"In one case, it's about exposure. In another case, it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will," Hannity said.
"And rape," Trump responded.I don't know why Hannity said one case is about exposure and another is about "groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will." The "exposure" case is clearly Paula Jones, and — as noted in the previous 2 posts — the Paula Jones testimony has Bill Clinton groping and kissing her against her will. (By Jones's report, before he exposed himself and asked "Would you kiss it for me?," Clinton "pulled" her, ran his hands up her clothing to her "middle pelvic area," kissed her on the neck, and tried to kiss her on the lips.)
The Clinton campaign response was to reflect the blame back on Trump:
... Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said Trump was "doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain. If that’s the kind of campaign he wants to run that’s his choice."So those who want to bring up rape and sexual assault are to be disparaged for taking us to a low place? That can't be right as a general principle.
Posts
107 comments:
The hack democrat press will bend themselves into pretzels in defense their dear Clinton Corruption team.
Because - D.
"That can't be right as a general principle" Huh? Who's talking about principle? Who cares about principle? When did any Prog ever let any principle stand inner way?
Hillary Clinton will say anything to win. We know that.
How would one like to work closely with her? I can't imagine.
The way this has been treated in the media for years has been, and continues to be, shameful.
Of course it isn't right.
Unless, of course, one believes that Democratic might makes right.
Disgusting. Just disgusting. They could shut up - they don't have to become apologists for this behavior.
I'm thinking at some point the Clinton campaign will go the Rubio route and question Trump's genital size.
I'm thinking pictures too.
Hey. That's not fair. You're only supposed to accuse white fraternity boys and lacrosse players of such behaviors.
That's our tactic. Give it back!
Most of what I gather from Althouse today is that Donald Trump controls the narrative.
Bill Clinton is the first gentleman of rape culture.
It's right because reasons.
Didn't Paula Jones claim that among Bill Clinton's distinguishing characteristics of his supposed most private part that it bent to the left?
And now the press is taken aback when Trump talks about his hand size.
Trump didn't bring up his hand size, Rubio did.
I had to laugh out loud at the Clinton statement ".....dragging the American people through the mud." Never heard the Clintons referred to as "the American people." Too funny.
The most powerful media institutions in the world. The leadership of the most powerful political institution in the world(Congress). Hollywood, Silicon Valley. All of it, the epicenter of power and wealth in the richest and most powerful country in the world, are trying to bring down Trump. Literally billions spent, the 'finest minds' involved. And not one direct hit. Not one.
The good thing about the Clintons is that they, and their apologists, clearly define the term human garbage.
The statement wasn't offered as a general principle. It was a specific response to Trump's remarks.
"And rape," Trump responded.
"He was wisely ignorant of journalism; but when he stooped on a carcase there was sure to be meat." – Rudyard Kipling,
I would ask that anyone who believes that Clinton is not a rapist to review the evidence as gathered by Slate regarding Juanita Broaddrick and come back and defend your position. Slate chose not to make a judgment because they are lapdogs for the powerful.
Wait until Mr. Bill's many flights on the Lolita Express with Epstein are more deeply explored.
It's a mudfight. There are no principles here.
So those who want to bring up rape and sexual assault are to be disparaged for taking us to a low place? That can't be right as a general principle.
It is only so if the target is a liberal. If the target is conservative, it is a public service. Don't you know that by now? Or was your closing rhetorical?
So bb, you believe Bill is not a rapist, or is it just that it's old news and America's delicate sensibilities should be protected?
Hey come on. Trump just used the word rape.
Whoopi Goldberg would tell us all to relax since he didn't say "rape-rape".
Hillary better hope there was nobody with a Syrian passport on that plane out of Paris this morning.
I realize this is a little off topic for this subject but I think that it is important to point out that many in the media claim that Hillary was an enabler of Bill's behavior. This is a fallacy that makes Hillary appear as is if she was an innocent bystander. Hillary was a willing participant in Bill's behavior as she was in charge of handling Bill's "Bimbo Eruptions". Hilliary would hire private investigators to dig up dirt on the women that Bill would have trysts with. She would then use the information gained by those P.I.s to bribe, blackmail and threaten these women to keep them silent. Hillary was the person responsible for this mob-like corruption. She was not an innocent bystander or enabler. It amazes me that after all of these years not one journalist has dug into this to find out the details of Hillary's depravity in dealing with these women.
"So those who want to bring up rape and sexual assault are to be disparaged for taking us to a low place? That can't be right as a general principle."
It's not a general principle. It specifically protects democrats.
Situational principle.
buwaya puti said...
There are no principles here.
There are principles at stake. The NYT and the left generally is Trumping up charges they claim are relevant despite the subjects claiming the NYT is lying. This is in stark contrast to their treatment of Bill. They protected him from far more serious charges supported by far better evidence. These actions not only show the media is far more biased than most people understand but also shows the left doesn't believe the claims they make about sexual assault. It demonstrates their positions only exist to strengthen the weapon for attacks on the non-politically conforming.
People who pay attention have always known this of course, but the simple truth is most people don't. They have better things to do. I don't think much of Trump and I don't expect him to be a good President if elected. But if he causes 10%-20% more Americans to recognize the NYT specifically and media/academia generally are left wing propaganda shops I'll count that as a major benefit.
Remember, women think contextually, not in black and white like us simpleton men.
... Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said Trump was "doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain.
Never mind that the mud belongs to Hillary Clinton and that Trump was merely warning others to avoid it.
“Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find.”
―James Carville
George Stephanopoulos was on Hillary's bimbo eruption team. He's got to be shitting himself.
The ghost Bullseye the cat has waited a long time for a Donald Trump to come along.
Hillary, rape enabler.
Hillary, sexual assault enabler.
Hillary, sexual harassment enabler.
Hillary, needing to gain power to overcome her horrible past, by vengeance against everyone except the one she enabled and by whom her entire life has been one humiliation after another.
I won't hot link this so that the skeptical can see that it is indeed Slate
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/03/is_juanita_broaddrick_telling_the_truth.3.html
Here's a sample. Don't read this liberals because reasons!
Clinton Is Innocent: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.
Clinton Is Guilty: Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.) She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.
And remember that she had FIVE witnesses.
Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.
So I would be curious how, for example, Andrea Mitchell can say that this story has been discredited. They will not be able to keep this stuff out of the news any longer.
Trump has controlled the narrative since day one of his campaign.
The interesting thing is that the Americans forgave Bill for the bimbos, but will now make Hillary's ambition pay for them, with interest.
Trump will continue this line of attack using the weapons of PC rape culture created by the minions of Hillary. Poetic justice? Ju Jitsu? Killer Instinct.
Like I said, there are no principles here. Expecting WaPo and the NYT to have principles is futile. You can't fight them by arguing principles either.
This is politics, it does not function on that level.
Wrong! It's right if it's about Clinton.
Real American for early thread winner.
Trump will continue this line of attack using the weapons of PC rape culture created by the minions of Hillary. Poetic justice? Ju Jitsu? Killer Instinct.
Karma
The only thing Trump brings to this is that he has, finally, an effective way of flinging mud, to oppose to the institutional weapons the Democrats have been using all this time.
The ammunition, the mud, has always been there.
Isn't it a bit odd, to call what Hannity does with Trump, an "interview"?
Trump will continue this line of attack using the weapons of PC rape culture created by the minions of Hillary.
Precisely. Bill and Hillary might have been able to get away with that behavior back in the 90s and before. But now, with social and alternative media, and most importantly, the change in attitudes that have taken place in the last 20-30 years, young people will be appalled when they find out.
Especially young women who have been schooled that all rape accusations are true, anyone who questions a rape allegation is for rape culture, that we live in a rape culture, and even counseling a woman on basic tips on how to avoid being raped is blaming the victim.
The message here, from Trump, is loud and clear.
You're going to send your media pals after me, interviewing women from my past and trying to make me look bad?
Fine, I have media pals too. Let's see how this works out for you.
I've a feeling if Trumps polls keep climbing and Hillary's keep tanking, we won't be seeing many more hit pieces on Trump. Can't help Hillary with backfire.
Blogger buwaya puti said...
Like I said, there are no principles here.
Politics is all about a battle of competing and contradictory principles. I think you confuse principles with guileless moral absolutes. The circus is a sideshow of "principles" designed to divert the eye from the sinistral hand, the core is indifferent business.
Rick - bullseye. The big story here is the manifestation of the power that the liberal mass media has on the culture and thinking of this country.
Back then the framing was " big Bill is the man, who cares about his sex life' and they convinced the "unaware" public.
Imagine their power ....a president of America is getting a bj ,in the oval office no less, by some whore and his "femminist" wife is ok with that... but let's move on, nothing here.
Thank you Donald Trump for exposing this powerful force. Hopefully the "unaware" public wakes up.
BTW I highly recommend " Big Story" by Peter Brraestrup . It is about one of the best framing jobs in modern history by the media.
The Clinton machine should hire Rolling Stone's Sabrina Rubin Erdely to write a compelling story on "Juanita" and her horrible experience with Bill.
That might finally get it discredited.
Go to bing.com (or google, whatever) and put in the search terms:
Bill Clinton Rape
Trump has linked the name Bill Clinton to rape, no matter how hard the press tries to spin it, that is in peoples' heads now.
Put in Hillary Clinton Rape
Or just Clinton rape
By the way, if you put in Trump Rape you get mostly "Trump Accuses Clinton" type headlines, some stuff about Trump using the term rape regarding "China raping us" and waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy down at the bottom something about a women suing him alleging he raped her.
On "Morning Joe" they were discussing that Trump will definitely go after Bill Clinton's frequent rides on the "Lolita Express". The plane of billionaire PEDOPHILE Jeffrey Epstein. Bill even ditched his Secret Service agents for some of the trips. There is much to explore there that the media has been uninterested in.
In fact, I just double checked and you have to go to the 2nd page of search results, which almost nobody does.
buwaya puti said...
The ammunition, the mud, has always been there.
Mud is only effective against targets which lack principles. If the NYT hadn't defended Bill's far more credible and egregious treatment of women they wouldn't be vulnerable to Trumps "mud". Attacking a lack of principles is supporting the principle that laws and expectations should be applied without regard to political position, wealth, or power.
What would a normal woman do if she was married to an unindicted rapist, proven sexual harasser and reportedly had sex with 2,000 other women?
I guess she got paid for it, but was it worth it? The pants suits, I mean.
This is a most illustrative example of that ancient metaphor, to be hoist with one's own petard, better perhaps than Shakespeare's own. A petard of course is a type of explosive ordnance — a bomb of sorts designed to destroy the gates of a fortress or castle, allowing the besieging army egress. The whole rape culture bullshit was devised as a rhetorical bomb, something to silence dissent, and to reinforce the absolute dominance of the Left in academia, something that its inventors believed would help propel Hillary to the highest office in the land. If her campaign is destroyed by the apparent "rape culture" of her own household, which it may well be, especially since she has made the monumental error of naming her husband as her "co-President", then hoist with her own petard* she is indeed.
*The word petard derives from a 16th century French word meaning literally a fart, a soldierly scatological image. In actual use a typical petard consisted of a black powder charge packed into a bell-shaped metal casing (in fact church bells were often confiscated to use as petards.) The petard would be laid in a shallow trench with the mouth of the bell pointed toward the gate to be destroyed, the bell serving to focus the explosive force toward the mouth. The petard needed to be very close to its target to be effective, so the engineers who laid it had to be intensely defended by arquebus fire or archery if they were to succeed. A fuse or powder trail was used to set it off. Occasionally the fuse burned too fast, and the luckless sapper would be caught in the detonation.
I had to laugh out loud at the Clinton statement ".....dragging the American people through the mud." Never heard the Clintons referred to as "the American people."
They're trying the Otter Defense.
Ok, Clintonistas and allies in the press--the gauntlet has been thrown down. Trump is reminding us that Clinton was accused of rape, and the woman's story is at least plausible (and from my read of it, credible--at least enough to warrant a deeper investigation by the press if not the authorities). Think it's BS? Then explain why, and explain why you dropped this issue when it surfaced in 1999. We live in an era where the Left quickly believed the Duke Lacrosse accuser, and for a time the UVA accuser, and to date still believes Mattress Girl on thinner evidence and anyone debunking them was called a rapist-enabler. So please explain why this case is different.
And maybe Democrats should consider whether they want the Clintons back in power. Because while Hillary did not commit those actions (of which Bill is accused) herself, she did plenty to discredit his accusers and she was in a better position than anyone to stand up for the rights of these women, and failed.
You sure it isn't the Chewbacca Defense?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clKi92j6eLE
Look at the monkey! Look at the silly monkey!
@Ron -- I just tried the search. It's even in the "top stories" segment of the returned results. The NYT header reads blah, blah, blah 1999 Rape Allegation -- don't worry readers, it was way back in 1999!
After the revelations about Tiger Woods, do you think more people are apt to believe Clinton raped Juanita Broadrick and assaulted Paula Jones? Back in the 90's, people seemed to brush it off because they were unattractive. But after seeing that Perkins waitress, maybe more realize looks aren't everything, especially to someone who cares about power.
Trump is being divisive here, point this stuff out about Hillary and Muslim terrorist, etc. Divisive, I tells ya!!
Re: Questor on petards
The sapper squad applying the petard was called "The Forlorn Hope." More often than not, the petard crew went up with their demolition device.
"After the revelations about Tiger Woods, do you think more people are apt to believe Clinton raped Juanita Broadrick and assaulted Paula Jones? Back in the 90's, people seemed to brush it off because they were unattractive. But after seeing that Perkins waitress, maybe more realize looks aren't everything, especially to someone who cares about power."
At the time the Clintonites deftly worked to connect people like Jones with right wing movements and an attempt to cash in on her story--her looks helped feed that. If she were glamorous and upper-class-ish, it may have been harder to paint her as some opportunist trying to cash in on her accusations and using the right wing enablers to keep the story going. Broaddrick never sold her story, and at the time it emerged the media was already sort of "Clintoned out" after the Lewinsky thing. It's still abhorrent that they didn't try to run with that story and just brushed it off--I still am not aware of any flaw in her story that makes it non-credible. At the very least, it should have been dug into.
But a lot of this (the shrugging off of stories like Jones' and Willey's) was thanks to the Clintons turning it into a "right wing smear" and leftists buying into it.
Quaestor: "...a bomb of sorts designed to destroy the gates of a fortress or castle, allowing the besieging army egress."
Thanks for the details, many of which are new to me. But in the above text, don't you mean "ingress"? The besiegers are trying to get IN, not out…
Kinda like Clinton in that respect.
You are correct, Owen, my bad.
The Forlorn Hope (British/American usage, other armies had similar arrangements) was actually the lead storming party at a breach, or a gate - the section of a wall or bastion destroyed by cannon fire or an underground mine until it was "practicable" - could be climbed in an assault, or a broken down gate of course. This was a very dangerous business because the defenders would do their best to block a breach, and bring up all available firepower to cover it. So the Forlorn Hope was composed of men and junior officers looking for promotion or whatever reward was on offer.
There were also Forlorn Hopes assembled for escalades - the use of ladders to assault unbroken walls.
Truly fascinating book - Duffy -Fire and Stone:The Science of Fortress Warfare 1660-1860
Only available used, but you can order it on the Althouse Amazon Portal!
"Mud is only effective against targets which lack principles."
Thats not correct. Mud works against anyone.
Whatever the defects of Mitt Romney, there was no question that he had principles, or at least principles in the areas in which he was attacked. As far as personal behavior went, he was as pure and blameless as anyone who has ever run for office.
The press went wild on trivial, sketchy and stupid complaints about him. The dog on his car? What he did in High School? His opponents found every last thing they could use, and they had to go into truly fine detail. But it worked anyway because they had a bigger mud flinging engine.
"He exposed himself and asked 'Would you kiss it for me?'"
Telling, that women are merely a surrogate for Clinton making love to himself.
"Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find.”
―James Carville
I always wondered why Bill Clinton was dragging a hundred-dollar bill around.
The press went wild on trivial, sketchy and stupid complaints about him. The dog on his car? What he did in High School? His opponents found every last thing they could use, and they had to go into truly fine detail. But it worked anyway because they had a bigger mud flinging engine.
While the press did do this I don't think it "worked" in the sense that any of their hype machine efforts made any difference. Romney lost because he's Mormon, wealthy, and upper class. Mudslinging wasn't effective, the subtle "he's not one of you" and "he's part of the elite only interested in benefiting the wealthy" reinforcement was.
"Wait until Mr. Bill's many flights on the Lolita Express with Epstein are more deeply explored."
It seems likely that there are people in Trump's milieu who know the backstory on this. Trump moving in some of the same social circles as the Clintons probably grants him some damning information that a Cruz or Huckabee would never hear.
"I don't think it "worked" in the sense that any of their hype machine efforts made any difference. "
No - it creates a generally negative perception, and for people that don't look past the information that is spoon-fed to them by the media (which is a significant chunk of the population), that is enough to affect their voting. Same thing happened with Obama, in both elections, but from the opposite direction.
The 90's are paging Bill Clittoris. Trumpy is going to bring back just in time for the summer entertainment season a retro 90's Clinton mashup of sex, lying and thieving.
Hollywood ain't got nothing to compare this summer season.
Serious questions for those with more specifics:
1. Which allegations had more credibility and peripheral corroborating witnesses? and which were more believed by the press?
Juanita Broderick
or
Anita Hill
2. Which long ago rape allegations are we to believe and continue pursuing even if statutes of limitations have passed because "women are to be believed"?
Bill Cosby
or
Bill Clinton
With apologies to trailerpark residents everywhere, I do not remember Clinton, Inc. ever showing any evidence that Paula Jones merited that term being used about her, and even if there was, she still would have been entitled to visit the state capitol without being accosted by her raunchy state governor.
The question that remains unanswered to this day is what was Bill Clinton doing in that trailer park with all those $5.00 bills?
So those who want to bring up rape and sexual assault are to be disparaged for taking us to a low place? That can't be right as a general principle.
It works if you make one simple change:
Republicans who want to bring up rape and sexual assault accusations against Democrats are to be disparaged for taking us to a low place.
Isn't it a bit odd, to call what Hannity does with Trump, an "interview"?
Two Republicans discuss the misdeeds of a Democrat, and Chuckles attacks the Republicans.
I no longer believe you are an Establishment lackey...you are clearly a Moby.
Chuck said...
"Isn't it a bit odd, to call what Hannity does with Trump, an "interview"?"
Chuck is a paid Hillary sock puppet.
It doesn't matter what the story is or what the context is. Hillary is ok and Trump is bad. No conservative or republican would ever defend hillary or deflect like this.
eric said...
I've a feeling if Trumps polls keep climbing and Hillary's keep tanking, we won't be seeing many more hit pieces on Trump. Can't help Hillary with backfire.
If she keeps tanking, you'll see a lot more damaging leaks from the FBI and Justice while Uncle Joe warms up in the bullpen.
The way things are going, I expect the next election cycle will be limited only to debates on relative penis size and whose dad would make a better Ninja.
@Ann - Broderick is much more credible than Hill, since the former told at least five people of the rape within a couple days of the incident, including her current husband. Moreover, her roommate that night saw her with a bloodied LLP and torn pantyhose. Hill, on the other hand, had no really credible contemporaneous witnesses, and then followed Thomas to a subsequent job. This latter can be seen as evidence of innocence on the part of her alleged sexual harasser. And, yes, there is a big difference between a tasteless joke, and rape rape.
I cannot be unbiased in regards to Bill Cosby. My partner worked with him years ago, whenever he and his family were in Las Vegas (which was often then, since he had a show there). Among other things, she would help sneak the family in and out of the hotel, so they wouldn't have to deal with the paperatzi. She and her friends and sister were invited up to their rooms on multiple occasions to drink champagne. On no occasion was Cosby anything but proper and a family man with his wife and kids there at all times. He never made inappropriate advances to any of these women, even when away from his family. It was so striking for her, because so many famous men, esp in show business, over the decades have tried to get her to see them for romance or sex. Crosby and Elvis were the two big exceptions.
WisRich said...
"If she keeps tanking, you'll see a lot more damaging leaks from the FBI and Justice while Uncle Joe warms up in the bullpen."
If the Dem's nominate Joe Biden and ignore Bernie the democrat party will be no more. The Bernie followers are not backing down. The only option the dem's have if Hillary steps aside is Sanders.
Hard to argue with Trump on this one, since Hillary tweeted:
"To every survivor of sexual assault...You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We're with you." —Hillary
10:24 AM - 14 Sep 2015
Donald Trump has opened up a 42 to 37 percent lead in a new Rasmussen Reports national poll that puts the two candidates against each other. In early May, the same survey had the race virtually tied at 41 to 39 percent. The survey comes a day after a Fox News poll released Wednesday also had Trump in the lead, although by a narrower margin, 45 to 42 per cent. That poll nevertheless showed a rapid gain for Trump from April, when Clinton lead him by 48 to 41 per cent.
Get off the stage Hillary, you have a gash below the waterline! Your lapdogs in the press have made an awful din, but the shots from Trump have stove you in.
Once he is squared off with Bernie, Trump is going to have to gain some kind of persuasive command of classical liberal economics. He hasn't needed to yet, but Bernie will have to be defeated through discussion of the relative merits of his economics. He is an honest man. Sure Sanders' wife is maybe not perfectly pure, but she didn't gain economically from her fuck up. Bernie won't offer him the fat targets.
> That can't be right as a general principle.
Oh, come on, Althouse, you know the principle being served here is Democrats uber alles.
You can't use personal experience when evaluating someone like Bill Cosby. A rapist can't rape every woman, and he was trending "young" as he got older (<25). Too much there not to be looked at.
Don't forget the rape.
Dave in Tucson said: "Oh, come on, Althouse, you know the principle being served here is Democrats uber alles."
Yup. Two college students can have consensual sex, with Affirmative Consent paperwork filled out in triplicate the day before... and notarized... and blessed by a priest, a rabbi, and a shaman. But if the girl has regrets the morning after, that's absolutely rape.
Bill Clinton actually assaulting someone? Totally not rape. Or assault. Or anyone who should even be heard from again.
The principles are totally clear to everyone.
(Leftism requires a lot of cognitive dissonance.)
http://www.alamo-girl.com/0262.htm
@Bruce,
It's astounding that anybody refuses to believe Broaddrick. She has evidence, he has a denial. It's not even a "he said, she said." He could produce evidence of where he was that day. He was governor and had a security detail, which presumably kept logs. The governor does not go places without records being kept. His only defense against five witnesses was a simple denial and speculation as to why they would lie.
Tim in Vermont said... Sure Sanders' wife is maybe not perfectly pure, but she didn't gain economically from her fuck up. Bernie won't offer him the fat targets.
She didn't give her salary back, though, did she? Wasn't that what the people wanted the "banksters" to do?
[Trump, of course, is singularly ill-situated to make a big deal of that particular issue, what with Trump U. and what not...]
Involuntary exploitation. Superior exploitation. And, yes, elective abortions (i.e. reactive parenthood) and clinical cannibalism (i.e. planned parenthood) of wholly innocent human lives.
Trump is the guy to knock out Hillary, not so sure he's the best match up with Bernie.
Trump may have some video of Bill Clinton at the No. 6 Dance.
Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.
Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.
Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual. Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.
Paula Corbin Jones, an Arkansas state worker, filed a sexual harassment case against Clinton after an encounter in a Little Rock hotel room where the then-governor exposed himself and demanded oral sex. Clinton settled the case with Jones with an $850,000 payment.
Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, D.C., political fundraiser, said Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation’s capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She fled.
@Althouse: I think you need a Juanita Broaddrick tag.
What annoys me is that the MSM plays this as "Trump accuses Clinton of rape". No, Trump reminds us of the fact (given scant attention by the MSM) that many women have accused Clinton of rape or sexual assault. Perhaps Tromp's comments wouldn't be relevant to Hillary!'s campaign -- except Hillary! is highlighting the role Bill would have in her administration. Yeah, sure, Bill's a shadow of his former self, and he may no longer seem to be such a threat, but let me mention just one word: Viagra.
chuck: "Isn't it a bit odd, to call what Hannity does with Trump, an "interview"?"
In any discussion regarding billy Clintons sexual assaults and probable rape, not to mention his 26 flights on the Pedophile Express (all with Hillary's active and tacit support), good old "lifelong republican" Chuck knows precisely which issue to zero in on.
You know, like every other "lifelong republican".
I miss Christopher Hitchens. He so had pegged both of the Clintons' numbers way back when and was fiercely fearless in publicly challenging the preferred images of both sides, and the synergy, of that perennial power couple.
It's easy to find examples of his articles/essays/etc. online on various subjects relevant to the topic at hand, and I still do recommend his "No One Left to Lie To:" ... book, which is still available via Amazon.
Here is a simple slogan that Trump can use....
Dear Americans, if your son faced same accusations of rape and sexual violence as Bill Clinton, he would have been surely expelled from the university. Why is Clinton treated differently than your son?
Was that the discussion here?
Dear Americans, if your son faced same accusations of rape and sexual violence as Bill Clinton, he would have been surely expelled from the university. Why is Clinton treated differently than your son?
Oddly enough, Clinton was accused of sexual assault at Oxford and expelled, never got his degree. So before he was a powerful man, he was not treated differently.
That's a keeper Walter! Thanks.
"And rape," Trump responded.
It's remarkable his willingness to bring up rape and to allege Bill Clinton is a rapist, when his ex-wife in his divorce proceeding claimed that Donald Trump raped her and yanked out her hair.
My feeling about feminism and the left is that they are all too willing to make rape accusations or sex harassment claims against low status men (in the same way they are all too willing to kill small babies). But when we have a high status man, a Bill Clinton or a Donald Trump? Feminists say nothing about rape.
I think the rape claims against both of these men--Donald Trump and Bill Clinton--are very likely true. Both of these people have real problems with egomania and the pursuit of power, and both of them seem to think they are above the law. Much of what we consider to be "unjust" is rich and powerful people getting away with crimes, and poor and innocent people being accused of crimes.
I'm not saying Donald Trump should be prosecuted for rape. His ex-wife has, in effect, consented retroactively to what he did. But I suspect the allegations that she made in their divorce are likely true. And, unlike Camille Paglia, I do not think we should shrug our shoulders as powerful men rape women. Get thee to church, pagan lady!
Need to see some more verification about the Trump rape allegations. Some of these things have a life f their own. For example, last night, Andea Mtchell claimed that Broaddrick's rape allegations against Clnton had been debunked. Not true, of course, as noted by the other NBC reporter who actually did the nvestigation. Repeatedly denied, of course by the Clintons and all their minions, but Bill's attorneys finally seem to have admitted to consensual sex with her (which is refuted by the swollen lip and torn pantyhose, as well as 5 contemporaneous witnesses, and really the long time between the sex and his admission of it). Is the Trump allegation well sourced? Or sonethng like the Mitchell/Clinton refutation, something passed around long enough by Clintnistas in the MSM that they have started to believe their own spin? I am frankly surprised that Trump would start this one of attack if he were himself vulnerable - despite his apparent shoot from the hip appearances, he really does seem to have usually done his homework before attacking opponents with something.
when his ex-wife in his divorce proceeding claimed that Donald Trump raped her and yanked out her hair.
Because that type of allegation is really really rare in divorce proceedings......
Because that type of allegation is really really rare in divorce proceedings...
And she's recanted.
But the thing is, her story was so specific. Donald Trump was mad because she sent him to this hair stylist professional, and this person hurt Donald, and he was in pain, and he was complaining about it. And she laughed at him.
And her story is that he raped her, and ripped some of her hair out.
Now I wasn't there, and I can't tell you which of these two people had a psychotic break. It seems to me that you could prove or disprove the hair thing pretty easily.
But my impression of Donald Trump is that...
1) he hates to show weakness
2) if he shows weakness, his great fear is that he will be mocked, scorned, and laughed at
3) and that's what she did
And so he assaulted this woman who was wrecking his world. That's my take on it.
I also base this on his reaction to her claim. He shrugs his shoulders. "It was just a divorce thing. It didn't happen." Now either he is completely magnanimous and forgiving of a woman who made up a story calling him a rapist. Which does not seem like his personality at all! Or some part of his brain knows he had a psychotic break, but he can't think about it or deal with it. So he "forgives" her for that bad thing she accused him of doing. "A husband can't rape his wife!" he probably says to himself. "We have sex all the time!" Also I can hear him saying to himself, "Yeah, I yanked her hair out, but that was just payback for what she did to me!"
Anyway, my gut instinct is what she said at her divorce proceeding is the truth. And she is now recanting out of forgiveness, and a desire to forget about it and let it go, and a knowledge that she deeply hurt him by laughing at his pain and mocking him. And maybe he gave her some money, too. Or apologized. I wasn't there, so I don't know what the hell happened. I admit I'm speculating and trying to figure out his character. I'm not seeing all these good qualities that his fans insist they see.
Question for the many commenters responding to "this can't be right as a general principle": what do you think Althouse means by this? You're agreeing with her. I don't think she misses anything with that observation.
Wait a second. Saint Croix. You think rape allegations are rare in divorce proceedings? That's an insanely sheltered view.
Frivolous CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS are routine in some states (where primary custody puts millions of post-tax dollars in the victorious woman's grasp). Standard operating procedure as advised by lawyers. We can no longer have public policy that "listens to the accuser". That goodwill is burnt.
That said, you're welcome to your speculation about what really happened. It's a fine yarn.
Dumb: "psychotic break".
Also, really dumb: "he is completely magnanimous and forgiving of a woman who made up a story calling him a rapist. Which does not seem like his personality at all."
Come on. What looks best for him is that today there is no problem. You want him to start attacking what you think is a *rape victim*? How is that a good look?
He's no fool. His response is exactly the correct vibe. Continue to mull it over if you wish; I'm done. Your analysis doesn't work for me whatsoever.
Post a Comment