Did Bill Clinton ever apologize?
- Thread starter hislegacy
- Start date
- May 28, 2015
- 14,595
- 7,106
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Constitution
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/accidental-rapist-found-not-guilty
I'm saying you can't call someone a rapist if he's never been convicted of rape.
tulc(believes that's true no matter what their politics are)
Upvote
0
Uncle Siggy
Promulgator of Annoying Tidbits of Information
I don't know, is it unethical to blame someone for something they haven't been tried and convicted for?
tulc(is just curious)
Let me guess you think every last single person that has done something like rape/murder/genocide that has never been caught/convicted should still be considered a fine upstanding member of society??? Even though someone may have witnessed the incident and reported it???
Upvote
0
People have 'witnessed and reported' Bigfoot and the Jersey Devil. Doesn't mean they exist.
Upvote
0
KWCrazy
Newbie
- Apr 13, 2009
- 7,229
- 1,993
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
He avoided going to jail by a plea bargain that admitted he committed the crimes for which he was impeached. That means that seven Republicans and EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT were guilty of dereliction of duty for refusing to uphold the Constitution and removing a man they knew was guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. Coincidentally, Democrats are on the verge of electing ANOTHER Clinton who just recently committed the same felonies.
Which begs the question... do ANY Democrats care about the rule of law??
Upvote
0
Uncle Siggy
Promulgator of Annoying Tidbits of Information
So what you're saying is if it goes against your personal beliefs or people you admire you just blow it off as a lie, even though it may very well be true???
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
He is running for the white house along with Hillary. There are reports of Bill's girlfriends and drug use the last time he was in the White House. Is that what people want for America to turn the White House into a den of iniquity? Not to mention the terrorism and all the money that Hillary has given the terrorists. If you want Sharia law then vote for Hillary.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I didn't say that at all. Try going by what I actually put in my posts, as opposed to what you want to read.
I'm saying that being mad at a person for not apologizing for something they haven't been even been proven of doing is a bit silly.
Upvote
0
- May 11, 2015
- 17,420
- 3,592
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
That is true, the only evidence is when the victim withdraws their testimony and drops the charges. Does Paula Jones have a receipt for the $850,000 that Bill was suppose to have paid her? No one can get into the mud and wrestle like the Clintons. They have been in the mucky mure for a long time now.
Upvote
0
- Sep 23, 2005
- 31,991
- 5,854
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
You indicated the rape allegation was recent. I was noting it was not. And no, I am not saying he is guilty. But I am saying that folks wanting a conviction need to realize that if the statute of limitations is past then they couldn't get a conviction in any case. Similar to the Cosby situation.
The case alleged that Clinton sexually propositioned her, and then exposed himself and requested a sexual act.
Understand it was not dismissed based on any conclusion as to whether the actions happened, but was dismissed on technicalities in Arkansas law at the time. The law didn't include exposing oneself as sexual assault. And to prove sexual harassment you had to show that it negatively impacted your job or you were discriminated against simply as a female, without regard to your particular traits.
So the court ruled that even if he did expose himself, it wouldn't be actionable.
Some quotes from the ruling:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/order040198.htm
Although the Governor's alleged conduct, if true, may certainly be characterized as boorish and offensive, even a most charitable reading of the record in this case fails to reveal a basis for a claim of criminal sexual assault as there is no alleged conduct that could be characterized as "forcible compulsion" or "sexual contact' for purposes of establishing a claim under the provision cited by plaintiff. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101 (2), (8) (defining "forcible compulsion" as "physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical injury to or kidnapping of any person," and defining "sexual contact" as "any act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, or buttocks, or anus of a person or the breast of a female"). There being no actionable claim of criminal sexual assault under the facts of this case, the Court will proceed to a determination of the issues relevant to plaintiff's claim of sexual harassment.
A plaintiff wishing to sustain an equal protection claim of sexual harassment under the Fourteenth Amendment must show both "sexual harassment" and an "intent" to harass based upon that plaintiff's membership in a particular class of citizens – i.e., male or female. Trautvetter v. Quick, 916 F.2d 1140, 1149-50 (7th Cir. 1990). An individual plaintiff may pursue a sexual harassment claim under the Fourteenth Amendment based solely upon acts of harassment directed towards her, but such a claim must show an intent to harass because of her status as a female and not because of characteristics of her gender which are personal to her. Id. at 1151. See also Bohen, 799 F. 2d at 1187; Stafford v. State of Missouri, 835 F. Supp. 1136, 1141 (W.D.Mo. 1993).
To make a prima facie case of quid pro quo sexual harassment, this plaintiff must show, among other things, that her refusal to submit to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors resulted in a tangible job detriment.
While it is true that the Seventh Circuit in Jansen concluded that a "clear and unambiguous" quid pro quo threat that "clearly conditions concrete job benefits or detriments on compliance with sexual demands" can constitute an actionable claim "even if the threat remains unfulfilled," 123 F.3d at 499, plaintiff acknowledges that no one, including Governor Clinton, ever told her that if she refused to submit to his alleged advances it would have a negative effect on her job, that she had to submit to his alleged advances in order to receive job benefits, or that the Governor would use his relationship with AIDC Director Dave Harrington to penalize her in her job. Pl.'s Depo. at 74-75. She merely states that "read[ing] between the lines," she "knew what [the Governor] meant" when he allegedly indicated in the hotel suite that Harrington was his good friend. Id. at 75-76. Be that as it may, the Governor's alleged statements do not in any way constitute a clear threat that clearly conditions concrete job benefits or detriments on compliance with sexual demands. Plaintiff's claim therefore would not survive a Jansen analysis, her "read[ing] between the lines" notwithstanding. 123 F.3d at 499.
In sum, the Court finds that a showing of a tangible job detriment or adverse employment action is an essential element of plaintiff's § 1983 quid pro quo sexual harassment claim and that plaintiff has not demonstrated any tangible job detriment or adverse employment action for her refusal to submit to the Governor's alleged advances. The President is therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, it simply cannot be said that the conduct to which plaintiff was allegedly subjected was frequent, severe, or physically threatening, and the Court finds that defendants' actions as shown by the record do not constitute the kind of sustained and nontrivial conduct necessary for a claim of hostile work environment.
The President argues that the alleged conduct of which plaintiff complains was brief and isolated; did not result in any physical harm or objective symptoms of the requisite severe distress; did not result in distress so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it; and he had no knowledge of any special condition of plaintiff that would render her particularly susceptible to distress. He argues that plaintiff has failed to identify the kind of clear cut proof that Arkansas courts require for a claim of outrage and that he is therefore entitled to summary judgment. The Court agrees.
While the Court will certainly agree that plaintiffs allegations describe offensive conduct, the Court, as previously noted, has found that the Governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault. Rather, the conduct as alleged by plaintiff describes a mere sexual proposition or encounter, albeit an odious one, that was relatively brief in duration, did not involve any coercion or threats of reprisal, and was abandoned as soon as plaintiff made clear that the advance was not welcome. The Court is not aware of any authority holding that such a sexual encounter or proposition of the type alleged in this case, without more, gives rise to a claim of outrage.
In sum, plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law and the Court therefore grants the President's motion for summary judgment on this claim.
Now Jones' attorneys had made a claim that she was discouraged from seeking better positions at work, and that when she returned from maternity leave she was giving a position with less responsibility (but still the same pay), so that limited her advancement.
The appeals court, after realizing that the president committed perjury showed signs of being more sympathetic to her case. Then he settled.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Sep 23, 2005
- 31,991
- 5,854
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Paula Jones? He solicited her and exposed himself, allegedly. She indicated she resisted his advances and left the room. Why would she apologize for anything? Clinton did not allege an affair with her that I am aware of, and neither did she.
The aim at Hillary is her standard:
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-right-to-be-believed/
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
But Bill's alleged victims said she intimidated them, instead of believing them.
Upvote
0
- Jul 2, 2003
- 144,979
- 17,393
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Perhaps he apologized to her. We really don't know the circumstances and she did not prove her case and it was dismissed by a judge. He settled. I usually avoid victim blaming but there are questions there.
I am related to someone tied to Bill Clinton who was targeted by an 'escort' who harassed him around then. There was some .....targeting going on. They (the Republicans support behind it) did not succeed with my relative.
(edit to add he was not with the escort, she was simply at the same event)
As to Hillary, this was all very personal. "She intimated me." how?
I am sorry - but this is not a reason to not vote for her
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Sep 23, 2005
- 31,991
- 5,854
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Well there were questions alright. Some of those questions led to perjury charges for Bill. And part of the reason he settled was to not go under deposition again in regards to his sexual activities.
He specifically made not apologizing to her part of the settlement, so I doubt he did. As to the dismissal, yes, but it was back on track again after Bill's lying was revealed, and then he settled.
So it was not due to the dismissal that she didn't prove her case. It was due to him settling.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 2, 2003
- 144,979
- 17,393
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
As I said, there were questions about it all. My relative was not alone in being targeted by someone he was not even with.
And there are too many crazy conspiracy things out there about Hillary that I am going to take this one with a grain of salt. A big grain of salt.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
