Jump to content

Robin Abcarian: Stop using Bill Clinton to hammer on liberals.


Recommended Posts

Here’s a snowflake who is still clearly in denial …

 

http://beta.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-harassment-20171121-story.html
 

Quote

 

Stop using Bill Clinton to hammer on liberals. Sexual harassment is a man problem, not a partisan one

 

by Robin Abcarian

 


It’s hilarious to watch the hypocrisy of leftists like Robin try to spin what’s now happened … to watch them dig the hole for their credibility even deeper than it already is ... and I’ll get to the details of that in a minute.   


First, I’d like to point out the irony in Robin publishing this piece in the Los Angeles Times.   Because the LA Times is a paper that has been in the trenches for the Clintons … with regards to scandal after scandal ... for years, and no more so than when it came to whitewashing and hiding the many sexual accusations made against Bill Clinton.     In their SCANT reporting of the Broaddrick allegation, they led off with the denial by Clinton's attorney and never mentioned even a fraction of the facts.  Their article wasn’t journalism or an “adjudication” of the allegations, it was a whitewash. They were so biased that at one point, years after Bill Clinton was out of office,  they carried an opinion piece by George Will alluding to Broaddrick's rape and they altered it to eliminate even the mention of rape.   George Wills had written "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline."  The LA Times selectively removed only the reference to the rape allegation, nothing else.   George Will called them on it and although they apologized for altering his column without even notifying him before hand, they buried that apology well back in the paper, still attempting to hide even the mention of a rape allegation from their readers.   As a result, maybe you missed that, Robin?    

 

Now, let’s see specifically what Robin had to say in her article ...

 

Quote

 

One of the great successes of the current American conservative movement has been rewriting the narrative of the past two decades, starting with the pernicious claim that liberals did not criticize Bill Clinton when he was accused of sexual misconduct.

 

Clinton came in for criticism by many of his supporters — especially feminists — despite the best efforts of his enemies to claim otherwise.

 

 

Oh sure, Robin … Clinton supporters, and especially feminists, were up in arms back then about Bill’s bad behavior.   :rolleyes:   NOT.   Truth is that the leftwing's feminist defender of women, the National Organization Of Women, NOW, was utterly dishonest about the "issue".   Gloria Steinem and most other prominent feminists (who ALL voted Democrat, I bet) bent over backwards to defend Bill.  Gloria did say at one point that "if Clinton had raped women, beaten up Hillary—real private sins would not be forgiven, no matter what the value of the public behavior."  But then she and all the others did just the opposite ... they "forgave" him even after multiple rape allegations surfaced.   They simply discounted them.    There were were even headlines in papers such as the New York Observer declaring "New York Feminists Stand By Their Bill, Not By Broaddrick" ( http://www.observer.com/1999/bill-clintons-big-spring-break ). 

 

Quote

 

In 1994, I wrote a column for this very newspaper that was critical: "I have just read the text of Paula Corbin Jones' complaint of sexual harassment against President Clinton and can honestly say that if it's true, the man is a beast. This is not the tale of a minor indiscretion. The accusations read like a recipe for the sleazy souffle of the year."

 

 

Anyone reading the rest of that column, however, will see that you haven’t really changed your tune in all these years.  You are still trying to find excuses to ignore the behavior of your own party's leadership so they can continue furthering your agenda.   You are still putting your agenda over bad ... even criminal ... behavior.    And I think it’s more significant to see what you had to say about Broaddrick, when that accusation surfaced.   I notice that you don't mention THAT.      So I looked … and found nothing.  Probably because you said nothing that condemned Clinton.

 

Quote

But let’s face it, he was impeached for political reasons.

 

 

You've lost all credibility with this claim.    Did you never hear of Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate (not the second, but the first), the Travel Office scandal, the coverup of what really happened in Vince Foster’s and Ron Brown’s deaths, and I could go on and on.    The fact that those weren’t specific counts in the impeachment is only a testament to what David Schippers told everyone long ago and Trump has now exposed about the GOPe … that it’s aligned with the Clintons and has been for a long time.   It's been part of the coverup.   Maybe what the Clintons got from the Filegate files has something to do with that?  Or it could be that a bunch of them are just Fabian socialists … which would explain their involvement in the Bilderbergers.     Just saying …

 

Quote

Our 42nd president is a philanderer who paid $850,000 in a settlement to Paula Jones. Many women on the left who once had doubts have come forward to say they believe that he raped Juanita Broaddrick in 1978. Clinton's presidency ended 16 years ago; his legacy will be forever tarnished by his mistreatment and abuse of women.

 

This is utter garbage and proves that Robin Abcarian still hasn’t gotten it … is still living in denial.  To call Clinton a “philanderer” in the same paragraph that she mentions Broaddrick is stunning denial.  She’s just a hard core leftist scrambling to deflect from her own stupidity all those years with respect to Bill Clinton and women, while trying to keep the feminist agenda that aided that coverup alive.    She, like Goldberg, who she mentions had no problem supporting Hillary, even though evidence clearly shows that Hillary was abusing these women as well.    Remember, Hillary said they must be “DESTROYED”.    But that somehow escapes the memory of these feminists who’ve suddenly discovered religion with regards to Bill's behavior so long ago.

 

Quote

 

Nor does it mean that Hillary Clinton should have to pay any sort of price for her husband's transgressions. She was a victim, too. Maybe one day she will step forward with an apology for any part she may have played in trying to cover up his misdeeds. And maybe she won't.

 


Really?  Just how naive are you, Robin?   Do you really think that Hillary might come forward after issuing marching orders that the “bimbos” (what she called them) must be discredited?  She called Gennifer Flowers a “pathological liar”.    Isn’t that ironic given all the lies Hillary has told over the years?   The fact is Hillary ran the operation to discredit and destroy women such as Flowers.   She and Bill went before the cameras to deny the affair, with Hillary professing sympathy for Flowers, saying she was caught up in rumors.  But Flowers was telling the truth and even had proofed … taped phone calls of her and Bill.   Flowers was vindicated by the facts, but did Hillary EVER offer her an apology for calling her a “pathological liar”?   No.

 

When another woman, Connie Hamzy, came forward, then, according to none other than George Stephanopoulos, Hillary said “We have to destroy her story.”  Stephanopoulos went out and collected affidavits from people in the campaign who SWORE Bill was with them at the hotel and that Ms Hamzy’s story was false.   With the media in Clinton hands, her accusation fell on deaf ears, even after she took a polygraph test to prove it.  And Hamzy has never backed down on her claim, even as Hillary announced we need to believe the accusers.

 

Quote

 

She can do whatever she wants because what happens between two married people, even when they are both public figures, is none of our business. 

 

 

And there you have it, folks, the ultimate excuse from the left.   That whatever Hillary did to protect her man is ok and none of our business.  

 

It's a corollary of Al Gores statement that we have to forgive Clinton for his "mistakes" (referring to the rape of Broaddrick) because he was such a great President.

 

Quote

There is nothing partisan about this issue.

 

If the meme falls on deaf ears the first time around, repeat the meme, right Robin?  

 

Sorry, but this issue has been partisan from the moment DemocRAT women decided to ignore the accusations against Bill Clinton SOLELY because they thought he was supportive of abortion rights.   And THAT is the cold hard truth, Robin.   It’s been partisan from the moment DemocRAT women decided to ignore all the other crimes that Bill and Hillary committed SOLELY because the Clintons *sounded* supportive of women’s rights.  The truth is that Democrat women are very much responsible for creating this situation today.  And if you don’t believe me, just read what Caitlin Flanagan noted in the Atlantic just last week

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/ 

 

Quote

The notorious 1998 New York Times op-ed by Gloria Steinem (BAC - http://www2.edc.org/WomensEquity/edequity98/0561.html ) must surely stand as one of the most regretted public actions of her life. It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused. Moreover (never write an op-ed in a hurry; you’ll accidentally say what you really believe), it characterized contemporary feminism as a weaponized auxiliary of the Democratic Party.

 

Called “Feminists and the Clinton Question,” it was written in March of 1998, when Paula Jones’s harassment claim was working its way through court. It was printed seven days after Kathleen Willey’s blockbuster 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley. If all the various allegations were true, wrote Steinem, Bill Clinton was “a candidate for sex addiction therapy.” To her mind, the most “credible” accusations were those of Willey, who she noted was “old enough to be Monica Lewinsky’s mother.” And then she wrote the fatal sentences that invalidated the new understanding of workplace sexual harassment as a moral and legal wrong: “Even if the allegations are true, the President is not guilty of sexual harassment. He is accused of having made a gross, dumb, and reckless pass at a supporter during a low point in her life. She pushed him away, she said, and it never happened again. In other words, President Clinton took ‘no’ for an answer.”

 

These were not crimes; they were “passes.” Steinem revealed herself as a combination John and Bobby Kennedy of the feminist movement: the fair-haired girl and the bare-knuckle fixer. The widespread liberal response to the sex-crime accusations against Bill Clinton found their natural consequence 20 years later in the behavior of Harvey Weinstein: Stay loudly and publicly and extravagantly on the side of signal leftist causes and you can do what you want in the privacy of your offices and hotel rooms.

 

 

"Especially feminists" ... isn't that what you said, Robin?

 

Quote

Instead of engaging in a partisan bickerfest, though, we need to talk about what the hell is going on in a country where in the last six weeks, an entitled and powerful man is accused of sexual misconduct at a rate that seems like once every 60 minutes.

 

LOL!   Sadly,  people like you won’t begin to understand the reason until you acknowledge what Bill and Hillary Clinton really did to this country.   Until you acknowledge that Bill and Hillary, and the DemocRATS that supported them regardless of what they did, created the environment for men to behave like cads or worse.  Men like Weinstein saw Bill get away with rape and said "so can I".    And politicians of both parties saw the Clintons get away with violating law after law decided to emulate them.   So here were are today.   With dozens of scandals and no accountability as the result.    The Democrats even let Bill get away with redefining “sex” in the minds of America's youth and if you don't think that has had consequences, think again.  


As Caitlin Flanagan said 

 

Quote

The Democratic Party needs to make its own reckoning of the way it protected Bill Clinton. The party needs to come to terms with the fact that it was so enraptured by their brilliant, Big Dog president and his stunning string of progressive accomplishments that it abandoned some of its central principles. The party was on the wrong side of history, and there are consequences for that.  

 

So Robin, saying sorry, now, after all that has happened is just not going to cut it.   If Bill can’t pay the price, then maybe Hillary is going to have to in order to set things right ... perhaps by finally being held accountable for crimes committed that are still within the statute of limitations.    She should count herself lucky because, frankly, if it were up to me, I’d dig up Ron Brown for forensic pathologists to examine, and take a look at the secret photos of Vince Foster’s head and neck, and just maybe Bill Clinton would even pay a price now too … even 25 years later ... because there is no statute of limitations for murder or perhaps even covering one up.   Just saying …  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BeAChooser said:

Here’s a snowflake who is still clearly in denial …

 

http://beta.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-abcarian-harassment-20171121-story.html
 


It’s hilarious to watch the hypocrisy of leftists like Robin try to spin what’s now happened … to watch them dig the hole for their credibility even deeper than it already is ... and I’ll get to the details of that in a minute.   


First, I’d like to point out the irony in Robin publishing this piece in the Los Angeles Times.   Because the LA Times is a paper that has been in the trenches for the Clintons … with regards to scandal after scandal ... for years, and no more so than when it came to whitewashing and hiding the many sexual accusations made against Bill Clinton.     In their SCANT reporting of the Broaddrick allegation, they led off with the denial by Clinton's attorney and never mentioned even a fraction of the facts.  Their article wasn’t journalism or an “adjudication” of the allegations, it was a whitewash. They were so biased that at one point, years after Bill Clinton was out of office,  they carried an opinion piece by George Will alluding to Broaddrick's rape and they altered it to eliminate even the mention of rape.   George Wills had written "It is reasonable to believe that [Clinton] was a rapist 15 years before becoming president, and that as president he launched cruise missiles against Afghanistan (a nearly empty terrorist camp), Sudan (a pharmaceutical factory) and Iraq to distract attention from problems arising from the glandular dimension of his general indiscipline."  The LA Times selectively removed only the reference to the rape allegation, nothing else.   George Will called them on it and although they apologized for altering his column without even notifying him before hand, they buried that apology well back in the paper, still attempting to hide even the mention of a rape allegation from their readers.   As a result, maybe you missed that, Robin?    

 

Now, let’s see specifically what Robin had to say in her article ...

 

 

Oh sure, Robin … Clinton supporters, and especially feminists, were up in arms back then about Bill’s bad behavior.   :rolleyes:   NOT.   Truth is that the leftwing's feminist defender of women, the National Organization Of Women, NOW, was utterly dishonest about the "issue".   Gloria Steinem and most other prominent feminists (who ALL voted Democrat, I bet) bent over backwards to defend Bill.  Gloria did say at one point that "if Clinton had raped women, beaten up Hillary—real private sins would not be forgiven, no matter what the value of the public behavior."  But then she and all the others did just the opposite ... they "forgave" him even after multiple rape allegations surfaced.   They simply discounted them.    There were were even headlines in papers such as the New York Observer declaring "New York Feminists Stand By Their Bill, Not By Broaddrick" ( http://www.observer.com/1999/bill-clintons-big-spring-break ). 

 

 

Anyone reading the rest of that column, however, will see that you haven’t really changed your tune in all these years.  You are still trying to find excuses to ignore the behavior of your own party's leadership so they can continue furthering your agenda.   You are still putting your agenda over bad ... even criminal ... behavior.    And I think it’s more significant to see what you had to say about Broaddrick, when that accusation surfaced.   I notice that you don't mention THAT.      So I looked … and found nothing.  Probably because you said nothing that condemned Clinton.

 

 

You've lost all credibility with this claim.    Did you never hear of Chinagate, Filegate, Emailgate (not the second, but the first), the Travel Office scandal, the coverup of what really happened in Vince Foster’s and Ron Brown’s deaths, and I could go on and on.    The fact that those weren’t specific counts in the impeachment is only a testament to what David Schippers told everyone long ago and Trump has now exposed about the GOPe … that it’s aligned with the Clintons and has been for a long time.   It's been part of the coverup.   Maybe what the Clintons got from the Filegate files has something to do with that?  Or it could be that a bunch of them are just Fabian socialists … which would explain their involvement in the Bilderbergers.     Just saying …

 

 

This is utter garbage and proves that Robin Abcarian still hasn’t gotten it … is still living in denial.  To call Clinton a “philanderer” in the same paragraph that she mentions Broaddrick is stunning denial.  She’s just a hard core leftist scrambling to deflect from her own stupidity all those years with respect to Bill Clinton and women, while trying to keep the feminist agenda that aided that coverup alive.    She, like Goldberg, who she mentions had no problem supporting Hillary, even though evidence clearly shows that Hillary was abusing these women as well.    Remember, Hillary said they must be “DESTROYED”.    But that somehow escapes the memory of these feminists who’ve suddenly discovered religion with regards to Bill's behavior so long ago.

 


Really?  Just how naive are you, Robin?   Do you really think that Hillary might come forward after issuing marching orders that the “bimbos” (what she called them) must be discredited?  She called Gennifer Flowers a “pathological liar”.    Isn’t that ironic given all the lies Hillary has told over the years?   The fact is Hillary ran the operation to discredit and destroy women such as Flowers.   She and Bill went before the cameras to deny the affair, with Hillary professing sympathy for Flowers, saying she was caught up in rumors.  But Flowers was telling the truth and even had proofed … taped phone calls of her and Bill.   Flowers was vindicated by the facts, but did Hillary EVER offer her an apology for calling her a “pathological liar”?   No.

 

When another woman, Connie Hamzy, came forward, then, according to none other than George Stephanopoulos, Hillary said “We have to destroy her story.”  Stephanopoulos went out and collected affidavits from people in the campaign who SWORE Bill was with them at the hotel and that Ms Hamzy’s story was false.   With the media in Clinton hands, her accusation fell on deaf ears, even after she took a polygraph test to prove it.  And Hamzy has never backed down on her claim, even as Hillary announced we need to believe the accusers.

 

 

And there you have it, folks, the ultimate excuse from the left.   That whatever Hillary did to protect her man is ok and none of our business.  

 

It's a corollary of Al Gores statement that we have to forgive Clinton for his "mistakes" (referring to the rape of Broaddrick) because he was such a great President.

 

 

If the meme falls on deaf ears the first time around, repeat the meme, right Robin?  

 

Sorry, but this issue has been partisan from the moment DemocRAT women decided to ignore the accusations against Bill Clinton SOLELY because they thought he was supportive of abortion rights.   And THAT is the cold hard truth, Robin.   It’s been partisan from the moment DemocRAT women decided to ignore all the other crimes that Bill and Hillary committed SOLELY because the Clintons *sounded* supportive of women’s rights.  The truth is that Democrat women are very much responsible for creating this situation today.  And if you don’t believe me, just read what Caitlin Flanagan noted in the Atlantic just last week

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/11/reckoning-with-bill-clintons-sex-crimes/545729/ 

 

 

"Especially feminists" ... isn't that what you said, Robin?

 

 

LOL!   Sadly,  people like you won’t begin to understand the reason until you acknowledge what Bill and Hillary Clinton really did to this country.   Until you acknowledge that Bill and Hillary, and the DemocRATS that supported them regardless of what they did, created the environment for men to behave like cads or worse.  Men like Weinstein saw Bill get away with rape and said "so can I".    And politicians of both parties saw the Clintons get away with violating law after law decided to emulate them.   So here were are today.   With dozens of scandals and no accountability as the result.    The Democrats even let Bill get away with redefining “sex” in the minds of America's youth and if you don't think that has had consequences, think again.  


As Caitlin Flanagan said 

 

 

So Robin, saying sorry, now, after all that has happened is just not going to cut it.   If Bill can’t pay the price, then maybe Hillary is going to have to in order to set things right ... perhaps by finally being held accountable for crimes committed that are still within the statute of limitations.    She should count herself lucky because, frankly, if it were up to me, I’d dig up Ron Brown for forensic pathologists to examine, and take a look at the secret photos of Vince Foster’s head and neck, and just maybe Bill Clinton would even pay a price now too … even 25 years later ... because there is no statute of limitations for murder or perhaps even covering one up.   Just saying …  :lol:

Heh, heh, heh!!!

 

The wet panties constant hard-on for bubba and hillary in full bloom

 

TOO FUNNY

 

Has posters of both bubba and hillary on his bedroom ceiling with stain marks on them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To see a most damning example of media bias, check out Don Hewitt’s account of how he edited the 60 Minutes interview with Bill and Hillary Clinton about Bill’s affair with Jennifer Flowers. The Clintons’ 60 Minutes interview took place late in the 1992 primary campaign. Bill Clinton’s poll numbers were low and sinking fast because of the first revelation about his marital infidelities. All the pundits believed he would not be nominated.

 

The Clinton campaign people asked 60 Minutes for help in the primary. From about two and one-half hours down to about thirteen minutes, the Clintons’ interview was specifically edited to save his candidacy. After the interview was aired and the rest of the liberal media picked up on its theme, his numbers turned around, and the rest is history. (The theme, in a nutshell, was that both Bill and Hillary knew that Bill had a problem, they were working on his problem together, and they were determined to make their marriage work.) The text of the revealing interview of Mr. Hewitt about the Flower's interview has always been a third-rail topic for the Fourth Estate. It can be found in The Clinton Chronicles video, or its text can be read online. (I am including its highlights here for your convenience.)

 

Hewitt's editing of the Clintons’ interview and its subsequent cover-up frame CBS’s bias and demonstrate with what little regard and to what extent the liberal media will circle its wagons around one of their own. For years, I tried to get the story covered. No one, not C-Span, FNC, not even conservative talk radio shows would broach the subject.

 

The laws, policies and treaties of a president affect the future of the world forever. Think of the abuse of power by 60 Minutes. It is no wonder this story has always been spiked. Instead of worrying about political agendas, opinion shaping, ratings, hobnobbing with government officials and Hollywood types at the annual correspondents dinner, or an invitation to the next White House press conference, maybe the Fourth Estate should resume its rightful nonpartisan watchdog role and concentrate on telling We The People all that we need to know.

 

DON HEWITT (Executive Producer, "60 Minutes"):   And they came to us 
because they were in big trouble in New Hampshire.  They were about to 
lose right there and they needed some first aid.  They needed some 
bandaging.  What they needed was a paramedic.  So they came to us and 
we did it and that's what they wanted to do.  When I told Tim Russer 
that I was persona-non-grata at the White House, he said, "Why?"  I 
said, "The Gennifer Flowers interview."  He said, "You got him the 
nomination."  I said, "I know that."  As far as I know from the 
conversations I've had, Bernie Nussbaum knew that, Gergen knows that, 
Lloyd Cutler certainly knows it 'cause Lloyd had a hand in his coming 
on that night.  
 
You know it was strong medicine the way I edited it but he was a very 
sick candidate.  He needed very strong medicine, and I'm not in the 
business of doctoring candidates but he got up out of a sick bed that 
night and walked to the nomination and as I said to Mandy, "You know 
if I'd edited it your way, you know where you'd be today?  You'd still 
be up in New Hampshire looking for the nomination."  He became the 
candidate that night. 

 

 

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...