[Zelandakh]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-July-10, 09:31, said:

Impeachment is a political act so the the perjury and the obstruction of justice votes were basically along partisan lines.

Yes, it is political, though you somehow failed to mention the various Republican senators that also believed that voted not to impeach. If the vote had strictly been along partisan lines then the impeachment would have gone through. And that is the difference now with DT. It would take a large number of Republicans in both chambers to vote against partisan lines, which is unlikely unless they are facing some kind of meltdown. The guilt or non-guilt of the case is completely irrelevant. DT could grab the pussies of Theresa May and Angela Merkel in front of a hundred witnesses providing it does not hurt them too badly at the poll booth.

One question that you also have fundamentally dodged in all of this is whether Congress has any right to go looking into the private life of a sitting President. That seems to set a fairly dangerous precedent. The inquiry was set up for a completely different purpose and moved onto ML only when it became clear that there was nothing illegal in Whitewater for them to go after. As has been said before, lots of people have affairs. Lots of people elected to Congress and sitting in on the debates were having affairs at the time. There are certain rights to privacy that some people, myself included, value quite highly. I think that Congress investigating a relationship between consenting adults to be a complete sham and I daresay that this at the end of the day is the reason why so many Republican senators chose to vote against the motions.

That is quite distinct from the case before us regarding DT. Here we are talking about sexual assault, his forcing himself on other women without their consent. Once again, anyone who cannot see the difference between this and a consensual relationship really needs to think about it more. And, as I mentioned in the previous comment, anyone who thinks that a certain degree of sexual assault is acceptable because of wealth, fame or position is walking a very dangerous line. I really hope that you are going to come back to this subject and take back your previous comment. I genuinely find it rather distasteful.

[cherdano]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-10, 10:07, said:

One question that you also have fundamentally dodged in all of this is whether Congress has any right to go looking into the private life of a sitting President. That seems to set a fairly dangerous precedent.

Let me side with the conservatives on this one. When you are president, everything is political. Presidents cannot recuse themselves from any decision. Whether they have an affair with a White House staffer, or whether they have financial investments in Saudi-Arabia - anything that might affect their decision-making is political, and can be subject to congressional investigation.

If you don't like it - noone forced you to become president.

[RedSpawn]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-10, 10:07, said:

Yes, it is political, though you somehow failed to mention the various Republican senators that also believed that voted not to impeach. If the vote had strictly been along partisan lines then the impeachment would have gone through. And that is the difference now with DT. It would take a large number of Republicans in both chambers to vote against partisan lines, which is unlikely unless they are facing some kind of meltdown. The guilt or non-guilt of the case is completely irrelevant. DT could grab the pussies of Theresa May and Angela Merkel in front of a hundred witnesses providing it does not hurt them too badly at the poll booth.

One question that you also have fundamentally dodged in all of this is whether Congress has any right to go looking into the private life of a sitting President. That seems to set a fairly dangerous precedent. The inquiry was set up for a completely different purpose and moved onto ML only when it became clear that there was nothing illegal in Whitewater for them to go after. As has been said before, lots of people have affairs. Lots of people elected to Congress and sitting in on the debates were having affairs at the time. There are certain rights to privacy that some people, myself included, value quite highly. I think that Congress investigating a relationship between consenting adults to be a complete sham and I daresay that this at the end of the day is the reason why so many Republican senators chose to vote against the motions.

That is quite distinct from the case before us regarding DT. Here we are talking about sexual assault, his forcing himself on other women without their consent. Once again, anyone who cannot see the difference between this and a consensual relationship really needs to think about it more. And, as I mentioned in the previous comment, anyone who thinks that a certain degree of sexual assault is acceptable because of wealth, fame or position is walking a very dangerous line. I really hope that you are going to come back to this subject and take back your previous comment. I genuinely find it rather distasteful.

BC and Monica's affair doesn't fall under the veil of privacy because he committed the acts on federally owned property! He didn't go onto some private property to make out with Monica or wait until he was on vacation at some private locale or meet her at some hotel while on business travel.

He had sexual relations with a subordinate INSIDE the White House and on federal government property and then proceeded to use parts of his power and authority to cover-up the acts which occurred in the public domain.

One should not enter federal public property and then demand a reasonable expectation of privacy for unseemly acts--with the exception of a bathroom or a dressing room of course.

The maxim "don't dip your pen in the company ink" applies to this situation as well.

[Al_U_Card]

 PassedOut, on 2017-July-10, 06:39, said:

Bill Clinton's crime was lying under oath. An adult can, in fact, consent to a sexual relationship with a superior, however poor an idea that might be, with no crime being committed. Monica Lewinsky never claimed that she didn't want sex with Clinton. That's way different from Trump's just groping women because he's sure that can get away with it.

So his serial sexual-predator activities prior to this "consensual" act are not as bad as Trump's? They are both reprehensible, if not criminal actions. (Much as his victims may have tried...)

[RedSpawn]

 Al_U_Card, on 2017-July-10, 16:27, said:

So his serial sexual-predator activities prior to this "consensual" act are not as bad as Trump's? They are both reprehensible, if not criminal actions. (Much as his victims may have tried...)

This is where things get murky. Some folks think it is adulterous act but not a criminal one; it's just a marital matter. Some think it was sexual act with criminal acts that followed. Some folks look at the Lewinsky affair and his previously unaddressed sexual allegations and see an opportunistic womanizer. Others see a man on the verge of being a sexual predator given the pattern of seemingly repetitive behavior. Other folks think his lying and subsequent cover-up through obstruction of justice was understandable because he had a reasonable expectation of privacy about a "marital matter" even if the sexual acts occurred on federal property.

This just shows how complex it is to reach a consensus on matters involving character. Did we all watch the same news videos and articles about this matter. And if so, how did we come to the conclusion that this behavior is a "character aberration"?

And I hate to throw this into the ring but BC does not have the look nor calling card of a sexual predator. His victims are not especially innocent either which makes proving that case even harder.

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-July-10, 19:55, said:

Oops! It appears that the Trumps have been lying, all along.



This is now serious stuff. Moderators, can we now move the Bill Clinton sideshow to its own separate thread?

I am not seeing how a Former President who grabbed and kissed an alleged victim, received fellatio in the White House from his subordinate, lied about it under oath, witness tampered to subjugate the truth, lied to the nation about said matter, obstructed justice by hiding subpoenaed gifts he gave to his fellator, and then tried to invoke Executive privilege about allegedly private sexual acts performed on federal property is a SIDESHOW.

This is serious stuff not some child's play act.

This man's character and behavior during the entire episode is just as alarming as the Pu$$y-Grabber in Chief but collectively the nation decided to overlook these character flaws despite the pattern of behavior and the subsequent criminal acts.

Keep in mind I said he MIGHT have obstructed justice with the unscheduled meeting with Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac and people acted like that was too conspiratorial or out of character for the man. Oh really? He will attempt to obstruct justice for his fellator, but never his wife. That is beyond the realm of reason.

Thank goodness he left his DNA on Lewinsky's dress or he might've gotten away with the perfect crime.

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.

[Winstonm]

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

I am not seeing how a Former President who grabbed and kissed an alleged victim, received fellatio in the White House from his subordinate, lied about it under oath, witness tampered to subjugate the truth, lied to the nation about said matter, obstructed justice by hiding subpoenaed gifts he gave to his fellator, and then tried to invoke Executive privilege about allegedly private sexual acts performed on federal property is a SIDESHOW.

This is serious stuff not some child's play act.

This man's character and behavior during the entire episode is just as alarming as the Pu$$y-Grabber in Chief but collectively the nation decided to overlook these character flaws despite the pattern of behavior and the subsequent criminal acts.

Keep in mind I said he MIGHT have obstructed justice with the unscheduled meeting with Loretta Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac and people acted like that was too conspiratorial or out of character for the man. Oh really? He will attempt to obstruct justice for his fellator, but never his wife. That is beyond the realm of reason.

Thank goodness he left his DNA on Lewinsky's dress or he might've gotten away with the perfect crime.

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.

Bill Clinton's actions were adjudicated. You are simply creating a diversion from the thread. If you want to continue your discussion, why not open your own thread about Bill Clinton instead of hijacking this one?

[RedSpawn]

 Winstonm, on 2017-July-10, 22:32, said:

Bill Clinton's actions were adjudicated. You are simply creating a diversion from the thread. If you want to continue your discussion, why not open your own thread about Bill Clinton instead of hijacking this one?

They were not adjudicated in a criminal proceeding because even our own forefathers could not conceive a scenario where we would need to prosecute a sitting President for acts that besmirches the Office of the President.

What Congress did was take the path of least resistance and essentially censured his behavior because they wanted the nation to put this disgusting display of character behind them.

With 100% of Democratic senators (45 of them) voting not guilty on both charges, it was not a vote of conscience, but a vote of political expedience. We played politics with the highest office of the executive branch.

http://law2.umkc.edu...enatevotes.html

It is not a diversion or hijack to compare the sexual indiscretions of two Presidents in a Forum. But it is disingenuous to suggest that a President who did all of this for a dalliance could not possibly do something similar for his wife. Why is that? Why is it too conspiratorial with respect to Loretta Lynch?

[PassedOut]

Let's not forget Grover Cleveland! Why do those people so upset about Trump's sexual assaults give Grover Cleveland a pass??

Not even a specific allegation of philandering, illicit pregnancy and coverup barred Grover Cleveland from the White House

Quote

“It seems to me that a leading question ought to be: do the American people want a common libertine for their president?” So wrote a preacher from Buffalo, New York, to the editor of the Chicago Tribune on the eve of the 1884 presidential election.

Maine Senator James G. Blaine, the Republican candidate, had been shamed some years earlier when it came to light that he’d been trading congressional favors for cash, something his Democratic rivals brought up at every opportunity. The Democrats, though, had troubles of their own. A scandalous tale about the misdeeds of their candidate, New York Governor Grover Cleveland, was gaining traction, along with a particularly grating chant directed at him: “Ma, ma, where’s my Pa?”

For on July 21, 1884, the Buffalo Evening Telegraph broke a story many in upstate New York had long known to be true—that 10 years earlier, a woman named Maria Halpin had given birth in that city to a son with the surname Cleveland and then been taken to a mental asylum while the child was adopted by another family.

Cleveland’s campaign, knowing there was no refuting the allegations, was almost blasé in admitting that yes, Cleveland and Halpin had been “illicitly acquainted.”

...

Halpin was a 38-year-old widow in 1874, according to the Tribune, which also reported:

Halpin said that Cleveland had pursued her relentlessly, and that she finally consented to join him for a meal at the Ocean Dining Hall & Oyster House. After dinner, Cleveland escorted her back to her boarding house. In an 1874 affidavit, Halpin strongly implied that Cleveland’s entry into her room and the incident that transpired there was not consensual—he was forceful and violent, she alleged, and later promised to ruin her if she went to the authorities.

Halpin said she told Cleveland she never wanted to see him again, but “five or six weeks later” was forced to seek him out because she was in the kind of trouble only Cleveland could help her with.

The trouble, of course, was pregnancy.

Trump's indiscretions are all over the news, but those same reporters write nothing at all about Grover Cleveland! What gives? Why the double standard?!

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2017-July-10, 06:39, said:

Bill Clinton's crime was lying under oath. An adult can, in fact, consent to a sexual relationship with a superior, however poor an idea that might be, with no crime being committed. Monica Lewinsky never claimed that she didn't want sex with Clinton. That's way different from Trump's just groping women because he's sure that can get away with it.

Long long ago. so it seems, young male faculty I knew sometimes dated young female graduate students. There were several happy marriages resulting from this. It is of course possible that everyone remained fully dressed until the vows were taken. Anything iis possible.
I don't think it is all that difficult, at least not usually, to tell a consensual relationship from a predatory one.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2017-July-11, 07:01, said:

Let's not forget Grover Cleveland! Why do those people so upset about Trump's sexual assaults give Grover Cleveland a pass??

Not even a specific allegation of philandering, illicit pregnancy and coverup barred Grover Cleveland from the White House


Trump's indiscretions are all over the news, but those same reporters write nothing at all about Grover Cleveland! What gives? Why the double standard?!

Don't even get me started on Caligula!

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2017-July-11, 08:29, said:

Long long ago. so it seems, young male faculty I knew sometimes dated young female graduate students. There were several happy marriages resulting from this. It is of course possible that everyone remained fully dressed until the vows were taken. Anything iis possible.
I don't think it is all that difficult, at least not usually, to tell a consensual relationship from a predatory one.

I have no reason to doubt that all these marriage were happy and based on consensual relationships. But I think you are being very naive if you see nothing problematic about it at all.

Many relationships are consensual, but nevertheless have a very unequal power dynamic. From my perspective, being 3000 miles away, that seems a bit more likely to happen when it starts out as a relationship between a young graduate student and permanent faculty.

I know of several cases of young graduate students switching topics because their obvious choice of mentor in their originally chosen topic fell in love with them. I know another who did not (there were a number of faculty within the same research area), but it still made graduate school quite a bit more awkward. And of course some who happily married their suitor, but as a result gave up their career. Unlike in physics, two-body problems tend to be harder to solve when one body is already fixed in a permanent job.

And then, of course, there is the issue of the initial advance - that may be much more difficult to say not to if your suitor is also likely to be on your PhD committee.

Oh, you can probably guess the gender of those graduate students.

People fall in love with people they meet, even if they meet them at work. Nothing will change that, and I wouldn't want to judge any individual for any of the situations that I described without knowing more about them. But while I don't think it's behaviour that can be effectively regulated with HR guidelines, or laws, it is still highly problematic - both in many individual cases, and in the aggregate effect (making graduate school more unpleasant for female graduate students in subjects where the majority of faculty or male).

[Zelandakh]

 cherdano, on 2017-July-11, 08:51, said:

I have no reason to doubt that all these marriage were happy and based on consensual relationships. But I think you are being very naive if you see nothing problematic about it at all.

Many relationships are consensual, but nevertheless have a very unequal power dynamic. From my perspective, being 3000 miles away, that seems a bit more likely to happen when it starts out as a relationship between a young graduate student and permanent faculty.

I would presume that despite the potential problems of such a relationship, you would nonetheless regard any consensual relationship of this sort as less problematic than a non-consensual sexual attack such as groping a woman immediately after meeting her, or pushing one up against a wall without warning and kissing her with a tongue in her mouth?

[cherdano]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-July-11, 09:13, said:

I would presume that despite the potential problems of such a relationship, you would nonetheless regard any consensual relationship of this sort as less problematic than a non-consensual sexual attack such as groping a woman immediately after meeting her, or pushing one up against a wall without warning and kissing her with a tongue in her mouth?

You are hijacking the thread by making it about Donald Trump!
Sexual assault is a crime, for a good reason (even though it is difficult to persecute).
Consensual relationships with unequal power dynamic are not a crime, for a good reason.

[kenberg]

 cherdano, on 2017-July-11, 08:51, said:

I have no reason to doubt that all these marriage were happy and based on consensual relationships. But I think you are being very naive if you see nothing problematic about it at all.

Many relationships are consensual, but nevertheless have a very unequal power dynamic. From my perspective, being 3000 miles away, that seems a bit more likely to happen when it starts out as a relationship between a young graduate student and permanent faculty.

I know of several cases of young graduate students switching topics because their obvious choice of mentor in their originally chosen topic fell in love with them. I know another who did not (there were a number of faculty within the same research area), but it still made graduate school quite a bit more awkward. And of course some who happily married their suitor, but as a result gave up their career. Unlike in physics, two-body problems tend to be harder to solve when one body is already fixed in a permanent job.

And then, of course, there is the issue of the initial advance - that may be much more difficult to say not to if your suitor is also likely to be on your PhD committee.

Oh, you can probably guess the gender of those graduate students.

People fall in love with people they meet, even if they meet them at work. Nothing will change that, and I wouldn't want to judge any individual for any of the situations that I described without knowing more about them. But while I don't think it's behaviour that can be effectively regulated with HR guidelines, or laws, it is still highly problematic - both in many individual cases, and in the aggregate effect (making graduate school more unpleasant for female graduate students in subjects where the majority of faculty or male).

I concede it is not always a straightforward situation. In particular the relationship between a student and her thesis adviser should stay exactly that. Just too apt to be trouble otherwise. Good judgment can be useful. When I was a grad student I went canoeing with a faculty member. The rapids were severe, it was more than a little risky. Maybe not my best choice. I do understand that canoeing down rapids is different from having sex, but the point is that using some judgment can always be a good idea. It was consensual canoeing.

[cherdano]

 kenberg, on 2017-July-11, 09:57, said:

I do understand that canoeing down rapids is different from having sex,

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

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2017-July-11, 09:57, said:

It was consensual canoeing.

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

[Zelandakh]

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

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

What did he have in his pocketses? And was he pleased to see her?

[RedSpawn]

 awm, on 2017-July-11, 08:17, said:

Bill Clinton is not the president, he was not a candidate in 2016, and no set of circumstances will cause him to become president now. So he is not really relevant to the current discussion.

The difference between Trump and Clinton on sexual harassment is that Trump has admitted, on tape, to criminal harassment. Clinton has not done this, and while there are accusations out there all of them seem to have reasonable doubts and none have been proven. So Trump voters clearly know his attitude towards women and didn't care (Trump himself doesn't really deny it, just tries to change the subject) whereas Clinton voters could credibly disbelieve accusations of this sort.

In any case, no one is suggesting Trump be impeached because of his history of sexual assault, much less because of cheating on his wife (which is basically what Clinton was impeached for -- lying to congress about having cheated on his wife; senators, including some Republicans, did not feel this rose to the level of "high crimes"). If Trump is impeached it will be for treason -- colluding with a foreign power to illegally obtain information which would then be used to win a US election. Treason (and covering it up) is a different and far more serious issue than lying about an extra-marital affair. Note that the breach of the DNC data is quite similar to Watergate, if the burglars had been Soviet spies and with the addition of modern technology. There is certainly precedent for impeachment and the case seems to grow stronger by the day. Of course politics enters into the equation and Republicans in congress are unlikely to impeach as long as their voters (who already forgave Trump for sexual assault and a scam university and any number of other things) still support the president.

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?

[Winstonm]

Is that a smoking gun in your pocket or just a cigar that's happy to see me?