BC hijack

[RedSpawn]

Oops! It appears that the Trumps have been lying, all along.

 

 

 

This is now serious stuff. Moderators, can we now move the Bill Clinton sideshow to its own separate thread?

I am not seeing how a Former President who grabbed and kissed an alleged victim, received fellatio in the White House from his subordinate, lied about it under oath, witness tampered to subjugate the truth, lied to the nation about said matter, obstructed justice by hiding subpoenaed gifts he gave to his fellator, and then tried to invoke Executive privilege about allegedly private sexual acts performed on federal property is a SIDESHOW.

 

This is serious stuff not some child's play act.

 

This man's character and behavior during the entire episode is just as alarming as the Pu$$y-Grabber in Chief but collectively the nation decided to overlook these character flaws despite the pattern of behavior and the subsequent criminal acts.

 

Keep in mind I said he MIGHT have obstructed justice with the unscheduled meeting with Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac and people acted like that was too conspiratorial or out of character for the man. Oh really? He will attempt to obstruct justice for his fellator, but never his wife. That is beyond the realm of reason.

 

Thank goodness he left his DNA on Lewinsky's dress or he might've gotten away with the perfect crime.

 

Tell me how this series of acts qualify as an "aberration" of character. I would like to see how someone who unapologetically abuses his power and authority and risks his political career for a damn dalliance is less of a clear and present danger than Trump. BOTH MEN deserve public condemnation. There are no mitigating factors.

[Winstonm]

I am not seeing how a Former President who grabbed and kissed an alleged victim, received fellatio in the White House from his subordinate, lied about it under oath, witness tampered to subjugate the truth, lied to the nation about said matter, obstructed justice by hiding subpoenaed gifts he gave to his fellator, and then tried to invoke Executive privilege about allegedly private sexual acts performed on federal property is a SIDESHOW.

 

This is serious stuff not some child's play act.

 

This man's character and behavior during the entire episode is just as alarming as the Pu$$y-Grabber in Chief but collectively the nation decided to overlook these character flaws despite the pattern of behavior and the subsequent criminal acts.

 

Keep in mind I said he MIGHT have obstructed justice with the unscheduled meeting with Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac and people acted like that was too conspiratorial or out of character for the man. Oh really? He will attempt to obstruct justice for his fellator, but never his wife. That is beyond the realm of reason.

 

Thank goodness he left his DNA on Lewinsky's dress or he might've gotten away with the perfect crime.

 

Tell me how this series of acts qualify as an "aberration" of character. I would like to see how someone who unapologetically abuses his power and authority and risks his political career for a damn dalliance is less of a clear and present danger than Trump. BOTH MEN deserve public condemnation. There are no mitigating factors.

 

Bill Clinton's actions were adjudicated. You are simply creating a diversion from the thread. If you want to continue your discussion, why not open your own thread about Bill Clinton instead of hijacking this one?

[RedSpawn]

Bill Clinton's actions were adjudicated. You are simply creating a diversion from the thread. If you want to continue your discussion, why not open your own thread about Bill Clinton instead of hijacking this one?

They were not adjudicated in a criminal proceeding because even our own forefathers could not conceive a scenario where we would need to prosecute a sitting President for acts that besmirches the Office of the President.

 

What Congress did was take the path of least resistance and essentially censured his behavior because they wanted the nation to put this disgusting display of character behind them.

 

With 100% of Democratic senators (45 of them) voting not guilty on both charges, it was not a vote of conscience, but a vote of political expedience. We played politics with the highest office of the executive branch.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/senatevotes.html

 

It is not a diversion or hijack to compare the sexual indiscretions of two Presidents in a Forum. But it is disingenuous to suggest that a President who did all of this for a dalliance could not possibly do something similar for his wife. Why is that? Why is it too conspiratorial with respect to Loretta Lynch?

[PassedOut]

Let's not forget Grover Cleveland! Why do those people so upset about Trump's sexual assaults give Grover Cleveland a pass??

 

Not even a specific allegation of philandering, illicit pregnancy and coverup barred Grover Cleveland from the White House

 

“It seems to me that a leading question ought to be: do the American people want a common libertine for their president?” So wrote a preacher from Buffalo, New York, to the editor of the Chicago Tribune on the eve of the 1884 presidential election.

 

Maine Senator James G. Blaine, the Republican candidate, had been shamed some years earlier when it came to light that he’d been trading congressional favors for cash, something his Democratic rivals brought up at every opportunity. The Democrats, though, had troubles of their own. A scandalous tale about the misdeeds of their candidate, New York Governor Grover Cleveland, was gaining traction, along with a particularly grating chant directed at him: “Ma, ma, where’s my Pa?”

 

For on July 21, 1884, the Buffalo Evening Telegraph broke a story many in upstate New York had long known to be true—that 10 years earlier, a woman named Maria Halpin had given birth in that city to a son with the surname Cleveland and then been taken to a mental asylum while the child was adopted by another family.

 

Cleveland’s campaign, knowing there was no refuting the allegations, was almost blasé in admitting that yes, Cleveland and Halpin had been “illicitly acquainted.”

 

...

 

Halpin was a 38-year-old widow in 1874, according to the Tribune, which also reported:

 

Halpin said that Cleveland had pursued her relentlessly, and that she finally consented to join him for a meal at the Ocean Dining Hall & Oyster House. After dinner, Cleveland escorted her back to her boarding house. In an 1874 affidavit, Halpin strongly implied that Cleveland’s entry into her room and the incident that transpired there was not consensual—he was forceful and violent, she alleged, and later promised to ruin her if she went to the authorities.

 

Halpin said she told Cleveland she never wanted to see him again, but “five or six weeks later” was forced to seek him out because she was in the kind of trouble only Cleveland could help her with.

 

The trouble, of course, was pregnancy.

Trump's indiscretions are all over the news, but those same reporters write nothing at all about Grover Cleveland! What gives? Why the double standard?!

[kenberg]

Bill Clinton's crime was lying under oath. An adult can, in fact, consent to a sexual relationship with a superior, however poor an idea that might be, with no crime being committed. Monica Lewinsky never claimed that she didn't want sex with Clinton. That's way different from Trump's just groping women because he's sure that can get away with it.

 

Long long ago. so it seems, young male faculty I knew sometimes dated young female graduate students. There were several happy marriages resulting from this. It is of course possible that everyone remained fully dressed until the vows were taken. Anything iis possible.

I don't think it is all that difficult, at least not usually, to tell a consensual relationship from a predatory one.

[Winstonm]

Let's not forget Grover Cleveland! Why do those people so upset about Trump's sexual assaults give Grover Cleveland a pass??

 

Not even a specific allegation of philandering, illicit pregnancy and coverup barred Grover Cleveland from the White House

 

 

Trump's indiscretions are all over the news, but those same reporters write nothing at all about Grover Cleveland! What gives? Why the double standard?!

Don't even get me started on Caligula!

[cherdano]

Long long ago. so it seems, young male faculty I knew sometimes dated young female graduate students. There were several happy marriages resulting from this. It is of course possible that everyone remained fully dressed until the vows were taken. Anything iis possible.

I don't think it is all that difficult, at least not usually, to tell a consensual relationship from a predatory one.

 

I have no reason to doubt that all these marriage were happy and based on consensual relationships. But I think you are being very naive if you see nothing problematic about it at all.

 

Many relationships are consensual, but nevertheless have a very unequal power dynamic. From my perspective, being 3000 miles away, that seems a bit more likely to happen when it starts out as a relationship between a young graduate student and permanent faculty.

 

I know of several cases of young graduate students switching topics because their obvious choice of mentor in their originally chosen topic fell in love with them. I know another who did not (there were a number of faculty within the same research area), but it still made graduate school quite a bit more awkward. And of course some who happily married their suitor, but as a result gave up their career. Unlike in physics, two-body problems tend to be harder to solve when one body is already fixed in a permanent job.

 

And then, of course, there is the issue of the initial advance - that may be much more difficult to say not to if your suitor is also likely to be on your PhD committee.

 

Oh, you can probably guess the gender of those graduate students.

 

People fall in love with people they meet, even if they meet them at work. Nothing will change that, and I wouldn't want to judge any individual for any of the situations that I described without knowing more about them. But while I don't think it's behaviour that can be effectively regulated with HR guidelines, or laws, it is still highly problematic - both in many individual cases, and in the aggregate effect (making graduate school more unpleasant for female graduate students in subjects where the majority of faculty or male).

[Zelandakh]

I have no reason to doubt that all these marriage were happy and based on consensual relationships. But I think you are being very naive if you see nothing problematic about it at all.

 

Many relationships are consensual, but nevertheless have a very unequal power dynamic. From my perspective, being 3000 miles away, that seems a bit more likely to happen when it starts out as a relationship between a young graduate student and permanent faculty.

I would presume that despite the potential problems of such a relationship, you would nonetheless regard any consensual relationship of this sort as less problematic than a non-consensual sexual attack such as groping a woman immediately after meeting her, or pushing one up against a wall without warning and kissing her with a tongue in her mouth?

[cherdano]

I would presume that despite the potential problems of such a relationship, you would nonetheless regard any consensual relationship of this sort as less problematic than a non-consensual sexual attack such as groping a woman immediately after meeting her, or pushing one up against a wall without warning and kissing her with a tongue in her mouth?

 

You are hijacking the thread by making it about Donald Trump!

Sexual assault is a crime, for a good reason (even though it is difficult to persecute).

Consensual relationships with unequal power dynamic are not a crime, for a good reason.

[kenberg]

I have no reason to doubt that all these marriage were happy and based on consensual relationships. But I think you are being very naive if you see nothing problematic about it at all.

 

Many relationships are consensual, but nevertheless have a very unequal power dynamic. From my perspective, being 3000 miles away, that seems a bit more likely to happen when it starts out as a relationship between a young graduate student and permanent faculty.

 

I know of several cases of young graduate students switching topics because their obvious choice of mentor in their originally chosen topic fell in love with them. I know another who did not (there were a number of faculty within the same research area), but it still made graduate school quite a bit more awkward. And of course some who happily married their suitor, but as a result gave up their career. Unlike in physics, two-body problems tend to be harder to solve when one body is already fixed in a permanent job.

 

And then, of course, there is the issue of the initial advance - that may be much more difficult to say not to if your suitor is also likely to be on your PhD committee.

 

Oh, you can probably guess the gender of those graduate students.

 

People fall in love with people they meet, even if they meet them at work. Nothing will change that, and I wouldn't want to judge any individual for any of the situations that I described without knowing more about them. But while I don't think it's behaviour that can be effectively regulated with HR guidelines, or laws, it is still highly problematic - both in many individual cases, and in the aggregate effect (making graduate school more unpleasant for female graduate students in subjects where the majority of faculty or male).

 

I concede it is not always a straightforward situation. In particular the relationship between a student and her thesis adviser should stay exactly that. Just too apt to be trouble otherwise. Good judgment can be useful. When I was a grad student I went canoeing with a faculty member. The rapids were severe, it was more than a little risky. Maybe not my best choice. I do understand that canoeing down rapids is different from having sex, but the point is that using some judgment can always be a good idea. It was consensual canoeing.

[cherdano]

I do understand that canoeing down rapids is different from having sex,

You know, I could really use a new signature...

[Winstonm]

It was consensual canoeing.

 

I have to admit I've never heard this particular euphemism.... :P

[Zelandakh]

I have to admit I've never heard this particular euphemism.... :P

What did he have in his pocketses? And was he pleased to see her?

[RedSpawn]

Bill Clinton is not the president, he was not a candidate in 2016, and no set of circumstances will cause him to become president now. So he is not really relevant to the current discussion.

 

The difference between Trump and Clinton on sexual harassment is that Trump has admitted, on tape, to criminal harassment. Clinton has not done this, and while there are accusations out there all of them seem to have reasonable doubts and none have been proven. So Trump voters clearly know his attitude towards women and didn't care (Trump himself doesn't really deny it, just tries to change the subject) whereas Clinton voters could credibly disbelieve accusations of this sort.

 

In any case, no one is suggesting Trump be impeached because of his history of sexual assault, much less because of cheating on his wife (which is basically what Clinton was impeached for -- lying to congress about having cheated on his wife; senators, including some Republicans, did not feel this rose to the level of "high crimes"). If Trump is impeached it will be for treason -- colluding with a foreign power to illegally obtain information which would then be used to win a US election. Treason (and covering it up) is a different and far more serious issue than lying about an extra-marital affair. Note that the breach of the DNC data is quite similar to Watergate, if the burglars had been Soviet spies and with the addition of modern technology. There is certainly precedent for impeachment and the case seems to grow stronger by the day. Of course politics enters into the equation and Republicans in congress are unlikely to impeach as long as their voters (who already forgave Trump for sexual assault and a scam university and any number of other things) still support the president.

He lied under oath in a legal proceeding regarding SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND witness tampered AND hid subpoenaed gifts from the court. Do not mitigate this to some small lie to Congress. Make sure you discuss the subsequent obstructionist behavior which is also illegal. This happened under the Paula Jones case and he paid a whopping $850,000 settlement to end the civil case once the sperm on the blue dress knocked down the impressive house of cards he built.

 

The judge fined BC $90,000 because unlike our Congress, she found him in contempt of court and guilty of perjury.

 

See https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jul/30/clinton.usa

 

He had the benefit of reasonable doubt UNTIL science proved what his soul refused to confess under oath.

 

Why would he admit to sexual harassment even if he had done it when the burden of proof is on the prosecution? He is a good leader who happens to be a very good liar and obstructionist. And despite these failings, we are going to side with the accused because THIS TIME he is telling the truth in a different sexual harassment case?

[Winstonm]

Is that a smoking gun in your pocket or just a cigar that's happy to see me? :P

[Winstonm]

He lied under oath in a legal proceeding regarding SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND witness tampered AND hid subpoenaed gifts from the court. Do not mitigate this to some small lie to Congress. Make sure you discuss the subsequent obstructionist behavior which is also illegal. This happened under the Paula Jones case and he paid a whopping $850,000 settlement to end the civil case once the sperm on the blue dress knocked down the impressive house of cards he built.

 

The judge fined BC $90,000 because unlike our Congress, she found him in contempt of court and guilty of perjury.

 

See https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jul/30/clinton.usa

 

He had the benefit of reasonable doubt UNTIL science proved what his soul refused to confess under oath.

 

Why would he admit to sexual harassment even if he had done it when the burden of proof is on the prosecution? He is a good leader who happens to be a very good liar and obstructionist. And despite these failings, we are going to side with the accused because THIS TIME he is telling the truth in a different sexual harassment case?

 

Clinton pollster to RedSpawn: "So I guess I'll have to put you down as 'undecided'." B-)

[barmar]

Tell me how this series of acts qualify as an "aberration" of character. I would like to see how someone who unapologetically abuses his power and authority and risks his political career for a damn dalliance is less of a clear and present danger than Trump. BOTH MEN deserve public condemnation. There are no mitigating factors.

How about this difference: Trump bragged about his pussy-grabbing. Clinton presumably realized that it was wrong and shameful, because he tried to hide it.

 

Of course, when Trump was bragging, he didn't have any political aspirations. Clinton might not have regretted the dalliance, he might just have been trying to protect his political career.

[kenberg]

You know, I could really use a new signature...

I might regret saying it. Oh well.

 

Being of a certain age I might have memory problems, but I can't recall women having all that much trouble making it clear that they were not interested. My thinking is just that if two people are going to go canoeing, someone has to suggest it. And then, certainly in the workplace and, maybe to a lesser extent in a general environment, a discouraging response has to be accepted as discouraging.

 

I do acknowledge that guys, and sometimes women as far as that goes, can be taken up with a fantasy that is not going to become a reality. In the workplace this has to be heavily stomped on.

[Al_U_Card]

I have to admit I've never heard this particular euphemism.... :P

Adapted from consensual "kanoodling" no doubt. :)

[RedSpawn]

[

[RedSpawn]

Clinton pollster to RedSpawn: "So I guess I'll have to put you down as 'undecided'." B-)

Fair enough. The missing links regarding Brazile, Wasserman Schultz, and the Clinton tarmac scandal are as follows:

 

http://thegrio.com/2017/03/20/donna-brazile-emails-dnc-clinton

http://www.CNN.com/2016/07/24/politics/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dnc-chair-career/index.html

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/01/how-was-local-reporter-tipped-clinton-lynch-meeting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Lynch

 

I think the 1st two links solidly establish that the Democratic National Committee loaded the political dice in Hillary's favor.

 

It sounds like we are focusing on what conclusions, if any, we can draw from the Phoenix tarmac rendezvous. I think we agree that at a minimum an "ex-parte communication" appears to take place while the AG is still investigating Hillary. This action seems both unethical and professionally irresponsible. And as a result, AG Loretta Lynch recused herself from the investigation and agreed to blindly accept the recommendations of the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton's email server scandal.

 

Please click the link to get a better legal explanation of "ex parte communication" http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/what-ex-parte-communication .

 

So we have to look at motive. What motive would a Former President have to arrange an unscheduled rendezvous on a Phoenix tarmac at night with the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. when his wife is under investigation and could face criminal indictment? What would compel him to do this under the cover of darkness and in a clandestine way with no official record taking place?

 

It creates the appearance that he is about to interfere with, influence, or obstruct judicial matters to protect his wife from pending criminal charges. That is not a quantum leap of supposition, but it is definitely a more plausible explanation than the one AG Lynch provided. Are we to believe that Former President Clinton went through this rigmarole to discuss family matters and children with the AG for 30 minutes? That explanation insults the public's intelligence.

 

And why would other FBI agents on the tarmac clarify that the rules of engagement are "no photos, no pictures, and no cell phones" as reported by Christopher Sign of ABC-15? Was FBI Director James Comey aware of this clandestine meeting and how it casts a shadow over the entire FBI investigation? What did he know and when did he know it? His integrity is on the line now that the AG's integrity and independence seem compromised.

 

There is too much at stake here to let government officials provide weak, Dr. Seuss explanations for unethical behaviors. The scales of justice should not be for sale to the highest bidder or to individuals with significant political clout.

 

By the way, you are right. Neither Bill nor Hillary are in office but yet the AG decides to delay her schedule for 30 minutes to meet with the Former President anyway. The fact that the AG didn't end the meeting abruptly shows the political gravitational pull Bill Clinton has on people and his former subordinates. And I refuse to disassociate Bill from Hillary because both have significant political currency in the D.C. establishment. They have an seemingly unbreakable union that is stronger and deeper than marital ties. It survives and thrives despite family, financial, legal, and political turmoil. They are One.

 

Now, that we have a thread dedicated to BC. . .

 

We all agreed that the meeting with Loretta Lynch is . . .disturbing. But why should we give BC the benefit of the doubt in this scenario? Admittedly, we can't just throw spaghetti against the wall and see what will stick but understanding that BC has been fined by a federal judge for perjury as a sitting President (for lying under oath to hide a dalliance) and has been accused of obstruction of justice by an independent prosecutor of the Monica S Lewinsky case, we have to wonder what was BC's intent.

 

And a fair question, would these type of unseemly acts have stopped if he had become 1st Gentleman in the White House? Granted, it is a speculative question, but he was having unethical meetings with Loretta Lynch before he would become 1st Gentleman.

[Zelandakh]

We all agreed that the meeting with Loretta Lynch is . . .disturbing. But why should we give BC the benefit of the doubt in this scenario?

A better question is to ask you why you find this meeting so suspicious but give a free pass to the Trump campaign meeting with the Russians. This is the kind of double standard that completely blows your credibility out of the window.

[RedSpawn]

A better question is to ask you why you find this meeting so suspicious but give a free pass to the Trump campaign meeting with the Russians. This is the kind of double standard that completely blows your credibility out of the window.

I said per federal law Trump Jr should be investigated for solicitation of a "contribution" (a thing of value) from a foreign national which is expressly prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act.

 

Also, I asked a very poignant question about the Russian-American lobbyist who was previously a Soviet counterintelligence officer. Who granted him Americanh citizenship? We need to be equally suspicious of how this man's government background was approved for US citizenship when he emigrated from Russia in 2009. Who vetted him and what was found?

 

Look at the timeline in this article and tell me that I should chalk it up to mere coincidence.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/15/loretta-lynch-must-testify/

[Zelandakh]

I said per federal law Trump Jr should be investigated for solicitation of a "contribution" (a thing of value) from a foreign national which is expressly prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act.

What I mean is - we have a well-known advocate for the lifting of Russian sanctions with close links to the Kremlin. Why do you suppose that sanctions were not discussed at this meeting but do consider it automatic that Hilary was discussed at the BC-LL meeting? There is no evidence for either thing and all parties deny anything of substance took place at either meeting. And yet, one meeting is suspicious and the other is clear aside from what has already been admitted to. The attitude reminds me strongly of the way Fox has covered the stories. Perhaps the similarity is no coincidence? :unsure: