So pissed at Kristen Gillibrand for saying Bill should have resigned

[librechik]

Last edited Sat Nov 18, 2017, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)

over consensual affair. Yeah, him and practically every other president. We are liberals. WE allow that, even if we wouldn't do it ourselves. Democrats are practical and compassionate, remember? The hypocritical Republicans hounded Bill and Hillary for aomething that was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. That is why the Clintons remained so popular despite the smearing.

We had their backs because Democrats Do That.

WTF, Senator.

ON EDIT:I am not condemning Senator Gillibrand. I only object to her opinion, which I find disruptive and
inappropriate. Bill Clinton was punished for his misbehavior by the censure. There was no serious call at the time for his resignation, and no one knows how the issue might have been decided today. She's jumping on a bandwagon rolling down a slippery slope. Not helpful. But go Dems, every one of them.

[nycbos]

1. In HRC's new book What Happened she mention that Gillibrand was a victim of assault.

She might have felt scared before.


Re: "We had their backs because Democrats Do That."


Well as a NYC DEM I will have the back of MY Dem Senator.

[Demsrule86]

213. I understand. But I still won't vote for her in a primary. The clip of her saying she believed the

the woman in my opinion who is lying about Franken before the investigation goes forward and then followed up with an assertion that Bill Clinton should have resigned showed a lack of judgement and weakens us in our fight against the GOP.

[Stallion]

2. Re-Thinking My Thought She Might be Ready for National Stage

[jrthin]

78. I have re-thought it. She's not. nt

[pnwmom]

119. Me, too. We can do better. n/t

[smirkymonkey]

147. She's lost my support.

[R B Garr]

3. Maybe she should have mentioned it took a felony to uncover the consensual

business. Linda Tripp was indicted for FELONY wiretapping.

[SFnomad]

5. She was indicted, but never went to trial. The charges were dropped n/t

[R B Garr]

6. It was still a felony. Felony charges were brought against her. nt

[SFnomad]

9. And she still did not go to trial and she was not convicted.

I hated Linda Tripp as much as the next person during the Clinton witch hunt days ... but "felony charges were brought against her" means nothing.

[R B Garr]

11. It was still a felony -- secret wiretapping. That's the point. She

received immunity from Clinton hunter, Ken Starr, which is why the logistics of a trial were not possible. So she made a victim of Monica Lewinsky, too. It certainly has everything to do with how Bill Clinton was pursued and how it took a felony to uncover Lewinsky. Lewinsky, herself, did not do it.

From the LA Times:
"The judge's rulings resulted from the fact that Tripp had received immunity from federal prosecution for her testimony two years ago before a grand jury in Washington impaneled by former Whitewater independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr--and the judge's finding that Lewinsky's identification of a key tape was based on her knowledge of Tripp's testimony."

[SFnomad]

12. And she still did not go to trail and she was not convicted. That is the point, period.

Being charged with a felony means nothing.

[R B Garr]

13. ONLY because she received immunity from a Clinton hunter, Ken Starr.

THAT is the point. Otherwise, it is a felony, and she was indicted for a felony. It took a felony to uncover Lewinsky and I remember those tapes being played over and over and over and over. It was felony wiretapping.

[SFnomad]

14. It does not matter why. She was not convicted of a felony, period. n/t

[R B Garr]

15. It certainly DOES matter why and it does matter who granted her immunity.

Felony wire tapping.

She was given immunity from a Clinton hunter paid with taxpayer dollars.

[SFnomad]

16. Who was never CONVICTED in a court of law. n/t

[R B Garr]

17. Because she got IMMUNITY from KEN STARR.

Because she got IMMUNITY from KEN STARR.

Evidence of a felony was provided to a Grand Jury.

[SFnomad]

20. ffs, that is NOT a CONVICTION, period. n/t

[R B Garr]

23. Because she got IMMUNITY from KEN STARR.

Because she got IMMUNITY from KEN STARR.

A Grand Jury indicted her based on evidence of a felony. But she got IMMUNITY from KEN STARR.

[SFnomad]

24. She was NEVER CONVICTED, period.

It doesn't matter that she was indicted. That's not the end of our legal system, that's only the beginning.

[R B Garr]

25. She got IMMUNITY from KEN STARR. She was indicted on FELONY charges.

The reason she was not brought to trial is not because she was innocent of felony charges, it's because she got IMMUNITY from KEN STARR.

It remains a FELONY to illegally tap someone. It took a FELONY to uncover Lewinsky. Tripp victimized Lewinsky to aide the GOP.

[SFnomad]

29. The charges were not dropped because she received immunity from Starr

She was not convicted, she was not found guilty. They dropped the charges because testimony from Lewinsky was not allowed.

But you go ahead and continue to pretend that an indictment is a conviction.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/25/us/maryland-is-dropping-wiretap-case-against-tripp.html

The prosecutor, Stephen F. Montanarelli, said it would be impossible to successfully pursue a trial, which was to begin on July 10, because a judge this month suppressed testimony by Ms. Lewinsky that, Mr. Montanarelli said, was crucial to obtaining a conviction.

Central to the case was a Lewinsky-Tripp conversation that Mrs. Tripp taped on Dec. 22, 1997. This was the last talk between the two women that Mrs. Tripp recorded, and it occurred, prosecutors said, just after her lawyer had informed her that secret tape-recording was illegal in Maryland.

Ms. Lewinsky testified last winter that she was certain this conversation had in fact occurred on that December day two and a half years ago.

But Judge Leasure's decision held that the testimony was not credible and was tainted by the Starr investigation. Ms. Lewinsky's recollection of the date of the conversation, the judge said, was influenced by her contact with the independent counsel's office.

''We believe her, the court does not, and that resolves the matter,'' Mr. Montanarelli said today of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that she had an independent recollection of the date

[R B Garr]

31. No, you go ahead and pretend that FELONY wiretapping is not the issue here. And I

could find other articles that counter this, in fact, this is just reworded. The Lewinsky testimony has to do with the IMMUNITY issue. And the charges were not dropped because she was innocent.

The Grand Jury brought FELONY charges against her, and it remains a FELONY to illegally wiretap someone. She got IMMUNITY from KEN STARR, which is what you keep ignoring, now Googling some sidebar piece about how that IMMUNITY affected the Lewinsky "testimony".

A Grand Jury INDICTED her for a FELONY.

[SFnomad]

32. AND NO COURT FOUND HER GUILTY ... ffs n/t

[R B Garr]

34. BECAUSE SHE GOT IMMUNITY FROM KEN STARR

Not because she was innocent. FFS yourself. It took a FELONY to uncover and humiliate Lewinsky.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/tripp073199.htm
"Although Tripp received a narrower grant of federal immunity before turning the tapes over to Starr, it has not shielded her against a separate state investigation. Her attorneys, however, have argued that state prosecutors cannot use the tapes or Tripp's grand jury testimony in their case. Those arguments promise to be central themes in pre-trial wrangling over her indictment.

Like so much that has come before in the Clinton-Lewinsky saga, the case promises to set off convoluted legal battles even before the trial begins. "Our goal is that it will never get to trial," said Joseph Murtha, one of Tripp's attorneys.

Tripp's legal team plans to attack on several fronts, likely arguing that the federal grant of immunity protects her and that Maryland prosecutors have exceeded their jurisdiction by bringing an indictment on phone calls made across state lines to Lewinsky's apartment in the District."

[SFnomad]

35. NO, NOT BECAUSE SHE RECEIVED IMMUNITY.

I've already posted quotes from the prosecuter that refutes that.

[R B Garr]

36. NO YOU DIDN'T POST QUOTES, THERE ARE MORE QUOTES

THIS IS ACTUAL HISTORY SO YOU DON'T GET TO CHERRY PICK. FELONY WIRE TAPPING. WE KNOW IT HAPPENED BECAUSE WE HEARD THE TAPES.

[SFnomad]

38. Yes I did. But you're free to ignore whatever doesn't match your reality.

Reality

Linda Tripp was indicted
The charges were dropped and not because of immunity given to Tripp
She is NOT a convicted felon

[R B Garr]

40. There are YEARS worth of "quotes" LOL, it was over a YEAR to get the indictment,

and you cannot escape the simple FACT that the tapes were very public and it is a FELONY to tap someone. It was because of IMMUNITY that she was not brought to trial. Not because she was innocent, ffs, we heard the tapes.

We already know what happened because WE HEARD THE TAPES. That is REALITY. It's not like one cherry-picked quote from years worth of legal wranglings is going to change the FACT that she was INDICTED on FELONY charges. She obtained the tapes from ILLEGALLY wiretapping Lewinsky. That is a FACT, evidenced by the tapes themselves. You don't get to rewrite proven history.

[SFnomad]

44. I'm not rewriting history ... and you don't get to ignore it.

It's a historic fact the charges were dropped and she was never convicted.

You don't get to selective choose what parts of history to remember.

[R B Garr]

46. It is a historic fact that the tapes were illegally obtained.

Lewinsky was taped without her permission. It was immunity that kept her from going to trial. These are historical facts. It took an illegal wiretap to aide the GOP, but your concern over Tripp is absurdly noticeable.

We know what Linda Tripp did because we HEARD THE TAPES, which were illegally obtained.

[R B Garr]

60. You dont get to rewrite YEARS of legal wrangling

by declaring Tripp innocent because she got IMMUNITY. We heard the tapes, and we know they were illegally obtained.

[SFnomad]

63. "we" know ... well, let's just throw out the legal system. R B knows better. n/t

[R B Garr]

65. This is factual history now, and lots of people

followed along in real time. We also heard the tapes and we know it’s illegal to tape someone without their permission. You don’t get to wipe away years of news. It made lots of headlines.

[SFnomad]

67. What's factual history is the case was dropped and she was NEVER convicted of a felony n/t

[R B Garr]

68. What is factual history remains that we heard

the tapes. And we know they were illegally obtained. There would have been no Grand Jury indictment without illegal tapes.

We heard the tapes. So we already know what she did.

[SFnomad]

69. And in our legal system, if you're indicted, but not convicted ... the indictment means nothing

It doesn't matter if you know they did it or not. A conviction is the ONLY thing that matters.

[R B Garr]

70. The facts remain that the tapes were obtained

ILLEGALLY. We know that to be true from the factual history of events. A conviction was not necessary to have the facts come to light. The illegal tapes were what brought the Lewinsky/Tripp conversations to light. We know they were illegal because they were made without Lewinsky's permission. It was all over the news.

[SFnomad]

72. I'm so glad we don't need a legal system anymore. If it's in the news ... GUILTY as charged.

Because "we" know.

It's sad what we have become.

[R B Garr]

73. No, what's sad is the stupid red herring that is supposed to be some

semblance of finality to a years-long legal battle on many fronts, one of which was to force a United States President to resign.

How completely besides the point to proclaim that Linda Tripp is innocent because she was the beneficiary of some immunity and jurisdictional circumstances. We already KNOW what she did,, and we HEARD THE TAPES.

Seriously, your denial that events occurred before it was determined that a trial could not proceed based on things OTHER than guilt/innocence is truly absurd. Her trial did not proceed because she received IMMUNITY, and someone else outlined the jurisdictional limitations that occurred because of her residence and Lewinsky's comments under oath. We KNOW what she did because WE HEARD THE TAPES.

[SFnomad]

80. I have never denied that events did or did not occur.

She was indicted.
She was charged.
The charges were dropped. (And not because she was given immunity)
She was NOT convicted.
She is NOT a felon.

I'm sorry that those facts are confusing to you.

[R B Garr]

84. NONE of what you are obsessing about here has to do with the FACT that

she knowingly made and released the tapes -- a matter of public record at this point and it is just a stupid red herring to pretend that her being a felon or not is what the issue is.

WE KNOW what she did because WE HEARD THE TAPES.

Your obsession about a conviction doesn't change WHAT WE KNOW. And WHAT WE KNOW is that she made the tapes and that is ILLEGAL. She was granted IMMUNITY for various reasons determined over years.

A conviction or not doesn't change the history of events. A conviction only matters for her next job or employer who will look up her conviction record. It doesn't matter to what WE KNOW about the case and what is public knowledge already.

Seriously, this is beyond stupid and has been for some time. She was indicted for what she already did -- FELONY WIRETAPPING. We KNOW she did that. We know that the only reason Lewinsky's conversations were made public was because they were obtained by FELONY WIRETAPPING.

[SFnomad]

88. I'm so glad you can dispense with our court system. She was indicted ... BUT NEVER CONVICTED.

You can say whatever you want, but there is no conviction on her record. She does not have a felony on her record. The prosecution did not believe they could get a conviction, so they dropped the charges. It doesn't matter what you believe or "we" "all know". Sorry those facts are an issue for you.

[R B Garr]

90. Having fun?? Such deliberate obtuseness. She received IMMUNITY,

so that's what was involved along with other aspects of the Grand Jury charges not going to trial. Their FELONY charges weren't dropped because she was declared innocent.

NONE of what you are obsessing about means that we didn't already see what she did.
She knowingly made and released the tapes -- a matter of public record at this point and it is just a stupid red herring to pretend that her being a felon or not is what the issue is.

WE KNOW what she did because WE HEARD THE TAPES.

Your obsession about a conviction doesn't change WHAT WE KNOW. And WHAT WE KNOW is that she made the tapes and that is ILLEGAL. She was granted IMMUNITY for various reasons determined over years.

A conviction or not doesn't change the history of events. A conviction only matters for her next job or employer who will look up her conviction record. It doesn't matter to what WE KNOW about the case and what is public knowledge already.

Seriously, this is beyond stupid and has been for some time. She was indicted for what she already did -- FELONY WIRETAPPING. We KNOW she did that. We know that the only reason Lewinsky's conversations were made public was because they were obtained by FELONY WIRETAPPING.

[R B Garr]

91. LOTS of people discussing Linda Tripp's IMMUNITY.

LOTS of people discussing her legal troubles, all arising from ILLEGALLY taping her friend Lewinsky and making the tapes public. Her legal woes notwithstanding, those tapes were still made public and it was ILLEGAL, hence her legal woes.

LOTS of people discussing Linda Tripp's IMMUNITY.

From the LA Times:
"Leasure noted in her ruling that Maryland authorities were never involved in any of the discussions or decisions that led to Starr's grant of immunity to Tripp. And she said that, while it was a technicality that delayed Tripp's court-ordered immunity from taking effect until a month after she handed over the tapes to Starr's office, it was "a technicality that certainly has significance" under Maryland state law."

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/dec/15/news/mn-44079

[stevenleser]

204. See if you can answer this question. A mob captain who has killed 12

People agrees to testify against the boss of the family and in return he gets immunity for the murders he committed.

Is he innocent of murder and thus were those people not killed by him?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

144. Of course you're right... but, also wasting your time on this person.

[R B Garr]

153. So true. I was just amusing myself at the obtuseness

for a bit, but you are right.

[rtracey]

49. I agree

I agree with the part that wire-tapping in Maryland is a felony, but here is the real aspect of this case. TRIPP WAS INDITED ON FELONY WIRETAPPING, because at the time she lived in Columbia, MD. Before the trial, the state court ruled that because of the immunity agreements which the Independent Counsel's office entered into with Tripp, Lewinsky, and others, a substantial amount of the evidence which the prosecution intended to use was inadmissible. Maryland state court ruled that Lewinsky, who "admitted that she lied under oath in a federal proceeding and has stated that lying has been a part of her life," was not credible and Lewinsky's proposed testimony against Tripp was not reliable. Tripp case were dismissed on May 26, 2000, when the prosecution decided not to proceed with the trial of the case.

Both of you two are arguing basically the same point.

Both are correct, she was indited, she was give immunity, and her case was dismissed because MD decided not to prosecute.

[R B Garr]

51. Thanks, there were years of legal wrangling. So we are talking

concepts here and it is illegal to tap someone without their permission, court order etc. The concept remains that it took an illegal wiretap to expose Lewinskys conversations. To say Tripp is innocent because she got immunity and wasn’t convicted is truly absurd. We heard the tapes.

[lapucelle]

146. The case never went to trial because a judge did not believe the victim.

The prosecutor, Stephen F. Montanarelli, said it would be impossible to successfully pursue a trial, which was to begin on July 10, because a judge this month suppressed testimony by Ms. Lewinsky that, Mr. Montanarelli said, was crucial to obtaining a conviction.

Mr. Montanarelli's decision to drop the charges was widely expected after the judge presiding over the case, Diane Leasure of Howard County Circuit Court, suppressed the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky in a decision issued on May 5.

snip------------------------------------------------------

But Judge Leasure's decision held that [Lewinsky's testimony as to the date of the wiretapping] was not credible and was tainted by the Starr investigation. Ms. Lewinsky's recollection of the date of the conversation, the judge said, was influenced by her contact with the independent counsel's office.

''We believe her, the court does not, and that resolves the matter,'' Mr. Montanarelli said today of Ms. Lewinsky's testimony that she had an independent recollection of the date.

The court put more weight on the word of someone indicted on felony charges than on that of her alleged victim.
Once the victim was not permitted to testify, the case was dropped because the victim was the State's chief witness against the indicted party.

When victims are not permitted to testify, it is not surprising that criminals walk free.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/25/us/maryland-is-dropping-wiretap-case-against-tripp.html

[R B Garr]

161. Thanks! Great link, lapucelle. I read through this along with a

couple more links to this whole episode, and Linda Tripp sure developed a vendetta against the Clintons, which started mostly of her own accord when she started making loony comments about Vince Foster's death (read in another article).
Thanks for this reminder about the suppression of Lewinsky's testimony, etc.

[lapucelle]

166. I heard Mika say yesterday that Bill Clinton

ruined Monica Lewinsky's life.

No Mika, Ken Starr and Linda Tripp ruined her life. If not for them, the ill-advised affair would have remained known only to the two consenting adults who engaged in it.

[R B Garr]

170. Exactly! Lewinsky was their muse/puppet for their blatant power grab. They are

the ones who put her out on front street for their own political exploitations.

[lapucelle]

172. And the victim Lewinsky never got her day in court

because a judge did not believe her, leading to Linda Tripp walking away from a felony indictment.

[R B Garr]

176. Yes, and walk away she did. It was purely circumstantial manuevering.

One of the article reviews how Tripp still taped Monica during a December 22nd 1997(?) call even after she was warned again it was illegal.

[stevenleser]

205. Lets see if that person can answer my #204 above. nt

[R B Garr]

206. lol, Perfect! That's a perfect analogy.

It's hard to believe that people claim not to understand the concept of immunity. The prior acts don't disappear -- people aren't undead, as you illustrated. Makes you wonder.

[oasis]

175. +1

[Demsrule86]

215. But she did it...she broke the law and was morally culpable and would have faced jail time

without immunity...she may have gotten away with it, but she was a nasty piece of shit.

[SFnomad]

219. The charges were NOT dropped because of her immunity. I never said she didn't do it.

The person that started this conversation just put out there that she was indicted ... which was true. I stated that the charges were dropped and it didn't go to trial ... which is also true. Ever since then, a number of you people have lost it over this.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

139. Are you kidding? It's called IMMUNITY... there's no doubt a felony was COMMITTED though.

Conviction is irrelevant in that circumstance.

[SFnomad]

185. ffs, the case was NOT dropped because she got immunity.

I'm so glad you too can just dispense with the entire legal system, because to you there is "no doubt".

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

186. Yes.

[R B Garr]

203. You were saying it was dropped because she was innocent

or that it implies innocence. That is impossible since we know what she did was illegal. She was granted immunity, along with Lewinsky’s testimony against her being suppressed.

You don’t get to change history. Your obsession with misrepresenting this is just bizarre.

[SFnomad]

209. I never said that ... quit lying about me. You're the only one misrepresenting here. n/t

[R B Garr]

212. You were implying that no conviction meant there

was nothing to the felony charges against her. That’s just not true. Did you delete those posts?

[SFnomad]

216. I did not imply any such thing. Again, quit lying about me.

And if you can read, you can see that no posts have been deleted by me.

[R B Garr]

220. You dont get to rewrite history.

I’m not the only one who has pointed out your continued denials of Linda Tripp’s immunity.

[SFnomad]

221. You are lying about me, again .... STOP.

I have not denied Linda Tripp's immunity. I have stated that the trail was not dropped because of immunity. I posted a link to an article where the prosecutor stated why it was dropped. And it wasn't because of Tripp's immunity.

Why do you continue to lie about me?

[R B Garr]

222. You dont get to rewrite history. There are years

of history to the case and years of quotes. The links already provided show that the case was dropped because she received immunity from Ken Starr and even more links show it was also because Lewinsky’s testimony against her was suppressed.

Quit lying indeed.

[SFnomad]

223. You don't get to continue to lie about me ... so stop it now.

You're the one rewriting history.

[R B Garr]

224. You should stop, too. The continued denial

looks like fake news propaganda. No fake news. No rewriting history. She received immunity from Ken Starr and Monica’s testimony against her was suppressed. Being hung up on a conviction doesn’t change her illegal actions. How absurd and irrelevant.

[SFnomad]

225. You need to stop lying about what I have said.

That she received immunity from Starr is not why the case was dropped. That she has not been found guilty is not irrelevant. Thinking that it is irrelevant, is absurd.

[R B Garr]

229. You should quit lying about me, as well.

You just contradicted yourself because now you are back to saying it’s not irrelevant that she wasn’t convicted. That’s exactly how I described what you said. Your words and implication is that she’s innocent because there is no conviction. Quit changing your story.

[SFnomad]

230. STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I HAVE AND HAVE NOT SAID

I said she was not convicted and she wasn't. I DID NOT SAY SHE WAS INNOCENT.

[R B Garr]

231. Quit lying indeed. Saying she wasnt convicted

doesn’t mean anything. She was granted immunity.

[SFnomad]

232. The charges were NOT DROPPED because of any immunity she had

I posted what the prosecutor said about it a long time ago.

Buh-bye

[R B Garr]

233. There are lots of posts from the prosecutor saying the immunity

from Ken Starr in return for her cooperation was the reason for not proceeding on the Grand Jury’s felony charges. Immunity and the fact that her victim, Lewinsky, effectively could not testify against her. You don’t get to cherry pick facts. Facts exist on their own.

[SFnomad]

234. Buh bye n/t

[FBaggins]

126. Not quite

It took a felony for people to believe her... just as the blue dress made another lie fall.

[R B Garr]

149. It was Linda Tripp invested in exposing them

to embarrass Clinton. Monica had other investments in the situation, which is why Tripp resorted to illegally wiretapping her.

[Cattledog]

4. I guess she forgot about Clarence Thomas.

[kydo]

140. Yeah, that was my first thought on reading this too.

If we are going to apply the standards we judge or want to judge today's men to things that happened in the past, then why isn't the right crazy and many dems that say Bill should have resigned, calling for Thomas to step down from the Supreme Court and the orange man to resign?

I know why. IOKIYAR for one. Tribalism for two. Suckers believing only faux noise for three.

[brush]

7. Not smart. I don't get why she would even go there. It was consensual not sexual harassment.

She also immediately said she would give away the contributions she received from Franken's pac without waiting to see if the allegations against him were maybe a right wing hit job.

She might've just cancelled herself off the list for 2020—hasty, non-deliberate reactions don't bode well for those being considered fpr the top of the ticket.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

189. My wife was in the exact same situation where the boss was having a

consentual sexual relationship with a fellow employee. My wife and the other employees not having sex, who had to do her work for her, did not get promoted, etc etc considered it a hostile work environment.

Without expressly saying so, the boss put out the vibe that having sex with him had its advantages. Why is the impropriety of this hostile work environment so hard to understand?

[brush]

192. A hostile work environment is not hard to understand. A Democrat who accepted backing and...

endorsements from the Clintons (also Democrats) who is unable to discern ambush journalism and falls into the reporter's trap by blurting out a hasty, ill-considered response is not, IMO, ready for presidential consideration.

There will be a lot tougher questions than that in a national campaign.

And there is such a thing as party loyalty.

The man was impeached after all.

Guess that wasn't enough punishment for Gillibrand who certainly didn't suffer a hostile work environment under Bill Clinton.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

193. Why throw Sen. Gillibrand under the bus for stating the obvious?

[brush]

194. What is obvious? Clinton did not sexually abuse Lewinsky, the one who showed him her thong.

It was consensual, not abuse.

So again, what's obvious?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

195. If I have to explain it to you, there's no point in explaining it to you.

[brush]

196. What's obvious to me is that you know nothing of the details of the Clinton/Lewinsky affair.

Affair, get it?

It was adulterous affair between two consenting adults — not sexual abuse.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

198. What is obvious to me is that you do not know the difference between...

an "affair," as you call it, and creating a hostile work environment for the other employees who are not performing sex acts on the boss in the office.

As I explained: My wife was in the exact same situation where her boss was having a consentual sexual relationship with a fellow employee. She and the other employees not having sex with the boss in the office considered that to be a hostile work environment.

No doubt, you would have had them suffer in silence like many abused women in the workplace. They didn't and won a modest settlement against that asshole.

[brush]

207. The Clinton/Lewinsky situation was nothing like what you describe. I suggest you research it...

Last edited Sat Nov 18, 2017, 10:34 PM - Edit history (1)

as you're clearly biased because of what your wife's work situation is.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

211. Maybe.

[Demsrule86]

217. She should not have said anything at all about it period. Wait for the investigation and now with

further information coming out, it seems she jumped the gun...and the comments about Bill Clinton were uncalled for.

[BannonsLiver]

8. She got out over her skis with this one. Very disappointed.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

190. I think Sen. Gillibrand nailed a perfect landing in this instance.

[BannonsLiver]

191. Most disagree.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

199. That's fine... my wife worked for a boss who performed sex acts with a staff worker in the office...

creating a hostile work environment. Perhaps, that's the difference.

[Big Blue Marble]

10. I agree with the senator.

If the charges against Bill Clinton came out now, he would need to resign.

The description of the affair as "consensual" minimizes the power imbalance of the
relationship.

[Qutzupalotl]

21. I agree too, but for a slightly different reason.

Perjury rather than the consensual affair. I hate that Bill Clinton was hounded for years over nothing, then cornered into covering up the affair. I don’t blame him for lying in that situation, but the legal system does, and a president has to have the trust of the populace.

If Clinton had resigned, we would have had President Al Gore (!), who would likely have been reelected in 2000, having proven himself on the job and continued the economic expansion. We probably would not have had an Afghanistan invasion, certainly not an Iraq occupation, and possibly not even a 9/11 — since that was partly due to our policy on Israel, which Bush bungled.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

129. Yes because being President who succeeded a resigning President worked so well for Fors

Hell, that’s why I’m not all that scared about President Pence.

If anything, Gore’s failure in 2000 has been blamed on his reluctance to associate with Clinton more, not less.

[R B Garr]

22. Why would he resign. Lewinsky says she initiated by showing him her thong.

That sounds consensual. It's not like he initiated the contact.

[Big Blue Marble]

45. You are saying that Bill was helpless in the presence of a thong?

He was the person who should have acted in a mature way. He should have known that
having a relationship with an intern in the Whitehouse was not appropriate. He mis-used
his power.

[R B Garr]

48. Im saying he didnt initiate the contact. He should

have had her fired for that.

[Big Blue Marble]

50. No, he should have ignored her. N/T

[R B Garr]

52. She might have escalated that risque behavior,

He should have fired her.

[mythology]

53. And instead he chose to have sex with her

There is a reason it's against the rules in pretty much any corporation to sleep with a subordinate. Matters of consent get blurry very quickly.

[R B Garr]

59. He didnt initiate contact, though. She admitted

that when she admitted she flashed her thong. Consent wasn’t the issue in this case. He also had the power to fire her. She knew he was married, and she admitted she liked his power. A mistake on his part, though, no doubt, but he seems like a man who was sought after for many reasons.

[Not Ruth]

127. Due to the nature of inequality, we judge situations differently based on perspective

Historical context matters and a lawyer certainly knows that

[R B Garr]

145. She admitted she flashed her thong at him.

Not everything is formulaic and some things are what they appear.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

66. She should have dismissed for SEXUAL HARASSMENT!!!

Nobody shows their undies in the workplace without then being shown the door.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. I'm with you... there's no doubt Bill Clinton created a hostile work environment.

That's inappropriate... and it's not an excuse that the boss is having consentual sex with underlings. Indeed, it's the problem!!

[loyalsister]

87. Yes

The party leaders should have called for it, as well. We had an opportunity to collectively state that any exploitation of power in furtherance of sexual escapades is never acceptable behavior for anyone in a position of authority. I think we should have taken it. And if he had done so Clinton actually could have contributed significantly to the advancement of social and economic power for us. He chose, instead, to defend the patriarchal arrangement that has continued to permit the sexual victimization of women.

[Big Blue Marble]

108. So well said.

I felt that way at the time and was so disappointed that the leading feminists stood by him as well.

[loyalsister]

113. I was blinded by partisanship then

Meanwhile, someone close to me was enduring an abusive workplace relationship based entirely on false promises and real threats. I didn't understand until I heard her perspective years later. It seems to me that it could strengthen the momentum we have towards disrupting or stopping this scourge if he were to speak up and apologize to her specifically.

[Big Blue Marble]

115. Using the model of forgiveness and reconciliation

what you are suggesting would go along way to healing this previous wound in our culture.
If Clinton and other men would acknowledge their behavior and admit it caused pain
to to others, it could set a new standard for men going forward.

[loyalsister]

116. I think so

Anita Hill wrote a column and closed with the idea that what happened to women and girls after the fact should be a focus of the conversation. We need to think more about what the opportunities will be for them going forward. When it's high profile, how does a woman deal with job interviews, etc.

[Big Blue Marble]

117. As women have gained more economic power

educational opportunities and thus social status, we are now beginning to ask for the right
to control access to our bodies and for the first time men are listening.

As one who grew up in the fifties and sixties, this seems like a miracle to me. This
is real progress. As young women now enter in to careers, they will have the social
status and power to resist the unwanted advances.

[lapucelle]

154. The only person charged with a crime of which Monica Lewinsky

was a victim was Linda Tripp.

The State was compelled to drop the felony charges against Tripp when a judge ruled that the victim would not be allowed to testify against the person indicted for victimizing her.

The judge would not allow the victim's testimony because the judge did not believe the victim.

The outrage is misplaced.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/25/us/maryland-is-dropping-wiretap-case-against-tripp.html

[loyalsister]

165. Not sure about the point here

"But it wasn't illegal" is a desperately low standard. The tapes were only made public because of Bill Clinton's lie and his part in the relationship. He had enough power that he could have stopped what was happening to Lewinsky, or it could have been avoided entirely had he not lied. He and the rest of us stood by him while she took the public punishment. He didn't lose public support (even when he was impeached), her reputation was destroyed. He no longer needs a defense, and he certainly no longer deserves one when one president is popular in spite of victimizing a much younger subordinate why should someone with his own publicly known not be elected? I feel like I should have said it is never okay, not even when the perpetrator has been a friend in policy.

[Big Blue Marble]

168. No matter how many excuses you offer for him,

Bill Clinton failed to act appropriately. He got a pass twenty years ago that he would not
be given now. The climate has changed and Senator Gilliaband knows it.

We experience history through the current lens not the the lens of twenty years ago. Your
excuses worked then to save a man who was at best a sexual opportunist. They would not
save him now.

[Snackshack]

177. Agreed.

He was the President of the United States As President he should have held himself to a higher standard and conducted himself sans reproache.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

188. Me too... sorry to say. KG just said what a lot of fellow Democrats are thinking.

[Demsrule86]

218. hmmm...more attacking of a Democrat...I say no he wouldn't...Trump has assaulted

multiple women and he is president...stop bashing the Clintons as for the good Senator she is dead to me. I will never vote for her in a primary now.

[Big Blue Marble]

227. You are foolish.

The Clinton’s are the past. Hang there at your own risk. Our party and our country
are moving on. A new ethos which supports the rights of women to speak their truth
is gathering momentum. That is the future like it or not.

[Pachamama]

18. There was a time I thought that Gillibrand would be a great candidate for President or VP....

....Not anymore....

I do not like many things that Bill Clinton did. But I think he was a great President. And it was a consensual affair with an ADULT WOMAN. It wasn't illegal. And a consensual affair between two adults is not the same as what Roy Moore is accused of or what Al Franken is accused of.

She is so wrong on this one and just played into the right wing talking points and furthering the Clinton hatred and excuses.

And it hurts legitimate claims of sexual assault, harassment and illegal acts. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. NOT for an extramarital affair that was consensual between two adults which isn't illegal. Some may consider it immoral, but its not illegal. And frankly if that is a standard we are going to hold every elected member of congress and the Presidency, that they never had a consensual extramarital affair, then Washington DC and Congress and the White House would be empty.

I want to know why Gillibrand didn't focus on Donald Trumps admitted assault of women - and point out clearly that there is no comparison to Bill Clinton's consensual affair with Monica Lewinsky. That would have been appropriate.

[LenaBaby61]

103. "I want to know why Gillibrand didn't focus on Donald Trumps admitted assault of women."

You know how Dems roll.

Circular firing squad

[smirkymonkey]

150. Yes, exactly!

I mean, wtf! Why are dems always turning on each other instead of going after the REAL demons in the political world.

[OnDoutside]

182. Excellent last paragraph. Couldn't have put it better.

[Demsrule86]

19. Yeah, she is off my 2020 list for the Democratic nominee...why would she do this?

[Ligyron]

61. Because Democrats eat their own while GrOPers laugh.

Then they raise your taxes and eliminate your health care while her heart bleeds for the RW hack model.

[Demsrule86]

122. You are so right...and it shows a lack of commitment to our progressive goals. If they

cared so much for policy, they would be laser focused on electing Democrats...we may lose a great deal of long held progressive policy with Trump including courts, health care (but I think that will survive) and pay higher taxes...and I hope it burns those who voted for Stein or stayed home... because whatever we lose is on them. They talk and talk ...battle to include stuff in the platform but then abandon the only party who can stop the GOP, and we all lose big. Fuck them all.

[brush]

228. It also, IMO, a lack of ability to think on her feet by sidestepping an ambush journalist's question

Last edited Sun Nov 19, 2017, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)

There was absolutely no need to fall into that trap by throwing Clinton under the bus and re-opening that whole thing.

She should have pivoted to Moore or trump, after all, they are the ones in the news now, and they are who we're fucking fighting.

There are going to be much tougher questions and situations on the presidential campaign trail so I question someone's judgment who gives hasty, non-thought out answers to a journalist with an obvious agenda.

[Demsrule86]

238. That is exactly right...and she gave the Gop stuff for future commercials.

[brush]

239. Yep, Bannon is already jumping on her comment to attack Dems and the Clintons

[oberliner]

26. President should not be having sex with an intern in the Oval Office

I don't think such behavior will be considered acceptable from now on, regardless of it being consensual or not.

[klook]

30. To say the least!

I don’t think Bill Clinton should have resigned. I think he should have kept his fucking pants on. While he was Arkansas governor, too.

He has many great qualities, and I know the vast right-wing conspiracy against him & Hillary is no joke — but if you want to be regarded as above reproach you have to be diligent about your reputation.

[oasis]

27. She comes off a bit wishy washy on the Clinton question.

Wishy washiness will do her in during the 2020 Democratic primary debates.

[underthematrix]

28. Don't get distracted. HRC just threw some BIGLY shade Trump's way

"There are still questions about the legitimacy of his presidency" HRC is the Mistress of Shade.

[Little Star]

33. wth are you talking about?

[lunatica]

37. It pissed me off too - but there were other women who claimed he did

things without their consent. Lewinski was consensual though.

[lunamagica]

39. I will not support her. Bill Clinton was a flawed man. Just like JFK and FDR

But he was a great president who was very popular at the end of his second term. Had he been able to run for a third time, he would have won.

Thank goodness FDR and Churchill were not held to the same standards. If they had it would have been a disaster for America and the world!

[Big Blue Marble]

47. If you make excuses for Bill,

then you better be ready to make excuses for many more. Being great no longer protects you from
sexual misconduct.

[lunamagica]

58. So you think he should have resigned?

[Big Blue Marble]

82. I did then

and I still do. Al Gore would have been a good president. And probably would have
beat George Bush in 2000. We would have avoided the the Iraq War. Saved many lives
and treasure.

[lunamagica]

85. Al Gore would have been a great president, but the biggest mistake he made was to

distance himself from President Clinton during the campaign just to please people who would have never voted for him anyway.

The republican machine did everything in hopes that Clinton would resign. Giving into their demands would have been a huge mistake.

Do you feel the same way about JFK? How about FDR?

[Hekate]

41. It was consensual, initiated by the adult woman, and they all paid dearly for the foolishness.

Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch. Is there no trap laid for Dems by the VRWC that we will not willingly walk into?

[LenaBaby61]

105. Is there no trap laid for Dems by the VRWC that we will not willingly walk into?

Almost none, no.

[ananda]

42. Both Gillibrand and Warren have been disappointing on this.

Disturbingly so.

[Little Star]

43. Yep!

[Bucky]

55. Oh, it's called "positioning" and all politicians do it.

[Coventina]

57. Consenting adults none of our business.

Anyone who says otherwise is no better than conservatives who want to supervise our bedrooms.

[thucythucy]

137. Well, if Clinton had said, from the start

in response to questions about his sex life, "That's none of your business" things might have been different.

Instead, he chose to lie about it to his cabinet, his staff, his wife and the nation, and eventually perjured himself under oath.

Anyway, once the full story was out I felt intensely disappointed in the man. I, and millions others, had contributed to his campaigns, volunteered many hours, expecting that once in office he would advance a Democratic agenda. In return I kind of expected him to keep his pants on for the duration. Great power--and the sacrifices of so many who worked to get him to the White House, and the vulnerability of those dependent on the social safety net--demanded at least some sacrifice on his part. I don't think asking him not to get blowjobs from an intern in the oval office was too much to ask. At least FDR had the good sense to have an affair with a more mature woman whom he could trust to keep his confidence. Someone he'd known well for years. (Someone whose husband apparently acquiesced in the affair). How penis-driven do you have to be to accept a blowjob in the workplace from someone half your age whom you know nothing about? How self-destructive even, knowing that the VRWC is already out to get you?

I supported President Clinton and had great hopes for his second term. Instead we got three and a half years of distraction. What a tremendous waste.

[Madam45for2923]

62. She is my Senator and I don't agree with her. I hated the investigation at the time & voted for him

[octoberlib]

64. Philippe Reines called her out on Twitter

Link to tweet

Ken Starr spent $70 million on a consensual blowjob. Senate voted to keep POTUS WJC. But not enough for you @SenGillibrand? Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite.

Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck.

Link to tweet

[Control-Z]

162. This reply should be an OP on its own. eom

[TheCowsCameHome]

71. Scratch another one off my list.

[VOX]

74. This is why Republicans win. They rarely devour their own.

It’s the ONE thing I envy about Republicans: Discipline. They get together on a central message and hammer away in highly coordinated attacks. They stay on-message, and very rarely diss or disown their fellows. When attacked, they circle and defend even the worst of human beings.

I’m not saying that criminality and abuse should be overlooked, as Republicans tend to do with their own. Hell, they’re in the process of re-making the U.S. into a Russian satellite state. And a vintage KGB staple is to sow doubt, confusion and division. Last year, Democrats and progressives took the bait, and the continuing internal squabbles did not help save democracy.

Without a keen sense of discipline, look for self-criticizing, purity-seeking Democrats to lose, again and again.

[LisaL]

135. Well, exactly.

They have the house, the senate and the presidency and we have what? Moral high ground?

[smirkymonkey]

151. This. 1000 times this!

Here is the biggest problem we have.

[OnDoutside]

75. I have to say I was shocked at the vehemence of Gillibrand's attack on Franken. I hope the sun keeps

shining for her, because when the clouds come, you find out who you're friends are.

[comradebillyboy]

77. Attacking fellow Democrats seems to be a counterproductive

strategy for someone with further political ambitions. Loyalty to one's long time allies has to count for something. Who is going to support her in the future after she establishes a record of turning on her friends.

[OnDoutside]

79. No problem being critical, but this was sticking the boot

in, and then adding a baseball bat for good measure. His previous history counts for nothing. Did you hear Randi Rhodes last night ? She worked with him for 5 years at Air America, and said there was never a sniff of him doing anything inappropriate.

[Meowmee]

76. Agree

I’m not happy with it.

[TheDebbieDee]

81. Sen Gillibrand panicked and threw Sen Franken

Under the bus at the first sign of trouble before getting ALL the facts!

We need Dems that will fight for us, not roll over at the first sign of resistance...

[Big Blue Marble]

83. Fighting for Bill Clinton's reputation is

not fighting for us. She is fighting to attract suburban white women who
will help us win the house next year. You are the one who lacks the facts
that lurk in the polls.

[TheDebbieDee]

86. Overly-righteous dems like you are the reason

Dems can't get anything done! You're too nice, too polite, too insistent that that candidates and office-holders be qualified to be Pope. Weak, nice people like you, people who believe nice guys will always win in the end are like quicksand...

People who think like YOU are like the useless knife that's brought to a gunfight! People who think like you are spineless doormats, a slam-dunk for the republicans to MESS OVER!

Dems don't need a overly-polite, easily-spooked Dem like Gillibrand who will throw the whole party and platform under the bus at the first sign of trouble!

[Big Blue Marble]

98. You do not know what you are talking about!

I am neither nice or necessary polite. I thought personal attacks were off the table
on DU.

Get over your overbearing self. Senator Gillibrand may one of the first to call out Clinton from
the left; she will be far from the last.

[Stand and Fight]

124. +1

[pat_k]

94. Please read "The Hunting of the President"

Perhaps then you will join those who will defend Clinton's refusal to give to the vast-right wing conspiracy to the end.

[Big Blue Marble]

96. I will never defend Bill Clinton

I know he was attacked from the right. All the more reason for him to act
responsibly. And he did not. He will not be judged well by history.

[R B Garr]

99. Dream on. Clinton is still very popular. The gratuitous

Clinton bashing always has to deny reality,

I saw him in person when he appeared in Pomona Ca for Hillary and people — women — were actually gasping and swooning at his presence. Reality.

He was a threat to Republicans, but he ultimately beat them at their own games.

[Big Blue Marble]

100. You are the one dreaming. N/T

[R B Garr]

102. The gratuitous Clinton bashing is always substance free, just

like this. You obviously don’t like it that he’s still popular.

[Big Blue Marble]

104. This has nothing to do with popularity.

I do not care how popular someone is; I care about how ethical he/she is.

I assure you that Clinton's popularity will slide as his sexual behaviors are
revisited as we have seen with other men.

[R B Garr]

106. Wrong. He already went through the whole impeachment

drama and he emerged just as popular or more. Bill Clinton is very popular.

[Big Blue Marble]

109. OK,

Keep telling yourself that.

[R B Garr]

110. Its what is reported about his popularity. Reality. nt

[bdtrppr6]

111. that being said

women gasped and swooned for drumbf as well. hard to figure taste for ugly power players. clinton may be loads smarter, but he still thought with his dick quite a bit.

[R B Garr]

114. At that event where I saw him, Clinton also gave an eloquent

presentation of the history and significance of the name of the high school where he appeared. It was a full display of his wit, intelligence and ability to win people over. He is leagues beyond most politicians, Obama being in a class of his own. Trump is not comparable and that is not even something to argue about. Trump is a con man and an ignoramus. Not everything is a penis contest.

[FarCenter]

89. Bill was a known quantity in 1992. He should have never been nominated.

[chimpymustgo]

95. Jeez. Do you remember the excitement of Clinton/Gore? I do. Gillibrand has shown she's weak.

We need fighters. We lose when we run away from the fight. Gore ran away from Clinton. Why do always let the Rethugs define the debate?

Good-bye Kirsten.

[FarCenter]

97. So Brown, Tsongas, or Kerrey could not have won?

[bdtrppr6]

112. no

all more boring than beige paint.

[pnwmom]

120. He accomplished a lot as President, despite the impeachment. We were lucky to have him. n/t

[pat_k]

92. I could understand it if...

... she had been a teenager in 1997, and might therefore be excused for being so clueless. But she wasn't. She was 30.

How can she say Clinton should have bowed to the conspirators hunting him? (And if you haven't read it, you must read Joe Conason and Gene Lyon's "The Hunting of the President" ). With the rise of the RW noise machine, supporting Clinton in his refusal to submit to the immoral attack on him was imperative. This nation should not be allowed to forget how immoral and orchestrated that attack was. All the "players" back then haunt us still. Shame on her for parroting their propaganda.

[librechik]

93. well said, thanks!

[BeyondGeography]

136. She was 24 in 1997 and our POTUS was over 50

This was a world-class embarrassment at best. I don’t know why people keep defending Bill. At least Gillibrand has figured out there’s no future in it.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

141. I read that to mean Gillibrand was 30.

[BeyondGeography]

142. Oh...why would that matter?

But thanks.

[pat_k]

201. Gillibrand was old enough in 1997 to know better.

Of course, any political figure worth their salt today should be up on history, but it is more understandable to see such cluelessness from people who we young and politically unengaged back then.

[pat_k]

200. Read the "Hunting of the President"

A consensual affair is NOT a "high crime." Refusing to resign was step one in a landmark fight for the integrity of our constitutional democracy. Rise of the netroots in opposition to the rise of the RW noise machine can be traced to the people who saw the concerted attack for what it was, stood up, and said "No Way" -- and won. MoveOn had it right. Folks who organized through those early forums -- like TableTalk, and later DU -- had it right. It's tragic to see people on this board parroting RW propaganda from the players who poured money into destroying Clinton, tried to destroy ordinary truth tellers like Julie Hyatt Steele, financed the pillory of Anita Hill, orchestrated the stolen elections of 2001 and 2004, and on and on.

I repeat, shame on Gillibrand.

[RandySF]

101. My issue with Kirstin

Is she accepted the Clintons' help for years after the Lewinsky scandal.

[Lunabell]

121. Not me.

I said it then and I say it now. It wasn't consensual if she was his intern. Not at all. But, it's in the past and there are bigger fish to fry. Meaning Trump.

[janterry]

130. I agree

But I am wondering if, as a party, we need to think about the issue. It's so prominent right now.

I don't think this board is quite the place, but as a democrat - I feel some need to process it. More importantly, as a party - somewhere (somehow) I think we have to.

[Lunabell]

197. Well, we agree again.

This board isn't the place, but we need to weed out the misogyny.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

123. While I understand the desire to take a stronger line on sexual assault and harassment...

....in light of the stories these past few weeks, this is absolute overkill that is going to create inevitable backlash.

Yesterday I heard Ezra Klein—who’s a good writer no doubt—insist on NPR that we somehow retroactively shame Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica years ago.

It was a dumb and selfish move on his part that damaged his overall legacy, but it was still a consensual affair between two adults, and it made no difference if she was 21 or 61.

People soon realized making hay about it and demanding he resign or be removed about itonly made themselves look extremely stupid.

If we demanded all Presidents who had affairs in office be retroactively shamed and shunned or say should have resigned we’d have easily 2/3rds of them to deal with.

[madaboutharry]

128. I am getting the sense of a "bandwagon" effect.

Women senators and others jumping on the bandwagon in the "I am standing up for women" meme.

This always bothers me. This is the kind of atmosphere where people end up getting hurt.

Sexual harassment is a serious problem that needs to be confronted. But it is also important to remain thoughtful and careful when addressing these issues.

[forthemiddle]

131. I dont think he should have resigned over Monica

Which by all accounts was consensual.
But I do have a HUGE problem how we dismissed Paula Jones, and Juanita Broaddrick.
Paula Jones case was dismissed only because she couldn’t prove actual monetary damage, not because she couldn’t prove that Bill Clinton exposed his penis to her!
Monica only came to light because Paula Jones was trying to prove a pattern of conduct, something we are cheering on in Roy Moore’s case!
She was willing to go to Court to prove her claims, and we, as liberals trashed her for it.
How would that be handled today?
Looking at almost naked pictures of Al Frankens accuser posted right here on DU probably answers that question.......

[oberliner]

132. If it happened today, there would be calls for the president to resign

If Trump was caught having sex in the Oval Office with a 24 year old intern, I think there would be calls for him to resign.

Especially if he was engaging in sexual behavior with said intern while conducting government business.

[aikoaiko]

133. Its not an unreasonable thing to say and she is not alone.

It takes a brave Democratic Senator to speak out against a Clinton.

[GaryCnf]

134. You know we have a problem

when an easy 60% of the replies to this OP focus on whether, in their humble opinion, Bill Clinton was a good president as if it is relevant.

You know we have a problem when a large percentage of the replies focus on whether, in their humble opinion, we could have won without Bill Clinton, as if it was relevant.

You know we have a problem when replies point out that FDR and JFK were unfaithful to their spouses as if the most powerful man in the world having an affair with an intern in his office is nothing more than an affair.

If Bill Clinton should be defended, there are only two grounds. Either: (a) one must agree that there is no right or wrong and that only the result matters (which is a fair enough position if honestly taken, but dangerous if we wish to treat non-criminal sexual aggression as disqualifying); or, (b) one must agree that disparate power between men and women (including between powerful men and powerless women) in the workplace is not inherently coercive and that, absent overt coercion, all sexual encounters in the workplace are consensual (which is a no less dangerous, but is also a sickening, position.)

If we are unwilling to do either, if Bill Clinton should not be defended, then not only was Senator Gillibrand correct, we have another person who needs to come forward and say resignation would have been the right thing to do.

[BeyondGeography]

143. Epic tone deafness borne out of defending the indefensible

Why, especially now, D’s keep going to the mat for Clinton is nothing short of mind numbing. At least Gillibrand has figured it out.

[apcalc]

148. Excellent thoughts

[R B Garr]

158. This is just so naive it's absurd. Clinton's main "problem" was that he was an

effective politician and he dared to defy the odds and actually beat Republicans. All of the cliché attacks on liberals didn't work on him enough to suppress him. He beat the Republicans at their own game.

The Clinton's were good enough for Gillibrand when she wanted something from them.

No one cares about your version of right or wrong. They have their own. That's why he remains so popular. He never claimed to be a moral authority.

[GaryCnf]

163. I specifically did not

Argue whether Clinton was a good president, or whether he was good or bad for the party. Apparently you feel the need to do so.

I also did not argue whether the vendetta waged against him by the GOP was justified because only a fool or a Republican, same difference, would say it was anything other than a cynical political ploy supported by nothing more than the same faux morality that permits them to continue to stand behind that rapist Moore.

I said merely that if you accept that women and men occupy disparate positions of power in the workplace and that the President of the United States and an intern even more so, calling what happened between Clinton and Lewinsky "consensual" or even merely an "affair" borders on obscene. If you wish to defend that position, have at it.

[R B Garr]

167. Actually I said in another part of the thread that Bill Clinton should have fired Lewinsky.

Fired her for her risque behavior, the risqué behavior being that she flashed her thong at him which takes her aggressive pursuit of him to a whole 'nother level. But I understand you wouldn't have read that necessarily in this thread so wanted to point it out now.

[GaryCnf]

169. I guess sexist

misogynistic flotsam is fine in defense of "some" politicians. Have at it.

[R B Garr]

171. This is just an example of hyper-vernacular. If you cram enough of those words

into a sentence, you don't actually have to deal with the facts at hand. We can turn it around -- if some man in the workplace was flashing his underwear at people, he should be fired.

[GaryCnf]

173. As opposed to receiving

sexual gratification from them?

This is fucking unbelievable.

[R B Garr]

174. Firing her would have prevented any further interaction and certainly

would have been appropriate under the circumstances.

It's always interesting to see the selective outrage, especially when it comes to Clinton bashing.

[GaryCnf]

180. So what other

Democrat has avoided criticism for having sex with their intern?

You said selective outrage, so you must have one in mind . . .

Maybe what we are actually seeing is selective support for the rights of women when it comes to one person's actions.

[R B Garr]

181. "sex with their intern" She flashed her thong at him in the workplace.

That's by her own admission and how she got the ball rolling. She should have been fired. I can't recall any other stories of people flashing their underwear at work, can you?

[GaryCnf]

183. Did I not type clearly

Name ONE OTHER Democrat who got a free pass for having sex with their intern. You can't even say it. That's the level of denial.

[R B Garr]

187. LOL, speaking of denial. I said she should have been

fired for flashing her underwear in the workplace. Name one other case where people flash their underwear at work.

[Not Ruth]

160. Narrative triumphs over idealism

[GaryCnf]

164. Yea, it is "triumphing" brilliantly

right now, isn't it?

[apcalc]

138. It was consensual. That said,

Clinton did cheat on his wife. Not a good thing.
Gillebrand’s remark was made in hindsight. Truly, we’ll never know if it would have been better for him to resign or not.
At the very least , we wouldn’t have to hear the constant , “ What about Bill Clinton....” chatter , and be put in a defensive posture.

[mainstreetonce]

152. President Gore

Oh how history might have been different.

[FarCenter]

155. Gore might have won decisively as an incumbent.

[mainstreetonce]

156. Rewriting history

When a memo lands on his desk about airplanes,he locks cockpit doors.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

159. Or lost a la Ford.

Most analysts think he would have done Beyer if he hadn’t distanced himself from Clinton so much.

[PDittie]

157. Our attitudes as a nation have

changed a lot in just the past few months regarding the topic of male sexual harassment. Just a year ago, trump got elected despite the dozen or more women who have outed him for worse.

Bill Cosby didn't get a pass. O'Reilly didn't, either. GHWB is, though.

And Bill Clinton is getting a rehash here, so there's that.

Nobody seems down to litigate JFK (which I count as a good thing).

Times change. Sometimes faster than at other times.

[Not Ruth]

178. Our attitudes as species have evolved, America is behind/ahead of some other parts of the world

I suspect that even in the US, in 100 years, an intern, a French kiss, multiple affairs with multiples genders or with a 14 year old would not be an issue. For the moment though, we judge all by the standards of the US in November 2017, not by some other place or time.

[Jake Stern]

179. How many trying to salvage Bill's rep would be okay with a professor and student sleeping together?

Whether or not Monica Lewinsky sought out a physical relationship with Bill, he was still in a position of authority over her. He was her boss.

He could have said "No".

He could have had her moved into a different office.

Instead, he chose to accept her advances and follow through with the relationship.

[MadDAsHell]

184. The consensual affair was nobodys business. The lying under oath was everybodys.

His lying under oath, and not being convicted for it, basically told Americans that lying under oath is ok if you don’t like the reason you’re in court.

I couldn’t give two shits that he had an affair. But as a lawyer, I do care that he showed every future president that lying under oath is completely acceptable and in fact a winning strategy.

[HopeAgain]

202. An affair between the POTUS and an intern...

Is wildly improper.

Sorry, that's how I feel.

I'm okay with Warren and Gillibrand moving the party away from the Clinton legacy.

[pat_k]

208. What they are moving away from...

... are the activists who energized the rise of the netroots.

A consensual affair is NOT a "high crime." Refusing to resign was step one in a landmark fight for the integrity of our constitutional democracy.

The rise of the netroots in opposition to the rise of the RW noise machine can be traced to the people who saw the concerted attack for what it was, stood up, said "No Way!" -- and won. MoveOn had it right (for those who may not remember, MoveOn was founded as "Censure and MoveOn" ). Folks who organized through those early forums -- like TableTalk, and later DU -- had it right. It's tragic to see people like Gillibrand (and some on this board) parroting RW propaganda from the players who poured money into destroying Clinton, tried to destroy ordinary truth tellers like Julie Hyatt Steele, financed the pillory of Anita Hill, orchestrated the stolen elections of 2001 and 2004, and on and on.

Suggested reading:

The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton
Joe Conason and Gene Lyons

A Vast Conspiracy: The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President
Jeffrey Toobin

[HopeAgain]

214. So do those books say

The POTUS did not have an affair with an intern?

[LisaL]

210. I agree it certainly is improper.

But he didn't resign over it. So what is the point of all these years later, saying he should have?

[Laffy Kat]

226. She didn't do herself any favors, IMO.

I'll remember.

[customerserviceguy]

235. All I know is this

While Bill Clinton was dealing with the Monica Lewinsky stuff, he wasn't advancing our agenda. Is it too much to have asked of him to keep at least a veneer of fidelity to Hillary for the rest of his Presidency? Or at least to avoid doing something unseemly with someone who didn't have nearly as much to lose if it came out?

A question I asked here many years ago got my post removed, but since the subject is back in the news, I'll ask it again: Being as Monica Lewinsky was Jewish, what if came out that Israeli intelligence had recruited her to do something compromising with the President in order to blackmail him into doing (or not doing) Israel's bidding on one or more issues? Does that change the whole meaning of the concept of mutually consenting adults in that situation?

[RelativelyJones]

236. Not me. I admire Gillibrand for stating this.

A lot of Democrats were grossed out by the power differential. The Republicans were were on a witch hunt, but Bill Clinton was indeed reckless and did a lot of damage to the party, both in 2000 and 2016.

[DFW]

237. It's the timing that sucks

Gillibrand had almost 20 years to say this. She chooses NOW, after the ridiculous Franken "scandal (right--anyone remember the Fox so-called 'Obama Scandals' of 5 years ago?)." Whatever merit her argument may have had is neutered by the fact that it comes on the heels of a respected fellow Democratic Senator being hounded, also for no other reason than the timing of the Alabama Senate race.

This is, as I see it, a matter of Gillibrand making a simple, but significant error in judgment. If she wants to run for president, she has two years to make good on it, but this deserves to be remembered--a presidential campaign does not forgive errors in judgement. Some can be overcome. None are forgiven or forgotten, unless you are a Republican. Should she ever become president and be filmed patting a male intern on the shoulder, she should be prepared for Fox Noise to call for her resignation, playing the clip of her Clinton comment five times during every hour of air time.