Jump to content

What if Ken Starr Was Right?


Golfboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

Wow. In the NY Times no less.   I guess the left really has decided it's time to clear the decks, and get rid of the Clinton's once and for good. 

 

Quote

 

In the longstanding liberal narrative about Bill Clinton and his scandals, the one pushed by Clinton courtiers and ratified in media coverage of his post-presidency, our 42nd president was only guilty of being a horndog, his affairs were nobody’s business but his family’s, and oral sex with Monica Lewinsky was a small thing that should never have put his presidency in peril.

 

That narrative could not survive the current wave of outrage over male sexual misconduct.

 

So now a new one may be forming for the age of Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump. In this story, Kenneth Starr and the Republicans are still dismissed as partisan witch hunters. But liberals might be willing to concede that the Lewinsky affair was a pretty big deal morally, a clear abuse of sexual power, for which Clinton probably should have been pressured to resign.

 

But a moment of reassessment is a good time to reassess things for yourself, so I spent this week reading about the lost world of the 1990s. I skimmed the Starr Report. I leafed through books by George Stephanopoulos and Joe Klein and Michael Isikoff. I dug into Troopergate and Whitewater and other first-term scandals. I reacquainted myself with Gennifer Flowers and Webb Hubbell, James Riady and Marc Rich.

 

After doing all this reading, I’m not sure my reasonable middle ground is actually reasonable. It may be that the conservatives of the 1990s were simply right about Clinton, that once he failed to resign he really deserved to be impeached.

 

The sexual misconduct was the heart of things, but everything connected to Clinton’s priapism was bad: the use of the perks of office to procure women, willing and unwilling; the frequent use of that same power to buy silence and bully victims; and yes, the brazen public lies and perjury.

 

Something like Troopergate, for instance, in which Arkansas state troopers claimed to have served as Clinton’s panderers and been offered jobs to buy their silence, is often recalled as just a right-wing hit job. But if you read The Los Angeles Times’s reporting on the allegations (which included phone records confirming the troopers’ account of a mistress Clinton was seeing during his presidential transition) and Stephanopoulos’s portrayal of Clinton’s behavior in the White House when the story broke, the story seems like it was probably mostly true.

 

I have less confidence about what was real in the miasma of Whitewater. But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.

 

The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

douthat-circular-thumbLarge-v4.jpg

Ross Douthat

Politics, religion, moral values and higher education.

11 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

Wow. In the NY Times no less.   I guess the left really has decided it's time to clear the decks, and get rid of the Clinton's once and for good.

 

"What if...."

forehead-slap-smiley-emoticon.gif

That typical hypothetical-opener.....most-often used by "conservatives"/Teabaggers/Neo-Nazis/Trumpoids.....when they've found themselves painted-into-a-corner.....ONE MORE TIME!!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beat you to it, Golfboy ...

 

And like I said ...

 

Well sorry, but it’s not going to be that easy … Mr Douthat.

 

It’s a little too late to offer a mea culpa and just “move on”.

 

Any honest media outlet knew 20 years ago that the Clintons were corrupt to the core.   

 

You folks at the NY Times and elsewhere made your bed.

 

Now you get to sleep in it.

 

And by the way, the sexual misconduct was NOT at the heart of it.

 

You continue to just lie to yourself in order to make yourself (and the media) feel better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DemoMan said:

Roy Moore is a lifelong predatory pedophile.

 

Suck his dick all you like. You probably LOVE the idea of terrified, crying children being molested and raped.

 

Poor Isabel ... doesn't like having her idol, Bill Clinton, impugned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Scout said:

I can't stand Clinton because I KNOW he is a serial philanderer, NOT because he is accused without evidence of other crimes. 

 

There was plenty of evidence of other crimes, snowflake.   You've just chosen not to read about them.   "TLDR."   Remember?


And by the way, "serial philanderer" is sure a mild way to describe a serial RAPIST.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:

 

There was plenty of evidence of other crimes, snowflake.   You've just chosen not to read about them.   "TLDR."   Remember?


And by the way, "serial philanderer" is sure a mild way to describe a serial RAPIST.

 

The real world knows that if an investigation that consumed TENS OF MILLIONS of DOLLARS can't uncover any of this evidence, that it means you are lying. 

 

Actually, if you start typing, it pretty much means you are lying.  :lol: :lol: 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

The real world knows that if an investigation that consumed TENS OF MILLIONS of DOLLARS can't uncover any of this evidence, that it means you are lying. 

 

Actually, if you start typing, it pretty much means you are lying.  :lol: :lol: 

 

Right.  Because politicians NEVER cover up each other crimes. 

You're really not too bright, are you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BeAChooser said:

Poor Isabel ... doesn't like having her idol, Bill Clinton, impugned.

 

Roy Moore is a lifelong predatory pedophile.

 

It's no surprise you want to protect and shield a child molester.  . Have you stopped stalking Zaro yet, obsessing and demanding she confirm your fantasy that she is "underage" and "sixteen"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DemoMan said:

Roy Moore is a lifelong predatory pedophile.

Really?   There are no reports of anything happening after what, 1977?   

Have you ever heard of a pedophile stopping their behavior on their own?   I've not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monica was stopped at the WH gate. She through a hissy fit. The SS guard told her that Clinton was busy with Eleanor Mondale. The guard was fired. The press "NYT" tried to make Starr into a sex pervert and pretty much succeeded. Starr was right. The troopers in Ark. said hilarity was being dicked by Foster. He was assassinated. More of the swamp needs to be drained. Trump 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how only thing they could prove was that Bill Clinton got a BJ.  

 

And even funnier how there are "boxes and boxes of evidence that would convict Bill Clinton but they're locked away never to be seen."  

 

Yet even funnier is the fact that Trump could easily order those boxes to be released if they existed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ScottMon said:

Funny how only thing they could prove was that Bill Clinton got a BJ.  

 

And even funnier how there are "boxes and boxes of evidence that would convict Bill Clinton but they're locked away never to be seen."  

 

Yet even funnier is the fact that Trump could easily order those boxes to be released if they existed.  

No, actually they proved perjury and obstruction of justice. 

But "it was just sex" is the only response the left has, and now they've even given up that defense, and they are getting rid of Bill and Hillary.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Golfboy said:

No, actually they proved perjury and obstruction of justice. 

But "it was just sex" is the only response the left has, and now they've even given up that defense, and they are getting rid of Bill and Hillary.

 

 

Bill Clinton never technicially lied about getting a BJ.  He Obfuscated for 4 hours.  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...