The Clinton Affair A&E

[Incredulity 11684]

NO CR

 

Would recommend if you have any interest in Clintons/Whitewater/Lewinsky........

 

https://www.aetv.com/shows/the-clinton-affair

 

Watched a replay of this and found it really interesting.  I was too young to really pay attention to the details when it actually happened.  

It also provided a lot of perspective to me on the "how we got here, Trump" question.

 

I couldn't stop laughing at Jim McDougall, he was kinda like a Bond Villain.(mannerisms, dress and attitude)

 

 

 

[thunderlounge 7980]

John Oliver had an interview with Monica on last Sunday. Would. 

[futureman 22562]

yes, he had an affair, but simply because he chose to break his marital vows during a single moment of weakness it’s no reason to humiliate him like this with some tacky docuseries. 

[Incredulity 11684]

15 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

John Oliver had an interview with Monica on last Sunday. Would. 

Yes, she is aging well.

[Parliament 14357]

John Oliver had an interview with Monica on last Sunday. Would. 

Yeah she's done well for herself since that whole kerfluffel.

[TwiceHorn 31646]

20 minutes ago, thunderlounge said:

John Oliver had an interview with Monica on last Sunday. Would. 

Saw that and felt really bad for her.  She got put through the wringer.

Although it's kind of timely given Trump, it is kind of a shame it's all getting dragged up again at this late date.

I was always conflicted about the impeachment.  I respected him as a pretty good mind and master politician, but his politics weren't mine, especially at the time (and I was lividly pissed that GWHB didn't get his second term, Perot you fucker).  But, porking a young gal in the White House (with a cigar no less) and lying about it, is not Presidential behavior (nor is grabbing em by the pussy, or porking porn stars out of office).  Still, it didn't reflect on his intellectual and temperamental fitness for office. 

Also, demonstrates a danger of a special prosecutor's ability to go outside his initial mandate (pursuing whatever he comes across).  Granted, Starr ferreted out some "Truth," but I think it's dangerous to have roving law enforcement just out snooping for stuff.

Edited March 20, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[thunderlounge 7980]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw that and felt really bad for her.  She got put through the wringer.

Although it's kind of timely given Trump, it is kind of a shame it's all getting dragged up again at this late date.

I was always conflicted about the impeachment.  I respected him as a pretty good mind and master politician, but his politics weren't mine, especially at the time (and I was lividly pissed that GWHB didn't get his second term, Perot you fucker).  But, porking a young gal in the White House (with a cigar no less) and lying about it, is not Presidential behavior (nor is grabbing em by the pussy, or porking porn stars out of office).  Still, it didn't reflect on his intellectual and temperamental fitness for office. 

Also, demonstrates a danger of a special prosecutor's ability to go outside his initial mandate (pursuing whatever he comes across).  Granted, Starr ferreted out some "Truth," but I think it's dangerous to have roving law enforcement just out snooping for stuff.

 

Agreed. 

[Saint Tacky 1622]

Slate has a podcast called "Slow Burn," and Season 2 is an outstanding, detailed series that followed the scandal and subsequent impeachment of President Bill Clinton.  It earned widespread acclaim and won Podcast of the Year at iHeartRadio’s inaugural Podcast Awards. 

It followed Season 1 (2017), which was about Watergate, the Nixon Administration, and the Nixon impeachment.  Both were riveting and I highly recommend them. 

Slate is supposed to produce a Season 3, but the driving force behind "Slow Burn," Leon Neyfahk bailed to start his own podcast, "Fiasco."   His first two podcasts are supposed to be about the 2000 Presidential Election and Bush v. Gore, and the Iran-Contra Scandal.

 

[Kyle 207]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw that and felt really bad for her.  She got put through the wringer.

Although it's kind of timely given Trump, it is kind of a shame it's all getting dragged up again at this late date.

I was always conflicted about the impeachment.  I respected him as a pretty good mind and master politician, but his politics weren't mine, especially at the time (and I was lividly pissed that GWHB didn't get his second term, Perot you fucker).  But, porking a young gal in the White House (with a cigar no less) and lying about it, is not Presidential behavior (nor is grabbing em by the pussy, or porking porn stars out of office).  Still, it didn't reflect on his intellectual and temperamental fitness for office. 

Also, demonstrates a danger of a special prosecutor's ability to go outside his initial mandate (pursuing whatever he comes across).  Granted, Starr ferreted out some "Truth," but I think it's dangerous to have roving law enforcement just out snooping for stuff.

I largely agree with you, but objectively he was not impeached for porking an intern but for lying about it. Another example of often the cover-up is worse than the crime. It is funny to see the juxtaposition of the Clinton and Trump investigations. My friends who repeat the "impeached Clinton for a blow job" mantra want to impeach Trump over Storming Daniels. Similarly, the Democrats passed legislation limiting the release of these reports in response to the Starr Report now want everything in Mueller's released publicly. Have to love 'Murica.

[RomaVicta 30039]

20 hours ago, Kyle said:

I largely agree with you, but objectively he was not impeached for porking an intern but for lying about it. Another example of often the cover-up is worse than the crime. It is funny to see the juxtaposition of the Clinton and Trump investigations. My friends who repeat the "impeached Clinton for a blow job" mantra want to impeach Trump over Storming Daniels. Similarly, the Democrats passed legislation limiting the release of these reports in response to the Starr Report now want everything in Mueller's released publicly. Have to love 'Murica.

Should a Special Prosecutor be asking an elected man if he cheated on his wife?

Think about that.

[lateshow 1308]

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw that and felt really bad for her.  She got put through the wringer.

Although it's kind of timely given Trump, it is kind of a shame it's all getting dragged up again at this late date.

I was always conflicted about the impeachment.  I respected him as a pretty good mind and master politician, but his politics weren't mine, especially at the time (and I was lividly pissed that GWHB didn't get his second term, Perot you fucker).  But, porking a young gal in the White House (with a cigar no less) and lying about it, is not Presidential behavior (nor is grabbing em by the pussy, or porking porn stars out of office).  Still, it didn't reflect on his intellectual and temperamental fitness for office. 

Also, demonstrates a danger of a special prosecutor's ability to go outside his initial mandate (pursuing whatever he comes across).  Granted, Starr ferreted out some "Truth," but I think it's dangerous to have roving law enforcement just out snooping for stuff.

Agreed. 

[TwiceHorn 31646]

20 hours ago, Kyle said:

I largely agree with you, but objectively he was not impeached for porking an intern but for lying about it. Another example of often the cover-up is worse than the crime. It is funny to see the juxtaposition of the Clinton and Trump investigations. My friends who repeat the "impeached Clinton for a blow job" mantra want to impeach Trump over Storming Daniels. Similarly, the Democrats passed legislation limiting the release of these reports in response to the Starr Report now want everything in Mueller's released publicly. Have to love 'Murica.

This is not actually correct.  The Independent Counsel law was permitted to expire, and that was a bipartisan deal, if not GOP driven.  The Clinton administration is responsible for the current can't-indict-the-President DOJ policy and the current special counsel rules, but neither of those is legislation.  The special counsel rules are pretty non-partisan, and the DOJ policy is consistent with the strong executive notion that has persisted since the Clinton administration.

[Aqua Buddha 14637]

9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Should a Special Prosecutor be asking an elected man if he cheated on his wife?

Think about that.

Yeah, not to go CR but Starr was originally running an investigation involving shady real estate deals by Clinton's shady Arky friends.  You'll need a flow chart to understand how they ended up even knowing about Monica.

As we've learned since, Ken Starr sucks at investigating things.

[Wally Pryor 5266]

[futureman 22562]

12 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Should a Special Prosecutor be asking an elected man if he cheated on his wife?

Think about that.

I thought this was the #metoo era?  caveman roma over here... clinton (who is white, don’t forget) was the most powerful man in the world and he used that power to coerce a naive 22-year-old female intern just out of college into a submissive sexual relationship in the workplace.  so that’s just... ok now??  maybe in your twisted world of misogynistic white male fantasies, but not mine. 

[Saint Tacky 1622]

23 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Saw that and felt really bad for her.  She got put through the wringer. ... I was always conflicted about the impeachment.

It's worse than that, and she suffered immensely then and in the years to follow.  Basically she was used and left hanging in the breeze by everyone.  Tripp, Clinton, Starr, everyone. 

20 hours ago, Kyle said:

It is funny to see the juxtaposition of the Clinton and Trump investigations. My friends who repeat the "impeached Clinton for a blow job" mantra want to impeach Trump over Storming Daniels. Similarly, the Democrats passed legislation limiting the release of these reports in response to the Starr Report now want everything in Mueller's released publicly. 

To see nothing in the similarities between Clinton and Trump requires brazen denial.  The Democrats also didn't have a say in what was or could be released in the Starr Report.  Newt was driving the train that September, and ultimately lost his Speaker's job for it.  As a matter of fact, Clinton's approval ratings actually went up and Democrats unexpectedly gained seats in the House in large part because Bubba had become a sympathetic figure and was now being seen as the victim of a politically motivated vendetta by a solid majority of America.  The Republicans then fired Newt and replaced him with Dennis Hastert.

[Beau Vine 54487]

You know how you save the newspaper on the day your kid is born so they can see later what was going on when they were born?

On the day my daughter was born, I walked down to the hospital gift shop to get a paper, and on the front page in 3-inch high font, directly below "Honolulu Advertiser," it says

 

FBI HAS LEWINSKY DRESS WITH DNA EVIDENCE

I opted to not buy the newspaper.

[Buzzrock 15009]

Oh God I forgot about Tripp. Shudder...

[Kyle 207]

5 hours ago, Saint Tacky said:

It's worse than that, and she suffered immensely then and in the years to follow.  Basically she was used and left hanging in the breeze by everyone.  Tripp, Clinton, Starr, everyone. 

To see nothing in the similarities between Clinton and Trump requires brazen denial.  The Democrats also didn't have a say in what was or could be released in the Starr Report.  Newt was driving the train that September, and ultimately lost his Speaker's job for it.  As a matter of fact, Clinton's approval ratings actually went up and Democrats unexpectedly gained seats in the House in large part because Bubba had become a sympathetic figure and was now being seen as the victim of a politically motivated vendetta by a solid majority of America.  The Republicans then fired Newt and replaced him with Dennis Hastert.

Dude. Seriously. Re-read my post a couple of times and try again.

[Kyle 207]

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Should a Special Prosecutor be asking an elected man if he cheated on his wife?

Think about that.

So why are the mouth breathers constantly jacking off to Stormi Daniels? (Non jokingly, the question was one of rape not infidelity, but you know that ... expand your mind beyond CNN and Vox).

Edited March 21, 2019 by Kyle

[Kyle 207]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is not actually correct.  The Independent Counsel law was permitted to expire, and that was a bipartisan deal, if not GOP driven.  The Clinton administration is responsible for the current can't-indict-the-President DOJ policy and the current special counsel rules, but neither of those is legislation.  The special counsel rules are pretty non-partisan, and the DOJ policy is consistent with the strong executive notion that has persisted since the Clinton administration.

That's one way to spin regulations enacted by a Democrat DOJ in light of the recent impeachment of said Democrat President. Tell me more how Russian hackers changed paper ballots.

[RomaVicta 30039]

6 hours ago, Kyle said:

So why are the mouth breathers constantly jacking off to Stormi Daniels? (Non jokingly, the question was one of rape not infidelity, but you know that ... expand your mind beyond CNN and Vox).

If you suggest that Clinton raped Lewinski, you haven't bothered to look into this. I see no reason to rehash the whole story. Your partisan position is clear. Enjoy it, I guess. I'll have nothing else to say on this board about this subject.

[huge 3796]

7 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Your partisan position is clear.

Isn't yours as well?  And almost everyone's?

[Saint Tacky 1622]

15 hours ago, Kyle said:

Dude. Seriously. Re-read my post a couple of times and try again.

You are dubiously overreacting.  It was a point, not directed at you specifically.

15 hours ago, Kyle said:

So why are the mouth breathers constantly jacking off to Stormi Daniels? (Non jokingly, the question was one of rape not infidelity, but you know that ... expand your mind beyond CNN and Vox).

Perhaps it was using campaign funds in violation of federal election laws and tax evasion.  Perhaps it was lying about it.  Perhaps, it is suborning perjury.  Or, maybe it's merely just the hypocrisy of it all.  It's most certainly not as insignificant as you want to pretend it is.

15 hours ago, Kyle said:

That's one way to spin regulations enacted by a Democrat DOJ in light of the recent impeachment of said Democrat President. Tell me more how Russian hackers changed paper ballots.

Nope.  Clinton Justice Department Memorandum dated October 16, 2000.  "In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers."  "Balancing these competing concerns, we believe the better view is the one advanced by the Department in 1973: a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process."  If you can cite regulations to the contrary, have at it.

Don't know how paper ballots got into this subject; however, you clearly have your agenda and opinions used to prop them up.

To pull this out of the ditch I will again recommend to anyone that's interested in the topic of impeachment to listen to the "Slow Burn" podcast.  You'll enjoy it.

[gecko 1104]

I can remember tuning in nightly for my daily dose of "we have him now".  I recall that all the networks ran with it constantly, no one buried the story.  At the time I thought it reasonable that the Starr Whitewater investigation should extend into the Lewinsky issue.  I was a willing participant in the feeding frenzy....in 20/20 hindsight....it was all pretty stupid.

[RomaVicta 30039]

2 hours ago, huge said:

Isn't yours as well?  And almost everyone's?

Mine isn't detectable due to willful and/or ignorant lies intended to rouse anger. I am not to the party I generally vote for what Kyle is to his. I detest amateur political operatives.

I can say what Clinton did was wrong. The lie that is most damning to him, as far as I'm concerned, is the public declaration that he "didn't have sex with that woman." As I recall, he interrupted a Hillary event to say so. Not impeachable, but disgusting. 

[huge 3796]

Just now, RomaVicta said:

Mine isn't detectable due to willful and/or ignorant lies intended to rouse anger. I am not to the party I generally vote for what Kyle is to his. I detest amateur political operatives.

I can say what Clinton did was wrong. The lie that is most damning to him, as far as I'm concerned, is the public declaration that he "didn't have sex with that woman." As I recall, he interrupted a Hillary event to say so. Not impeachable, but disgusting. 

Fair and Balanced, I like it.

[TwiceHorn 31646]

16 hours ago, Kyle said:

That's one way to spin regulations enacted by a Democrat DOJ in light of the recent impeachment of said Democrat President. Tell me more how Russian hackers changed paper ballots.

Not really spin, pretty factual.  The DOJ policy is based on a 73 policy established by a Republican administration on the eve of resignation.

The Special Counsel rules are facially neutral and just filled a vacuum left with the expiration of the Independent Counsel law, which Clinton had vigorously supported that last time it was up for expiration.  One thing they did do, according to Katyal, the drafter, was give the SC and AG some latitude with respect to the report so that the Monica Lewinskys of future investigations perhaps would not receive so much attention.

If you feel a need to attach a bias to any of it, it's more pro-President than pro-anything else.

[Parliament 14357]

I can remember tuning in nightly for my daily dose of "we have him now".  I recall that all the networks ran with it constantly, no one buried the story.  At the time I thought it reasonable that the Starr Whitewater investigation should extend into the Lewinsky issue.  I was a willing participant in the feeding frenzy....in 20/20 hindsight....it was all pretty stupid.

Me too. It was the culmination of Congressional Republicans saying, "YES! We finally got him!" Yeah, about that...

I disliked him as a President, but when this broke, I decided whatever, you evaded us for over six years. Enjoy the rest of your time in office.

[Smax 3800]

Mine isn't detectable due to willful and/or ignorant lies intended to rouse anger.

Reason be damned yours is most assuredly detectable

[Incredulity 11684]

18 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Oh God I forgot about Tripp. Shudder...

The whole Linda Tripp component of the story was really quite interesting.  

As I stated above when it was actually happening I was too young to follow in detail.  I never realized that Tripp and Lewinsky became friends after both had been banished to the Pentagon from the White House.  

 

Also that the Clinton/Lewinsky physical relationship got rolling during the government shutdown of the early 90's has some divine comedy to it.

[RomaVicta 30039]

22 minutes ago, Smax said:

 

 

 

Reason be damned yours is most assuredly detectable

 

 

I don't deny that. I don't hide it.

[MrBig 5473]

19 hours ago, Buzzrock said:

Oh God I forgot about Tripp. Shudder...

John Goodman playing her on SNL was great 

[BigDHornfan 6564]

9 minutes ago, MrBig said:

John Goodman playing her on SNL was great 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Can't we leave these 2 poor, persecuted, fine, upstanding, public service minded people alone.....  Haven't they suffered enough ??!!

[Underdog 28823]

23 hours ago, Wally Pryor said:

Lucie Arnez?

[Kyle 207]

17 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

If you suggest that Clinton raped Lewinski, you haven't bothered to look into this. I see no reason to rehash the whole story. Your partisan position is clear. Enjoy it, I guess. I'll have nothing else to say on this board about this subject.

There were allegations he raped several other women. Shockingly Slick Willie and Mrs. Willie have been teflon to #metoo.

[Kyle 207]

7 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not really spin, pretty factual.  The DOJ policy is based on a 73 policy established by a Republican administration on the eve of resignation.

The Special Counsel rules are facially neutral and just filled a vacuum left with the expiration of the Independent Counsel law, which Clinton had vigorously supported that last time it was up for expiration.  One thing they did do, according to Katyal, the drafter, was give the SC and AG some latitude with respect to the report so that the Monica Lewinskys of future investigations perhaps would not receive so much attention.

If you feel a need to attach a bias to any of it, it's more pro-President than pro-anything else.

Fair enough, but it was done under a Democrat appointed AG in response to one of Clinton's scandals. If you're honest, if John Ashcroft had done it, decent chance you have your tinfoil hat on.

[Kyle 207]

8 hours ago, Saint Tacky said:

You are dubiously overreacting.  It was a point, not directed at you specifically.

Perhaps it was using campaign funds in violation of federal election laws and tax evasion.  Perhaps it was lying about it.  Perhaps, it is suborning perjury.  Or, maybe it's merely just the hypocrisy of it all.  It's most certainly not as insignificant as you want to pretend it is.

Nope.  Clinton Justice Department Memorandum dated October 16, 2000.  "In 1973, the Department of Justice concluded that the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unduly interfere with the ability of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned duties, and would thus violate the constitutional separation of powers."  "Balancing these competing concerns, we believe the better view is the one advanced by the Department in 1973: a sitting President is immune from indictment as well as from further criminal process."  If you can cite regulations to the contrary, have at it.

Don't know how paper ballots got into this subject; however, you clearly have your agenda and opinions used to prop them up.

To pull this out of the ditch I will again recommend to anyone that's interested in the topic of impeachment to listen to the "Slow Burn" podcast.  You'll enjoy it.

If you quote me, it is directed at me, amigo. Just acknowledge you apply different standards to Clinton than Trump. It is not like it is not obvious. Nothing with the Clinton controversies had anything to do with sex - it was his lying about the myriad other scandals.

The point is the same mouth breathers than think Russian hackers changed paper ballots are the same who have no problem with Secretary of State Clinton given big government contracts to Russians after they donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. That fact befuddles me ... and then I read a thread in Cloak Room and it makes sense..

[RomaVicta 30039]

14 minutes ago, Kyle said:

There were allegations he raped several other women. Shockingly Slick Willie and Mrs. Willie have been teflon to #metoo.

The discussion was Lewinski, the Starr investigation, and impeachment. In that context you suggested she'd been raped. She wasn't. 

I appreciate your restraint at not bringing up murder and the other American Spectator follies from back in the day.

[RomaVicta 30039]

18 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I'll have nothing else to say on this board about this subject.

I was way off on that.

[Nivek 17013]

29 minutes ago, Kyle said:

There were allegations he raped several other women. Shockingly Slick Willie and Mrs. Willie have been teflon to #metoo.

There is an allegation you had a cross-species brain transplant from a walrus with a penchant for masturbation.   Not shockingly, you denied this too.

[futureman 22562]

8 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

 I detest amateur political operatives.

[Armybrat 40942]

On 3/21/2019 at 12:05 PM, RomaVicta said:

Should a Special Prosecutor be asking an elected man if he cheated on his wife?

Think about that.

No, but:

IIRC Paula Jones had brought a sexual harassment suit against the President, and he lied under oath to the Federal Grand Jury about it. That was a felony, but he just got a hand slap for the whitewashed perjury charge. I don’t remember it originally being a part of Starr’s “investigation” of the president’s business activities in Arky while governor. I thought it was stupid to investigate the Arky connection, but the crooked campaign contributions from foreign billionaires and the Chinese were worthy of a close look, IMO, but scores of the principal witnesses fled the country.

lewinsky was just a dumb intern who was taken advantage of by her powerful boss - a scenario that usually got CEOs in the private sector fired, and roundly condemned by the N.O.W.,  neither of which happened. But that impeachment just proved how dumb the republicans were, and they deservedly paid for it.

These scandals always provide a lot of fodder for the film, tv, and print media for decades. Look at the Kennedy & Nixon era for some perspective. The current occupant of the WH will probably provide 10x as much entertainment for generations. 😅

Monica matured pretty well and apparently and went on to do well academically last I heard. I don’t know what she has been doing after finishing school, but she seemed to be an ok person and folks should just leave her alone. I wish her well.

Yeah, kinda Cloakroomy, but it’s just entertainment history to me.

 

[Saint Tacky 1622]

On 3/22/2019 at 6:26 PM, Kyle said:

If you quote me, it is directed at me, amigo. Just acknowledge you apply different standards to Clinton than Trump. It is not like it is not obvious. Nothing with the Clinton controversies had anything to do with sex - it was his lying about the myriad other scandals.

The point is the same mouth breathers than think Russian hackers changed paper ballots are the same who have no problem with Secretary of State Clinton given big government contracts to Russians after they donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. That fact befuddles me ... and then I read a thread in Cloak Room and it makes sense..

First, if I cite or quote something or somebody, it does NOT necessarily mean it was directed at or to that piece or person. So, you're wrong. 

Second, I apply the same standards to both or to any President for that matter, and you're too myopic to see that we agree.  It is about the lies.  It is about the cover-up being worse than the crime.  Where we disagree, is that you won't apply those standards to Trump because of you're own political inclinations and leanings. Your accusation to the contrary I've never decried Clinton's innocence or a miscarriage of justice.

The fact that you are befuddled does not surprise me in the least.  Perhaps it's all the conspiracy clutter that just robs you of any chance for clairvoyance or credibility. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Bill Clinton was, and still is if he's able, the quintessential sexual predator. He sexually assaulted several woman, and some have claimed out right rape (of course some won't believe that cause he's in their political camp). Hillary attempted to destroy the very women she claimed to support her entire career.   Too many omen have come forward over the years for there not to be truth to their claims, maybe not all of them, but 1 factually correct charge is enough.

His sexual encounters with a 22 year old intern were sexual assault. Any man who thinks it would be cool if their 22 year old daughter had sex with a man 2x their age, and in a position of power above her is probably trying to do the same thing to 22 year old girls.

Scum on both sides of the marriage. If you can't accept that you're willfully ignorant or just stupid as shit.  I won't watch it, I don't need to to know what POS they both are.

[mulletpelini 5216]

I'd like to see some photo evidence of a Hurley encounter myself.