Let's have a Hillary thread.

I'll burn some incense to that!

This is a message board where people interact. It would be better if we speak for ourselves, don't you think?



Let's start from the beginning.

A conservative magazine sent writer David Brock down to Arkansas to investigate some hearsay that some female state employee named Paula once claimed Bill Clinton asked her up to a hotel room and did nasty things to her against her will. Brock found the woman, now named Paula Jones, nee Paula Corbin.

Once Brock, the writer, found her, the conservative movement convinced Jones to file a lawsuit.

The Republican Congress, which was already investigating a land deal Clinton was involved in years ago, (and for which he was cleared), decided to forever shame itself in the eyes of history by investigating this woman's lawsuit. One had nothing to do with the other. It was pure political play.

In her lawsuit, Paula Jones claimed the following: that then Arkansas Governor Clinton was giving a speech to a convention in a Little Rock, Ark hotel lobby, and as a state employee, she was assigned to help the convention. She said that an Arkansas state trooper later handed her a paper with the number of the conference room Clinton had rented for the occasion, and she went up there and Clinton made improper advances. She further claimed that after she refused his advances and left, Clinton kept her from getting the raises and promotions she would be due on her state job, and continued to harass her.

Since she and Clinton were alone in the conference room, nobody can say for sure what went on. However, Arkansas trooper Danny Ferguson, who escorted Paula Jones away from the conference room, testified that Jones kept saying things like, "If the governor wants a girlfriend, I'll be his girlfriend", etc etc. all the way down to the hotel lobby.

Moreover, Jones' claims that Clinton harassed her on the job and kept her from getting promotions and raises were simply preposterous. A brief ten minute review of her personnel file showed that she got all the raises a person of her education and experience could expect. The "job demotion" she claimed turned out to be the same job, at the same pay, at a desk a few feet away from where she was stationed before.

In a hilarious bit, she was asked about a claim that she made about being turned down for a job she applied for.

"We didn't see the application in your file", she was told.

Jones replied that she did not fill out an application for a job, that a supervisor, allegedly under orders from Clinton, told her not to bother filling out an application.

"What was the title of the job", Jones was asked.

Jones replied she didn't know, (state jobs are posted-she would have had to know).

"Can you give us a general description of the job you are talking about"", she was asked.

Jones replied that she could not.

Yet the supposed prevention of Jones getting this job was one of the counts of her lawsuit. Jones was suing Clinton, in part, for a job that admit she never filled out an application or submitted a resume for, for which she did not know the title even though it was posted, and which she could not give a description of. And her claims that she did not get promotions and raises were proven false.

No wonder her lawsuit was thrown out!! Who would believe her?

So where does Monica fit in with this? She never even met Paula Jones in her life.

It's like this. Ken Starr was hired by congress to investigate the Whitewater land deal, where he utterly failed to show Clinton did anything wrong. So he decided to investigate Paula Jones' claims against Clinton.

While all the hoopla about Paula Jones' lawsuit was going on, Linda Tripp handed Ken Starr an illegally recorded tape of phone conversations between Tripp and Monica Lewinsky where Monica admitted to consensual sex with Clinton. During the tape, it became clear that Monica initiated the affair and was desirous of sex with Clinton and was proud to have sex with him.

Since Monica has never, ever said that she did not initiate the affair, whatever happened between her and Clinton had NOTHING to do with sex harassment. Sexual harassment is NOT sex between a boss and an employee, as Republicans have been lying about for the past several years. It is sex that one partner does not want. Monica wanted Clinton, as she made clear on the tapes by going into crying fits whenever he did not have time to see her. In point of fact, Clinton only saw Monica about 14 times in a year-about once a month. Monica wanted more.

Did Clinton lie when Starr asked him whether he had sex with Monica? Yes. But here is the sticking point: What the hell was Starr doing asking about Monica in a sex harasssment suit when Starr heard the tapes and knew Clinton did not harass Monica? In no way does consenting sex with one person prove sexual harassment with another.

Clinton lied about sex with Monica. But Starr had no business asking about Monica, since Monica intitated the affair and her testimony was therefore useless to proving sexual harassment with Paula Jones.

As it turned out, Clinton paid Paula Jones' legal bills to make her go away, and he lost his Arkansas law license for five years. So he did NOT get off scot free.

Oh, by the way, writer David Brock, the man who found Paula Jones and started the whole business, later wrote that he did not believe Paula Jones' story himself.

I hope this clears everything up for you. As you can see, your friend the newspaper writer really didn't know what the heck he was talking about.

The main points are these, I think:

Clinton lied, and that is not good. But the behavior of the Republicans and Ken Starr was much, much worse.

The reason the Republicans got Paula Jones to file the doomed, silly lawsuit was not that they believed her-Paula Jones' claims were ridiculous. They filed it because then they could get Ken Starr to start the investigation of it. No lawsuit, no investigation. That's what the Republican Congress was up to. Convincing people to file stupid suits with no chance of success just so that they can investigate the matter and embarrass Clinton before the suit gets thrown out.

Starr was dishonest. He had no business asking Clinton about Monica. If Starr was sincere about investigating the supposed sexual harassment of Paula Jones, why was he asking Clinton about whether he had sex with a woman Starr knew wanted Clinton? Sexual harassment is about unwanted pressure for sex, not sex with a woman who brags to her friends on the phone about having sex with you.

Linda Tripp was disgusting. She pretended to be Monica's friend, taped Monica's descriptions of her intimate moments with Clinton-given to Tripp in the privacy of friendship-and turned over the tapes to a prosecutor who was sure to humiliate Monica in his effort to get Clinton.

To make matters worse, Tripp actually made a lunch date with Monica at a Washington hotel, where she knew several prosecutors would come to the table, tell Monica to come with them, then spend several hours telling Monica that she'd better rat out her affair with Clinton or face serious Federal charges.

If it were possible to spit on a message board, all decent people would spit on Linda Tripp.

Compard to Starr, Tripp and Congress, Clinton comes across like a choir boy.

Would that that were true. Legions of the partisan faithful will go to their graves espousing the notion that Clinton's moral terpitude was of the deepest dyed hue--and that the current dirty little war was and always has been waged for the highest of moral reasons.

It is said that truth is the first casualty of war. In society and politics, truth is a bogey man to conjure with, and never actually exists for practical purposes.

Setanta, you might be right.

Nobody, least of all myself, could possibly ever sway a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton hater.

But for those whose mind is still open, as I am sure is the case with our friend escvelicity here, I think they deserve an explanation. So, she got one.

It's only fair.

Yes, and i did not mean to deprecate your effort. It is always good to seek the truth, whether or not it can be found, in full or in part; it is always good to speak the truth for as much as one may know it.

*whew*

I haven't laughed so hard in weeks!

Where ever did you come up with so much ficticious material kelticwizard? Was it before or after the liberal indoctrination?

This was my favorite:



What was it they did? Catch Clinton lying?

Thanks again. After reading this though, I wonder how you can possibly hold any ill-will against Bush.

Uh huh. Go on.


I don't see you being able to point out anyplace in my post where I said something that was not accurate.

Those of you out there who are willing to examine the facts of this should be struck by one thing:

The Republicans have been harping on Clinton and Monica since 1998. That's seven years. All this time, they have been telling us how upset they are by this. How they simply cannot get over it. How they still spill their milk in the morning when they try to make their cornflakes because their hand is shaking at the thought of Clinton and Monica.

Yet when confronted with the chronology of events, they cannot even point to one place where I went wrong. After seven years of going on and on about this.

That kind of just says it all, doesn't it?

source

Paula Jones
Paula Corbin Jones (born Paula Rosalee Corbin on September 17, 1966 in Lonoke, Arkansas) was a former Arkansas state employee who sued President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment.

According to her story, in 1991 she was escorted to the hotel room of Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, where he crudely propositioned her. She kept quiet about the incident until 1994, when a David Brock story in American Spectator told a story, popularly referred to as Troopergate, about an Arkansas employee named "Paula" offering to be Clinton's girlfriend. Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton in May 1994. Ann Coulter served as one of her attorneys in the beginning of this matter; however as Coulter admitted in the Hartford Courant in 1999, saying "We were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the president", she leaked the lurid details of Jones' testimony to the press in order to prevent Clinton from avoiding publicity by settling the suit, even though that had been Jones' express intention since the beginning of the suit, because that would not have been damaging to Clinton.

Coulter broke with Jones, and Jones began to be represented by Susan Carpenter-McMillan. Carpenter-McMillan wasted no time in using the press to attack Clinton to a much greater degree, calling him "un-American," a "liar," and a "philanderer" on Meet the Press, Crossfire, Equal Time, Larry King Live, Today, The Geraldo Rivera Show, Burden of Proof, Hannity & Colmes, Talkback Live, and other shows. "I do not respect a man who dodges the draft, cheats on his wife, and exposes his wee-wee to a stranger." In September, 1997, Jones' attorneys Gilbert Davis and Joseph Cammarata both quit the case, after Carpenter-McMillan advised Jones to reject a settlement offer from Clinton because it didn't come with an apology. Carpenter-McMillan's husband, personal-injury lawyer William McMillan, then became Jones' chief attorney, while Carpenter-McMillan continued to serve as Jones' spokeswoman, chair her legal fund, and run her fund-raising Website. Under her influence, Jones underwent a substantial 'fashion makeover' in early 1998. "I talked to her as a friend," Carpenter-McMillan said, "I don't know that anyone had ever talked to her about her hair." Jones' permed curly dark 'big hair' was converted to a softer, smoother, straight hairstyle in a lighter brown color; her makeup changed from brighter colors to more subtle shades; her clothing went from faddish short skirts and garish accessories to conservative pantsuits. Most observers agreed that she had had a subtle rhinoplasty, although Jones and Carpenter-Mcmillan denied it, saying "She has not had a nose job! She has not had plastic surgery at all. We couldn't afford it." The net effect, it was universally agreed, was to change her image from unreliable 'trailer trash', as the Clinton organization had been portraying her, to a sober, reliable, competent professional.

However, when the case did go to court, it was summarily dismissed as groundless, in that the judge ruled that Jones could not show that she had suffered any damages whatsoever, even should all her charges prove true. Jones did eventually gain a settlement from Clinton in exchange for not appealing the decision, but it was only $850,000, one third the size she had been asking for, and went to pay her now considerable legal expenses; meanwhile, her marriage had broken apart under the strain. However, the investigation of the Jones case eventually led to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, and Clinton's 1998 impeachment.

Jones now claims she was victimized by both Clinton and his Republican opponents. Her legal fund did not cover the attorneys' fees, and the settlement went completely to pay them, as well as back taxes. Now impoverished and divorced, Jones earned an unknown sum of money by posing for Penthouse. This caused her to be publicly denounced as "trailer trash" by Coulter, who said, "I totally believed she was the good Christian girl she made herself out to be. Now it turns out she's a fraud, at least to the extent of pretending to be an honorable and moral person." Jones defended herself on Larry King Live, saying, "I haven't been out doing anything and trying to make a lot of money. I haven't been offered a book deal like everybody else in this huge thing has done. Ann Coulter's done books. I haven't seen her call me up and say: 'Paula, would you like for me to help you write a book, a really nice, decent book?' I haven't had any help from anybody whatsoever."

Jones subsequently appeared in a boxing match against Tonya Harding in Fox TV's Celebrity Boxing in 2002, where she lost.

In an ironic twist, Brock apologized to Clinton in an article in Esquire in April, 1998 saying the original article in American Spectator was simply made up as part of an anti-Clinton crusade on the part of Richard Mellon Scaife's Arkansas Project. However, his detractors ask how we can be sure that he is not lying about this if he is a self-confessed liar about his original article.

www.answers.com/topic/paula-jones

and when l'il paula outlives her usefulness...

jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter

You know...i would think that a president would expect to be under such scrutiny....
Even president Bush. I don't agree with the way the war had taken place.
If president Bush get convicted for warcrimes, and then impeached...guess what, he asked for it.
There are certain responsibilities to being president.
And in no way is one of them abusing power.
I'm glad there are ppl out there who stay on our presidents heals to keep them in line.
None of our presidents should be above the law. No excuses!
President clintons trial was fair, he dug his own grave by lieing. Its no one elses fault but his own.
And if i choose to throw out a link, instead of typing...then thats my choice....i didn't see any rules saying that i couldn't.

People have the right to have a private life.

Women are drawn to men of position, wealth and influence. That is why most of the men who have done great things in the world had mistresses and action on the side. Ideals are wonderful, and should be extolled. But up until the Starr/talk radio madness-and it was madness-society was sophisticated enough to allow some leeway in the lives of their leaders as long as they made some kind of decent effort to put up a front.

Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief when they read that in the late nineties of twentieth century, large numbers of people actually thought that a consenting affair was call for a Congressional investigation.



Nobody ever thought consenting sex between adults required Congressional scrutiny before, yet this great Republic flourished.

I should point out that if you read the Clinton bashers, you would think that Clinton spent two years publicly going out with Monica to Washington's hotspots and boogieing the night away as photographers flashed their cameras. In point of fact, it was an affair carried on in private, with Clinton making every concievable effort to show decorum, much like most of the presidents before him.

The difference between Clinton and most of the other presidents is that his opposition had a special prosecutor, hired to investigate something else entirely, (a land deal where investors lost real money), and purposely moved the investigation over to where one unelected man, Ken Starr, was basically in charge of investigating all aspects of the president's private life.

This is unacceptable.

The voters of the nation sent a man to Washington to do a job. He had the right to do that job without Congress hiring a full time prosecutor-and staff-to probe every facet of his private life. And in point of fact, Clinton's private life in the White House was probably not much different from most Presidents'. Most of them had something going on the side.



You can, but most people don't enter a thread just to sum up their feelings in a thread with a link. There is no rule against it, but since a posting board is your chance to tell the world how you really feel about things, it is so much more effective to compose your own messages by and large, and post links only to support the points you already made. Don't you agree?

It's like if you work in an office, and one guy explains something to you from the heart, while the other just drops leaflets off on your desk supporting his position. Which one are you likely to be swayed by?

thanks keltwiz. i just don't have the energy, or the patience, to relive the whitewater thing all over again.

but since i love to torture my self, let me add the part about how the prosecutors are the party who detailed the definition of sexual relations.

amazing, i seem to recall that they included all kinds of things about touching this and slapping that, but some how managed to miss fellatio. they left it out of their definition of sexual relations.

according to a couple of legal scholars who've commented on this aspect, it follows that when clinton said he didn't have sexual relations with monica, he in fact was telling the truth according to the definition defined by the starr team.

even i would think this was total b.s. if i hadn't had to represent a couple of companies in court and in depositions.

there really is such a thing as what the definition of "is" is.

either way, i couldn't care less where the president gets his cookies. i couldn't care less where anybody does, as long as they don't run around shrieking and pointing fingers at everybody else.

Kelticwiz, the problem stems from Clinton harrassing women until he found one stupid enough to blow him. That's why the investigations happened and that's how the Monica scandal started.

How many women did Clinton have to show his dick to before Monica? Apparently a lot.

Men of power should not be allowed to prey on weaker people for their sexual gratification. If you can not see that is wrong, there is no hope left and I will not continue this conversation.

So there is some good news?

McGentrix, there is no question that Clinton was active outside his marriage, for many years. He is not unusual in that respect-most people of accomplishment are. As stated previously, women are drawn to men of power and influence.

There is also no question that there was a concerted effort by the president's enemies to make Clinton seem much worse than he actually is, in this regard. That has been proven.

For instance, there was the issue early in his term where four Arkansas state troopers, formerly assigned to protect Clinton while he was governor, made allegations that he had them do "lookout" work for him while he had trysts, that while driving him around he would have them stop while he popped into varios houses for "quickies", etc.

One of the troopers assigned to Clinton finally came forward and debunked all the allegations made. He was not one of the four who made the allegations.

He pointed out that he knew the troopers, as they covered the governor in shifts, and they never mentioned any of these things while they were allegedly occurring. Troopers do talk among themselves-if Clinton was having them stop the car for "quickies", they would have mentioned this among thmeselves, don't you think?

Thee were factual impossiblilites among the stories. For instance, one of the troopers claimed that Clinton had a tryst with a woman in a car, which they drove to a public parking lot and had sex in the car. The trooper even described the spot in the lot where this happened. According to the trooper, this was caught by the security camera, and the tape mysteriously disappeared containing the record of this.

A network TV show investigated, and found, among other things, that the parking lot in question did indeed have a security camera-trained on the entrance to the lot. Once you drove past the entrance, the camera cannot see the car. The spot the trooper described was well out of camera range. The camera's position was fixed-it could not move without detaching it from it's mount! There was simply no conceivable way that the spot the trooper described could be covered by that camera.

The trooper made the story up.

Later, it emerged that an old enemy of Clinton, now wealthy, came forward and asked the four troopers for stories of Clinton that he allegedly was going to put into a book. The troopers would be cut in on the royalities. Therefore, it then became in the troopers' interest to manufacture stories of Clinton's sex life.

He also said that "just in case they had trouble" from these revelations, he had jobs waiting for them at $100,000 yearly. An Arkansas state trooper, at that time, made nowhere near $100,000 a year, of course.

So in essence four state troopers were bribed to make up stories about Clinton, and they did. The stories did not check out. The scandal passed, amazingly almost unnoticed-one TV newsmagazine hour was devoted to it, the NY Times reported on it, and that was it.

So when you evaluate all thes stories coming out about Clinton, and are tempted to think, "Where there is smoke, there is fire", remember those four state troopers and their bribe-induced manufactured stories. The right wing has been trying to exaggerate Clinton's sex life out of proportion right from the beginning.

"McGentrix, there is no question that Clinton was active outside his marriage, for many years. He is not unusual in that respect-most people of accomplishment are. As stated previously, women are drawn to men of power and influence."



I can not believe you are defending his actions...

On the other hand, you are saying Clinton had little to no will power. Perhaps that is why he let China get away with so much top-secret material. Perhaps that's why he let Osama get away. Perhaps that's why he was such a schmuck.

I was under the impression that this thread was about Hillary Clinton. Was I wrong? It seems to have morphed into the Escapades of Bill.

Bill's escapades reflect on Hillary. What kind of skank stays with a man that cheats on her continuously?

Yes, several women have come forward to make allegations about Clinton. Just as several state troopers came forward to make allegations, and those turned out to be bribe-induced. In the case of the women, all of them had severe credibility problems.

Just for the case of Paula Jones, I will review her credibility problems. Her lawsuit contains many, many allegations of alleged harassment by Clinton. She claimed Clinton made improper advances to her up that hotel room he rented during the convention, and when she rebuffed him he denied her raises and promotions later. Most of the lawsuit consisted in enumerating the raises and promotions she was denied.

A quick check of the personnel file showed Jones' allegations to be false. That was all it took-a check of the personnel file. She did not have much education, or skills, and she simply received all the raises and promotions she could expect to get.

The "demotion" she alleged was simply being moved to a desk a few feet away, at the same wage rate.

There was a matter of the job she was "denied", when she admitted she submitted neither application nor resume for, could not state the title of the job, (even though state jobs were posted where she worked),and could not even give a vague description of the duties of the job she allegedly was "denied".

Simple fact is, everything Jones claimed in her lawsuit, that could be checked out, turned out to be FALSE. She got all of those raises and promotions.

Now, what happened in that hotel room cannot conclusively be checked out, of course. You have to take either Jones' word, or Clinton's. But the burden of proof falls on Jones, the plaintiff, and if every other thing Jones has claimed in her lawsuit turns out to be false, as they did-then how can you accept her version of events in this matter?

Not to mention,there is the testimony of the trooper, Danny Ferguson. The events of that day occurred like this, according to Ferguson:

Ferguson was talking to Jones while Clinton gave a speech in that Arkansas hotel lobby, and Jones told Ferguson to "tell the governor I think he has nice hair", etc. Ferguson relayed this info to Clinton, and that is why Clinton had Ferguson give Paula Jones his room number. Paula Jones agreed to go up to the room, escorted by Ferguson. Jones was in there prhaps ten minutes, while trooper Ferguson waited outside the room. As Ferguson escorted her away from the room, Jones told Ferguson on the way back to the lobby where she worked, "If the governor wants a girlfriend, tell him I'll be his girlfriend..." repeatedly.

So it is not just Jones' word against Clinton's word. It is Jones' word against Ferguson's word as well. Plus factor in all that hogwash Jones alleged about raises and promotions she was denied which turned out be untrue.

To sum up: Jones said many things which could be checked out, and some that could not be. Of the things which could be checked out, NONE of them turned out to be true. So how are you going to believe her on the things that cannot conclusively be checked out?