 21 year old siren? He should have kept it in his pants.

          1. Epstein – she was a real fan girl and couldn’t keep away from him. I suggest reading her full testimony in the Starr Report

            1. @PCS- Shirley, you can’t be serious. Clinton was the victim, and not the young woman?

              Apparently I haven’t been paying attention. The old-fashioned gender and power dynamic paradigm must be so 1990’s. If he lived in more enlightened times, he could have filed a sexual harassment complaint against his employee. 🙂

              1. Epstein – the WH staff kept trying to keep them separate. They finally had to get her a job in a different Dept.

            2. Monica was a bit wild and more like her mother. Her father was far more sedate. However, her wildness does not excuse Bill Clinton.

              1. Allan – I am not giving Clinton a pass, just pointing out who the probable culprit was, 😉

                1. A White House Intern? I don’t think you can give him a pass for this or any of the others whether or not she was willing. Clinton was more than willing and likely made the first moves.

                  1. Allan – let’s just say that Bubba didn’t have to use any of his infamous seduction techniques with her. 🙂

                    1. Paul, I already said Monica was like her mother, a bit wild, but she was an intern in the WH. I don’t think she suddenly grabbed the President by his privates. I think it likely the opposite happened and that she permitted what occurred.

                      Terrible behavior by the President

                      If you were visiting a friends house as a married adult and suddenly found you were alone with your host’s 21 year old daughter would you go ahead and have sex in your host’s bed?

                    2. Allan – if you were a hot-to-trot 21 y/o visiting the home/office of a friend you had the hots for and had the opportunity to bonk him in a side closet, would you do it?

                    3. Paul, we are talking about a married adult who so happened to be POTUS that had the hots for a 21 y/o intern in the Oval Office which so happens to be our office that we let him use. The answer is an absolute no.

                    4. Allan – we are talking about a serial rapist and adulter who has not has sex with his wife in years. The answer is yes. 😉

                    5. Paul, you were asking what I would do and the answer is leave her alone no matter what advances she may have made. We are not animals. We should have a certain moral compass. That Clinton had none is a disgrace to our nation. That his wife had none is likewise a disgrace to our nation. He became POTUS, I would think he would restrain himself with those working for him especially since at his age we expect maturity. We may not expect that (though I wish we could) from a 21 year old.

                    6. Allan – Bubba has the morals of an alley cat and Hillary approves. Monica was a more than willing participant. Bubba is the victim, we all know he is weak. Would you put a former alcoholic in a locked liquor store?

    2. @Dennis. Clinton did not pay the ultimate price. Veterans who died in our nation’s wars paid the ultimate price. Clinton’s powerful friends circled around him and he is now a millionaire many times over and a celebrity leader of the Democratic party.

      The person who paid the price was the young woman he abused. She landed a dream job in the White House. In a just world, that might have propelled her to a normal job and career. Instead, she was thrust into the national spotlight that shattered any semblance of a normal life. They even named the scandal after her, for goodness sake. Why? Because Clinton had a hard on for a young woman.

      Only in an inside-out, upside-down, Orwellian world would one dare to suggest that Clinton is the victim.

  8. I’d like to propose a legal topic for an upcoming column.

    Today, Marty Lederman (Georgetown Law School professor) tweeted:

    “FWIW, according to the argument Trump is making to #SCOTUS in the Mazars case, this request is unconstitutional b/c its primary purpose isn’t to help enact legislation. (To be clear: Trump’s SCOTUS argument is wrong.)”

    He tweeted that in response to a story in The Hill titled “Jim Jordan requests documents from Pompeo regarding Hunter Biden, Burisma” and two tweets from Trump: “If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC , just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!” and “Intel chief releases info on ‘unmasking’ of Flynn to Capitol Hill https://politi.co/3dIYUDa via @politico”

    Prof. Turley: do you agree with Prof. Lederman that “Trump’s SCOTUS argument [in the Mazar’s case] is wrong”? Do you have other comments about the arguments presented to SCOTUS re: Trump’s tax returns?

  9. Bill Clinton, then the most powerful man in the world, convinced a young intern to perform oral sex on him in his office in the White House. He lied about it to the American people on national television and under oath. He and his allies smeared the young woman as a liar. The Democratic party and a compliant media fell in line behind him. He would have gotten away with it, except that the young woman kept a dress with Clinton’s semen on it, and Clinton failed a DNA test conducted by the FBI. Clinton is not an alleged liar and sexual predator. It is a proven fact. If we think that kind of behavior is OK, we might as well be open about what he did.

    Joe Biden learned at the feet of a master. At about the same time Clinton was getting blow jobs in the White House, Biden likely assaulted an attractive young woman who worked in his Senate office. Following in the footsteps of his mentor, Biden denies it. He and his allies are now smearing the woman, claiming that she is unstable and a liar. The Democratic party and a compliant media and would have us believe that they conducted an extensive investigation and that it is all a recent fabrication. Yet we now learn that the young woman’s mother was on Larry King the month she was assaulted, she told multiple friends about it, and Biden’s actions and the profound affect that they had on her were described in 1990’s court filings. Oh, and other than the other sexual assault allegations that we already know about, they could find no pattern of sexual misconduct involving Biden. Biden might still get away with it. If this kind of behavior is OK, and if this is what we mean by believing women, we might as well be open about what we are doing.

    1. Somehow I forget to mention Hunter Biden. An attractive young woman bore a child. She named Hunter Biden as the father. Like Bill Clinton and his father before him, Hunter Biden denied it. What’s more, he denied that he ever had sex with the woman. Biden and his allies, backed by a sympathetic media, smeared the mother of his child as a liar and a slut. Hunter Biden would have gotten away with it, except that he failed a court-ordered paternity test. Then the whole thing got buried. You don’t need to see a suspicious sort to see a pattern emerging.

      1. Danney Lee Williams has a blue checkmark account on twitter. Take a look at his photo and there is no way you can deny he is Bubba’s son. But Bubba will not acknowledge him. For shame Bubba.

        1. Anonymous – I thought Bubba got mumps as a teen an was shooting blanks hence Webb Hubbell as the father for Chelsea.

          1. Don’t know about that mumps theory, but Chelsea looks just like her daddy Web Hubbell doesn’t she? And Danney Williams looks just like his daddy Bubba. Plus if you listen to Danney, you can’t miss the fact that he has his daddy’s charisma. For shame Bill Clinton.

            1. Anonymous – if I remember correctly, the mumps theory comes from the Lewinski testimony before Starr. She dropped this tidbit because it was his reason for not having to use contraception.

              The other personal tidbit Monica dropped was the Bubba has a STD, probably genital herpes, from the description of the symptoms. Monica was very forthcoming.

                1. DSS – From WebMD, which is more reliable than the CDC

                  Possible Complications
                  Rarely, adults who have mumps might experience some hearing loss and decreased fertility. They sometimes have other symptoms that can include swelling of certain body parts, such as:

                  Testicles (in males who’ve already gone through puberty)

  10. Can you imagine if Joe Biden was Bill Clinton’s Vice President? What a team they would have made!

  11. You have to wonder what percent of the country thinks at least one of the last two impeachments and the special councils therein were a proper use of the legal process.

    It is all very well to talk some smack in the comments section, but if the percentage is well over 50%, it’s not a good sign.

    We’re having formal impeachment proceedings at the rate of every other decade now. I for one prefer elections.

  12. We old Dems… Are sick of Clinton’s.
    Their faces make one gasp and puke.
    They are responsible for what they’re doing!
    Their mothers made them what they is!
    And it’s up against the wall redneck Clinton’s.
    Clinton’s who have raged and yak from Hell.

  13. Bill Clinton has charisma. He is talented at charming his audience. One of Trump’s biggest sins in the media’s eyes is that they find him an ill-mannered, boorish bourgeoise. Bill Clinton may have been paid enormous speaking fees by Russia while they were waiting for the Uranium One deal to be approved, by his wife among others, but he was not publicly concerned with making money. That was for the closed door meetings with cigars. That suave exterior has managed to deflect a long history of scandals and fraud allegations. Both the Clintons were Teflon power magnates with a long memory for those who threatened their position.

    Bill Clinton may have a long, well documented, sometimes litigated or settled history of sexual misconduct and fraud allegations, but he’s charming and a Democrat, so it’s acceptable.

    I think that voters are never going to get an ideal candidate, because Jesus isn’t running for President. The question is if they can ignore their flaws, either while voting, or while deciding if they still like him in later years. That may hinge upon whether they agree with their actions while in public office. Someone could be absolutely reprehensible in their personal life, but it’s how they do their job that often matters. In Bill and Hillary’s case, there is a history of fraud and misconduct allegations while on the job. Watergate. Travelgate. Trail a dollar through a trailer park Bimbogate. Interngate. The diamonds. Uranium One. Receiving far higher speaking fees than normal from foreign governments or companies with business before State while his wife was SOS. A folder of missing evidence found with only a secretary and Hillary’s fingerprints in their lounge. The pile of dirt is more smelly than a hog farm.

    The rape charges were not proven against Bill Clinton. Like with Biden, there was enough to look squinty eyed at him forever after, but allegations need to be proven. Sexual and workplace misconduct was absolutely proven. However, there was one avenue that was not explored, and that is the question of what he did on an extraordinary number of trips to Jeffrey Epstein’s orgy island, now infamous for sex trafficking and underage minors. It will forever bother me that high connections managed to shut down that line of inquiry.

    1. Oh, for crying out loud. Max Weber coined the term ‘charisma’ to refer to a peculiar inspirational ability (think Buddha or Christ), not to refer to oily politicians who utter applause lines.

          1. Paul C…..lol…..well, I’m not a doctor, (but I was a candy striper)😷💉💊

            Since we appear to be way over our quota of jerks, it would be nice to see him (Absurd) lighten up from time to time …………
            He’s one of my favorite commenters, with a great mind, but he often ruins the effects of brilliant writing by being so mean-spirited.
            But, that’s the way he rolls, I guess. It’s a shame.

  14. Bill Clinton is a rapist. CNN ignores it. Professor Turley accurately represents facts. The cold hard truth is extremely problematic for communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs). Judging by the posts below, the communists are in Kubler-Ross “denial” having recently received a terminal diagnosis for a comrade. Would that be related to the political, or otherwise, career of Obama? “Something Wicked His Way Comes.” Perhaps.
    _____________________________________________

    “The Kübler-Ross model, or the Five Stages of Grief™, postulates a series of emotions experienced by terminally ill patients prior to death, or people who have lost a loved one, wherein the five stages are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.”

    – Wiki

  15. Turley Follows-Up Trump’s Week Of Colossal Distractions

    More and more Professor Turley is talking to only Trump’s base. With this column our resident Trumpers are supposed to hiss with indignation because ‘enemy broadcaster’, CNN, is featuring the ever-loathsome Bill Clinton. Clinton’s sexual misadventures are an affront to every God-fearing Trump supporter; a faction that is strangely oblivious to Trump’s sexual misadventures. Whatever!

    The column below describes one of the strangest weeks yet in Trump’s truly bizarre presidency. A week during which American deaths linked to Covid 19 surpassed the 80,000 mark. On this week Trump tried to convince us that ‘Obamagate’ is the “biggest crime in American history”. Yet when asked to specifically describe the ‘crime’, Trump could only say it was “obvious to everybody”.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    The next step in the enterprise is equating Trump’s behavior and the criminal conduct of those around him with that of his opponents, on the theory that if you fling enough mud at the other side, it will obscure and distract from the muck covering you.

    This worked, or at least helped, during the 2016 campaign, with Flynn, appropriately enough, leading the “lock her up” chants about Hillary Clinton at the Republican convention.

    Now, Trump and company want to lock up the rest of the supposedly corrupt bunch — Obama! Biden! — for unspecified, likely because they are unspecifiable, crimes.

    Trump’s Monday exchange with the Washington Post’s Philip Rucker seeking an explanation of a tweet that accused former president Barack Obama of “the biggest political crime in American history” was enlighteningly unenlightening. “What is the crime exactly that you’re accusing him of?” Rucker asked. “You know what the crime is,” Trump replied. “The crime is very obvious to everybody.”

    It’s not, but no matter. By Thursday, Trump was upping the ante, demanding that Obama be hauled before Congress. “The first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama,” Trump tweeted. “He knew EVERYTHING.”

    Yelling “Obamagate!” in the overheated theater of the presidential election serves, or so Trump hopes, both to justify Barr’s intervention in the Russia probe cases and to distract voters from his disastrous response to the coronavirus pandemic.

    How fitting, then, that the new centerpiece of the alleged scandal is what’s known as “unmasking” — not the president’s juvenile refusal to wear one, but the request by a number of Obama administration officials to intelligence agencies to reveal Flynn as an unnamed person in intelligence intercepts.

    There’s no evidence this was improper. Barr claims that agents who questioned Flynn at the White House about his pre-inauguration conversations with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak acted for “the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn.” Flynn had lied to White House officials, including Vice President Pence, about the conversations. Given the evidence of Russian attempts to help Trump win, given the compromising position in which Flynn’s lies left him, it would have been reckless for the FBI not to follow up.

    But this is not about government misconduct. It’s about inflaming the base and muddying the waters. It’s about discrediting Obama as he assumes a newly prominent role in the 2020 campaign. It’s about winning, again, at any cost.

    Edited from: “Trump’s Strategy: First, Dismantle Mueller. Then peddle ‘Obamagate’

    Today’s Washington Post

    1. “More and more Professor Turley is to only Trump’s base..” Thanks for acknowledging the obvious change in Turley’s position (s). The last several topics have been one sided, void of objectivity.

      1. LES PARSON – we are seeing a switch with moderate liberals like Joe Rogan and Tim Pool. Rogan is ready to pull the Red lever. Tim has given up on the Blue lever and is reaching for the Red lever as we speak.

        1. And you’re seeing the opposite with a number of Republicans and conservatives, such as those associated with the Lincoln Project (which created the Mourning in America ad that Trump ranted about recently) and Republicans for the Rule of Law. They’re quite vocal that they’re going to be voting for Biden because Trump is so unfit.

    2. MORE ON TRUMP’S WEEK OF DISTRACTIONS

      Even by President Trump’s standards, it was a rampage: He attacked a government whistle-blower who was telling Congress that the coronavirus pandemic had been mismanaged. He criticized the governor of Pennsylvania, who has resisted reopening businesses. He railed against former President Barack Obama, linking him to a conspiracy theory and demanding he answer questions before the Senate about the federal investigation of Michael T. Flynn.

      And Mr. Trump lashed out at Joseph R. Biden Jr., his Democratic challenger. In an interview with a sympathetic columnist, Mr. Trump smeared him as a doddering candidate who “doesn’t know he’s alive.” The caustic attack coincided with a barrage of digital ads from Mr. Trump’s campaign mocking Mr. Biden for verbal miscues and implying that he is in mental decline.

      That was all on Thursday.

      Far from a one-day onslaught, it was a climactic moment in a weeklong lurch by Mr. Tru​mp back to ​​the darkest tactics that defined his rise to political power​. Even those who have grown used to Mr. Trump’s conduct in office may have found themselves newly alarmed by the grim spectacle of a sitting president deliberately stoking the country’s divisions and pursuing personal vendettas in the midst of a crisis that has Americans fearing for their lives and livelihoods.

      Since well before he became president, Mr. Trump’s appetite for conflict has defined him as a public figure. But in recent days he has practiced that approach with new intensity, signaling both the depths of his election-year distress and his determination to blast open a path to a second term, even at the cost of further riling a country in deep anguish.

      His electoral path has narrowed rapidly since the onset of the pandemic, as the growth-and-prosperity theme of his campaign disintegrated. In private, Mr. Trump has been plainly aggrieved at the loss of his central argument for re-election. “They wiped out my economy!” he has said to aides, according to people briefed on the remarks.

      It is unclear whether he has been referring to China, where the virus originated, or health experts who have urged widespread lockdowns, but his frustration and determination to place blame elsewhere have been emphatic.

      Edited from: “A Sitting President Riling The Nation During A Crisis”

      The New York Times, 5/15/20

          1. Will Kane – well, there is no age cap for any office. Now, we could have an amendment to change that for all offices. What do you think?

            1. There is and has been in New York since 1846, but it applies only to judges. You can serve as a regular jurist until the end of the calendar year you turn 70 and (with applications and assessments) hear cases as a retired justice for an additional six years. A ceiling of 76 would be a capital idea.

  16. Perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice.

    These sound like very serious charges, Turley. Why haven’t you been screaming from the mountain tops that the judicial system fulfill its duty? Nobody’s above the law, right? Such charges must be accompanied by incredulousness that no action was taken. I see you howling about them. But I don’t you deeply disturbed that nothing happened.

    Why is that?

    1. There is evidence that Clinton lied under oath, and he was disbarred, but my impression is that it wasn’t judged to be a material lie, so that would explain why he wasn’t charged with perjury at the time. If you believe that he did make material lies under oath, make an argument for it.

      Re: “Clinton may have also suborned perjury and committed obstruction of justice,” that’s not a claim that Clinton *did* suborn perjury and commit obstruction of justice, so we should first ask what Turley’s evidence is and why he believes that Clinton “may have” done these things. As for the judicial system, crimes have statutes of limitation, and even if there were evidence (which, again, hasn’t been presented), you’d have to check whether it’s now past the statute of limitations for those crimes.

      I’d say that there’s more evidence of Trump having committed these crimes, and I disagree with the OLC’s opinion that a President cannot be indicted while in office (especially since the statute of limitations doesn’t toll), but I have no power over that. Hopefully it will be addressed by the next Congress. Both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for not taking Trump’s alleged crimes more seriously. He should have faced more articles of impeachment and the Senate should have called witnesses for a real trial.

      1. I don’t know how you were left with the impression I was arguing for materiality. I’m saying a question having nothing to do with harassment shouldn’t be tolerated in a harassment court proceeding in the first place.

        I am noting that Turley doesn’t really believe, deep down, that there should have been a trial for perjury here. I find the tactics used by Starr in this matter to be similar to the ones used by Mueller.

        1. Actually, Starr’s office won convictions of both McDougals, of Gov. Tucker, and of Webb Hubbell. These were substantive crimes, not process crimes. He is office concluded an agreement with James McDougal in April 1997 to turn state’s evidence, but McDougal died before he could offer testimony. Note that Susan McDougal sat in a federal jail for 18 months rather than offer testimony under a grant of immunity. Note also that Rose firm billing records were found in the White House residence. The only fingerprints on them were Hillary’s. Note also that after he was disbarred but before he reported to prison, Webb Hubbell cleared over $800,000 in ‘consulting fees’. If only Richard Nixon had had such friends who would arrange that for Gordon Liddy’s crew! The investigation went off the rails, but it accomplished a lot before that. Mueller’s was a fraud from the get-go.

          1. Well they’re like Manafort conviction. And as with Manafort, you didn’t need a special council for those.

            1. No, they’re not. Manafort was convicted on a tax charge which the Tax Division had already taken a pass on, and a money laundering charge. Valid or not, it had nothing to do with Trump. Manafort was an employee of the Trump campaign for about five months, his business partner about seven months. All the charges pertained to activity which took place prior to when Trump employed him.

              The McDougals were business partners of the Clintons and Webb Hubbell a partner (with Hellary) in the Rose Law Firm. The Rose Firm was enmeshed in the Whitewater scheme.

        2. I misunderstood (Poe’s law?). Thanks for clarifying.

          I don’t think that Turley was arguing for a perjury trial. He claimed “lying under oath is an impeachable offense regardless of the subject matter,” and didn’t claim here that it needed to constitute perjury.

          I don’t agree with you about Starr and Mueller, and legally, Mueller’s investigation was more constrained than Starr’s, the difference between Special Counsel and Independent Counsel regulations. Moreover, the Mueller Report wasn’t the basis for Trump’s impeachment. Mueller indicated in his testimony that Trump had lied under oath about the Russia investigation, but that wasn’t part of the articles of impeachment.

          1. There was confidence that the crimes in the articles from the House Judiciary against Nixon were going to be followed up by the courts after Nixon left office. Nixon expected jail time. This indicates a legitimate use of the impeachment process.

            Who, among the people voting for Clinton’s impeachment, expected Clinton to be indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice? My sense is it was next to none. This indicates an impeachment that is a sham.

            1. I’m not a mindreader, so I can’t answer your question.

              But that paragraph suggests that you think presidents should only be impeached for statutory crimes, and if that’s what you think, I disagree. As a simple example, Emoluments Clause violations are high crimes but not statutory crimes. The EC clauses aren’t there by mistake; the Founders were very concerned about a corrupt president who puts his personal benefit above his responsibility as a public fiduciary. Similarly, a violation of the Take Care clause doesn’t necessarily correspond to a statutory crime, but might well be a high crime.

              “Crimes” can refer to statutory crimes, natural law crimes, high crimes, etc. Not all impeachable crimes are statutory crimes, and not all statutory crimes are impeachable crimes.

              1. The point is Commit, our Courts can’t simply ignore Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. Those were the charges in the impeachment articles. Where is the howling for the court proceedings? The Rule of Law must be upheld. You don’t have to be a mind reader. They’re not outraged because they don’t believe this was a legitimate impeachment.

                1. I think there was some howling in 2001 when Clinton left office, but Clinton wasn’t indicted because he and Ray reached a plea agreement just before Clinton left office. There’s certainly no howling for court proceedings *now*; not only because of the plea, but because the statute of limitations has expired.

                  I agree that “The Rule of Law must be upheld,” but plea bargains are part of that. I’m not sure who you’re referring to by “they” when you say “They’re not outraged because they don’t believe this was a legitimate impeachment.”

          2. I use the terms perjury and obstruction of justice because those were the charges in the impeachment articles. My understanding is that Turley supported the impeachment articles as worded.

  17. I’m a Democrat and consider myself on the Left. I disagree with CNN choosing to “featur[e Bill] Clinton prominently.” The media clearly aren’t a single entity who all view this the same way, nor do all on the left agree with CNN’s choice.

    That said, if Turley disagrees with the media featuring people “accused by a long list of women for everything from sexual harassment to rape,” then apply it across the board, because that description applies to many more people than just President Clinton. In particular, it also applies to President Trump, who is currently facing both a sexual-harassment-related defamation suit (Zervos v. Trump) and a rape-related defamation suit (Carroll v. Trump), and who has been accused by sexual harassment and sexual abuse by more than 2 dozen women (see, for example, independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-sexual-assault-allegations-all-list-misconduct-karen-johnson-how-many-a9149216.html , huffpost.com/entry/a-running-list-of-the-women-whove-accused-donald-trump-of-sexual-misconduct_n_57ffae1fe4b0162c043a7212 and businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12 ).

    Similarly, given Turley’s concern that “lying under oath is an impeachable offense regardless of the subject matter… Recently, it was disclosed that Clinton may have also suborned perjury and committed obstruction of justice,” he should be likewise be concerned about whether Trump lied under oath, has suborned perjury, and/or committed obstruction of justice. For example, Mueller indicated while under oath before Congress that Trump wasn’t always truthful in his written testimony (which was under oath) and the Mueller Report provides evidence that Trump committed multiple acts of obstruction and likely suborned perjury. Keep in mind that the OLC opinion that prevented Trump from being indicted for any of this also would have applied to Clinton while in office. I believe that OLC opinion to be mistaken, but regardless, it doesn’t apply once the person is out of office (as long as the statute of limitations hasn’t expired). I haven’t checked, but my guess is that the statute has expired for Clinton, but not for Trump, and I hope that he’s indicted once out of office.

    1. Committ, I’m sure JT must be working on a column right now about how as an accused sexual predator, networks should ban our President.

    1. I think you’ve got it the wrong way around. He’s the sum of his appetites, a silly narcissist looking for the next blow job. She’s a megalomaniac (and, quite possibly, a box wine drunk).

Leave a Reply