A Third Woman Alleges She was Sexually Assaulted by Donald Trump

[fantome profane]

Why not, considering the type of "consensual" relationship? Many of politicians and others have been kicked out of their position for having such a relationship. Plus, in this thread, it is about enabling Bill's sexual predator status, which is intertwined a tad bit with his political power and a whole lot with her's.

I am not saying what Bill did with Monica was right, but it is not rape.

And I do still think there is a case to be made that enabling it it is worse than, or as bad as, the predator behavior. The latter we all assume to be wrong, the former we assume wash our hands of any responsibility especially if it is one we like / love engaging in the latter. With the latter, it's really challenging to make a case for "rape culture" and see support for that. With the former (enabling), I would say it is precisely why the term rape culture exists. Hillary has, I'd say rather undeniably, contributed to that culture. Hate/disparage the victims (women), maintain loyalty/support to the perpetrator (Bill). Above all else, maintain the status quo.

If you think speaking words, can ever be the equivalent of actually beating and raping a 13-year-old girl then I don't know how to relate to you on this matter.

 

[Cassandra]

Assumption: Bill Clinton did have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Assumption: Hillary knew of it
Assumption: Hillary, after knowing it, sought to disparage Monica, blame the matter on 'vast right wing conspiracy' so Bill Clinton could be seen as innocent of the allegations

Which leaves the last assumption, and thus makes the claims on Trump vs. claims on Hillary where it is one on one assumption.

But let's just add this National Review article to the mix for some context.
And for sarcasm sake, let's just assume that the Lewinsky scandal is the only time Bill went astray, and that Hillary knew about it, and is only time she said anything about these women and their allegations.

And Monica Lewinsky is some kind of victim in this scheme? You must be kidding. She told her friends she was going to seduce Clinton long before she had a relation with him. She planned it from the beginning.

Clinton was never found guilty of abusing Monica Lewinsky. The only mistake that Clinton made is that after endless harassment he started to explain himself and lied under oath by declaring he did not have (legal) sex with that woman as he defined oral sex not as legal sex. If he had simply said: It is none of your business, nothing would have happened. But a president lying is something of a cardinal sin (Except of course when his name is George Bush and he lies to the nation about real important matters like reasons to go to war in Iraq).

Republicans wanted revenge for the impeachment of Richard Nixon by bringing down a democrat the same way. That is why they invested 40 million in the harassment campaign to make Clinton step down. Ken Star the investigator now declares he feels sorry about what it brought and that Bill Clinton was a excellent president.

The way George Bush ordered the NSA to throw all their privacy measures overboard and start to listen in on all private affairs anyway possible should have been enough for a very justified impeachment. His own secretary of justice warned him it was unconstitutional and resigned over the matter. He still pushed it ahead and later it was indeed found unconstitutional.

The integrity of People is not defined by their mistakes, but by their methods. I believe in higher justice, the more clever evil doers are the deeper the hole they dig for themselves.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I have to do my due diligence, how trustworthy is Raw Story?

Less trustworthy than half-cooked stories, I believe.
(If you get the pun).

 

[Underhill]

A good point. Bill was a predictor while on the job and was impeached for lying about his indiscretion(s). Yet, Bill remains one of the most popular Democrat presidents. That alone puts the allegations against Trump on seriously shaky ground. Likewise, a man who is wealthy as Trump and therefore would have been ripe for the plucking years ago, and yet she chooses now to come out with her story? Yesterday, Trump was painted as a sociopath and today he is painted as a serial rapist. I guess we will hear about incest charges and accusations of pedophilia before too much longer at this rate. Anything to take the spotlight off of Hillary's glaring lack of accomplishments and questionable suitability for being POTUS.

Bill did chase tail while in office, but is there any evidence of actual harassment or mistreatment of women? It's one thing to mess around, another completely to be a predator.

 

[Quetzal]

Less trustworthy than half-cooked stories, I believe.
(If you get the pun).

...shut up and take your frubal.

 

[YmirGF]

And Monica Lewinsky is some kind of victim in this scheme? You must be kidding. She told her friends she was going to seduce Clinton long before she had a relation with him. She planned it from the beginning.

Clinton was never found guilty of abusing Monica Lewinsky. The only mistake that Clinton made is that after endless harassment he started to explain himself and lied under oath by declaring he did not have (legal) sex with that woman as he defined oral sex not as legal sex. If he had simply said: It is none of your business, nothing would have happened. But a president lying is something of a cardinal sin (Except of course when his name is George Bush and he lies to the nation about real important matters like reasons to go to war in Iraq).

Republicans wanted revenge for the impeachment of Richard Nixon by bringing down a democrat the same way. That is why they invested 40 million in the harassment campaign to make Clinton step down. Ken Star the investigator now declares he feels sorry about what it brought and that Bill Clinton was a excellent president.

The way George Bush ordered the NSA to throw all their privacy measures overboard and start to listen in on all private affairs anyway possible should have been enough for a very justified impeachment. His own secretary of justice warned him it was unconstitutional and resigned over the matter. He still pushed it ahead and later it was indeed found unconstitutional.

The integrity of People is not defined by their mistakes, but by their methods. I believe in higher justice, the more clever evil doers are the deeper the hole they dig for themselves.

I'm always fascinated when I see well written posts like this that seem so well thought out. The problem is, when you drill down and look at the claims made and the leaps in logic, especially when compared to facts and mitigating circumstances the whole wonderful collection of words just begins to vaporize like dust in the wind. Those annoying little facts that get in the way of the narrative being trotted by the unsuspecting reader. At the same time, I suppose, in all fairness, that the writer may not be aware of the larger picture surrounding several aspects of their points. If only the world was so black and white.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bill did chase tail while in office, but is there any evidence of actual harassment or mistreatment of women? It's one thing to mess around, another completely to be a predator.

Here is one source for info.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

 

[Underhill]

Here is one source for info.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Yeah, I've seen most of that stuff. But reading those reports, he strikes me as the classic harmless horn-ball. Other than the woman who claimed he raped her in the 70's, after saying they had no sexual contact whatsoever, every case was a pretty mild case of him doing stuff a lot of people were doing back then. I'm not saying it was right, but in the 70's it was not uncommon for a boss to swat his female employee on the butt. This stuff didn't really become taboo until about 1990. Clarence Thomas was the tipping point and from that point forward everyone started being more proactive about the problem. The rest is consensual affairs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, I've seen most of that stuff. But reading those reports, he strikes me as the classic harmless horn-ball.

Including the accusation of rape?
Bill was certainly a womanizer, but there were also accusations of criminal behavior.
Btw, your memory of the 70s differs from mine. I worked at many companies, & at
not a single one would a boss swattting a gal's butt be tolerated. A climate of
"hands off' was already well entrenched. But my experienced is limited to
academic, engineering & manufacturing areas.

 

[Underhill]

Including the accusation of rape?
Bill was certainly a womanizer, but there were also accusations of criminal behavior.
Btw, your memory of the 70s differs from mine. I worked at many companies, & at
not a single one would a boss swattting a gal's butt be tolerated. A climate of
"hands off' was already well entrenched. But my experienced is limited to
academic, engineering & manufacturing areas.

It was certainly a lot more tolerated than it was later.

And I mentioned the 'rape'. She continued working with the campaign after the 'rape'. Said nothing happened repeatedly. Even signed an affidavit to that affect during the Paula Jones thing.

Then only after she saw money in a news story, came out with her claims.

Perhaps she lied for 15 years and told the truth later, but there isn't enough there to find him guilty of anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

It was certainly a lot more tolerated than it was later.

And I mentioned the 'rape'. She continued working with the campaign after the 'rape'. Said nothing happened repeatedly. Even signed an affidavit to that affect during the Paula Jones thing.

Then only after she saw money in a news story, came out with her claims.

Perhaps she lied for 15 years and told the truth later, but there isn't enough there to find him guilty of anything.

Of course, all non-adjudicated claims must be taken for what they are.
This is true for all.....Trump, Bill, Hillary.
But we must each assign probabilities to the allegations, & weigh them.
So much to consider, so much in doubt, & so much difficulty, eh?

 

[Underhill]

Of course, all non-adjudicated claims must be taken for what they are.
This is true for all.....Trump, Bill, Hillary.
But we must each assign probabilities to the allegations, & weigh them.
So much to consider, so much in doubt, & so much difficulty, eh?

With these two it is like choosing to drive across a frozen lake in April or go jogging on the roof of a condemned warehouse. Tough call but neither sounds like a great idea.

 

[Cassandra]

I'm always fascinated when I see well written posts like this that seem so well thought out. The problem is, when you drill down and look at the claims made and the leaps in logic, especially when compared to facts and mitigating circumstances the whole wonderful collection of words just begins to vaporize like dust in the wind. Those annoying little facts that get in the way of the narrative being trotted by the unsuspecting reader. At the same time, I suppose, in all fairness, that the writer may not be aware of the larger picture surrounding several aspects of their points. If only the world was so black and white.

To me it sounds like you admire yourself a lot,
but as you do not give any arguments, I guess they are not there

 

[Cassandra]

Of course, all non-adjudicated claims must be taken for what they are.
This is true for all.....Trump, Bill, Hillary.
But we must each assign probabilities to the allegations, & weigh them.
So much to consider, so much in doubt, & so much difficulty, eh?

Will you be using your underbelly for that?
Because I have not seen you write anything to support your slander

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess you will be using your underbelly for that?
Because I have not seen you write anything to support your slander

There is much I've written which you haven't seen.
Underbelly?
Strange your use of language is.

And again, regarding "slander".....

 

[YmirGF]

OK, Cassandra, you asked for it. Here ya go.

And Monica Lewinsky is some kind of victim in this scheme? You must be kidding. She told her friends she was going to seduce Clinton long before she had a relation with him. She planned it from the beginning.

Clinton was never found guilty of abusing Monica Lewinsky. The only mistake that Clinton made is that after endless harassment he started to explain himself and lied under oath by declaring he did not have (legal) sex with that woman as he defined oral sex not as legal sex. If he had simply said: It is none of your business, nothing would have happened.

I have to admit that I nearly laughed out loud at this nuanced telling of events. You make it sound like this inexperienced high school jock was being targeted by a vivacious and insatiable prom queen. This was the leader of the "free" world and a man of the world, so to speak. Impropriety and morality aside, Lewinsky represented a rather significant security risk for the President and as a savvy political operator he should have sent her packing at the first opportunity. That he had several encounters with her, no doubt with the Secret Service fully aware of what was going on, tells us much about his character. That he would openly lie about it instead of just admitting to it. C'mon, the guy has great galloping gobs of charisma. Do you think that if he had just admitted it people would really have cared for more than 5 minutes? No, he chose to deliberately lie under oath (to tell the truth). He was rightly impeached for lying under oath (to tell the truth) to Federal Investigators. He is lucky that they didn't hold him in contempt or file obstruction of justice charges and sent him to jail.

But a president lying is something of a cardinal sin (Except of course when his name is George Bush and he lies to the nation about real important matters like reasons to go to war in Iraq).

Arguably one of the dumbest things George W. ever did, I think he would even admit now in retrospect. What you have to understand is that a lot of people were telling him that there was no solid evidence, but Wolfowitz and Cheney were extremely committed to some very poor intelligence that originally came from a prisoner the Germans were interrogating. George Tenet of the CIA had largely dismissed that intel as being unreliable in that there was no possibility to check the information. Likewise American CIA representatives were not given a chance to directly question the prisoner. So, long story short, bad intel from a questionable source that was touted as truth by two very powerful people in Bush's inner circle. George Tenet explains this, at length, in his book, "At the Center of the Storm". (It's a very interesting read.) His view was that the administration should never have used the intel but Cheney and Wolfowitz (and a few others) carried the day. Bush, simply went with their recommendations. He didn't believe he was lying to the American public, nor did Colin Powell when he delivered his speech to the UN. It's just the way the chips fell. It is without doubt that George Bush was aware that the information was possibly tainted, but likely decided that they couldn't risk the possibility that the intel was genuine.

Republicans wanted revenge for the impeachment of Richard Nixon by bringing down a democrat the same way. That is why they invested 40 million in the harassment campaign to make Clinton step down. Ken Star the investigator now declares he feels sorry about what it brought and that Bill Clinton was a excellent president.

I might be living on an island paradise but I don't think I've ever heard any Republican crying in their beer over the demise of Richard Nixon, let alone carry that vendetta along to the next available Democrat President.... which Clinton was not... In regards to Kenneth Star, find me one old man who doesn't wish that he had done things differently when he was younger. Hmmm..... we could ask .... Bill Clinton.... hmmmmm.

The way George Bush ordered the NSA to throw all their privacy measures overboard and start to listen in on all private affairs anyway possible should have been enough for a very justified impeachment. His own secretary of justice warned him it was unconstitutional and resigned over the matter. He still pushed it ahead and later it was indeed found unconstitutional.

Though very serious this is, at the same time, utterly laughable to say he should have been impeached for it, especially given that the Democrats controlled the House AND the Senate for the final two years of his presidency. The Democrats of the day had the power to do so, Do you not think they would have gone after him in a heartbeat if they thought they had a case? Seriously.

The integrity of People is not defined by their mistakes, but by their methods. I believe in higher justice, the more clever evil doers are the deeper the hole they dig for themselves.

Bill and Hillary certainly do come to mind here. Jus' sayin'....

 

[Cassandra]

OK, Cassandra, you asked for it. Here ya go.

I have to admit that I nearly laughed out loud at this nuanced telling of events. You make it sound like this inexperienced high school jock was being targeted by a vivacious and insatiable prom queen. This was the leader of the "free" world and a man of the world, so to speak. Impropriety and morality aside, Lewinsky represented a rather significant security risk for the President and as a savvy political operator he should have sent her packing at the first opportunity. That he had several encounters with her, no doubt with the Secret Service fully aware of what was going on, tells us much about his character. That he would openly lie about it instead of just admitting to it. C'mon, the guy has great galloping gobs of charisma. Do you think that if he had just admitted it people would really have cared for more than 5 minutes? No, he chose to deliberately lie under oath (to tell the truth). He was rightly impeached for lying under oath (to tell the truth) to Federal Investigators. He is lucky that they didn't hold him in contempt or file obstruction of justice charges and sent him to jail.

Arguably one of the dumbest things George W. ever did, I think he would even admit now in retrospect. What you have to understand is that a lot of people were telling him that there was no solid evidence, but Wolfowitz and Cheney were extremely committed to some very poor intelligence that originally came from a prisoner the Germans were interrogating. George Tenet of the CIA had largely dismissed that intel as being unreliable in that there was no possibility to check the information. Likewise American CIA representatives were not given a chance to directly question the prisoner. So, long story short, bad intel from a questionable source that was touted as truth by two very powerful people in Bush's inner circle. George Tenet explains this, at length, in his book, "At the Center of the Storm". (It's a very interesting read.) His view was that the administration should never have used the intel but Cheney and Wolfowitz (and a few others) carried the day. Bush, simply went with their recommendations. He didn't believe he was lying to the American public, nor did Colin Powell when he delivered his speech to the UN. It's just the way the chips fell. It is without doubt that George Bush was aware that the information was possibly tainted, but likely decided that they couldn't risk the possibility that the intel was genuine.

I might be living on an island paradise but I don't think I've ever heard any Republican crying in their beer over the demise of Richard Nixon, let alone carry that vendetta along to the next available Democrat President.... which Clinton was not... In regards to Kenneth Star, find me one old man who doesn't wish that he had done things differently when he was younger. Hmmm..... we could ask .... Bill Clinton.... hmmmmm.

Though very serious this is, at the same time, utterly laughable to say he should have been impeached for it, especially given that the Democrats controlled the House AND the Senate for the final two years of his presidency. If the Democrats of the day had the power to do so, do you not think they would have gone after him in a heartbeat? Seriously.

Bill and Hillary certainly do come to mind here. Jus' sayin'....

Just as I thought, a lot of wind.

You have no evidence at all that any of the women were a security threat, but you make it up as you go. That is your kind of "proof". You seem to be uninformed and naive to people in power believing that they should be monogamous to be able to function. Many of your most revered presidents had many affairs. Historically this was rather the norm than the exception, but that kind of knowledge luckily does not trouble you. In France every president has his concubines often more than one. It is the perks of power. That Trump is the exception I doubt. Obama has been very prudent not to invoke all the stereotypes and knowing that being the first black man in office he has to be beyond reproach. Not that it stopped republicans from spreading the most scandalous slander, but that is what demons do.

Then about Bush. CIA people declared that every time people of the CIA told him they could not find anything on Hussein he kept sending them back to look harder, until they finally understood the message. The had to fabricate some evidence to allow the president to go to war. And that is exactly what they did. Because the CIA is there to serve the president, it does not do these things on their own. Another of these crooked billionaires that grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. And boy did he he profit from the war!

And that the democrats impeached Nixon and the Republicans then spent 40 million to put Kenneth Star to dig up dirt on Clinton is pure coincidence. Sure, I do not mind that you believe these things, but I find it rather insulting that you want me to believe it.

Having read two of your posts I understand that you dismiss the idea some else would know things you do not. I am glad I made you laugh, even if it is to boast your superiority. Looking down on people seems to come naturally to you.

I am not impressed, sorry.

 

[YmirGF]

Just as I thought, a lot of wind.

You have no evidence at all that any of the women were a security threat, but you make it up as you go. That is your kind of "proof". You seem to be uninformed and naive to people in power believing that they should be monogamous to be able to function. Many of your most revered presidents had many affairs. Historically this was rather the norm than the exception, but that kind of knowledge luckily does not trouble you. In France every president has his concubines often more than one. It is the perks of power. That Trump is the exception I doubt. Obama has been very prudent not to invoke all the stereotypes and knowing that being the first black man in office he has to be beyond reproach. Not that it stopped republicans from spreading the most scandalous slander, but he that is what demons do.

Then about Bush. CIA people declared that every time people of the CIA told him they could not find anything on Hussein he kept sending them back to look harder, until they finally understood the message. The had to fabricate some evidence to allow the president to go to war. And that is exactly what they did. Because the CIA is there to serve the president, it does not do these things on their own. Another of these crooked billionaires that grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth. And boy did he he profit from the war!

And that the democrats impeached Nixon and the Republicans then spent 40 million to put Kenneth Star to dig up dirt on Clinton is pure coincidence. Sure, I do not mind that you believe these things, but I find it rather insulting that you want me to believe it.

Having read two of your posts I understand that you dismiss the idea some else would know things you do not. I am glad I made you laugh, even if it is to boast your superiority. Looking down on people seems to come naturally to you.

I am not impressed, sorry.

Have it your way, obviously facts are not much of a concern to you.

 

[Cassandra]

There is much I've written which you haven't seen.

I read you shamelessly love gossip

 

[Revoltingest]

I read you shamelessly love gossip

A difference is that I admit it.
Btw, I've posted other things too.
Quite a few of them.