Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:20 AM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet
http://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971
Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet Nick Bryant 1/22/15 2:55pm Thursday 2:55pm Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet Bill Clinton took repeated trips on the " Lolita Express"—the private passenger jet owned by billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein—with an actress in softcore porn movies whose name appears in Epstein's address book under an entry for "massages," according to flight logbooks obtained by Gawker and published today for the first time. The logs also show that Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually service Epstein and his friends and acted as a "potential co-conspirator" in his crimes. Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 in Florida to one count of soliciting underage girls for sex (and one count of adult solicitation), for which he served just over a year in county jail. But sprawling local, state, and federal investigations into the eccentric investor's habit of paying teen girls for "massages"—sessions during which he would allegedly penetrate girls with sex toys, demand to be masturbated, and have intercourse—turned up a massive network of victims, including 35 female minors whom federal prosecutors believed he'd sexually abused. He has reportedly settled lawsuits from more than 30 "Jane Doe" victims since 2008; the youngest alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of her abuse. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who is Jeffrey Epstein? Click here for our primer about the billionaire pedophile. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Epstein's predatory past, and his now-inconvenient relationships with a Who's Who of the Davos set, hit the front pages again earlier this month when one of his victims, Virginia Roberts, claimed in a federal court filing that Epstein recruited her as a "sex slave" at the age of 15 and "sexually trafficked [her] to politically-connected and financially-powerful people," including Prince Andrew and attorney Alan Dershowitz. (The latter, the filing claimed, had sex with the victim "on private planes"; Dershowitz vigorously denies the charges, as does Prince Andrew.) Two female associates of Epstein—the socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's former assistant Sarah Kellen—have been repeatedly accused in court filings of acting as pimps for him, recruiting and grooming young girls into their network of child sex workers, and frequently participating in sex acts with them. Kellen in particular was believed by detectives in the Palm Beach Police Department, which was the first to start unraveling the operation, to be so deeply involved in the enterprise that they prepared a warrant for her arrest as an accessory to molestation and sex with minors. In the end, she was never arrested or charged, and federal prosecutors granted her immunity in a 2007 non-prosecution agreement that described her as a "potential co-conspirator" in sex trafficking. Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet Maxwell, the daughter of the late media mogul Robert Maxwell, has been accused by Roberts of photographing Epstein's victims "in sexually explicit poses and [keeping] the child pornography on her computer," and "engag[ing] in lesbian sex with the underage females she procured for Epstein." She has denied the allegations in the past. Clinton shared Epstein's plane with Kellen and Maxwell on at least 11 flights in 2002 and 2003—before any of the allegations against them became public—according to the pilots' logbooks, which have surfaced in civil litigation surrounding Epstein's crimes. In January 2002, for instance, Clinton, his aide Doug Band, and Clinton's Secret Service detail are listed on a flight from Japan to Hong Kong with Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and two women described only as "Janice" and "Jessica." One month later, records show, Clinton hopped a ride from Miami to Westchester on a flight that also included Epstein, Maxwell, Kellen, and a woman described only as "one female." Flight Logs Put Clinton, Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire’s Sex Jet In 2002, as New York has reported, Clinton recruited Epstein to make his plane available for a week-long anti-poverty and anti-AIDS tour of Africa with Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, billionaire creep Ron Burkle, Clinton confidant Gayle Smith (who now serves on Barack Obama's National Security Council), and others. The logs from that trip show that Maxwell, Kellen, and a woman named Chauntae Davis joined the entourage for five days. That last name—Chauntae Davies—shows up elsewhere in papers unearthed by the various investigations into Epstein's sex ring: his little black book. Davies is one of 27 women listed in the book under an entry for "Massage- California," one of six lists of massage girls Epstein kept in various locales, with a total of 160 names around the globe, many of them underage victims. more at link above...
|
489 replies, 74650 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | OP |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #1 | |
roguevalley | Jan 2015 | #17 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #61 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #83 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #98 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #220 | |
Jesus Malverde | Jan 2015 | #223 | |
get the red out | Jan 2015 | #283 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #335 | |
Jesus Malverde | Jan 2015 | #390 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #392 | |
Jesus Malverde | Jan 2015 | #396 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #398 | |
whathehell | Jan 2015 | #427 | |
Yo_Mama | Jan 2015 | #192 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #199 | |
Yo_Mama | Jan 2015 | #247 | |
chervilant | Jan 2015 | #401 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #336 | |
Yo_Mama | Jan 2015 | #399 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #412 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #2 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2015 | #8 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #92 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #173 | |
Hekate | Jan 2015 | #230 | |
AtomicKitten | Jan 2015 | #3 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #4 | |
adigal | Jan 2015 | #135 | |
Divernan | Jan 2015 | #177 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #217 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #380 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #389 | |
ripcord | Jan 2015 | #239 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #444 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #204 | |
roguevalley | Jan 2015 | #18 | |
AtomicKitten | Jan 2015 | #195 | |
roguevalley | Jan 2015 | #226 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #236 | |
chervilant | Jan 2015 | #245 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #297 | |
AtomicKitten | Jan 2015 | #303 | |
OLDMADAM | Jan 2015 | #331 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #338 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #342 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #304 | |
AtomicKitten | Jan 2015 | #307 | |
chervilant | Jan 2015 | #313 | |
chervilant | Jan 2015 | #312 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #314 | |
chervilant | Jan 2015 | #316 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #317 | |
stevenleser | Feb 2015 | #468 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #382 | |
chervilant | Jan 2015 | #400 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #405 | |
chervilant | Jan 2015 | #406 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #410 | |
Yupster | Jan 2015 | #421 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #424 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #237 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #381 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #21 | |
Divernan | Jan 2015 | #179 | |
Hekate | Jan 2015 | #231 | |
Divernan | Jan 2015 | #238 | |
Hekate | Jan 2015 | #243 | |
Matt_in_STL | Jan 2015 | #253 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #266 | |
Matt_in_STL | Jan 2015 | #298 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #300 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #340 | |
JoePhilly | Jan 2015 | #60 | |
dsc | Jan 2015 | #62 | |
NoJusticeNoPeace | Jan 2015 | #77 | |
bvar22 | Jan 2015 | #148 | |
NoJusticeNoPeace | Jan 2015 | #155 | |
Hekate | Jan 2015 | #232 | |
NoJusticeNoPeace | Jan 2015 | #258 | |
Yupster | Jan 2015 | #422 | |
jwirr | Jan 2015 | #127 | |
City Lights | Jan 2015 | #211 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #425 | |
moondust | Jan 2015 | #5 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #63 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #121 | |
rhett o rick | Jan 2015 | #137 | |
snooper2 | Jan 2015 | #252 | |
AtomicKitten | Jan 2015 | #308 | |
Jesus Malverde | Jan 2015 | #228 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #384 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #6 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2015 | #11 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Jan 2015 | #205 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2015 | #210 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Jan 2015 | #284 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2015 | #286 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Jan 2015 | #287 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #288 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Jan 2015 | #290 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #291 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Jan 2015 | #293 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2015 | #294 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #296 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Jan 2015 | #416 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #337 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Jan 2015 | #414 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #413 | |
Agnosticsherbet | Jan 2015 | #415 | |
99th_Monkey | Jan 2015 | #417 | |
Capt.Rocky300 | Jan 2015 | #12 | |
Ilsa | Jan 2015 | #41 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #75 | |
treestar | Jan 2015 | #90 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #233 | |
treestar | Jan 2015 | #244 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #466 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #100 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #200 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #221 | |
samsingh | Jan 2015 | #277 | |
karynnj | Jan 2015 | #54 | |
Major Nikon | Jan 2015 | #126 | |
jwirr | Jan 2015 | #134 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #377 | |
Capt.Rocky300 | Jan 2015 | #193 | |
Major Nikon | Jan 2015 | #213 | |
Yupster | Jan 2015 | #423 | |
Capt.Rocky300 | Jan 2015 | #428 | |
AngryAmish | Jan 2015 | #209 | |
Major Nikon | Jan 2015 | #215 | |
Capt.Rocky300 | Jan 2015 | #218 | |
AngryAmish | Jan 2015 | #222 | |
Capt.Rocky300 | Jan 2015 | #229 | |
Dreamer Tatum | Jan 2015 | #7 | |
AnnieBW | Jan 2015 | #9 | |
roguevalley | Jan 2015 | #19 | |
bemildred | Jan 2015 | #42 | |
jollyreaper2112 | Jan 2015 | #43 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #104 | |
Beaverhausen | Jan 2015 | #10 | |
Gman | Jan 2015 | #13 | |
geek tragedy | Jan 2015 | #14 | |
msongs | Jan 2015 | #15 | |
BeanMusical | Jan 2015 | #16 | |
Lordquinton | Jan 2015 | #20 | |
Triana | Jan 2015 | #23 | |
Lordquinton | Jan 2015 | #24 | |
Triana | Jan 2015 | #28 | |
jollyreaper2112 | Jan 2015 | #44 | |
dsc | Jan 2015 | #64 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #65 | |
jollyreaper2112 | Jan 2015 | #70 | |
Lordquinton | Jan 2015 | #151 | |
hunter | Jan 2015 | #87 | |
Octafish | Jan 2015 | #216 | |
City Lights | Jan 2015 | #214 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #378 | |
fbc | Jan 2015 | #22 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #25 | |
Behind the Aegis | Jan 2015 | #26 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #29 | |
Behind the Aegis | Jan 2015 | #30 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #31 | |
Behind the Aegis | Jan 2015 | #33 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #35 | |
Behind the Aegis | Jan 2015 | #36 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #37 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #379 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #32 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #34 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #74 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #76 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #79 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #85 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #88 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #93 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #96 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #101 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #103 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #107 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #108 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #110 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #111 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #116 | |
AngryAmish | Jan 2015 | #212 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #113 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #118 | |
rjsquirrel | Jan 2015 | #302 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #120 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #388 | |
karynnj | Jan 2015 | #324 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #391 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #115 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #119 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #123 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #124 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #125 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #128 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #129 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #131 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #132 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #136 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #139 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #144 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #152 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #160 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #162 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #394 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #130 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #141 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #145 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #147 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #471 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #385 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #387 | |
99Forever | Jan 2015 | #56 | |
vankuria | Jan 2015 | #67 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #109 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #78 | |
still_one | Jan 2015 | #138 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #142 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #149 | |
still_one | Jan 2015 | #201 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #219 | |
still_one | Jan 2015 | #225 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #227 | |
still_one | Jan 2015 | #234 | |
JDPriestly | Jan 2015 | #395 | |
rhett o rick | Jan 2015 | #140 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #344 | |
Beacool | Jan 2015 | #409 | |
TwilightGardener | Jan 2015 | #27 | |
PoliticAverse | Jan 2015 | #38 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #39 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #50 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #59 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #437 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Feb 2015 | #438 | |
BeyondGeography | Jan 2015 | #40 | |
RiverLover | Jan 2015 | #46 | |
leveymg | Jan 2015 | #45 | |
NuclearDem | Jan 2015 | #47 | |
leveymg | Jan 2015 | #48 | |
2banon | Jan 2015 | #84 | |
Jesus Malverde | Jan 2015 | #51 | |
seabeyond | Jan 2015 | #49 | |
Dreamer Tatum | Jan 2015 | #143 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #163 | |
840high | Jan 2015 | #402 | |
fishwax | Jan 2015 | #52 | |
Jesus Malverde | Jan 2015 | #53 | |
fishwax | Jan 2015 | #55 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #57 | |
B2G | Jan 2015 | #66 | |
fishwax | Jan 2015 | #114 | |
Marr | Jan 2015 | #71 | |
fishwax | Jan 2015 | #117 | |
Marr | Jan 2015 | #133 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #156 | |
fishwax | Jan 2015 | #166 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #180 | |
fishwax | Jan 2015 | #196 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #203 | |
fishwax | Jan 2015 | #224 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #235 | |
Yo_Mama | Jan 2015 | #194 | |
fishwax | Jan 2015 | #198 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #356 | |
tridim | Jan 2015 | #58 | |
RiverLover | Jan 2015 | #68 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #72 | |
Nye Bevan | Jan 2015 | #69 | |
treestar | Jan 2015 | #91 | |
Nye Bevan | Jan 2015 | #154 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #187 | |
2banon | Jan 2015 | #73 | |
MineralMan | Jan 2015 | #80 | |
2banon | Jan 2015 | #86 | |
MineralMan | Jan 2015 | #89 | |
2banon | Jan 2015 | #94 | |
MineralMan | Jan 2015 | #95 | |
2banon | Jan 2015 | #97 | |
MineralMan | Jan 2015 | #99 | |
2banon | Jan 2015 | #102 | |
MineralMan | Jan 2015 | #105 | |
OilemFirchen | Jan 2015 | #122 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #182 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #168 | |
Arugula Latte | Jan 2015 | #257 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #325 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #175 | |
OilemFirchen | Jan 2015 | #191 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #240 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #472 | |
RadiationTherapy | Jan 2015 | #81 | |
MohRokTah | Jan 2015 | #82 | |
quadrature | Jan 2015 | #106 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #146 | |
kwassa | Jan 2015 | #112 | |
OKNancy | Jan 2015 | #150 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #153 | |
OKNancy | Jan 2015 | #157 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #158 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #159 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #161 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #164 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #165 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #167 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #171 | |
RiverLover | Jan 2015 | #174 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #178 | |
RiverLover | Jan 2015 | #183 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #184 | |
RiverLover | Jan 2015 | #185 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #186 | |
RiverLover | Jan 2015 | #188 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #190 | |
ND-Dem | Jan 2015 | #267 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #275 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #169 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #170 | |
MissDeeds | Jan 2015 | #172 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jan 2015 | #176 | |
Atman | Jan 2015 | #181 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #189 | |
philosslayer | Jan 2015 | #197 | |
Atman | Jan 2015 | #206 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #419 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2015 | #202 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #246 | |
cheapdate | Jan 2015 | #249 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #386 | |
Warren DeMontague | Jan 2015 | #207 | |
LittleBlue | Jan 2015 | #208 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #285 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #403 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #241 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #242 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #248 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #250 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #254 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #259 | |
seabeyond | Jan 2015 | #263 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #264 | |
seabeyond | Jan 2015 | #265 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #273 | |
seabeyond | Jan 2015 | #278 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #280 | |
seabeyond | Jan 2015 | #281 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #282 | |
seabeyond | Jan 2015 | #289 | |
tammywammy | Jan 2015 | #327 | |
seabeyond | Jan 2015 | #332 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #355 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #359 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #363 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #362 | |
seabeyond | Jan 2015 | #364 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #366 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #367 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #369 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #370 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #372 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #268 | |
Beaverhausen | Jan 2015 | #261 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #269 | |
Beaverhausen | Jan 2015 | #251 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #255 | |
Beaverhausen | Jan 2015 | #260 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #262 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #272 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #270 | |
Beaverhausen | Jan 2015 | #274 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #276 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #279 | |
leftyladyfrommo | Jan 2015 | #256 | |
NCTraveler | Jan 2015 | #271 | |
alarimer | Jan 2015 | #292 | |
dilby | Jan 2015 | #295 | |
reddread | Jan 2015 | #299 | |
Spider Jerusalem | Jan 2015 | #301 | |
olddots | Jan 2015 | #305 | |
AtomicKitten | Jan 2015 | #306 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #309 | |
AtomicKitten | Jan 2015 | #310 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #311 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #318 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #319 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #321 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #322 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #323 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #328 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #333 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #341 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #343 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #346 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #353 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #354 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #360 | |
reddread | Jan 2015 | #315 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #320 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #326 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #329 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #334 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #339 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #345 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #347 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #349 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #350 | |
appalachiablue | Jan 2015 | #352 | |
Name removed | Jan 2015 | #330 | |
merrily | Jan 2015 | #348 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #351 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #361 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #368 | |
benz380 | Jan 2015 | #365 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #374 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #357 | |
Arugula Latte | Jan 2015 | #358 | |
LawDeeDah | Jan 2015 | #371 | |
wyldwolf | Jan 2015 | #375 | |
Karmadillo | Jan 2015 | #373 | |
Beacool | Jan 2015 | #376 | |
reddread | Jan 2015 | #383 | |
Beacool | Jan 2015 | #393 | |
reddread | Jan 2015 | #397 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #404 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #407 | |
Rex | Jan 2015 | #408 | |
autorank | Jan 2015 | #411 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #418 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #420 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #426 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #429 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #431 | |
zappaman | Jan 2015 | #434 | |
La Lioness Priyanka | Jan 2015 | #430 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #432 | |
TheNutcracker | Jan 2015 | #433 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #435 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #436 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #439 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #440 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #441 | |
wyldwolf | Feb 2015 | #442 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #445 | |
wyldwolf | Feb 2015 | #448 | |
laserhaas | Feb 2015 | #443 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #446 | |
msanthrope | Feb 2015 | #459 | |
laserhaas | Feb 2015 | #467 | |
Monk06 | Feb 2015 | #447 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #449 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #450 | |
Dont call me Shirley | Feb 2015 | #451 | |
orpupilofnature57 | Feb 2015 | #453 | |
orpupilofnature57 | Feb 2015 | #452 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #454 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #455 | |
msanthrope | Feb 2015 | #456 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #457 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Feb 2015 | #458 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #460 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Feb 2015 | #461 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #462 | |
tammywammy | Feb 2015 | #463 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #464 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #465 | |
randys1 | Feb 2015 | #476 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #469 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #470 | |
MohRokTah | Feb 2015 | #477 | |
Jesus Malverde | Feb 2015 | #473 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #474 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #475 | |
lpbk2713 | Feb 2015 | #478 | |
Fumesucker | Feb 2015 | #481 | |
lpbk2713 | Feb 2015 | #482 | |
Fumesucker | Feb 2015 | #486 | |
nilesobek | Feb 2015 | #479 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #484 | |
Dems to Win | Feb 2015 | #480 | |
LynneSin | Feb 2015 | #483 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #485 | |
LynneSin | Feb 2015 | #487 | |
TheNutcracker | Feb 2015 | #488 | |
LynneSin | Feb 2015 | #489 |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:29 AM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
1. Clinton has been named as one of Epstein's closest friends, this crapola has come up before
Not good for the upcoming race. This girl pressing charges did not just do this recently. This came out over a year ago. Now that the papers are winding through the courts, it's coming out.
After she filed charges, Clinton was flying with him again. To keep Epstein alive? He must stay alive, so the 'pictures' don't come into play. This girl who was trafficked says the homes were outfitted with cameras. Ala Larry E. King of the Franklin Scandal! |
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #1)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:39 AM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
17. bill clinton is an ass hole. Even hanging with people like this
is shit. little girls. Prince Andrew and Bill clinton. peas in a pod.
The rich. They aren't like you and me. Good luck being President, Hillary, when this really gets going. |
Response to roguevalley (Reply #17)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:24 AM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
61. That's right. Paling around with a pedo. Ojeezus.
Response to roguevalley (Reply #17)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:35 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
83. I'm not going to go through this again with him, them-either way, true or not his assocations were
reckless & dangerous for the Dem. Party & foremost us, The People. This puts us in a heck of a situation with two years to go & few choices even as great as Bernie Sanders & Eliz. Warren are. Additional self-inflicted damage from a compulsive, entitled, selfish man with real illness who got off at least twice already- Jen Flowers & Lewinsky. No more. Even if we nominate a Saint, this scandal will fill the media & damage our chances. Thanks Bubba, strikes again.
|
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #83)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:09 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
98. Bill Clinton is the mysogynist here
I'm already hearing peeps about the sexism in this discussion of Bill's latest adventures, aparently it's sexism against Hillary when Bill is the one who treats women like trash. He humiliates his family and comes out laughing and blushing about it, he uses women like kitchen utensils and that;s such a cool thing to do. Ah, Bill ya ole dog you.
![]() |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #98)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:02 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
220. Yes it really brings out strong feelings, wives get the shame, shun, anger a lot. Also cuz he's
a personable charmer, less so now. I've been through this for 23 years since Jen Flowers in 1992. That was a real shocker, so hard to stomach him but carried on. This news is concerning as said in my posts, that he would jeopardize her chances, the Party, the people in such a time of need. But it's always that way with the selfish, compulsive, addicted or whatever types- it's all about them.
|
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #220)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:25 PM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
223. It's possible the Clintons have an open relationship.
She could have left Bill a long time ago.
|
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #223)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 02:44 PM
get the red out (13,439 posts)
283. I agree, quite possible
But whether or not, he's hauling some BAGGAGE, and that can't do her campaign any good. Nor the Democratic party. This is worse baggage than I ever knew about.
|
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #223)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 11:54 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
335. We never hear about her with other men or women, though.
when it's a one sided open relationship, isn't it simply cheating and being cheated on?
|
Response to merrily (Reply #335)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:30 PM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
390. I have heard that
I won't repeat it here but I'm sure if you google it you'll find some info
|
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #390)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:32 PM
merrily (45,251 posts)
392. What came up first are crappy sources. I meant something more credible than that.
Response to merrily (Reply #392)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 06:00 PM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
396. What I find fascinating is the seemingly absolute notion.
I think it comes from disney fairy tales or something. The idea that the cheated on woman is somehow powerless and unable to herself be sexually free. Women often are portrayed as powerless victims, which is itself a strange stereotype.
Many many couples have discrete agreements and understandings. It's probably none of our business anyway. I don't really care if a man or a woman has a mistress. It shows they can multitask and are social beings. Pity more those that don't. Fairy tales of love are just that, they set up unreasonable expectations that we are naturally monogamous, which we are not. Obviously referencing consenting adults. ![]() |
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #396)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 06:14 PM
merrily (45,251 posts)
398. Thanks for that implication, but I am not operating off a fairy tale or a notion.
Even though the media used to maintain codes of silence back in the day, we also have fairly credible evidence that Eleanor Roosevelt had at least one female lover and I have no problem believing that. Whether she came to that independently or because of FDR's dalliances is a question in my mind, but I believe the evidence shows that she had an affair.
We have fairly solid evidence that Bill has had extra marital affairs. I saw nothing from a credible source saying Hillary had them. Moreover, if there were an open marriage, why would Bill not have been honest about Monica, as opposed to letting Hillary make a fool of herself on the Today Show?
You brought up open marriage. And I always disagreed with the meme that the Clenis was none of our business. I think breaking a marriage vow--or any vow--says something about character. Not holier than thou, here. If I broke my vow, it would say something about my character, too. According to Flowers, she and Bill had sex in the john at the Governor's mansion during official events. That says something about judgment and too risky behavior, IMO. The Paula Jones thing, if true, was not a mere affair, but just awful all the way around. And both Gennifer and Paula were his employees while he was an elected official. Monica was an intern. He was "the boss" in all three instances. We know Monica gave him a bj while he was on a call with a head of state. His lying about his affairs led to an impeachment. Second of a President in all of US history. And just imagine having to teach THAT high school history lesson. None of the above was my business? Why the hell not? It isn't now, either, now that my party apparently wants to drag us through it all again? Why not? As far as Hillary, so many have made her the poster child for feminism. So, it does indeed make a difference in my mind if she and Bill struck an equal bargain about their marriage or whether he cheats on her repeatedly and she just takes it and takes it. |
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #223)
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:57 AM
whathehell (28,599 posts)
427. Yes,
I've heard they actually "live in", not just "own" two different houses, his in
New York, hers in DC. Whatever the story there, I don't care, but KIDS?!..No, that will NOT fly, if true, and I truly hope it's not. ![]() |
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #83)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 08:44 PM
Yo_Mama (8,303 posts)
192. Well, I don't see how Hillary is to blame
But yes, for an ex-president to be doing this - he should have known better.
And you can't say he had no inkling, because given that he was in the plane with the girls, he did. There is just no way he didn't have an idea, and he had already had enough problems with his past connections so that he should have known not to do this. Nor did he have to beg a ride from a person like this. It strongly suggests that the girls were the draw. This is not one of those stories that can be put down. It's better to let it hit now and for everyone to at least get used to the disgust. I feel very sorry for Hillary and Chelsea - but people are what they are and you can't change that. |
Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #192)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:09 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
199. I don't think Hillary is to blame at all. But he's her husband, with a long, difficult past of
multiple affairs and adultery going back to his terms as Arkansas Governor when he had the State Police Troopers procure for him, women like Paula Jones. She was another long legal case and media spectacle, maybe you remember it during his second term.
In 1992 his first year campaign for Pres. he had to face up to Jenifer Flowers, the attractive PR woman in Texas he was having a 6 year affair with up to the campaign. He and Hillary did a grim public address together about it; it was hard to swallow and really uncomfortable to see. Then the Lewinsky ordeal came up. That he's a serial, habitual woman chaser and a huge liability is fact. To expect the GOP, Media and voters to ignore this, esp. from him is delusional. The Dem. Party and this country, the left particularly, can't afford more sleazy associations and behavior- giving the GOP the gun to shoot her with as one DUer wrote. In another post I commented also that this is very unfair to Hillary, Chelsea and husband and child. |
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #199)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 09:18 AM
Yo_Mama (8,303 posts)
247. Some women wouldn't vote for Hillary because of this.
I was thinking this over last night, and the problem is (I am a woman) that we all know of people like Bill Clinton. They're men in power. They think with their dicks. They do a lot of damage to women's lives. They may be cops, executives, politicians or business owners, but in some way they all seek power in part because they have a kink and a twist and they are driven to it.
And they sometimes have women who cover for them. No matter how sympathetic one is to Hillary, the fact is that she did in some sense enable his political career by her silence and her ability to shut down media coverage. The fact that this has to do with underage girls - ah, some people will react and just not vote for her. Their gut won't let them do it. |
Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #247)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:19 PM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
401. See, now, you just articulated what I was thinking about all this brouhaha.
Haven't we had enough of Bill Clinton? If we nominate Hillary, we'll have to deal with his "indiscretions" all over again, ad nauseum. And, if he did indeed spend time with Epstein, who did not face the consequences any POOR "common folk" pedophile would face, then he is a time bomb ticking away. He disgusts me, and I think you are right--quite a few people I know would not support Hillary because of this.
|
Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #192)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 11:55 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
336. She puts up with it.
Response to merrily (Reply #336)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 07:04 PM
Yo_Mama (8,303 posts)
399. No way did she know he was involved in this.
No way.
|
Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #399)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 09:33 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
412. I still don't know if he was involved in "this."
I don't think we have anywhere near enough facts yet to say he was guilty of doing anything with minors. I meant she puts up with his behavior in general.
|
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:37 AM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
2. Kick to the greatest...don't let the media hide this.
Then use it against us later.
|
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #2)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:02 AM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
8. +1000 nt
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #2)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:53 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
92. Absolutely. I'm fairly new, how does this get kicked to The Greatest? Just from more recs?
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #92)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:55 PM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
173. After 5 recs it goes onto the greatest page....so many just review that page daily.
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #2)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:52 PM
Hekate (86,573 posts)
230. That's quite the non-sequitur. "The media" isn't hiding this; I'm sure FOX will be all over it ...
...immediately if not sooner. Why do you think if this topic is stinking up the conversation now it won't be "used against us later"?
|
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:43 AM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
3. From Game Change:
As reported in The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/01/the-juiciest-revelations-in-game-change/33226/
The authors write on page 50 about the "war room within a war room" that Hillary Clinton put together to deal with questions about her husband's "libido." The circle of trust included media strategist Howard Wolfson, lawyer Cheryl Mills and confidant Patti Solis Doyle.
"The war room within a war room dismissed or discredited much of the gossip floating around, but not all of it. The stories about one woman were more concrete, and after some discreet fact-finding, the group concluded that they were true: that BIll was indeed having an affair -- and not a frivolous one-night stand but a sustained romantic relationship. .... For months, thereafter, the war room within a war room braced for the explosion, which her aides knew could come at any moment." The authors do not identify the woman. The Democrats need this kind of salacious crap like they need a hole in the head. A good reason in itself for the party to look past the Clintons for a candidate in 2016. |
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #3)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:45 AM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
4. Exactly, the reason the party should look beyond the Clinton's for 2016.
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #4)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:19 PM
adigal (7,581 posts)
135. Hillary didnt do this....she should file for a legal separation if this is true
It's the only way she'll win. Or she might just kill her husband, or at least want to.
|
Response to adigal (Reply #135)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 07:02 PM
Divernan (15,480 posts)
177. Hillary knew about it and enabled it, just as she did throughout her marriage.
If she wouldn't kick his sorry ass to the curb after he not only lied to her about Lewinsky but got her to repeat his lies on national TV, with the consequent international humiliation at the hands of her charming husband, I can't see her "separating" from him now as convincing anyone she cares about anything but the negative publicity - granted she MIGHT do it if her private polling says this will get her the nomination. Granted, all the women who turn a blind eye to their own husbands' adulterous behaviors may take comfort from Hillary's acceptance of Bill's lifelong cheating. But I have no respect for her as a woman. She makes a mockery of feminism. And what a miserable role model for marriage they gave their own daughter.
No wonder there was a Secret Service prostitution scandal - after decades of watching the Big Dog screw around, it must have seemed just business as usual. If Clinton could do it, why couldn't they? |
Response to Divernan (Reply #177)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:45 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
217. Many others with the same problems have have held the WH and been in all walks and times
unfortunately. It took a lot for me to get past he Jen Flowers incident, that was huge, shocking with such a young attractive couple like the Clintons and the Gores. It was the beginning warning, for the public. It's very ugly, painful and shameful for the children, wives, families, neighbors. Many women have to or will endure it.
Remember CO Pres. candidate Gary Hart and the Money Business party boat with Donna Rice? Henry Cisneros, Bill's HUD Secy. had a an affair and during it his son was born with a serious heart condition, considered punishment by some. Before that there was RR with Jane Wyman, JFK, Ted K., FDR, Harding's antics, and whoever before that. Woody Wilson's nickname was appropriate. Awful subject and reality. |
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #217)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 04:57 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
380. I think there was even a scandal about Eisenhower and a member of his Army staff.
Nixon's scandals weren't about sex but were far more damaging to our country. Same for GWBush.
|
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #380)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:29 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
389. Eisenhower had a realtionship with Kay Summersby of the Brit. Transport Corps who was his
chauffeur and later secretary until the end of the war. A career officer brother in law of a woman I worked with heard the discussion Ike had with General George Marshall in 1945 in Washington. He said Marshall told Ike that if he married Summersby his career was over. Some claim instead that Ike met with Marshall to request bringing Mamie, his wife to Europe. Summersby's 1952 marriage to a NY stockbroker was brief and ended in divorce.
We'll never know the full nature of the personal affairs and relationships of many public figures, J. Edgar Hoover, R.E Lee, Lincoln. I was just reading about Bush Sr.'s long term relationship with a staffer in Washington that was posted by a DUer recently. |
Response to Divernan (Reply #177)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 01:23 AM
ripcord (4,165 posts)
239. I don't think anyone wants Bill as first lady
Response to Divernan (Reply #177)
Thu Feb 5, 2015, 01:07 AM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
444. And Jennifer Flowers before Monica and gawd knows who else....
Response to adigal (Reply #135)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:06 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
204. With all she's been through, and at her age she might be so weary that the I'd like to kill him
is burned out, who knows. No she's not at fault at all, and to read that he was hanging with Epstein bill. partyman in 2001-02, then 2008 when she was running hard in the Pres. Campaign that he supported is so bizarre. He wants her in office, and he wants to maintain his and their legacy- but can't stop putting himself in danger-like an alcoholic, gambler, any other risk addiction.
They've been married 39 years, she went after him about women years back in the Arkansas Governor's Mansion, then had him watched in the WH. That was in staff books, writings like George Steph. I think. It must be exhausting, or else get away from it physically and mentally if you can. Eleanor R., many, many women of all times and cultures have gone through it and their children and families. |
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #3)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:41 AM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
18. Gina Gershon was often mentioned.
Last edited Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:41 AM - Edit history (1) Tall with dark hair. In her forties. I don't want this shit again. No more clintons.
|
Response to roguevalley (Reply #18)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 08:52 PM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
195. I agree.
I too am so over this sordid mess and don't want it back in the White House.
What I find surreal are Clinton apologists claiming sexism perpetrated against the Clintons when the truth is Bill Clinton as an older, powerful male took/takes advantage of young, virtually powerless women, and Hillary enables his sexist horseshit by implied consent with her silence. From: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/sexism-shaming-and-women-who-sleep-with-powerful-men/
There’s a great article up at The Nation on ‘The Lewinsky Double Standard’. It discusses how differently we view men who have sex with much younger, less powerful women and women who have sex with older, more powerful men. Admitting an affair with an older, powerful man can, for many women, have severe consequences: |
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #195)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:43 PM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
226. Erica Jong can go f herself. Nice articles. Thanks.
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #195)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:14 AM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
236. I've seen it here. Feminists calling out Lewinksy and giving Bill the pass.
Who brought up Lewinski's past, who she slept with and how old they were, etc., all in rage and anger and how disgusting Lewinski was tempting the wonderful little Billy with her witchery ways - same type of attacks on her as on a victim in a rape trial.
|
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #236)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 08:25 AM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
245. You've seen it here?
How insupportable of you to throw out that bon mot without a scintilla of proof.
I don't know a single feminist on this forum who holds anyone other than Bill Clinton responsible for his sexual proclivities. I would have to see such a post before I'd believe it. So, let's see it. Where is it? |
Response to chervilant (Reply #245)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 06:02 PM
zappaman (20,602 posts)
297. I haven't seen it here either.
But nice to see DUers helping Repubs smear.
|
Response to chervilant (Reply #245)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 11:09 PM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
303. I realize this was not addressed to me,
but your response got me thinking. I do recall one specific incident that I can post here around which was a related conversation. I cannot, however, state with any real certainty whether or not the person(s) with whom I am conversing is/are in reality feminists, that being the sticking point in my example in response to your specific question.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8205925&mesg_id=8210476 |
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #303)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 11:33 AM
OLDMADAM (82 posts)
331. I am not a Hillary fan, but never posted my reasons.. But, here it is..
I not only fear we could lose the election because of Bill's behaviors, past and present, but even if we win, what then? Four or more years of scandal, accusations, revelations, followed by deceits, lies, cover-ups, and mental gymnastics to distort the facts..
Anyone that doubts this isn't a possibility is an idiot or troll, wanting to bait us into placing our future, and the future of our party, not to speak of the millions of our country already in jeopardy.. And like Bill, what will Pres. Hillary do to deflect the attention away from the obvious, bomb, cut taxes, cut welfare, SS, Safety net deals??? Hardly a speculation, but an anvil ready to fall on our heads.. Sorry, fire away, I ready for this fight, better now than later.. |
Response to OLDMADAM (Reply #331)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 12:04 PM
merrily (45,251 posts)
338. Not my biggest reason, but I am sick of having this stuff come up again and again.
Also, what kind of victory is it to have the first female President (if she actually makes it--which I doubt) be a perpetuallly wronged wife who would rather keep putting up; with this shit and falling for his lies than leave him?
It was clear when she was getting grilled by Matt Lauer that he (Bubba) had let her go on that show, where she was 100% sure to get grilled about Monica, to make a fool of herself defending him. "Vast right wing conspiracy?" No, dear, just your husband cheating on you. Yet again. How did she keep falling for his lies? |
Response to OLDMADAM (Reply #331)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 12:09 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
342. Remember when democrats sighed a 'whew!' with Edwards, dodging the bullet
and how disastrous it would have been for him to have won then the scandal revealed to be truth?
You would think this kind of story in the OP would have the same reaction, but no. The story has to be false or if you think there may be some truth in it, you must be a Right winger. We cannot afford having a possible WH with Hillary and with this continual Clinton dripping pus of their dramas. |
Response to chervilant (Reply #245)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 12:42 AM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
304. This particular person claimed to be a Feminist, but I didn't believe her
as I do not believe Hillary is one either. But generally, I have to question people that forgive Bill for things they would not forgive anyone else for.
Sorry, no links, I guess you will have to have a sleepness night worrying about it. |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #304)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 03:23 AM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
307. That is the point.
To this day he gets a free pass for his appalingly
reckless and inappropriate behavior. |
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #307)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:22 AM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
313. He doesn't get a free pass from me.
Nor from countless other women who recognize his narcissistic drive to get his rocks off no matter who it hurts.
I have said this of other popular presidents: beware putting such individuals on pedestals lest you see their feet of clay. |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #304)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:14 AM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
312. Sleepless night?
I don't think so.
Dredging up one "example" that may or may not have been advanced by a feminist does not support your insupportable claim. Just as I suspected... |
Response to chervilant (Reply #312)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:37 AM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
314. I mentioned an extreme example. There are others who claim and
are true Feminists that feel that way to a much lesser degree, -- the Hillary/Bill story is prickly and uncomfortable for them because they want a first woman President very badly, but then there's that Bill guy. So they are torn and float around somewhere in the middle in discomfort and I understand that.
It's completely different for me, I am not torn at all because I see clearly that neither Hillary nor Bill treat women with respect and do not deserve my support as a feminist. |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #314)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 10:01 AM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
316. Oh...
So, now we're talking about women who are not true Feminists?
I stand by my initial rebuttal. I do not know of any true Feminists who dismiss or diminish or deflect responsibility for Bill Clinton's sexual proclivities. (Whenever I read a statement that begins with "There are others...," I am reminded of our slanted and partisan media. That's a common ploy on almost all of our co-opted media. I am repulsed when I see this on DU.) |
Response to chervilant (Reply #316)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 10:07 AM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
317. We do have that in common then, DU repulses me as well at times.
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #317)
Tue Feb 10, 2015, 09:29 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
468. Well, you don't have to worry about that anymore, do you? nt
Response to chervilant (Reply #245)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:03 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
382. True. But if Monica Lewinsky had not wanted the notoriety, she would not have mentioned
the dress and even more important would have had it dry-cleaned. Something very strange about that dress part of the story. Who in the world would save such a thing? For her grandchildren? What was that about?
|
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #382)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 09:05 PM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
400. Linda Tripp had a lot to do with the blue dress...
In November 1997, Monica Lewinsky told her confidant and supposed friend, Linda Tripp, that she had in her possession a blue Gap dress that still bore the semen stain that resulted from her administering oral sex to President Clinton in February of that year. |
Response to chervilant (Reply #400)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:20 AM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
405. "the dress, which she had been saving a souvenir."
Would you want to hire her?
She saves a dress with semen on it as "a souvenir"? Sorry. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #405)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 12:27 AM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
406. Are you responding defensively?
Sorry?!?
Linda Tripp's manipulation of Monica Lewensky in no way excuses Monica's behavior, and I never said nor implied that it did. |
Response to chervilant (Reply #406)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:06 AM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
410. Agreed.
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #382)
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:54 AM
Yupster (14,308 posts)
421. If Monica hadn't saved the dress
Bill Clinton would still be lying about her. It was the only evidence she had.
Also, not so strange to me. Some people keep sheets unwashed so they can smell their lover if he/she goes away. It' a connection. |
Response to Yupster (Reply #421)
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 04:33 AM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
424. ughh. She saved the sheets so she could brag about her conquest later. That is my opinion.
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #195)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:20 AM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
237. Thanks for this, very interesting. Sure, vamp Monica tempted sweet Willy. Right. I recall
she was selling a line of purses, maybe 10 years ago. This complete shut out of jobs is real bad, old world stoning, outcast stuff although these are very regressive times for women. I'm surprised at Erica Yong, what a crank. But M. and her name are so recognizable and employers are sensitive to that. Her mother was in LA, close to Placido Domingo, so no family connections to help with employment? There's a brother. This is troubling, there have to be many other women in similar instances who weren't finished. Hmm.
|
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #195)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:01 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
381. If Lewinsky had not cherished the dress with HIS semen on it, there would have been less
evidence of a scandal. Why didn't she have the dress dry cleaned? Her story is very strange. She was not a victim. She was a mature woman.
|
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #3)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:16 AM
ND-Dem (4,571 posts)
21. Bill has a bigger problem than I realized. Just a photo like this looks bad politically, let alone
Response to ND-Dem (Reply #21)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 07:07 PM
Divernan (15,480 posts)
179. OMG! Bill caressing a blonde w/ world's biggest boob job!
How out of control is he, to pose for this picture? Are we talking the beginnings of senility? Drunk? What?
I can hear Bill now - Oh, honey, who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes? |
Response to Divernan (Reply #179)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:55 PM
Hekate (86,573 posts)
231. You made it sound like he had his hands on her breasts. Instead he is holding her upper arm.
Major dirty mind there.
|
Response to Hekate (Reply #231)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 01:19 AM
Divernan (15,480 posts)
238. You should use a dictionary. Major undereducated mind there.
Here's the definition:
noun 1. an act or gesture expressing affection, as an embrace or kiss, especially a light stroking or touching. verb (used with object) 2. to touch or pat gently to show affection. 3. to touch, stroke, etc., lightly, as if in affection: The breeze caressed the trees. 4. to treat with favor, kindness, etc. I posted he was caressing the blonde, and then added a description of what was, to Bill, her most attractive, albeit surgically enhanced, feature. If there is any "major dirty mind" involved, it is Bill's, as anyone can tell by the look on his face. |
Response to ND-Dem (Reply #21)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:18 PM
Matt_in_STL (1,446 posts)
253. This photo was cropped to intentionally make him look bad
The woman's husband was cropped from this photo taken at an event in order to make it look like Clinton was doing something he shouldn't be doing. Congratulations on falling for it and continuing to push it.
|
Response to Matt_in_STL (Reply #253)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 01:29 PM
ND-Dem (4,571 posts)
266. do you have some evidence for that?
Response to ND-Dem (Reply #266)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 09:28 PM
Matt_in_STL (1,446 posts)
298. Yep - link below
It was actually the young woman's mother in the photo, so my mistake on that.
http://m.digitaljournal.com/internet/photo-of-bill-clinton-with-blonde-held-in-his-grasp-goes-viral/article/421358 |
Response to Matt_in_STL (Reply #298)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 09:41 PM
ND-Dem (4,571 posts)
300. Thank you. I appreciate the correction. That's Tricia Nixon Cox's soon to be ex-daughter-in-law?
my my.
|
Response to Matt_in_STL (Reply #298)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 12:07 PM
merrily (45,251 posts)
340. Even with her mother in the photo, it still looks creepy.
Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #3)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:19 AM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
60. So blame the wife for her husband's alleged actions?
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #60)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:29 AM
dsc (51,940 posts)
62. Of course
and frankly the sun will burn out before any male has the reverse done to him.
|
Response to dsc (Reply #62)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:53 PM
NoJusticeNoPeace (5,018 posts)
77. Agree, sadly all these rich and powerful people are pretty disgusting, I am learning more and
more from an insider and it is making me sick.
We have to choose between the disgusting person who will NOT go out of their way to starve us to death, and the one who will. At this point these are our choices. |
Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #77)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:55 PM
bvar22 (39,909 posts)
148. Which one will starve us?
NAFTA Bill & Friends,
or More Free Trade Hillary? ![]() |
Response to bvar22 (Reply #148)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:05 PM
NoJusticeNoPeace (5,018 posts)
155. Both will, so dont vote for either, and let the one who will kill your pregnant sister in office
Response to NoJusticeNoPeace (Reply #155)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:57 PM
Hekate (86,573 posts)
232. You're confusing me. Are you planning to stay home and not vote, or just telling others to do so?
Response to Hekate (Reply #232)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:38 PM
NoJusticeNoPeace (5,018 posts)
258. NO, I am going to vote for the Dem
Response to dsc (Reply #62)
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 03:57 AM
Yupster (14,308 posts)
422. Mitch Daniels an interesting example
Supposedly he didn't run for president because of his wife's bad behavior.
|
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #60)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:04 PM
jwirr (39,215 posts)
127. It is not us who will blame Hillary but it is stupid to believe that the Rs won't and even more to
believe that a lot of voters won't.
|
Response to jwirr (Reply #127)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:36 PM
City Lights (25,171 posts)
211. ^^^^This.^^^^ nt
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #60)
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 10:50 AM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
425. That is exactly what the op researchers and Koch Broths. will do!
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:51 AM
moondust (19,466 posts)
5. Dersh still denying everything.
He was on CNN Smerconish show apparently yesterday or today. Here's the clip about the Gawker flight logs:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/01/24/smerconish-dershowitz-01232015.cnn |
Response to moondust (Reply #5)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:29 AM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
63. Dirtowitless has scared animal eyes in that clip.
Response to moondust (Reply #5)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:36 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
121. I believe Dershowitz. Until proven otherwise, I will believe the denials of Dershowitz and of
the Clintons. But what I believe or do not believe is not relevant to what other people, especially politically less sophisticated people, less knowledgeable people will believe.
This is a very ugly accusation. It has political feet. It could divide our party. It is going to be difficult to disprove it in a country in which people believe Fox facts and not true facts. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #121)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:29 PM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
137. The Democratic Party has been divided for some time now. The Democratic Wing
has had very little to say. Pres Obama, supported by the Left, didn't thank the Left by making some progressive appointments, he did the opposite. The Conservative Wing, with the Ruling Oligarchs behind them, are very powerful and will be hard to defeat.
|
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #121)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:02 PM
snooper2 (30,151 posts)
252. I watched that interview and Dershowitz was lying his ass off..
Before a question was even fully asked he would start yammering automatic canned denial like a programmed robot.
Talking real fast and being loud and being, well, lawyer like trying to say how he can't wait until he can "question" his accuser LOL.. He is going down and only thing that may save his ass is money.... |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #121)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 03:33 AM
AtomicKitten (46,585 posts)
308. Dershowitz is in this up to his neck
Here's Mike Papantonio talking about the sweet deal Dershowitz negotiated for Epstein who admitted soliciting sex from a minor, a crime most would serve a life sentence for, in exchange for a 13-month sentence in a Palm Beach jail where he was free to come and go during the day and just spent the night there. Sweeeeet!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017240039 |
Response to moondust (Reply #5)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:44 PM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
228. He claims to have never flown with younger women
Then confirms flying with a woman some 40 years younger than him, seeing as he claims she was 25 and he is in his seventies. He also says the women did not "appear" underage, as opposed to being underage. His words are a bit technical for someone with nothing to hide.
The students at Harvard are even writing about this in the university paper. It's one thing to defend OJ quite another to pal around with him like best buds. The witness testified under oath about him, he may yet see his day giving a deposition, especially after slandering the lawyers. |
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #228)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:12 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
384. It's a serious accusation and should not be believed unless absolutely proven.
Even if he is a celebrity, accusing people of bad conduct without absolute proof is very foolish.
I do not believe that Dershowitz is so stupid as to be involve in something this craven. He is a lawyer and knows the consequences. I do believe that someone might want to tarnish his reputation. I will only believe these stories when there is proof of the violation of the law. |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:58 AM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
6. Flight logs don't lie. Clinton also flew with him recently after the girl filed the charges.
My guess....they need to keep Epstein safe, or the pictures start slipping out...so watch the media ignore this! Until Hillary is the nominee.
|
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #6)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:28 AM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
11. T^H^I^S is reason enough
to disqualify HRC NOW... unless the Dem-Death-Wish prevails.
Hopefully it won't. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #11)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:10 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
205. So Hillary shuld be disqualified for the actions of her husband?
Would you disqualify a male caandidate for the actions of his wife?
Just wondering. |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #205)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:35 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
210. When we have advance knowledge of something like this
Dude, we're talking pedophilia here, sex slaves, etc.
Isn't it precisely this kind of stuff that "vetting" a candidate is all about? To know where are the bodies buried, etc. So as these sordid trials unfold, the 2016 race is taking shape, a sadly perfect storm IMHO. Do i think it's "right" for Hillary's candidacy to be sunk by Bill's indiscretions? No. Do I think if Hillary is the Democratic nominee that this shit will likely explode in the Democratic party's face to deliver the WH to ReThugs? Absolutely. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #210)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 03:28 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
284. Well, I disagree. I don't think Hillary's candicacy should be sunk because Bill flew with some
Unsavory rich guy.
|
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #284)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 03:59 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
286. This is where we agree
to disagree.
Honestly, my main objection to Hillary is Hilary's Third Way orientation, and that it's just a continuation of the Bush/Clinton Dynasty, and I think we can do better. But this whole thing with Epstein raises my objection to a new level of concern. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #286)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 04:47 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
287. If you objectioin is to Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and President Clinton's ecomomic
policies, you have a discussion.
They whole attempt to tar her with her husbands flight on the Jet of a millionaire in 2002, is accusing her of guilt by association. Guilt by association is what Republicans do. We don't need to sink to their level. |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #287)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 04:58 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
288. Like it or not, that is the way of politics.
Ignoring this is risking a Republican President if Hillary still decides to run after this has been made public.
But there always is the possibility Bill's adopted Dad, George Bush Sr., and his connections can make sure this never comes up in the campaign by the media and would snuff out any stray little voices trying to speak about it. |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #288)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 05:00 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
290. I am sure Republians will be happy to know that tarring Hillary with Bill's plane ticket will work.
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #290)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 05:02 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
291. Did I just spill the beans and put the future of America at risk?
![]() ![]() |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #291)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 05:05 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
293. I prefer to talk policy rather than smear a woman with her husbands actions.
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #287)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 05:07 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
294. But it's REPUBLICANS who Hillary will be running against in General Election
And you are saying you honestly think ReThugs WON'T 'stoop' to dropping
the Epstein ticking time-bomb on Hillary as some kind of "October Surprise"?? Did I get that right? |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #287)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 05:20 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
296. Let us not forget Rev. Wright and THAT guilt by association.
so please.....
That stinky fart came out of the Clinton camp. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #210)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:12 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
416. Tarring her with actions tha ther husband may or may not have done is
sexist.
Let Bill Clinton answer questions about a flight in 2002. And, yes, I suspect Republicans will happily a sexist attack on her. That is what they do. |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #205)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 11:58 AM
merrily (45,251 posts)
337. How about for her own acts and omissions?
Response to merrily (Reply #337)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:05 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
414. Her policies and ideas is what we should look at when we make a decidison about who to support.
I am opposed to the push to get her disqualified because Bill may or may not have done something. Disqualifying a wife because her husband did something smacks of sexism.
|
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #205)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:59 PM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
413. No, not disqualify her. But she will be hammered and people will tire of it and NOT VOTE 4 HILLARY
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #413)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:09 PM
Agnosticsherbet (11,619 posts)
415. Well, I suppose a sexist based attack on her because of something her husband may or may not
not have done will result in some people choosing not to support her. Smear tactics do work with some people.
For me, it will be the policies she proposes and her answers to substantive issues of policy that matter. |
Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #415)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 08:43 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
417. I'll be looking at what she has already done & said
more than the 'dressed up' campaign promises, as these rarely
mean a whole lot. See Obama. |
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #6)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:33 AM
Capt.Rocky300 (1,005 posts)
12. Sure they do.......
Anyone can get a logbook and put whatever they want in the columns. For example, pilots seeking to show they have more flight time than they actually have do it to secure a better flying job. In the trade it's called "Parker P-51 time" in honor of the old pen made by Parker and the North American P-51 Mustang. And yes, it's illegal. I'm not saying it's the case here with the passenger list in Capt. Rodger's logbook but I'd need more definitive proof than the logbook pages shown in this article that anything improper was going on behind the cockpit door. It may have but I'm just saying this doesn't prove anything.
|
Response to Capt.Rocky300 (Reply #12)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 08:29 AM
Ilsa (61,518 posts)
41. Very true, but most of your explanation
would never make it through the media as it creates a huge moneymaking scandal. If Clinton is this close to it, he's mud and a liability for Hilary.
|
Response to Ilsa (Reply #41)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:46 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
75. +10. The Bottom Line politically for Hillary & Dems, the rest noise even if some's unfair & untrue.
This issue reminded me of Jennifer Flowers, the mess he & we got through early on, then it was Lewinsky, now this. He's a wreck, pursues politics yet can't stop himself and damages Hillary's chances and Gore's. Not just the libido, compulsion & entitlement, he must love the high risk, danger, adrenaline or smthg. He makes John Edwards look like a good guy & stable. Mess. Seems the GOP would let H. win the primary, then release all this to finish her off.
|
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #75)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:48 PM
treestar (82,114 posts)
90. It didn't stop Bill, so it shouldn't stop Hillary
He's the one actually doing it.
Hillary is the one with the spouse doing it. It'd be like having a scandalous First Lady. There hasn't been one before that I know of. Figures Bill Clinton would be the first. Maybe unless you count Nancy Reagan and her astrology nonsense. |
Response to treestar (Reply #90)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:59 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
233. If it was only that simple & rational. He's not some obscure insurance man in Indiana who strayed
at a work conference. This isn't Europe, Berlesconi in Italy or France's Holland with mistress or wife. Bill's a global figure, by choice, they've been married 39 years, at least 23 years of which he's messed up that I know of since 1992. It's a drain and a risk. Today it's tiring, to me fidelity is very impt., adultery's real bad.
He's also a former US Pres.& Head of the Dem. Party. Bill will be in the news like always, at her campaign events, maybe the Inauguration. (I went to both Inaugural Balls, jubilees. Have met her twice, him once). The 12 and 14 year olds on Epstein's party flights and associating with a sex offender is really serious. Think of young women voters, how this makes Hillary look-condoning or enabling his behavior which is really cruel. And family men, conservatives. Hillary's also not viewed too well by some who dislike her long ties to big $, banks and corps. Messy. I was pretty young, m. when the Jen Flowers TV explainin' happened, awful, I could hardly believe it or vote, except I liked Hill, the Gores, am a life long, 3rd gen D., and had been under the 12 year Occupation of Dutch and Bush 41. His behavior really, really bothered me. Later it was the Lewinsky lie, Paula Jones. Whew. Nice photo of Joe B. you have. I'm fond of Del., esp. Delmarva, the coastal beach area of Del, Md., Va. You asked about the Bastille Key. Monticello is also great unless you have seen it, or finished the DC tour that many folks do with young families. There's so much stuff to do and see, never finished. |
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #233)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 08:13 AM
treestar (82,114 posts)
244. Yeah but he seems like teflon
as he did as bad while he was actually president, or running for President, yet he was re-elected and left office with high approval ratings. So if it did not affect him while he was actually in office, it follows it should not affect Hillary, who isn't even guilty. People recognize Hillary as the victim here and it is no one else's business.
|
Response to treestar (Reply #90)
Mon Feb 9, 2015, 05:06 PM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
466. Tell that to the voters...Bill did it...not Hillary. Oh, and will she be hiding Bill on the trail?
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #75)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:12 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
100. ''He makes John Edwards look like a good guy''
yes.
|
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #100)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:39 PM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
200. absurd statement.
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #100)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:15 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
221. Yes Johnnie Boy, golden hair looks kinda stable in hindsight. What a great woman Eliz. Edwards.
I remember he said the affair was 'when she was in remission' - so it was ok, sure. What a mess he made, wow. Like Arnold and Newt.
|
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #100)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 01:55 PM
samsingh (17,370 posts)
277. that makes no sense
Response to Capt.Rocky300 (Reply #12)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:38 AM
karynnj (59,310 posts)
54. Not likely here
It was unthinkable that Clinton would continue his friendship with Epstein after he was found guilty. IF, he had stayed away - the first time that comment was made in a reliable media - someone working for Clinton would have put out a clear denial.
Seriously, imagine that it was you (or your husband). Would you correct the record? Add in that you (for sake of this question) have political ambitions and expectations. Therefore this is likely true - and the only saving grace is that there is absolutely no claim that Clinton had sex with anyone. Not to mention it is Hillary Clinton running - though it would likely be a net negative if she divorced Bill Clinton - so he will be there. |
Response to Capt.Rocky300 (Reply #12)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:03 PM
Major Nikon (36,674 posts)
126. I often make several flights before I write anything in my logbook
I also never list passengers and it's not required, so I think it's a bit unusual that anyone would although everyone has their own logging practices.
|
Response to Major Nikon (Reply #126)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:18 PM
jwirr (39,215 posts)
134. Could he have involved all these well known men with the idea that he would be safe even if
someone found out because those men would keep him safe? I see that there opposite has also been suggested. But why else would he write all this evidence in his logs? I don't know what to think.
One thing I do know is that this is the Rs 2016 issue and we are in trouble. |
Response to jwirr (Reply #134)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 04:25 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
377. But how would you prove that? And wouldn't the damage be done?
Response to Major Nikon (Reply #126)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 08:45 PM
Capt.Rocky300 (1,005 posts)
193. I agree with you completely Major........
I thought it odd that he listed the names of passengers. Perhaps he did it for bragging rights and/or in retirement to sit on his front porch in the rocker and read back and remember the good ol' days.
|
Response to Capt.Rocky300 (Reply #193)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:38 PM
Major Nikon (36,674 posts)
213. That was my thought
I've never flown anyone even remotely famous so not much need to record names. I only fly part 91, so sometimes I don't even log my flights if I don't need it for currency. I do often include details about the trip if it's something I want to remember someday, so I can see someone doing this.
|
Response to Capt.Rocky300 (Reply #193)
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 04:04 AM
Yupster (14,308 posts)
423. I have a friend who is a private pilot
I asked him if he ever flew anyone famous.
He said he flew the monkey from Pirates of The Caribbean from California to the Caribbean where they were filming. |
Response to Yupster (Reply #423)
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 02:03 PM
Capt.Rocky300 (1,005 posts)
428. Did he let the monkey fly the airplane?
![]() |
Response to Major Nikon (Reply #126)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:32 PM
AngryAmish (25,704 posts)
209. This is outside my experience also
I have not been asked my name when flying privately. I am introduced to the flight crew and as long as the attendant keeps feeding me beers all is well.
Are names routinely kept? What if I wanted to keep my trip quiet? |
Response to AngryAmish (Reply #209)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:40 PM
Major Nikon (36,674 posts)
215. This is nothing more than a pilot recording unnecessary information in his personal logbook
Response to AngryAmish (Reply #209)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:49 PM
Capt.Rocky300 (1,005 posts)
218. In my long and varied career.......
I flew many prominent athletes, politicians and Hollywood types. None of their names are in my logbooks. I'm able to recall the good experiences I had with them and do my best to forget the bad ones. And there were only a few of those.
|
Response to Capt.Rocky300 (Reply #218)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:21 PM
AngryAmish (25,704 posts)
222. So what are we to make of this?
Do I think bc was on these flights? Sadly, it feels like it has the ring of truth.
But it could be bs. Remember, this is Gawker, an utterly unreliable reporter. Could the logs be fake? |
Response to AngryAmish (Reply #222)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:46 PM
Capt.Rocky300 (1,005 posts)
229. See my previous posts.....
#12 and #193. Other than info required by FAA Regs, the comment column in a logbook is up to the individual. I went so far as to check on whether this pilot exists, he does. The aircraft exist. The flight times between departure and arrival points are typical. I may be going out on a limb but I think the log pages are valid. But they don't state, nor can I conceive they would, what went on in the cabin. That could be revealed only by deposition and/or court testimony if the crew witnessed it. Unless the crew sees something during a trip to the lav, the cockpit crew doesn't know what's going on behind the cockpit door. Hope that makes sense, I just finished my second margarita.
|
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:01 AM
Dreamer Tatum (10,925 posts)
7. this should be interesting. nt
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:02 AM
AnnieBW (9,685 posts)
9. The Return of the Clenis!!!
Just when you thought it was safe to go back to DU... The Mighty Clenis makes a return engagement!
Newcomers may ask, "what is this Clenis thing?" It's Bill Clinton's magical male member. It appears whenever Republicans need it to smear Bubba about his proclivities. Now, to be fair, Bubba has a well-known problem with keeping it to himself. But, the Mighty Clenis has SUPERPOWERS! It's able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! In other words, the Repukes will definitely use this to smear Hillary and Bill on their quest for a return trip to the White House. |
Response to AnnieBW (Reply #9)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:43 AM
roguevalley (40,656 posts)
19. actually, he did flop it out for an intern. It isn't like they
made this up. Bill can't keep his pants up. He gave them the gun. No one can complain when they shoot him in the face with it. It also doesn't matter that others do the same thing. This idiot imbecile apparently hasn't learned a fucking thing.
|
Response to roguevalley (Reply #19)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 08:38 AM
bemildred (90,061 posts)
42. Totally. I will never forgive him for being led around by his dick like that.
Waaaaay irresponsible.
|
Response to roguevalley (Reply #19)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:13 AM
jollyreaper2112 (1,941 posts)
43. Exact metaphor I always used
The man knew they were gunning for him. So what did he do? Provided a pistol, loaded the chamber, cocked the hammer, put it in their hands and rested the barrel right against his head. Then he's looking up at them with his aw shucks grin and winks.
He made getting some strange a higher priority than the presidency. I hate the Republicans for fighting so dirty and I hate bill for giving them all the ammunition they needed. |
Response to roguevalley (Reply #19)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:28 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
104. +100. Hasn't learned & doesn't care about the damage & fallout to us. Thanks Bubba.
He needs to be taken away from politics for good, for our sake now, after as many times he's got off, what he's put us, the Dem. Party, Gore and the people through. Not to mention Hillary, Chelsea, husband & grandchild. He's reckless, irresponsible & as sick or sicker than a junkie or alcoholic. Done.
A recent 'Law and Order' episode was so close to this story, about a powerful jet setter billionaire defense contractor, egoist, pedo & partier with young girls procured by an aged- out 20 something girlfriend. Had room cameras that taped his 'massage' sessions with them at his mansion. Servants covered for him, the girlfriend was charged as an accessory. He didn't help her, had just been using her all along. |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:07 AM
Beaverhausen (24,424 posts)
10. Yawn
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:17 AM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
14. They does it. I will not vote for Bill Clinton in 2016. nt
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:23 AM
msongs (66,219 posts)
15. obama has eaten meals with war criminals in the white house. so what nt
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:29 AM
BeanMusical (4,389 posts)
16. This is nauseating.
![]() |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:59 AM
Lordquinton (7,886 posts)
20. Hanging around pedophiles doesn't ever seem to hurt the repubs
Double standard at work again.
|
Response to Lordquinton (Reply #20)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:55 AM
Triana (22,666 posts)
23. Very true. Any criminal, womanizing, sociopathic behavior is good for Repubs
even while they proclaim how "moral" and "Gawd-lovin" and "Christian" with "family values" they are.
Dems make no such pretentious claims -- yet being a sociopath or womanizer/philanderer hurts them. There's definitely a double standard. |
Response to Triana (Reply #23)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:02 AM
Lordquinton (7,886 posts)
24. Weiner vs Vitter, look who came out smelling like rose scented diapers
and who got thrown so far under the bus he's still not sure what happened. Governor Appellation Trail just got elected again. There is no coincidence that this is in the news again.
|
Response to Lordquinton (Reply #24)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:10 AM
Triana (22,666 posts)
28. "There is no coincidence that this is in the news again"
Absolutely not. This is timed very interestingly - right after that recent poll which showed Hillary heads and tails above any potential 2016 Repub nominee.
![]() |
Response to Lordquinton (Reply #24)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:18 AM
jollyreaper2112 (1,941 posts)
44. Ugh
Neither party should want these scumbags in it. Remember weiner wasn't just carrying on with an adult woman, he was sending dick pics to everyone. It was dumb luck none were underage.
The thing to remember is the Republicans always get away with it. And they are not shamed by having these people in their ranks. |
Response to jollyreaper2112 (Reply #44)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:34 AM
dsc (51,940 posts)
64. everyone?
funny I didn't get one, did you?
|
Response to dsc (Reply #64)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:42 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
65. You didn't , neither did I, must be a coincidence./NT
Response to dsc (Reply #64)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 12:43 PM
jollyreaper2112 (1,941 posts)
70. Ugh
Guess you didn't make the cut. Sorry.
|
Response to jollyreaper2112 (Reply #44)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:58 PM
Lordquinton (7,886 posts)
151. He accidentally posted an underwear pic for seconds before removing it
it was only caught because he was being cyber stalked by the republicans, which should have been the real story, but we know how that goes.
|
Response to Lordquinton (Reply #20)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:45 PM
hunter (37,662 posts)
87. Hell, the mainstream media won't even talk about it unless a Republican politician...
... becomes useless to their big money patrons.
Part of the problem may be it's too disgusting to imagine a Republican politician having sex. Who did either Bush "do" in the Oval Office??? ![]() ![]() ![]() It's like imagining Rush Limbaugh naked somewhere in the Dominican Republic... Just, just... NO! |
Response to hunter (Reply #87)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:44 PM
Octafish (55,745 posts)
216. Poppy Bush had his own 'Jennifer Problem'
Response to Lordquinton (Reply #20)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:39 PM
City Lights (25,171 posts)
214. Exactly.
The GOP whips up the hysteria whenever a Democrat is involved in something like this and the corporate sack of shit media follows right along. When a Republican does something similar, they poo-poo it, acting like "everyone does it." They make me sick. Both the GOPee and the corporate sack of shit media.
|
Response to City Lights (Reply #214)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 04:31 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
378. Yes. It's unfair, but that is the way it is.
Democrats take the moral high-ground on most issues, so more is expected of them when it comes to their sex lives. That's just the reality.
|
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:18 AM
fbc (1,668 posts)
22. Welp, so much for Hillary's candidacy
I don't think your average voter wants a pedophile as first husband.
|
Response to fbc (Reply #22)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:04 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
25. A pedophile is a man or woman who is attracted to or has sexual relations...
A pedophile is a man or woman who is attracted to or has sexual relations with prepubescent boys or girls.
Calling someone a childfucker demands proof beyond mere association. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #25)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:08 AM
Behind the Aegis (52,696 posts)
26. Proof? You demand proof?
What are you a Commie?! (
![]() What is worse is the implication that someone how Hillary will suffer, while true in some respects, it demonstrates the public's lack of nuance and intelligence. Of course, pedophile is so often misused as a word, it creates its own set of problems. |
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #26)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:13 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
29. Let me preface my remarks by saying adults having sex with minors is mala per se.
That being said a pedophile is a man or woman who is attracted to prepubuscent boys and girls. A prepubescent boy or girl hasn't developed secondary sex characteristics. This is tenth grade biology. Accusing someone of such a heinous crime demands proof.
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #29)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:18 AM
Behind the Aegis (52,696 posts)
30. I agree.
I know what the meaning of the word means which is why I was commenting. That, and this bullshit "guilt by association" being leveled against Ms. Clinton. It is one of those words which is routinely misused, usually to make something seem even worse.
|
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #30)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:26 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
31. I know you know what the word means.
And we have confirmation bias in this instance. For the people who like or hate the Clintons this doesn't move the needle at all...
IMHO, there is nothing lower than a pedophile (childfucker) except for the person who knowingly and with malice aforethought falsely accuses somebody of it. Bearing false witness is a biggy, specially on a crime as heinous as this. That's why it made the top ten. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #31)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:39 AM
Behind the Aegis (52,696 posts)
33. "confirmation bias"
It isn't just the Clintons who are in the crosshairs. Some are taking too much "glee" with this story and the stories swirling around it. Personally, I find that almost as disgusting as what has happened. It is a jaded use of a vicious, soul-crushing crime.
|
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #33)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:48 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
35. "it is what it is" but you and I can take solace in the fact these attempts will fail...
"It is what it is" but you and I can take solace in the fact these attempts will fail as they always have.
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #35)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:54 AM
Behind the Aegis (52,696 posts)
36. Let's hope.
Justice needs to be served, but those who aren't responsible shouldn't be tarred and feathered, no matter the political reasons. I can't say I am surprised by this story happening now.
|
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #36)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:59 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
37. Politics is war by other means.
It really is Godfather like stuff, sans the killing usually.
This doesn't move the needle a bit. I met Arnold Schwarzenegger. It doesn't mean I'm a six time Mr. Universe. |
Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #30)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 04:53 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
379. Whether the story has any truth (and even if Clinton rode in that plane, it does not mean
that he had any idea that the owner of the plane was a pedophile plus I don't think Clinton or Dershowitz had anything to do with pedophilia. The crime is too obvious.), it is a political reality that dealing with all these rumors is going to be a distraction during a presidential campaign.
It isn't fair, but that is how it is. How do you suggest that the Clinton campaign deal with these rumors and this innuendo? You can't blame the messenger even if the message is false. Because of the Lewinsky scandal, because it turned out to have a lot of truth about it, it makes it look like the Clintons lead wild lives, revel in wild parties and then lie about it. A total falsehood, but what is the political strategy to deal with these kinds of falsehoods that fit for many people into the overall picture? I think Hillary should not run, but if she does, what kind of tactic can deal with this sort of mud-slinging? |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #25)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:37 AM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
32. You are demanding fairness. But have Republicans ever given Democrats fairness.
The Republican negative campaign machine will take this story (which does not yet at any rate prove any pedophilia on the part of Clinton as you point out) and every American who doesn't read critically will be quite convinced that Hillary was somehow an accessory.
I have had a feeling for a long time that something could, would mess up a Hillary campaign. This could be part of it. The Republicans have been planning on defeating a Hillary candidacy for a long time in my opinion. That is one of the reason I don't want to see her run. They are now starting to attack Elizabeth Warren. That suggests to me that they are beginning to believe that Hillary will not run. This story could be part of the reason that the Republicans are starting to attack Warren. Facts mean nothing to Republicans. We still have to give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt. But we have given him the benefit of the doubt before and learned that the rumors about him were true. Same for John Edwards. He had the strongest platform in 2008 and would have made a great president. But the rumors about his sex life were true and his candidacy was ended. The Clintons run with a rich crowd some of whom are bound to be spoiled brats with no respect for others. Sad and maybe this will go away. But I've seen this stuff before. If it is going to throw doubt on the Clintons' being able to represent our country with dignity, then I'm glad it is coming out now before Hillary has thrown her hat in the ring. Fpr 2016, Democrats need a candidate whose sex life and whose spouse' sex life are above reproach. There are too many important issues about social and economic justice that need attention. We do not need to have to deal with accusations of exploitation of sex workers or children in the campaign. Bernie Sanders is probably above reproach in these areas. He has been in the political spotlight in a small state for many years. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #32)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:44 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
34. Yes, these witch hunts against the Clintons have been unfailingly effective...
Oh wait, Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating of seventy three percent:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.aspx and has a favorability rating of 64% currently http://www.gallup.com/poll/171794/clinton-elder-bush-positively-rated-living-presidents.aspx Oh, pardon my French but fuck the Republicans. We know there is no perfidy they will not rise or fall to. DemocratSinceBirth fears no one except his maker, much less the Republicans, and you shouldn't either. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #34)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:40 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
74. I don't understand what you mean here:
Oh, pardon my French but fuck the Republicans. We know there is no perfidy they will not rise or fall to. DemocratSinceBirth fears no one except his maker, much less the Republicans, and you shouldn't either.
What has Clinton running around with a pedo got to do with the Republicans? Yes, they will use this against Hillary and him, but it is Bill's damn fault for being such a gigantic millstone around Hillary's run for President. Are you suggesting that Republicans made up this whole story - that there is no truth to it at all or are you suggesting that this should be hidden and swept under the rug and not talked about because, yaknow it might tarnish the inevitable one? |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #74)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:47 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
76. My point is that the Clinton sex scandals end up nowhere.
That's why Bill Clinton left office with an approval rating of 73 percent and still has a favorability rating of 64%..I will furnish the citations if you so desire.
But please don't let DemocratSinceBirth prevent you from flogging this story. It will have all the efficacy of flatulating in the wind. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #76)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:23 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
79. The fact that a cheater and a pal to a pedophile still has good ratings
is all that matters. yup.
|
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #79)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:37 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
85. You know who was a practitioner of guilt by association ? This guy
![]() |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #85)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:46 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
88. o yes, the commie card. Pull it out!
![]() |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #88)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:02 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
93. POINT. FLY OVER.HEAD
Joe McCarthy smeared people by suggesting they were communists because they unknowingly associated with one just like you are smearing people by suggesting they are pedohiles because they unkowingly associated with one.
![]() I await your response, I'm just getting warmed up: |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #93)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:06 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
96. exactly the same!
omg
![]() |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #96)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:16 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
101. You are a good student. Pats LawdeeDah on head. Gives him or her a cookie.
They are "exactly the same." Accusing somebody of being a communist without evidence in the 1950s and ruining their lives and getting them blacklisted is not different than accusing somebody of being a pedophile without evidence and ruining their life now or at any time.
KISSES DemocratSinceBirth P.S. Keep reading my posts. There is hope for you. No man or woman can't be educated. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #101)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:28 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
103. Accusing someone of being a communist is not the same
as having suspicions about a man that is a proven liar and a cheater and that likes to be known as some hot rod sex pistol. This man was/is friends with a proven pedo and has been in his company many, many times at the place the rape of underage girls was happening. Sorry, that makes some antennaes twitch a bit. We are talking about rape of children, but you can talk about McCarthy all you want and make some kind of connections to me being Exactly like him.
How ridiculous, but thanks for the hilarity. It's great to watch these little developments - I can't wait for your next installment. I am having a wiff of Hitler now. That card might be waiting in the deck as well. |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #103)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:46 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
107. Larry Summers, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Gayle Smith* were on the manifest?
Are they pedophiles too?
*she of Barack Obama's Security Council. ![]() |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #107)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:53 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
108. woah, you are so far off the branch of topic
you must be one who believes in that Multi Universe theory.
I dunno, did Spacey and others fly around in a pedo's fancy jet to the scene of the crimes? |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #108)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:59 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
110. They were on the manifest
I get it. You only smear the people you don't like. You're a real prince or princess...
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #110)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:06 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
111. is Spacey running for office? Wow, guess House of Cards
gives him an edge?
|
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #111)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:26 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
116. "Is Spacey running for office? Wow, guess House of Cards gives him an edge"
Is Bill Clinton?
I digress. I digress... If you unwittingly associate with a pedophile you are only a pedophile if you run for office. Amirite? |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #108)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:38 PM
AngryAmish (25,704 posts)
212. Spacey does not like young girls
He likes twinks.
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #101)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:20 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
113. OK. Three scenarios are possible here. (Maybe more but I see three right away.)
1. As you suggest, this scandal proves to be about nothing. In that case, diehard Republicans will use it as a reason to hate Hillary anyway. But nothing can be done about that because they will find any reason to hate her. The suspicion of scandal will continue to haunt the subconscious minds of millions of Americans -- a suspicion that can be easily exploited by some outright lie or horrid innuendo in the final days prior to the 2016 election . . . . with the outcome being closer if not quite damaging for the country.
2. Doubts remain into the 2016 election as to whether Clinton knew about the pedophilia ring or was (and I have difficulty believing this) involved in some way however remote -- like unknowingly traveling on a plane with one of the victims. The election conversation would be hijacked by the scandal. Did he or did he not? Clinton's denials will not be believed because after all many view his denials of the Lewinsky matter as proof that he lies about his personal life. But the election, the campaign is hijacked. One way or the other, it is hijacked. Under No. 2, I need to add that one of Hillary's strong points is her stance on women's and children's rights. The suspicion of a tie to a pedophile much less a pedophile ring would hurt her credibility on this subject. 3. Further, this rumor could place in question the honesty of the Clintons about their marriage. And that could raise all kinds of ugly nonsense about Hillary. Remember how long the lies about Obama's birthplace captured headlines around the country? A person cannot help where they are born, but they can choose the friends they hang out with. And I question this: if it is true that this wealthy friend of Bill Clinton (or at least wealthy plane=ride-giver of Bill Clinton) was so obsessed by sex as to run a ring of very young prostitutes, then what was the tone of the conversation, the nature of the jokes when Clinton was riding in the plane? Were there witnesses? This matter is going to court. I hate to think of the potential embarrassment. Personally, I wish we as a nation were less obsessed with sex scandals. I wish that a pure sex life were not a requirement for the presidency or a member of Congress because it does not tell the story about the candidate's desire for justice or hankering for equality although it may reflect on their lust for honesty, but Americans, especially Democrats, are idealistic and want honest, clean candidates. Last time we had one was Jimmy Carter and even he admitted to lust in his heart if I remember correctly. I think this story could make it really hard for Hillary Clinton to maintain her dignity and maybe her credibility through a long campaign. It could be really tough on her. Then again it may prove to be just so much rubbish. But - - - Hillary supporters need to think carefully about its repercussions for any campaign she might run. And even about the toll on her person and on her health. This is one ugly story even if Bill had nothing to do with these young girls. When you pander to the rich to get them to support you and your campaigns, you run into some really bad people.. Not all fortunes are made through crime, but some are. Money is not a very good test of character. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #113)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:29 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
118. Yet with all this Bill Clinton has a current favorability rating of 64%...
and is America's most popular living former president.
As I said, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, these sex scandals go nowhere. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #118)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 10:23 PM
rjsquirrel (4,762 posts)
302. Yeah that won't last long if any of this is true
Most Americans have no idea who Jeffrey Epstein even is.
That might be about to change. I've had enough Clintonism for other reasons. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #113)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:35 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
120. Good post but I have to strongly disagree with one of your statements.
Personally, I wish we as a nation were less obsessed with sex scandals.
Raping children is not about sex. This is what the story is, the underage girls that were involved, not old men looking for adult sex. I know you didn't mean it this way, but it stands out like a real bad sore thumb... |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #120)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:27 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
388. You are very, very correct about this point. Thank you.
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #113)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 11:21 AM
karynnj (59,310 posts)
324. The last honest, clean candidate was Jimmy Carter?
I think you missed that President Obama is pretty scandal free. If you are speaking just of his marriage - it is hard to get a more picture perfect family than the Obamas.
Not to mention, John Kerry was honest and as clean as it gets in DC. Al Gore's family was an asset and at the point that he ran his marriage was seen as strong. There was no scandal about Dukakis - Kitty dealt with depression, but that was not a sign that her husband was not clean and honest. George McCovern was accused of many things by Republicans but not dishonesty of any dirty politics or actions. I honestly know almost nothing of Mondale. So, really it is Clinton who is the aberration -- not Carter. By and large, the nominees chosen by the Democrats have been honest, clean and decent men. (John Edwards never was near to being the nominee - he won only one contested primary - South Carolina - in two years of running for President. Although there were early hints in late 2007 that he had been unfaithful, the media pretty much helped him blow the accusations off. ) |
Response to karynnj (Reply #324)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:30 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
391. I don't think that Kerry or Gore Or Mondale were even questioned about their sex lives or
interests. You are correct. The topic came up in Carter's campaign, maybe because he was very open about his devout Christianity.
I'm a big fan of Kerry, McGovern and Mondale. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression about my opinions about them. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #101)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:21 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
115. Was that condescending post supposed to rile me up or something?
Patting me on the head like you were the superior and me the small ignorant one that shouldn't question your greater intelligence so you distract my questions by throwing me a cookie/bone?
I know the types who rely on this sort of thing when they lose an argument. Try again, a bit more subtle tho. |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #115)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:34 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
119. I have never lost an argument. My record is as pristine as this fella:
![]() |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #119)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:49 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
123. I don't watch baseball.
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #123)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:53 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
124. He's a jockey./NT
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #93)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:58 PM
ND-Dem (4,571 posts)
125. you're saying that hilary associating with her husband is the same as an actor unknowingly
joining some do-gooder 'communist front' organization?
|
Response to ND-Dem (Reply #125)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:04 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
128. Another guy or gal who misses the point.
I sat next to the owner of Ringling Brothers when I got bumped from coach to first class on a NY to MIA flight. That didn't make me a trapeze artist.
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #128)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:09 PM
ND-Dem (4,571 posts)
129. so hilary and bill are now analogous to two strangers on a plane? yeah, i guess i miss your
point.
they've been married for 39 years, and were close political partners for a lot of those years. And Hilary certainly knows that Bill has a (to put it kindly) wandering eye. She's no naïve young thing. |
Response to ND-Dem (Reply #129)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:14 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
131. Bill Clinton had no idea Jeffrey Epstein was a ped
C'mon , you can hate somebody's guts but to call someone a ped or a ped enabler requires a level of hate I can't begin to fathom.
There are people who physically harmed me and I wouldn't call them that. it's actually worse, imho, than calling somebody a killer because I can think of instances where killing if not justified is understandable. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #131)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:17 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
132. How do you know this? Did you have one of those magical lunches with him?
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #132)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:24 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
136. Know what?
This isn't really funny any more...
I can't think of anything worse than calling somebody a kiddyfucker or saying a person enables kiddyfuckers but if you feel comfortable trafficking in such there is nothing a random internet poster can do to stop you. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #131)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:31 PM
ND-Dem (4,571 posts)
139. so bill's in the habit of hopping on planes with people who haven't been vetted? i doubt it.
People knew who Epstein was because he was a very rich Democratic donor; and one who'd been convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution in 2008.
|
Response to ND-Dem (Reply #139)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:38 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
144. And their affiliation ended well before his activities were known./NT
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #144)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:05 PM
ND-Dem (4,571 posts)
152. When did it end, exactly? That's a point I've been unable to find any discussion of.
Response to ND-Dem (Reply #152)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:20 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
160. Look at how old the flight logs are./NT
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #160)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:22 PM
ND-Dem (4,571 posts)
162. iow, you don't know.
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #144)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:53 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
394. Good point. Yet see how easily that fact is overlooked.
The issue is not whether Clinton was involved in any illicit activities. I don't think he was. The question is whether this kind of issue could hijack Hillary's campaign if she runs. I think it could. Not early on. But much, much later. Sort of an October Surprise kind of thing.
The risk should be considered seriously. For me this is just one more issue that makes Hillary's candidacy a risky matter. She is way ahead now. But it is precisely this sort of controversy, no matter how ill-founded, that can defeat a candidate. I remember the problems with McGovern's running mate, Eagleton. That was not nearly as controversial as a mere rumor no matter how false of this sort could be. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #128)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:09 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
130. Do you teach Can'tMakeAClearPoint 101, is that why you have cookies on you?
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #130)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:35 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
141. Those are for my students
Chocolate chip or oatmeaL?
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #141)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:49 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
145. Ah, would explain the education system and the falling behind in world standards.
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #145)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:51 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
147. Only those poor lads and lasses who missed my courses./NT
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #128)
Thu Feb 12, 2015, 07:54 PM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
471. Gads, this is not about a sex life vs. privacy issue! This is about sex slaves and minors!!!!!!!
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #85)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:21 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
385. His accusations, almost entirely false, held Americans in suspense. He ruined many lives, but
some Americans will still defend him.
The problem isn't whether the accusations are true. (I do not believe they are. I could change my mind if more proof is presented.) The problem is whether the accusations will be believed by enough Americans to harm Hillary's candidacy should she run. I think they would. Right now she is ahead in the polls. But Bill's reputation is not her only negative. And those negatives could become more and more important as the public watches her campaign. She has some other even bigger problems than this. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #385)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 05:25 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
387. I rather be accused of being a communist than a pedohile.
In fact I can't think of anything worse than being accused of than being accused of being a pedophile, including a murderer because at least in the latter instance I would have an easier go of it in prison.
It's just an awful accusation and to hurl it at someone for political gain, wow. |
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #32)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:50 AM
99Forever (14,524 posts)
56. You sir, have it precisely correct.
This is one of my primary objections to another Clinton run at the Presidency. Even if Bill isn't guilty in this, he has used up the whole of the Clinton name's "benefit of a doubt" in the publics eye. And after watching the burn out of more than one Democratic big name after the other because of initially "denied" sexual allegations that turned out to be true, having to deal with yet another Clinton scandal is the LAST thing we need.
|
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #32)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 12:14 PM
vankuria (891 posts)
67. Well Said
And I couldn't agree more, the last thing we need going into the 2016 race is a sex scandal. While Bill most likely is entirely innocent of partaking in the sex romps with underage girls, it doesn't bode well for him that he's friends with Epstein now listed as a registered sex offender. And Hilary will be considered guilty by association and of course I know this isn't fair but the GOP doesn't play fair and they are going to run with this and make it into a main campaign issue, where she will be on the defensive the entire campaign.
Too many important issue at stake to take a chance on a Hilary campaign, I wish this wasn't the case but it is. |
Response to vankuria (Reply #67)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 03:57 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
109. +1000
Response to JDPriestly (Reply #32)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:20 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
78. +1000. Regardless of Repugs doing the same, they control most $, media & spin. In his
association with the Pedo, even after the conviction I wonder about his mental state & genuine concern for the Dem. Party, the people & this country. It's beyond compulsive, twisted, & entitlement; there's obvious uncontrollable attraction to risk, danger, with adrenaline high like a junkie. The well known concern for his 'legacy'? Almost delusional. He, they'll be tarnished for a longer time if this is true. He already got away with a lot in the earlier scandals. I don't want to hear more for years.
Seems to want it both ways, like always- for her, him before to win the highest office while simultaneously risking it all, for them & us. Real sickness. Jennifer Flowers, next Lewinsky, then survived a major heart attack that didn't slow him down- nice legacy for Gore & Hillary. They're wealthy, could easily step back from politics so he can to continue his addiction-disease/romping. Yes this needs to come out now, not have the Reich hold back until she's nominated which would be the best strategy for them. |
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #25)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:30 PM
still_one (89,308 posts)
138. A progressive blog doesn't need proof, if we don't like someone
Response to still_one (Reply #138)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:37 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
142. You win post of the day./NT
Response to still_one (Reply #138)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:55 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
149. That someone has laid himself a history of deceit and fibs.
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #149)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:44 PM
still_one (89,308 posts)
201. except reading this thread it seems they are accusing Hillary by proxy
Response to still_one (Reply #201)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:55 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
219. I don't see that, what I see is that she will be hurt by this if she runs.
Which is a no brainer that some can't accept.
|
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #219)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:35 PM
still_one (89,308 posts)
225. I am not sure if that is the no brainier you suggest. Are people going to be more concerned with
what someone else does, or what the candidate does or says what they will do? Obama seemed to handle Ayeres and Wright issues fine. Vitter and other repukes seemed to get through fine also
|
Response to still_one (Reply #225)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:43 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
227. fine, have it your way - a candidate whose husband was involved with a pedophile is no big deal.
Incredible the lengths people will go through to protect the Clinton's bad behaviour.
Obama had to face made up shit, and some of that made up shit came from the Clinton camp. There is evidence that Bill and this Dirtshitowitz guy visited the place where underage girls were sexually abused. That is quite enough to raise eyebrows a few stories high. It would be for anyone else so it should be for precious Billy. |
Response to LawDeeDah (Reply #227)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:02 AM
still_one (89,308 posts)
234. I didn't say it would or would not, I said you cannot predict. Bill Clinton had a BJ in the oval
Office from an intern, and still won reelection
The one thing predictable about Americans is that they are not predictable |
Response to still_one (Reply #225)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 06:00 PM
JDPriestly (57,936 posts)
395. Ayres and Wright were petty, peripheral issues in Obama's case.
They weren't married to Obama.
Vitter and the other Republicans get by with this because they have friends who own the media. |
Response to fbc (Reply #22)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:31 PM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
140. I hope this isn't the reason the country doesn't want HRC. She has her own baggage. nm
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #140)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 12:13 PM
merrily (45,251 posts)
344. Blaming "the vast right wing conspiracy" on TV for "lying" about Monica to hurt her poor dear hubby
is party of her own baggage, though. So is putting up with one of his infidelities after another.
|
Response to fbc (Reply #22)
Wed Jan 28, 2015, 01:02 AM
Beacool (30,219 posts)
409. No problem, as Bill isn't one.
![]() |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:10 AM
TwilightGardener (46,416 posts)
27. Welp, that's an unfortunate association, right there.
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:01 AM
PoliticAverse (26,366 posts)
38. Teen ‘Sex Slave’ Reveals Alleged Details Of Bill Clinton’s Trip To Jeffrey Epstein’s Orgy Island
Bombshell Interview: Teen ‘Sex Slave’ Reveals Alleged Details Of Bill Clinton’s Trip To Jeffrey Epstein’s Orgy Island — With ‘Two Young Girls’
http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2015/01/jeffrey-epstein-sex-scandal-victim-bill-clinton/ |
Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #38)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:05 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
39. Since this is an ersatz porn thread I'll post the money shot.
Roberts said in a sworn statement filed in court earlier this week that despite some media reports, she never had sex with Clinton, nor witnessed him having sex with anyone else.
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #39)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:21 AM
wyldwolf (43,797 posts)
50. The 'prooogreeessssivvves' on this thread believe all of this story... except that part. LOL.
Response to wyldwolf (Reply #50)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:17 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
59. Many of the so called progressives were as enamored of the Lewinski brouhaha...
Many of the so called progressives were as enamored of the Lewinsky brouhaha as the Red Staters and their ilk. Ostensibly it seems like a most odd confluence of interests but it really isn't.
|
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #39)
Mon Feb 2, 2015, 01:43 PM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
437. But WHY hang out with a perv? Again and again...when you wife wants to be the President????
Response to TheNutcracker (Reply #437)
Mon Feb 2, 2015, 02:01 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
438. You love bumping this thread.
![]() |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 07:27 AM
BeyondGeography (38,852 posts)
40. "Sex jet"
![]() So tabloidy. |
Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #40)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:46 AM
RiverLover (7,830 posts)
46. I saw that tabloid headline the other day actually
It was so "tabloidy" I was sure it was another of their made up tripe and said as much to the lady behind me who started to "tsk, tsk" when she read it. She replied, "well we are talking about Bill Clinton."
Turns out she was right! What a creep. |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:40 AM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
45. Classic honey trap. So was Monica.
That's Lady Ghislaine Maxwell at the right with an (almost unimaginably stupid) Prince and young friend:
![]() Ms. Maxwell's late father, Robert, had spooky ties with Israel and met a murky end. Wiki: Maxwell had a flamboyant lifestyle, living in Headington Hill Hall in Oxford from which he often flew in his helicopter, and sailing in his luxury yacht, the Lady Ghislaine. He was notably litigious and often embroiled in controversy, including about his support for Israel at the time of its 1948 Palestine war. In 1989, he had to sell successful businesses including Pergamon Press to cover some of his debts. In 1991, his body was discovered floating in the Atlantic Ocean having fallen overboard from his yacht. He was buried in Israel. Maxwell's death triggered the collapse of his publishing empire as banks called in loans. His sons briefly struggled to keep the business together, but failed as the news emerged that Maxwell had stolen hundreds of millions of pounds from his own companies' pension funds. |
Response to leveymg (Reply #45)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:00 AM
NuclearDem (16,184 posts)
47. Sadly, an "it was the JOOOOOOS" post was almost inevitable.
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #47)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:09 AM
leveymg (36,418 posts)
48. Not the first time that Bill fell into one. Gordon . . .
Thomas says Danny Yatom, Mossad inspector general, succeeded in tapping Lewinsky’s phone and amassed some 30 hours of sexually explicit conversations between the president and Lewinsky.
http://nypost.com/1999/03/03/israel-blackmailed-bill-with-monica-tapes-spy-hunt-ended-after-mossad-bugged-prez-sex-chats-book-exclusive/
Thomas says Tel Aviv used the tapes to stop the probe of an operative code-named “MEGA,” who was, and could still be, deep within the White House. “So far as anyone knows, the Israeli agent MEGA – a much more important spy than the imprisoned CIA traitor Jonathan Pollard, and probably his controller – is still in place at the White House,” Thomas said last night from London. Meaningful context, if you know who Gordon Thomas is, and have read the book he wrote, Gideon's Spies - The Secret History of Mossad. And, then, there's this from the Starr report: http://articles.latimes.com/1998/sep/12/news/ss-23060/14 "According to Ms. Lewinsky, she and the president had a lengthy conversation that day. He told her that he suspected that a foreign embassy (he did not specify which one) was tapping his telephones, and he proposed cover stories.
If ever questioned, she should say that the two of them were just friends. If anyone ever asked about their phone sex, she should say that they knew their calls were being monitored all along, and the phone sex was just a put on." |
Response to leveymg (Reply #48)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:36 PM
2banon (7,321 posts)
84. Thanks for mentioning Thomas's book Gideon's Spies.. I have been meaning to read it..
I think it's high time I make a point of checking that out from the library.... I respect Gordon Thomas.
|
Response to NuclearDem (Reply #47)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:30 AM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
51. Your JOOOOOOS don't equal the government of Israel.
Funny her attorney at the time brought it up...
After the scandal broke in January, Young called Marcia offering to help, but Monica's mother was despondent. "This is ugly business," said Marcia. On Feb. 28, Young says, she spoke to Lewinsky for almost an hour. Young expressed some irritation about a remark by Lewinsky's lawyer at the time, William Ginsburg, that Monica would not hurt Clinton in the investigation because the president had been a friend of Israel's. Lewinsky replied, "Everything [Ginsburg] says is true. I don't want to see Clinton hurt. I am a friend of Israel." Young advised Monica, "Don't go to jail for that guy," says Young. According to Young, Lewinsky replied: "I won't do that, I'm going to tell the truth." In a possible reference to Starr's interest in bringing obstruction- of-justice charges, Young says that Lewinsky added, "I don't know anything that they're interested in finding out about." The conversation, said Young, had a sad tone. "I asked her what I can do for her and she said, 'There's nothing anybody can do for me.' "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/newsweek29.htm You'll have to ask William Ginsburg what Israel had to do with the lewinsky affair. ![]() ![]() |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:16 AM
seabeyond (110,159 posts)
49. big fucking deal and so what! there are things people can argue with this, but big fucking deal?
girls, held against well, raped, sex slaves, ... children. and we have a couple men that reduce that to a big fucking deal and a so what?
says a hell of a lot about how little concern there is for some, when it comes to agenda. arent they the privileged and entitled. if one does not believe it, discusses how it effects hillary or any number of directions the conversation can go, then fine. but to say, big fucking deal about the powerful, the ones with money, using our girls in this manner is so insignificant? fuck that. |
Response to seabeyond (Reply #49)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:37 PM
Dreamer Tatum (10,925 posts)
143. +1 well said nt
Response to seabeyond (Reply #49)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:23 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
163. whatsamatta with old guys looking for sex?
back to the old school lesson of: Rape is not sex. Raping a child is not sex.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:31 AM
fishwax (29,092 posts)
52. Epstein isn't a pedophile
Pedophilia involves attraction to prepubescent people. As far as I know, all the victims confirmed or alleged in Epstein's case were teenagers. That doesn't make it remotely okay, of course, but we might as well get the language right.
|
Response to fishwax (Reply #52)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:37 AM
Jesus Malverde (10,274 posts)
53. Lulz for defending a registered sex offender...
Golf clap..
![]() and ![]() |
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #53)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:44 AM
fishwax (29,092 posts)
55. I didn't defend him.
George W. Bush is also not a pedophile. But saying so is not defending him.
|
Response to Jesus Malverde (Reply #53)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 10:52 AM
DemocratSinceBirth (99,152 posts)
57. I subscribe to the "if you look under thirty" policy you need to provide identification.
That being said there is a difference between a teenager and a nine year old and the man or woman who has sex with the latter is on a different level of messed up.
It's the difference, imho, from being a creep to the lowest of the low. |
Response to fishwax (Reply #52)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 12:10 PM
B2G (9,766 posts)
66. Maybe you missed the part about being held against their will. nt
Response to B2G (Reply #66)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:21 PM
fishwax (29,092 posts)
114. No, I didn't miss that
That's obviously a crime, but it's not pedophilia.
![]() Calling him a serial rapist and a human trafficker would fit the allegations in the article, though. |
Response to fishwax (Reply #52)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 12:52 PM
Marr (20,317 posts)
71. I don't think 'Ephebophilia' is specifically against the law.
So someone convicted of having sex with underage people can be reasonably called a pedophile in legal terms, I should think.
|
Response to Marr (Reply #71)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 04:27 PM
fishwax (29,092 posts)
117. no, but rape is
And that's what Epstein having sex with underage girls would be.
What Epstein is alleged to have done is heinous enough in its own right. It doesn't require inaccurate labels. Calling him a serial rapist and a human trafficker would be plenty dramatic, and would also have the advantage of matching the facts and allegations in the article. Alas, throwing around terms that one's own reporting doesn't support tends to undermine credibility. |
Response to fishwax (Reply #117)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 05:18 PM
Marr (20,317 posts)
133. Good point.
You've convinced me.
|
Response to fishwax (Reply #52)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:07 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
156. "I did Not have sex with that woman". Not even remotely since sex only involves intercourse,
and from what is known and was proved, the attraction to Ms. Lewinsky was oral in nature, verified by the fact that the act took place in the Oral Office.
The language is definitely right. But the truth and the law are another matter. |
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #156)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:29 PM
fishwax (29,092 posts)
166. I'm sorry, but I don't think I understand your post
You seem to be saying that the fact that Bill and Monica had oral sex means that Epstein really is a pedophile, but that doesn't make sense. Can you clarify for me?
|
Response to fishwax (Reply #166)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 07:08 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
180. No I didn't write that Epstein is a pedophile, you did. From your posts, you are very
concerned about E. and perhaps others, not being called or labelled pedophiles. Only that they commit sexual acts with underage females against the victim's will like E. did, a convicted sex offender. It's like trying to insist that a person who broke into car is not and can't be called a thief, or a burglar; or that a heroin addict is not and cannot be called an illegal drug user or a junkie.
The example I gave of Clinton's well known and well worn BS is the familiar attempt to obscure, re-label and minimize the true action, verbally and legally. To call it something else, other than a spade is a spade. You keep insisting pedophilia is limited to 'prepubescent' children, and that if girls have reached puberty they are not in the strict child molester, pedophile category if raped. I wonder what the courts think of that. |
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #180)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 08:55 PM
fishwax (29,092 posts)
196. sorry, but you're not making any sense. And I didn't write that. I wrote the opposite
"From your posts, you are very concerned about E. and perhaps others, not being called or labelled pedophiles. Only that they commit sexual acts with underage females against the victim's will like E. did, a convicted sex offender. "
I'm not concerned about Epstein, who is apparently a serial rapist and a human trafficker, if the allegations are true. That's enough for me to be outraged. I don't need him to also be a pedophile. I do think the term should be used correctly. I think victims of both pedophile predators and non pedophile predators deserve that. "It's like trying to insist that a person who broke into car is not and can't be called a thief, or a burglar; or that a heroin addict is not and cannot be called an illegal drug user or a junkie. " It's nothing like that. A person who breaks into a car fits the definition of a thief. A person who is a heroin addict fits the definition of an illegal drug user. ![]() "he example I gave of Clinton's well known and well worn BS is the familiar attempt to obscure, re-label and minimize the true action, verbally and legally. To call it something else, other than a spade is a spade." Sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by this or why it's relevant. Are you saying Clinton is a pedophile too? ![]() |
Response to fishwax (Reply #196)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:52 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
203. Why on earth are you asking if I think Clinton is a pedophile based on the Lewinsky lie he told to
the nation on camera? It's well known she was 21 or so and surely not raped. But God don't scare me like that, please no underage children!
Actually I think he ought to return to food, switch addictions- it helps many. Get off the life saving Dr. Ornish cardio diet he went on before Chelsea's wedding, and back to burgers, fries, donuts. It may cut the cravings, dunno though. I said that C.'s statement 'I did not.." was trying to deny his actions- hint, it was something lesser, not actual sex as we all know to get out of the allegations. Quite a few people here refer to E. as a pedo, or ped, that's common with underage females who are held, raped against their will as sex slaves. Like many gays who also feel strongly about this subject b/c they are sometimes incorrectly lumped into this group, you want to make the hard line case that true pedophilia pertains to only prepubescent boys and girls. Not to underage girls or boys. I don't know about that legally or ethically. What I do know is that the reason pedophiles are attracted to the young, androgynous ones, is that boys are soft like females and the girls boyish w/o female developed breasts. And those who molest them should be charged and punished as criminals. This is a huge subject that I don't want to get further into this evening. There must be some kind of Pedophile Anti Defamation Group for concerned, accused people, seriously. |
Response to appalachiablue (Reply #203)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:28 PM
fishwax (29,092 posts)
224. I see your point about Clinton now
I was confused from your first post because in that post seemed to connect the fact that Clinton and Lewinski had oral sex with Epstein's status as a pedophile. But now I see your point about "it was something lesser, not actual sex as we all know to get out of the allegations."
For the record, I never said what Epstein has apparently done was was any less serious. Indeed, the whole point of my posts has been that it's plenty serious enough without using a label that doesn't really fit. I do think the distinction in terms is worthwhile, though, because (among other things) the experience of the victims and their paths towards healing tend to be different. I think maintaining the distinction helps in the fight against abuse (of all types) and in the struggle to help people cope with the aftermath. That was my impetus for posting the definition. "What I do know is that the reason pedophiles are attracted to the young, androgynous ones, is that boys are soft like females and the girls boyish w/o female developed breasts. And those who molest them should be charged and punished as criminals. This is a huge subject that I don't want to get further into this evening. There must be some kind of Pedophile Anti Defamation Group for concerned, accused people, seriously. " I've no clue as to the accuracy of the first sentence or the point of the last, but I agree with your second sentence and can well understand not wanting to get further into it the subject this evening--enjoy what's left of it ![]() |
Response to fishwax (Reply #224)
Mon Jan 26, 2015, 12:10 AM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
235. That's interesting about concern for victims and their healing & coping. 5 years ago I found
out my stepmother was abused as a girl, explains a lot. And I've seen a grown man looking hard at my niece, once when she was 8 in a nice restaurant, another time a creep followed her home walking from school in a truck when 12. I'll say good nite now. This long topic has been heavy, as DU can be at times, but also a great learning source.
|
Response to fishwax (Reply #52)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 08:52 PM
Yo_Mama (8,303 posts)
194. It means he's a statutory rapist. Serial - & ephebophile.
I agree that it is not as heinous as going after little children, but rape is rape if the victims cannot consent under law. Having a whole lot of money doesn't make it better in my opinion.
And 12 - 12 is getting close to the pedophile line. This is one sick character, and that appears to be already proven. |
Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #194)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 09:05 PM
fishwax (29,092 posts)
198. I agree completely
Response to fishwax (Reply #52)
Tue Jan 27, 2015, 01:40 PM
TheNutcracker (2,104 posts)
356. Epstein own sister said after 15 Epstein no longer wanted them for himself. Too old 15 is for him.
This is also about HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND HOW THIS CRIME PROTECTS SO MANY ELITE FROM THE CRIMES OF PEDOPHILIA.
|
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 11:00 AM
tridim (45,358 posts)
58. Reason number 3,487 this crazy family has zero business even considering a WH run.
Hillary remains the worst possible Democratic candidate I can think of. It is nothing but a nightmare.
|
Response to tridim (Reply #58)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 12:17 PM
RiverLover (7,830 posts)
68. Thank you. nt
Response to tridim (Reply #58)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:31 PM
LawDeeDah (1,596 posts)
72. Absolutely. And for those that separate Hillary and Bill like they were strangers
are way off the reality mark.
This sort of news besmirches her as well. He has a history of being dishonest so it is not unusual for a special dollop of suspicion to be put upon him for this. I mean, what the hell was he thinking jetting around with Epstein. And bullshit to anyone to defend him by saying he didn't know. That's bullshit. He knew, or had to have strong suspicions - how could he not. The richie power boys club have to push the envelope for their thrills because just being rich and powerful isn't enough for some. Let's hear what Bill's definition of is is on this one. |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 12:41 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
69. Well. I may have my faults,
but I can solemnly swear that I have never, EVER, ridden on a "pedophile billionaire's sex jet". And I am fairly confident that I never will.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #69)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:52 PM
treestar (82,114 posts)
91. What about a plain ordinary sex jet?
![]() ![]() |
Response to treestar (Reply #91)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 06:05 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
154. Unless you count JetBlue flights to Florida as "sex jets", I would have to say no.
It seems that "sex jets" are more for billionaires. And horndog ex-presidents.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #154)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 07:33 PM
appalachiablue (39,539 posts)
187. What to call the looney guy on Virgin Air who was going at it solo in the aisle & attendants had
to tackle and restrain him? Oh no, maybe he missed Epstein's party plane and got on the wrong flight.
Our ex-president behaving badly again. Some would say go back to food but with with less bimbo, to switch addictions. Who knows but it's clearly destructive, habitual behavior. |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:35 PM
2banon (7,321 posts)
73. oops.. My guess is this will kill HRC's presidential run.
Dem's better come up with someone else pretty fast I'd say... |
Response to TheNutcracker (Original post)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:23 PM
MineralMan (145,732 posts)
80. So, was Hillary on those flights?
If not, what difference does this make to anything? That's my question.
|
Response to MineralMan (Reply #80)
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 02:45 PM
2banon (7,321 posts)
86. Are you serious?
i can just hear the question echoed a million times over now: "What did you know, and when did you know it?" To be followed with, "How does this news impact your marriage? Will you be filing for a divorce?" and how will this matter impact your ability to be President?"
No matter how this pans out, it does not bode well for her personally or professionally and particularly for any thought of a Presidential bid, regardless that she has/had nothing to do with her hubby's socio-pathic sexual proclivities and inclinations. |