LOL, one senses that some want to selectively ignore the new standard set for sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton, both before he was a presidential candidate and while he was in office ... a standard which deserves to be mentioned every time the subject comes up in regard to other presidential candidates.Fair enough.
The OP took it off topic .
Since Clinton was President and he set a standard for sexual misconduct, then you believe that any sexual misconduct by any other politician is OK because of Clinton. Is that what you are saying?LOL, one senses that some want to selectively ignore the new standard set for sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton, both before he was a presidential candidate and while he was in office ... a standard which deserves to be mentioned every time the subject comes up in regard to other presidential candidates.
The surprise came when we were told that bringing up something from 20 years ago was not relevant, though that is what The Daily Beast did to try to implicate Trump as some hypocrite.LOL, one senses that some want to selectively ignore the new standard set for sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton, both before he was a presidential candidate and while he was in office ... a standard which deserves to be mentioned every time the subject comes up in regard to other presidential candidates.
That is absolutely wrong. Had the people known or had proof of Clinton's misconduct before his election, there is a good chance he never even gets a nomination to run, or even win the Presidency. We have a right to know a candidates past....This is why the Trump issue is relevant.The surprise came when we were told that bringing up something from 20 years ago was not relevant, though that is what The Daily Beast did to try to implicate Trump as some hypocrite.
Of course. That is why Hillary can't seem to satisfy her man....A Trump maybe rape story turns into a Clinton bashing session? By the OP? I guess it makes sense.
I would suggest that anyone who wants to sincerely know ought to consider news sources beyond the mainstream press. The evidence about Clinton's misconduct was available in abundance. The mainstream press chose to suppress it.That is absolutely wrong. Had the people known or had proof of Clinton's misconduct before his election, there is a good chance he never even gets a nomination to run, or even win the Presidency. We have a right to know a candidates past....This is why the Trump issue is relevant.
That's right. Hillary was in charge of "Bimbo Eruptions," as they called it in their circle. She would be the ex-wife of a rapist otherwise, not the First Lady of the US... Now she is up for consideration as our next pres?!?!?!?I would suggest that anyone who wants to sincerely know ought to consider news sources beyond the mainstream press. The evidence about Clinton's misconduct was available in abundance. The mainstream press chose to suppress it.
You may suggest, but unless you can prove then you have a suggestion....I would suggest that anyone who wants to sincerely know ought to consider news sources beyond the mainstream press. The evidence about Clinton's misconduct was available in abundance. The mainstream press chose to suppress it.
LOL, they didn't cover it did they.You may suggest, but unless you can prove then you have a suggestion....
It looks like you need to prove media suppression. I will be waiting for your proof.
Go ahead and lets see that bountiful evidence.
That answer was expected.LOL, they didn't cover it did they.
QED.
DRUDGE uncovered reports of Monica Lewinsky, and that opened the can of worms, as in, there were things the Lamestream Media had to cover from that. Clinton was impeached, but that seems unreal to some people. They think that if the machine is still working, then accusations against their guy are fabricated. DNA evidence it this case showed otherwise.... they didn't cover it did they...
Drudge releases story 01/17/98DRUDGE uncovered reports of Monica Lewinsky, and that opened the can of worms, as in, there were things the Lamestream Media had to cover from that. Clinton was impeached, but that seems unreal to some people. They think that if the machine is still working, then accusations against their guy are fabricated. DNA evidence it this case showed otherwise.
Everyone knew.Like I said, had the people known or had proof of Clinton's misconduct before his election, there is a good chance he never even gets a nomination to run, or even win the Presidency. We have a right to know a candidates past....This is why the Trump issue is relevant.
LOL, one sense that some want to selectively ignore that the derail is not working.LOL, one senses that some want to selectively ignore the new standard set for sexual misconduct by Bill Clinton, both before he was a presidential candidate and while he was in office ... a standard which deserves to be mentioned every time the subject comes up in regard to other presidential candidates.
Really? Name one person that Clinton's impeachmentDRUDGE uncovered reports of Monica Lewinsky, and that opened the can of worms, as in, there were things the Lamestream Media had to cover from that. Clinton was impeached, but that seems unreal to some people. They think that if the machine is still working, then accusations against their guy are fabricated. DNA evidence it this case showed otherwise.
seems unreal.
Everybody did not know, and tabloids are gossip. There is a reason most people ignore gossip. You have not made any case that everybody knew....because they did not.Everyone knew.
As for proof? The allegations came out at the beginning of the campaign ... and BOTH Hillary and Bill lied about it then on 60 Minutes, which was perceived to be the premier investigative news program of the day. The press never investigated because the press had the much more important job of scuttling the Perot campaign which looked to all the world like it would be victorious at that time.
EXCLUSIVE: Two decades after her affair with Bill Clinton, Gennifer Flowers reveals they'd be together now if it wasn't for Chelsea | Daily Mail
On 23 January 1992 tabloid, The Star named Gennifer as Clinton’s mistress. Three days later he and wife Hillary appeared on 60 minutes, side by side, flat denying the claim.
Six years later Clinton admitted to having sexual relations with Gennifer ‘one time’ in 1977 in his deposition to lawyers representing former Arkansas State employee Paula Jones in her sexual harassment lawsuit against him.
By then Flowers was already well and truly defined by the scandal which had made both her, and Clinton, household names.
Apparently driven on by the belief that the ‘truth will set you free,’ she proceeded to tell her story in a best-sellling book and pose for Penthouse magazine.
Penthouse alone reportedly earned her close to $1million in the aftermath of the scandal.
Anyone that cared knew about the Gennifer Flowers affair. It was chic and sexy, so much so that Penthouse magazine was willing to pay her big bucks for a photo shoot.
He keeps trying. At the end of the day, here we have those tabloid stories of Trump....LOL, one sense that some want to selectively ignore that the derail is not working.
As you stated, the people who cared enough, looked at the evidence then. I remember the word that was warned by the lawyer (referenced in the OP) being thrown around then. The media chooses who they like and don't like, and that is how it relates to what the Clintons did. 20 some years ago, a famous figure in business has an accusation made and retracted in divorce proceedings, while Hillary is busy trying to destroy Gennifer Flowers. The Media tries to ignore that, and those who depend on them for what they know, also, skip along with their opinion of the Clintons intact.Everyone knew.
As for proof? The allegations came out at the beginning of the campaign ...