Well we would have all been better off. Gore was needed a real bump. POLITICS... That aside I've NEVER been able to reconcile how having consensual sex with an intern wasn't resignation-worthy. Bill Clinton is not a good man, this was unethical and he hurt millions, most of all his wife.
BigDisneyFan said: "Well we would have all been better off. Gore was needed a real bump. POLITICS... That aside I've NEVER been able to reconcile how having consensual sex with an intern wasn't resignation-worthy. Bill Clinton is not a good man, this was unethical and he hurt millions, most of all his wife."
Really? If every member of Congress had to resign for having a consensual affair at some point in their lives, you'd have a half filled Capitol building. And while I don't condone his actions and he should have known better, how exactly does his getting a consensual BJ from an intern "hurt millions"?
People have short memories. This narrative being pushed of well Clinton got off scot-free is bullcrap. He was impeached and was excoriated on every TV show and on the front page of every newspaper for months. He committed the sin and took his lumps. Him being brought up again now is just more whataboutism to distract from Moore and Trump.
"Really? If every member of Congress had to resign for having a consensual affair at some point in their lives, you'd have a half filled Capitol building. "
Clinton had sex with an intern in his office. If I did that, even in the 90's, I would have been fired and lost my professional license. This was not just a run of the mill "consensual affair."
ErikJ972 said: ""Really? If every member of Congress had to resign for having a consensual affair atsome point in their lives, you'd have a half filled Capitol building. "
Clinton had sex with an intern in his office. If I did that, even in the 90's, I would have been fired and lost my professional license. This was not just a run of the mill "consensual affair.""
Well, he was impeached and the Senate had the opportunity to fire him and they chose not to. You could say that decision was political and you'd probably be right but he went through the appropriate disciplinary process for his position and he kept his job. Again, I'm not condoning what he did, but trying to relitigate it now, 20 years later, seems a bit "convenient".
And for Gillibrand, it's interesting after 20 years of seeking and getting support from the Clintons to now come out with a statement like this. Of course, I'm sure being seen publicly condemning an easy target has nothing to do with positioning herself for 2020 just as I'm sure the outrage Elizabeth Warren expressed at Hillary when Donna Brazile's book came out had nothing to do with cozying up to Bernie and realizing she has little further to gain from supporting Hillary as she looks forward to 2020. Ah, politics.
I'm not a prude UC but BJ's in the White House crossed a line for me somehow. It appears before this wave stops there will be a lot more men outed. I hope as someone mentioned in this thread earlier that we look at the amount and the circumstances. Weiner, Franken, Spitzer, lots of liberal icons on that list, and Bill Clinton easily the creepiest, well maybe not after Weiner.
"Clinton had sex with an intern in his office. If I did that, even in the 90's, I would have been fired and lost my professional license."
He was the potus. Where else could Monica and he have enjoyed a modicum of privacy? They were consenting adults.
If memory serves, Mr. Clinton was impeached and the state of Arkansas fined him heavily and suspended his license to practice law for a number of years. I suspect that if Trump pulls the same stunt, he'd get off scot-free as he holds no professional license that I'm aware of. Thanks to a statute of limitations, Moore will likely get elected to the US Senate setting the stage for WWIII if the establishment attempts to expel him against the will of the people of Alabama.
Gillebrand has served a nothing-burger. Mr. Clinton didn't resign; Trump hasn't resigned; and Roy Moore will likely be sworn in as a US Senator. I would suggest that she's pissing in the wind but am confident that she squats.
I know I'm not the only one who's upset Clinton used the WH to get blow jobs. Javero, I don't know how old you are but as a 30 something year old in the 90's the arrogance pissed me off to no end and that feeling never went away.
I never realized the extent of this problem. I find it incomprehensible. The fact it was commonly know that there was a fund to pay off people making allegations using taxpayer money gets me more upset than the behavior itself. It suggests that this problem has been known for years by everyone and therefore everyone has looked in the other direction. That includes all the people, men and women,who are now sounding so outraged by the conduct. There are simply no innocent people in Congress. There are only the guilty and the hypocrites.
"I know I'm not the only one who's upset Clinton used the WH to get blow jobs. Javero, I don't know how old you are but as a 30 something year old in the 90's the arrogance pissed me off to no end and that feeling never went away."
SouthFlorida, young women in this town have been putting out and/or bobbing for apples for decades to latch onto some influential politico to advance their careers. We should be careful not to conflate perpetrators of sexual assault with men who like the consensual company of women, especially in the current climate. When did we start infantilizing college-aged adults? It's now common knowledge that Monica had a thing for married men snaring Mr. Clinton and adding him to her chain of fools. I encourage you to click on the link below for Linda Tripp's review of Monica's failed attempt at the part of an ingenue at a time when we were both in our 30s.
I'll never slut-shame Monica. She simply got in way over her head, no pun intended. There are some very powerful forces in this town who would never allow a presidency to be derailed over something as mundane as a blow job. Prior to Clinton, there were other philandering presidents, as well as nearly half who owned slaves and others who, rumor has it, beat their wives.
I agree that things should have been handled a little differently but Clinton did pay the price (and unfortunately Monica did too). It was consensual but it was wrong.
I just think that with things the way they are, now is not the time for Gillebrand and Donna Brazile to be trashing and re-hashing; if they felt so strongly they should have opened their mouths at the time. Brazile is selling a shoulda, coulda, woulda farce of her version of the story and Gillebrand should give back all the Clinton money or donate it to the ACLU or the National Organization for Women.
Not to mention Rump spouting out his garbage about Franken (when he has done far worse to women and girls).
Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky to deny justice to another woman, whom he had sexually harassed.
Please Senator, it is real easy to say that now with all of the allegations coming out against so many men. The time to have made a stand was back then but the Democrats just said personal behavior did not matter and how well you did your job was the important thing. As for Clinton's punishment, the charges for impeachment were for perjury and obstruction of justice. It was not for having oral sex in the White House.
There's a reason sleeping with interns is considered unethical. Cosentual, yes. Ethical, no. And I'm sorry Javero but that response grossed me out. "Where else am I supposed to carry on an illicit affair with my intern?" seems an especially lame excuse of unethical behavior.
Since when is someone's subjective definition of unethical behavior an automatic cause for removal from office? In addition, who gets to decide the degree to which something is unethical enough to remove them from office? Was FDR unethical? Was Lincoln? Was Kennedy? Was Teddy Roosevelt? According to history, they all acted in ways some would deem "unethical." Should they have been removed from office? In my view, absolutely not.
"In addition, who gets to decide the degree to which something is unethical enough to remove them from office? Was FDR unethical? Was Lincoln? Was Kennedy? Was Teddy Roosevelt? According to history, they all acted in ways some would deem "unethical." Should they have been removed from office? In my view, absolutely not. "
Just curious if you think it is different when the unethical behavior involved a White House intern.
yankeefan7 said: ""In addition, who gets to decide the degree to which something is unethical enough to remove them from office? Was FDR unethical? Was Lincoln? Was Kennedy? Was Teddy Roosevelt? According to history, they all acted in ways some would deem "unethical." Should they have been removed from office? In my view, absolutely not. "
Just curious if you think it is different when the unethical behavior involved a White House intern."
It's clearly unethical behavior. I'm not disputing that. But when discussing the removal of office, I think the main question that matters is consent. If something is legally consensual, I don't feel like any individual's personal morality should be taken into account in the public sector. That's a slippery slope to go down. When discussing the potential removal of public officials from office, I think the only question that should be asked is, "Did they behave illegally?" If yes, then they should go through the appropriate disciplinary action.
In the words of a dubious acquaintance, "There's a difference between sleazy, and illegal, and just plain wrong. And if the worst thing you can say about something is that it's sleazy, you may be right, but that says as much about you as it does about me."
Is he right, is he wrong? Hard to say. But it's like the difference between wrongly sexualizing the "Stranger Things" kids, and enjoying the fantasized hyper-sexualization of fake teenagers on Riverdale, adults playing sexually-supercharged minors.