Hillary's disservice to women

Hillary (*)(*)(*)(*)ed around just like Bill.

If you want an example, just look at pictures of Webb Hubble, Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton. Then tell me which one is obviously Chelsea's natural father.

 

THIS particular woman would NOT have succeeded in the same way without that last name and her man to back her up. Not by a long shot. But plenty of other women succeed just fine on their own.

 

Oh really? Well, I have found that a person's opinions of another's abilities is usually delimited by their own.

 

I'm quite successful thank you very much and my wife hasn't cheated on me due to my inadequacies and coldness, unlike Hillary who's husband found no warmth in such a coldhearted, selfish power hungry shrew who lies at every turn....so he goes looking elsewhere. And since he knows Hillary is nothing without him, he can do whatever he wants.

 

wow, you seem to know an awful lot about Bill and Hillary's relationship. But never mind. Like I said, "deliminated by their own".

 

Well that is what you are espousing here.

I didn't specify Clinton try again.

So it is your position that even if the male spouse is a serial rapist divorce should not be allowed and in particular the female spouse should not seek one. In fact we should get rid of divorce altogether even annulments? Other than the Catholic church which even it has liberalize such matters what religious institution holds this view?

If you can't understand the legal system versus the political system and the court of public opinions I can't help you, but then you are not a citizen here therefore you understanding of our system of goverment might be lacking.

Those whom he assaulted or harassed in various manners and the State Troopers who facilated those sexual encounters in their sworn depositions, what do you have to refute them?

And then of course his own wife says they are to be believed unless there is evidence proving otherwise. So what you got?

No I mean in what we were discussing, dodge noted.

No I like bread and butter.

Again, So you think it's OK for men to violate the marriage and that women think that but it's not OK for women and women thing that. How sexist, misogynist and bigoted of you.

I have sworn statements and corroborative evidence and a settlement by someone who didn't have a leg to stand on in trial. What you got to refute it?

Because he settled in a heartbeat after the Burlington decission, go look it up. And I still have the sworn statements with no evidence to refute them.

And BTW I do have convictions, on contempt of court for perjury and obstruction of justice, not something in which innocent people engage.

No plea bargained the criminal charge giving up his license to practice law for 5 years.

What difference does that make?

So what?

There was $850,000 worth and the sworn statements which remain unrefuted.

Why are you so desperate to defend this sleazebag?

Lack of rebuttal noted.

Of you agree with me it was the height of hypocracy after her and her husbands abuse of women over whom he had power? Well glad you do.

 

And you don't seem to know anything about them.

 

WOW, and you seem completely oblivious and ignorant to their past, which makes me wonder if I'm being trolled. My opinion comes from their actions and all their lies. What does it say about a woman who stays with a man who's cheated on her countless times? Lies about those who protect her! LIES when people she is responsible for DIE! STRONG? More like pathetic.

 

What does it say about a person who judges other people's relationships so harshly when they have no clue what goes on behind closed doors? Imagination or experience?

Its true Bill had a big dick and liked to use it. How unmanly of him.

Its also true that Hillary has lied, repeatedly, although not to the extent the right wing of America would have us all believe.

If you think Hillary isn't presidential material because she stayed with a philanderer and has lied to the American people, then maybe you and yours should be applying the same criteria to current crop of republican candidates for the job.

 

Which is why I'm not judging them. Merely pointing out that making accusations fueled by assumptions and lacking actual knowledge is STUPID.

Which in turn makes such salacious suppositions cheap and ready ammo for the requisite partisan ad homs of the political campaign process.

 

Nope, but believe your own strawman as you usually do.

Oh so within context of a discussion you generalize without distinction? try again.

No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the religious right. You know those marriage vows "under god... till death do you part..." Seems religiosity is great when conveniently aligned with ones desired, and irrelevant when its not.

Of course a woman has the right to divorce a man for any damn reason she chooses, and vice versa.

No its obvious you can't help me with responses like this.

So he's guilty even tho there was no judgment by a jury of his peers? I don't need to refute anything. I am aware of his salacious behavior, but your implication that he is a serial rapist is overboard.

And we both agree that it was a truly stupid statement.

yes of course, I mean why not apply one set of values to one situation and a different set to another?

Which certainly explains your penchant for strawmen.

Huh? yet another strawman. I said nothing even remotely resembling that.

don't need anything to refute it. There was a civil trial, it was settled out of court, no apology nor admission of guilt was rendered. END OF STORY.

.

No, you do not have convictions on contempt of court for perjury and obstruction of justice, go look it up.

You forgot the $90k fine.

?

Standard of evidence?

Not to put too fine a point to it, but when settling a case, is the defendant still required to refute any evidence presented against him?

I am not desperate. In fact, what Bill did or did not do 20 years ago has NOTHING to do with Hillary in 2016. But now the right wants to re-prosecute events concerning her husband - guilty by salacious association it seems. What she did, how she handled what was obviously a pretty hellishly difficult time for her and her family, but it seems they got over it, much to the chagrin and frustration of some partisans.

Her abuse of women? See what I mean? Was it a stupid statement to make - absolutely, was it the height of hypocrisy only to those prone to hyperbole and/or a belief that people's political and personal perspectives do not mature along with themselves.

 

The Cos is paving the way for that.

 

You make a convincing argument.

 

Well I do, perhaps you should pay attention. And lots of that is based on sworn unrefuted testimony in a court.

 

Yep as you try to run away from it

"So all that "under god" nonsense and holy matrimony are qualified vows? who'd a thunk, especially since marriage is such a sacred institution, until its not."
"Oh? so no obligation to fight to preserve her family?"
"Seems to me a rather brave position for her to take. Imagine her wanting to uphold her marriage vows and preserve her family. The nerve of such a woman. "

I asked you about this general principle you are stating try again.

So it is your position that even if the male spouse is a serial rapist divorce should not be allowed and in particular the female spouse should not seek one.

Why what do they have to do with the serial sexual abuse of women and sexual harassment of subordinate employees in which Clinton engaged?

That is your best defense of him to try and create some kind of a hypocracy allegation against some religious people......geeez how pitiful.

I'm not your American Civics class instructor, if you are going to engage on such matters you should come prepared.

He settle the civil lawsuit, which may not have been a jury trial anyway, to avoid going to trial paying a $850,000 settlement plus legal fees.
He declined going to trial pleading guilty to the contempt of court charge paying a $90,000 fine.
He plea bargained the criminal charge losing his license to practice law for 5 years and before the SCOUTS forever.

And Hillary herself

""Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported""

So what do you have to refute Paul Jones claims, we are not the court we get to make up our own minds you know, so what evidence convinces you it did not happen?

The fact is you can't

Well obviously she doesn't it is the second time she has stated it and she will be running on it.

No I mean your attempt to divert to same sex marriage.

No it goes right to your statements and defense of Clinton.

Remember

"And here I thought that there is a material difference in male and female attitudes and their respective roles in any relationship."

You can't, and you can't refute the testimony in that civil trail nor defend his actions and neither could he so he settled and as Hillary said bankrupted them.

Ahhh he submitted a false affidavit, that is prima facie evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice, go look it up. Judge Wright convicted him of contempt of court for it, going the unusual step of offering him a trial but he pled guilty and accepted the fine. But do tell me why you think it was not perjury and obstruction of justice. It cost him $90,000 and his law license for 5 years, how did that happened if he did not commit perjury and obstruction of justice?

That was in the civil court. Ray allowed him to plea bargain the criminal charge if he admitted his guilty and submitted to the Arkansas Bar revoking his law license for five years on the basis that with the $90,000 civil fine the $850,000 settlement was punishment enough.

But you claim he is not guilty of ANYTHING.

What about it I have sworn depositions from victim and witnesses, what do you have to refute it, what did Clinton have to refute it?

ROFL they settle when they know they can't, he had every opportunity to go to court and do so, but you tell me what did he have to refute it? Nothing. Jones had a solid case.

Sure it does as one the leading liberal editorial writers and the Washington Post wrote in her editorial yesterday. It's not just what HE did it is what SHE did too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...a26bdc-ad92-11e5-b711-1998289ffcea_story.html

You're the one trying to re-prosecute them, I don't need to I know what happened in the whole sordid history of the Clintons.

By sworn testimony.

ROFL the only thing hellish was if it was going to ruin her own political career, she didn't care about the women or his philandering, she was part of the Bimbo Eruption squad that use nefarious means to intimidate and scare the women into keeping quiet. She was part and parcel to it and now proclaims that women who suffer such abuse should look to her for protection.

And you seem to swallow it.


Her abuse of women? See what I mean? Was it a stupid statement to make - absolutely, was it the height of hypocrisy only to those prone to hyperbole and/or a belief that people's political and personal perspectives do not mature along with themselves.[/QUOTE]

 

Yes her abuse of women, you should educate yourself on the matter instead of vain attempts at invective when you can't refute the facts. Not only is it the utter height of hypocracy that it is and shows a certain GAUL on her part but then neither has ever had any respect for the American citizens.

 

They threw it in our faces I could care less what went on behind closed doors not that I think they spent much time together behind any.

And you think that was it, JUST that he liked to use it?

Oh I think the right wing has pretty much nailed it, it's you who are in denial by which all appearances derives from a lack on knowledge about the Clinton's and their history.

Why do you keep insisting it is just about philandering? Why do you leave out the sexual harassment and sexual abuse of subordinate employees and other women over whom he had power?

 

Oh really? Of course everyone could care less and in your case, its ALL about what you care about, which is total and complete opposition to your partisan opponents, regardless of any facts, like the one where you have no clue what transpired or transpires in their relationship.

I try not to make assumptions about other people's sexual turn ons might be. OTOH, its a safe assumption that he liked getting BJs from young girls. Its not as if there are hundreds of millions of other men would or do too.

No, the right wing has not "nailed it" unless you are talking about their repeated attempts to nail crap to the wall. Sure some of the accusations are true and others have a kernel of truth to them but are exaggerated to fit the partisan narrative. If you believe "nailing it" is when the talking heads and partisan hacks who start attributing motivations that they can't possibly actually be aware of and/or when they make definitive statements of guilt when the public evidence is somewhat less than complete or accurate and no adjudication has taken place, then its little wonder you believe what you do.

It is about philandering in the truest meaning of the word. I grant you that some of the methods he used were deplorable, but despite the multitude of enemies out for his head there never was a criminal case. Even his impeachment was unsuccessful.

 

I care about high government officials sexually harassing and sexually assaulting government workers or other women he had power over and his enabling wife who along with other campaign officials tried to the threaten the women to cover it up. I care about not wanting them back in my White House as my President and since you are not a citizen here you ain't got no dog in that hunt.

Sworn depositions are not assumptions why do you continue to act as if there is no evidence of the sleazy behaviors and with subordinate women?

There is no evidence to refute them but do tell me how many sexual assaults and how much sexual harassment is OK.

Again you have been told over and over this is sworn testimony why do you continue to pretend otherwise and that in fact Hillary herself said we are to believe them.

And LOTS more why do you pretend otherwise?

 

Yes unrefuted because it was never litigated. There may or may not have been evidence to contradict the deposed testimonies. You have no clue if there was or not and neither does anyone else not directly involved in the case.

Describing the deposed testimony as "unrefuted" is a tad disingenuous. Its not a lie, but it implies that the testimony itself couldn't be refuted, which ONLY would occur in the course of a trial.

 

I certainly can understand your concern. OTOH, you wouldn't want them in the white house regardless of Bill's behavior.

I didn't say there was no evidence of his bad behavior. I claimed that a) the only criminal trial failed (impeachment), b) that the rest was under civil jurisdiction and c) that there was no refutation of the sworn depositions since that would only have come out had there not been a settlement.
Without cross examination and calling other witnesses to refute claims, only having the depositions doesn't is half the story.

None. Are you agreeing with Hillary's stupid statement?

Sworn testimony that has not been subject to cross examination nor refuting witnesses. apparently you have no trouble making a cake with only half the recipe.

I don't.

 

Yes IT WAS LITIGATED. Both sides were free to take their depostitions and those remain in the evidence of that litigation and the ones from the women he assaulted remain unrefuted be had no defense.

Please cite the evidence that refuted them. What evidence refitted the sworn testimony as to what happened that day to Paula Jones? And so you even have a clue as to what the Genifer Flowers scandal as all about. And are you deny those and the Lewinsky tapes?

And this beyond the fact you so of understand our system here and where innocent until proven guilty applies.

 

Yet a primary reason, they are both bald face liars, her husband a convicted one.

Sighhh, an impeachment is not a criminal trial, it is a political act and Clinton remains impeached.

Well no but so what? He committed perjury before a federal grand jury investigating his perjury surfing the civil trial. He plea bargained that admitting his quilt and lost his license to practice law, a VERY serious occurance for a lawyer.

Because there was none, Clinton had no defense.

His lawyers were free to do so at any time.

My agreement with it or not has nothing to do with the fact she made it with regards to her campaign so we shall view them as such vis-a-vis her campaign and her wishes.

You do realize Clntons attorney questioned and crossed the women during the depositions?
Want an example?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/jonestext022198.htm

Sworn testimony is taken as fact unless refuted or the person is proven to have lied. His attorney had every opportunity to do so before submitting their respective depositions to the judge. Those stand as truthful statements of the facts. What do you have to refuted them?

Its called a lie of omission. Had he just had an affair with another woman, a peer, maybe flying down to Greg Norman's place and had fallen in love and divorced Hillary, it might have been a minor scandal but there would have been impeachment or criminal plea bargains or sexual assaults would there?

 

Pretty easy using your own words.

You were the one quoting the bible and praising women who "stand by their man" no matter what.

Why? Unless you agree with them even as you so misrepresent their view.

Here's a tip for you, stick with and argue YOUR view instead of creating one for someone else in order not to have to do so.

No I didn't say anything about courage...............again try defending your own positions instead of trying to create them for me.

He plea bargained it and lost his license to practice law for 5 years and before the SCOTUS forever. What's your point.

Sure so what? Are you familiar with why Clinton settled in a heartbeat when he did?

The sworn testimonies of the various witnesses, you don't seem to understand how the process worked.

From Hillary telling women who suffered from sexual abuse that they should look to her for support and understanding and that she will stand with them, yes quite stupid don't you think? It is HER statement now she LIVES by it and that means when it comes to regard her husband and her actions they are to be believed, we use HER standard.

The attempt was not subtle at all.

You know first you say women should stick with serial abusers of other women even quoting Bible verse, then you say you didn't, then you say they have some role in the marriage to do so and hold the marriage together no matter what. You really need to consolidate you varying positions here.

Yes you can, his attorney's could have brought in whatever witnesses and evidence they wanted and they crossed the other sides witnesses in the depositions. When all that is done it is given to the judge who renders her decision.

[MENTION]It wasn't a criminal conviction. The judge dismissed the case even tho he was cited for contempt. [/MENTION]

It was a conviction, he was found guilty of lying under oath for the purpose of obstructing justice both in his testimony and his submitting a false affidavit the former being PRIMA FACIE evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice. Do you know what that means? Do you even know why Judge Wright went the civil means instead of the criminal means?


And then he admitted to it in his plea bargain with Robert Ray of the OIC losing his law license.

Generally it can, perjury in a civil trial is a criminal offense.

Yes he did, it had nothing to do with Judge Wright's court the OIC was prosecuting the criminal perjury. The limit to the constitutional power was the double jeopardy because the OIC was prosecuting the criminal charge.

You have certainly be claiming that sense there was no jury trial and conviction he wasn't.

I asked you if you applied this same principle to a husband who was a serial rapist, did not say Clinton specifically, now care to answer this time?

Any "expeditions" were already over, and CLEARLY it had already been on the front page, and we're talking $900,000 at a time when Hillary claimed they were dead broke.

So you don't know why he settled the case after she refiled it or why she even refiled it.

More to the point a case where the defendant is guilty is not necessarily a winning one.

Again he had none to present else he would have.

Oh she will be contending with and I can visualize the ads now that he will run, if she is going to accuse him then she can well expect her husbands serial abuse of the women over whom he had power to come to the forefront along with he willing participation in trying to intimidate them into silence.

Yes, we know she was part of the Bimbo Eruption Squad during the campaign. We know how she viewed the women and the denigrating statements she made about them.