The Clinton Rape Allegations

Clinton was not disbarred -- his license was suspended.

Are you referring to Starr or Clinton, CoastalRat?
I'm referring to Starr being repeadedly confronted with being polticially motivated and his reapeated denials. He only had to deny it once. I'm afraid I'm with the camp that he was politically motivated despite the repeated denials.

0 Replies

Incidentally, please name a poltician who isn't successful from being a talented liar.

0 Replies

swolf wrote:

Two people consenting to have sex on the GW bridge during rush hour would not be legal; neither is porking a teenage intern in a government office during regular government working hours. There is no normal job in America from which you'd not be fired for that.

Being fired for conduct and being convicted for the same conduct are two entirely different things. What law did Clinton violate by his dalliance with la Lewinsky?

swolf wrote:

The case Starr made was for perjury and not porking the teenage intern per se. The Arkansas state bar also saw it that way and disbarred Slick.

The Arkansas state bar did not disbar Clinton. In what amounted to a settlement agreement, Clinton was suspended from practice for five years and ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.

EDIT: looks like great minds not only think alike, LW, they think alike nearly simultaneously.

0 Replies

Thanks, joe -- I needed the details also. Seems like those who accuse Michael Moore of skewing facts like to not practice what they preach. Too many on these threads are preachers of empty rhetoric.

I worked for a company in the 80's where a corporate exec was seen in the parking lot afterdark with an underaged employee and they weren't playing Scrabble. Was he prosecuted or run out on a rail by the management? Nope.

0 Replies

(He was warned to be more discrete and kept his position -- hopefully not the same one in the back seat of the car).

0 Replies

It's also been alluded that when Clinton began the sexual relationship with Lewinsky she was a teenager. Not true.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Clinton was no disbarred -- his license was suspended.

Are you referring to Starr or Clinton, CoastalRat?
I'm referring to Starr being repeadedly confronted with being polticially motivated and his reapeated denials. He only had to deny it once. I'm afraid I'm with the camp that he was politically motivated despite the repeated denials.

Ok, so let me understand correctly. If a person is repeatedly asked about something and each time denies it, then it should cause us to suspect he is lying about it. But if repeatedly asked, he should answer the question only the first time it is asked and then just refuse to answer it when it is asked again?

Now, if he took out ads or stated repeatedly without being asked by the media that his investigation was not politically motivated, then I would agree with your comment. But somehow I think all his denials that his motivation was political came in response to repeated questions by the media. Maybe the media should ask the question once, and once answered stop asking it over and over again. But I doubt that will ever happen. Hehehe.

0 Replies

Starr might as well have been taking out ads because his staff was leaking information and getting those denials into the newspapers on a weekly basis. How soon we forget. That sight and sound bite of Starr emptying his trash several times a week was journalistic overkill. Starr became miffed on one interview because of the suggestion that his politics were driving him.

Incidentally, Clinton continuing his denials immediately put up a red flag and I told friends and relatives that I didn't believe him.

0 Replies

Ah well, as long as you are consistent regardless of the person or situation. Makes me think about an incident last night. Went with my wife to the grocery store. When we checked out, there were 2 packets of kool-aid in the cart. She accused me of putting them there. I didn't, so I denied it. But the entire trip home, she kept asking me to come clean and kept saying I had put them in the cart because she did not. Well, I know I did not, so I kept denying it. Had I just shut up and said nothing, she would be left with the opinion that I had done it. Good thing it was not you in the car or you would have believed I was guilty because of my denials. Smile

Anyway, as far as Starr's motivation is concerned, I do not doubt that part of the motivation was political. Heck, I would be surprised if it wasn't partly driven by politics. That is the nature of things in Washington I am afraid. Get the guy from the other party no matter what. Find the dirt and expose it. Guess we all get what we vote for.

0 Replies

I agree, CR, and I'm saying that with no particular love for any politician, right or left. The only less respected profession seems to be lawyers. Oh, wait -- most polticians are lawyers. My one bugaboo is they're legislating our laws.

0 Replies

I heard someone say (I forget who and what channel and the exact words; just don't want to credit for what I am about to say) that in fifty years history will look back and think we impeached the wrong president.

I think in the meantime all we are doing is rehashing the monica lewinski thing to death. I know that Clinton provoked the recent comments because of his book and his comments regarding the whole monica thing, but still all this todo over sex is just plain weird. I was going to say old fashioned but that is not even true, back before clinton we didn't worry about president's affairs.

Even before he started showing on tv a lot again; people still went on about clinton an awful lot. Every time something is said about Bush who is currently occupying the president's role; clinton's name was dredged up to either support a view or to say "so, clinton did it too" or "clinton was worse" and on and on.

As for the rape allegations and there being so many of them and that in itself giving credence to the allegations. This is politics. I am sure it wasn't too hard to drag some people up to claim this and that.

And before a comment is made; I didn't believe Anita Hill even though I didn't like Clarence Thomas; and I think that was all clearly politics.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It's also been alluded that when Clinton began the sexual relationship with Lewinsky she was a teenager. Not true.

I would bet that by the time Monica Lewinsky reached legal age she had already guzzled enough semen for Cleopatra to bathe in......just the impression I get.....

0 Replies

I find it amusing that so many here are quick to write scathing comments about Lewinski, Flowers, et al. I bet if some woman in the same situation stood up and claimed she felt forced into sex with a boss/important person and filed charges you would all be quick to jump to her defense. Kobe anybody? Something tells me many of the same ones who insist on bringing the character of Lewinski and Flowers into the equation (to somehow lessen Clinton's poor judgement) would be the same ones trying to keep the jury from hearing about Kobe's accuser's character/history as being irrelavent.

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I find it amusing that so many here are quick to write scathing comments about Lewinski, Flowers, et al. I bet if some woman in the same situation stood up and claimed she felt forced into sex with a boss/important person and filed charges you would all be quick to jump to her defense. Kobe anybody? Something tells me many of the same ones who insist on bringing the character of Lewinski and Flowers into the equation (to somehow lessen Clinton's poor judgement) would be the same ones trying to keep the jury from hearing about Kobe's accuser's character/history as being irrelavent.

I hope you're not talking about me.......I have said many times that I felt disapointed by Clinton's actions and I think that a man who can't control his urges probably can't control his bowels.......however Lewinski and Flowers were willing participants with Clinton, were willing participants with men before Clinton, and have probably been and will be willing participants with men post Clinton.

If Flowers and Lewinski were blowing Bill Clinotn the guy who ran the auto body shop in Hope Arkansas, no one would give a rats ass, no offense Coastal Rat :wink:

Personally I don't think peoples sexual behavior is anyone elses business to judge and people should keep their noses, among other things out.

0 Replies

I know for a fact that CoastalRat put those packets of Kool-Aid in the shopping cart. Furthermore, I'm willing to spend $70 million to prove it!

0 Replies

As I said on another thread, Flowers knew Clinton was married. What does that say about her scruples?

0 Replies

Coastalrat writes:

Quote:

Ah well, as long as you are consistent regardless of the person or situation. Makes me think about an incident last night. Went with my wife to the grocery store. When we checked out, there were 2 packets of kool-aid in the cart. She accused me of putting them there. I didn't, so I denied it. But the entire trip home, she kept asking me to come clean and kept saying I had put them in the cart because she did not. Well, I know I did not, so I kept denying it. Had I just shut up and said nothing, she would be left with the opinion that I had done it. Good thing it was not you in the car or you would have believed I was guilty because of my denials

The question that comes immediately to mind, are you a Kool-ade junkie CR? Are you in the habit of spiking the grocery order with Kool-ade? If so, your denials in this one incident could quite justifiably be questioned. If not, you will likely be believed.

Now considering the fomer president's denials......need I say more?

0 Replies

Not as much as it says about his.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I know for a fact that CoastalRat put those packets of Kool-Aid in the shopping cart. Furthermore, I'm willing to spend $70 million to prove it!

I bet he snuck a couple of cigars out too.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
I find it amusing that so many here are quick to write scathing comments about Lewinski, Flowers, et al. I bet if some woman in the same situation stood up and claimed she felt forced into sex with a boss/important person and filed charges you would all be quick to jump to her defense. Kobe anybody? Something tells me many of the same ones who insist on bringing the character of Lewinski and Flowers into the equation (to somehow lessen Clinton's poor judgement) would be the same ones trying to keep the jury from hearing about Kobe's accuser's character/history as being irrelavent.

I hope you're not talking about me.......I have said many times that I felt disapointed by Clinton's actions and I think that a man who can't control his urges probably can't control his bowels.......however Lewinski and Flowers were willing participants with Clinton, were willing participants with men before Clinton, and have probably been and will be willing participants with men post Clinton.

If Flowers and Lewinski were blowing Bill Clinotn the guy who ran the auto body shop in Hope Arkansas, no one would give a rats ass, no offense Coastal Rat :wink:

Personally I don't think peoples sexual behavior is anyone elses business to judge and people should keep their noses, among other things out.

Ouch!!! That rats ass part hurt.

Hey, I agree with you that they were willing participants, and quite frankly I have never been too caught up in the fact that he had affairs. The accusations of having them in the oval office and the lying about them and the perjury I had a problem with. But that is in the past and I am happy to see it stay in the past.

But I find it odd that people here make derogatory comments about the women involved that they would not make in other scenarios. Such as the guzzling semen comment. Why try to denigrate their character? Who cares if she had guzzled tons of semen prior to that or not?

0 Replies

The Clinton Rape Allegations

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know