[Winstonm]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-11, 10:31, said:

He lied under oath in a legal proceeding regarding SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND witness tampered AND hid subpoenaed gifts from the court. Do not mitigate this to some small lie to Congress. Make sure you discuss the subsequent obstructionist behavior which is also illegal. This happened under the Paula Jones case and he paid a whopping $850,000 settlement to end the civil case once the sperm on the blue dress knocked down the impressive house of cards he built.

The judge fined BC $90,000 because unlike our Congress, she found him in contempt of court and guilty of perjury.

See https://www.theguard.../30/clinton.usa

He had the benefit of reasonable doubt UNTIL science proved what his soul refused to confess under oath.

Why would he admit to sexual harassment even if he had done it when the burden of proof is on the prosecution? He is a good leader who happens to be a very good liar and obstructionist. And despite these failings, we are going to side with the accused because THIS TIME he is telling the truth in a different sexual harassment case?

Clinton pollster to RedSpawn: "So I guess I'll have to put you down as 'undecided'."

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-10, 20:09, said:

Tell me how this series of acts qualify as an "aberration" of character. I would like to see how someone who unapologetically abuses his power and authority and risks his political career for a damn dalliance is less of a clear and present danger than Trump. BOTH MEN deserve public condemnation. There are no mitigating factors.

How about this difference: Trump bragged about his pussy-grabbing. Clinton presumably realized that it was wrong and shameful, because he tried to hide it.

Of course, when Trump was bragging, he didn't have any political aspirations. Clinton might not have regretted the dalliance, he might just have been trying to protect his political career.

[kenberg]

cherdano, on 2017-July-11, 09:59, said:

You know, I could really use a new signature...

I might regret saying it. Oh well.

Being of a certain age I might have memory problems, but I can't recall women having all that much trouble making it clear that they were not interested. My thinking is just that if two people are going to go canoeing, someone has to suggest it. And then, certainly in the workplace and, maybe to a lesser extent in a general environment, a discouraging response has to be accepted as discouraging.

I do acknowledge that guys, and sometimes women as far as that goes, can be taken up with a fantasy that is not going to become a reality. In the workplace this has to be heavily stomped on.

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-11, 10:00, said:

I have to admit I've never heard this particular euphemism....

Adapted from consensual "kanoodling" no doubt.

[RedSpawn]

[

[RedSpawn]

Winstonm, on 2017-July-11, 10:49, said:

Clinton pollster to RedSpawn: "So I guess I'll have to put you down as 'undecided'."

RedSpawn, on 2017-May-30, 03:22, said:

Fair enough. The missing links regarding Brazile, Wasserman Schultz, and the Clinton tarmac scandal are as follows:

http://thegrio.com/2...ils-dnc-clinton
http://www.CNN.com/2...reer/index.html
http://insider.foxne...n-lynch-meeting
http://en.wikipedia....i/Loretta_Lynch

I think the 1st two links solidly establish that the Democratic National Committee loaded the political dice in Hillary's favor.

It sounds like we are focusing on what conclusions, if any, we can draw from the Phoenix tarmac rendezvous. I think we agree that at a minimum an "ex-parte communication" appears to take place while the AG is still investigating Hillary. This action seems both unethical and professionally irresponsible. And as a result, AG Loretta Lynch recused herself from the investigation and agreed to blindly accept the recommendations of the FBI probe of Hillary Clinton's email server scandal.

Please click the link to get a better legal explanation of "ex parte communication" http://www.criminald...e-communication .

So we have to look at motive. What motive would a Former President have to arrange an unscheduled rendezvous on a Phoenix tarmac at night with the Chief Prosecutor of the U.S. when his wife is under investigation and could face criminal indictment? What would compel him to do this under the cover of darkness and in a clandestine way with no official record taking place?

It creates the appearance that he is about to interfere with, influence, or obstruct judicial matters to protect his wife from pending criminal charges. That is not a quantum leap of supposition, but it is definitely a more plausible explanation than the one AG Lynch provided. Are we to believe that Former President Clinton went through this rigmarole to discuss family matters and children with the AG for 30 minutes? That explanation insults the public's intelligence.

And why would other FBI agents on the tarmac clarify that the rules of engagement are "no photos, no pictures, and no cell phones" as reported by Christopher Sign of ABC-15? Was FBI Director James Comey aware of this clandestine meeting and how it casts a shadow over the entire FBI investigation? What did he know and when did he know it? His integrity is on the line now that the AG's integrity and independence seem compromised.

There is too much at stake here to let government officials provide weak, Dr. Seuss explanations for unethical behaviors. The scales of justice should not be for sale to the highest bidder or to individuals with significant political clout.

By the way, you are right. Neither Bill nor Hillary are in office but yet the AG decides to delay her schedule for 30 minutes to meet with the Former President anyway. The fact that the AG didn't end the meeting abruptly shows the political gravitational pull Bill Clinton has on people and his former subordinates. And I refuse to disassociate Bill from Hillary because both have significant political currency in the D.C. establishment. They have an seemingly unbreakable union that is stronger and deeper than marital ties. It survives and thrives despite family, financial, legal, and political turmoil. They are One.

Now, that we have a thread dedicated to BC. . .

We all agreed that the meeting with Loretta Lynch is . . .disturbing. But why should we give BC the benefit of the doubt in this scenario? Admittedly, we can't just throw spaghetti against the wall and see what will stick but understanding that BC has been fined by a federal judge for perjury as a sitting President (for lying under oath to hide a dalliance) and has been accused of obstruction of justice by an independent prosecutor of the Monica S Lewinsky case, we have to wonder what was BC's intent.

And a fair question, would these type of unseemly acts have stopped if he had become 1st Gentleman in the White House? Granted, it is a speculative question, but he was having unethical meetings with Loretta Lynch before he would become 1st Gentleman.

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-15, 13:59, said:

We all agreed that the meeting with Loretta Lynch is . . .disturbing. But why should we give BC the benefit of the doubt in this scenario?

A better question is to ask you why you find this meeting so suspicious but give a free pass to the Trump campaign meeting with the Russians. This is the kind of double standard that completely blows your credibility out of the window.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-July-16, 23:53, said:

A better question is to ask you why you find this meeting so suspicious but give a free pass to the Trump campaign meeting with the Russians. This is the kind of double standard that completely blows your credibility out of the window.

I said per federal law Trump Jr should be investigated for solicitation of a "contribution" (a thing of value) from a foreign national which is expressly prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Also, I asked a very poignant question about the Russian-American lobbyist who was previously a Soviet counterintelligence officer. Who granted him Americanh citizenship? We need to be equally suspicious of how this man's government background was approved for US citizenship when he emigrated from Russia in 2009. Who vetted him and what was found?

Look at the timeline in this article and tell me that I should chalk it up to mere coincidence.

http://www.washingto...h-must-testify/

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-July-17, 05:31, said:

I said per federal law Trump Jr should be investigated for solicitation of a "contribution" (a thing of value) from a foreign national which is expressly prohibited by the Federal Election Campaign Act.

What I mean is - we have a well-known advocate for the lifting of Russian sanctions with close links to the Kremlin. Why do you suppose that sanctions were not discussed at this meeting but do consider it automatic that Hilary was discussed at the BC-LL meeting? There is no evidence for either thing and all parties deny anything of substance took place at either meeting. And yet, one meeting is suspicious and the other is clear aside from what has already been admitted to. The attitude reminds me strongly of the way Fox has covered the stories. Perhaps the similarity is no coincidence?