WI: “I had sexual relations with that woman”
- Thread starter darklordoftech
- Start date
How else could one read it?
As soon as the Republicans took power, they appointed Kenneth Starr special prosecutor. But then, the charge against both Clintons was supposed to be murder, pursuing the allegations that Bill Clinton abused his power as state governor to kill a man and cover it up in relation to Whitewater. Or at the very least prove serious criminal wrongdoing by the Clintons in Whitewater, or anything whatsoever they could find to stick to him.
All they had in the end was Clinton perjuring himself about something they had no sensible business asking about in the first place.
Clearly there was a mixture of a passionate hate for the Clintons, or anyway a deep sense that Clinton was not a legitimate President, combined with a desire to counter the legacy of Watergate by proving the Democrats were exactly as corrupt as Nixon.
What would you say it was, if not a vendetta? Sincere shock that a President might have a sexual affair while in office? Sincere concern for the dignity of Lewinski? Concern for Hillary Clinton? (They were trying for her head just as much as her husband's, she and he were equally purported to be liable in the allegations of criminality that were the premise of the Special Prosecutor's mandate).
With his British driver, Kay Summersby was her name I think.
suul'ken
Kicked
So, you're say that morally dubious political shenanigans that threaten the very legitimacy of American political system started way before Trump?
The Two parties will natural be drawn into greater and greater conflict which will than divide electorate between them.
Republicans can be considered to be a rough equivalent of the Optimates and Democrats can be considered a rough equivalent of Populares.
The only saving grace is that the military and intelligence complex tries to be politically neutral unlike in Ancient Rome!
According to other posters in this thread, If Clinton had admitted to Sexual relations with Monica Levinski the Republicans would still try to impeach him if not over the affair they would have found something else!
Last edited:
Not necessarily, but they overplayed their hand. It came down in my opinion to a situation wherein a prosecutor knows he's right about a defendant, even if he's wrong about the exact offense and/or lacks the evidence/ability to actually convict. At the end of the day, even many conservative Republicans now say that the impeachment effort was not worth it.
GeographyDude
Gone Fishin'
Some, but not all, Republicans viewed Clinton as illegitimate for one of three reasons:
1) A letter he wrote as a young man that he was in ROTC to avoid Vietnam and also keep his political viability alive,
2) The fact that Bill had participated in an anti-war protest while a grad student in the UK, and
3) The belief that H. Ross Perot split the ticket and that Bush should have won in ‘92.
On the last one, okay, Perot was largely a middle-of-the-road candidate anyway. And then, I’ve come around to the view that a lot of third-party voters tend to be in the ideological middle, at least as far as the one-dimensional left-to- right spectrum.
Last edited:
If he did say yes, I could imagine some skit (probably robot chicken or some equivalent)years afterwards, that not only did a president admit to having had sexual relations with a particular woman, but so did his wife.
The claim didn’t come out until after his death.
And even then it was claimed by the ghostwriter of Summersby’s autobiography based of inference. Summersby denied there was intercourse.
The media and general populace latched on to the sex scandal aspect.
The legal aspect was always about previous sexual harassment lawsuits.
All of Clinton’s painfully worded testimony was to avoid perjuring himself against what he had previously said in the Paula Jones lawsuit.
He had previously denied under oath that he had had any sexual relations with any subordinates. That led to the linguistic gymnastics of defining the words “is” and “alone” etc and eventually the equally hilarious and absurd defense that Clinton didn’t perjure himself because in his view BJs don’t count.
Last edited:
And the story heard from my friend of a friend of a secret service agent:
When the details broke Hillary had a full Lifetime movie style screaming/cussing/ slapping the $#*£ out of Bill confrontation in the White House that ended with agents physically pullling her away from him.
Oh to be a fly on the wall if that was true.
And totally understandable in my opinion if she did so.
When the details broke Hillary had a full Lifetime movie style screaming/cussing/ slapping the $#*£ out of Bill confrontation in the White House that ended with agents physically pullling her away from him.
Oh to be a fly on the wall if that was true.
And totally understandable in my opinion if she did so.
Bill still being alive is the ultimate proof the Hillary isn't the mistress of mass murder that some right wing nuts try to paint her as.
I read the other day that the Clinton Impeachment forever destroyed the notion of a "high crime and misdemeanour" and instead made it "whatever the Congress wants it to be". I do not like Bill Clinton mainly for his refuting of the sexual allegations and the many rape allegations. Without the denial the rape allegations would be less believable. I mean your telling a lie about a consensual sexual encounter. Bill Clinton should not have been impeached even with the lie about the sexual event as it is not within the original intent for the function.