Obama has to call in the sleaziest man to ever serve as President.

Yes I know Paula Jones. She didn't sue for Sexual Assault.

 

Yes she did. She sued for both. Judge Wright however, while stating it was her better claim against Clinton, dismissed it because of the statue of limitations. However it remained that her sexual harassment lawsuit was based on a sexual assault.

 

Exactly. She didn't sue for sexual assault. She sued for sexual harassment. And her case wasn't dropped because of statue of limitations. it was dropped because of lack of evidence.The whole thing was just a crusade against Clinton if you ask me.

 

No, surely he means Tom DeLay. Indicted, convicted but still walking free...

 

Yeah... politically dumb...lol.

 

I actually think that Bill Clinton is the sleaziest ex-President and most popular ex-President we have. Also one of our most successful Presidents.

And Newt Gingrich is our sleaziest ex-Speaker of the House.

And the Democrats are calling in Clinton to help them out and the Republicans tried to elect Newt.

Yeah- huge moral divide here.

 

Not exactly, she filed a law suit for sexual assault, once file and the Clinton defense made motion to dismiss on the grounds too much time had passed so he'd get a free ride the Judge dismissed it however stating in her ruling that while that was the better case she had against Clinton she would proceed only with the sexual harassment law suit. But both WERE FILED. And the sexual harassment was based on the sexual assault he committed.

The sexual assault lawsuit was dropped because of the statue of limitations.

The sexual harassment lawsuit was NOT DROPPED................you REALLY don't know what you are talking about and I suggest you go bone up on the facts.

Well I didn't ask you and at this point won't because you don't know what you are talking about.

That's why I surmised you don't know anything about the Gennifer Flowers scandal either. The fact is you don't know much about the man. I wouldn't defend him so much until you do.

 

I meant exactly what I said, deflection noted.

 

And it was laughed out of court.

From Judge Wright's opinion:
---
The Court finds plaintiff's attempt to restate her sexual assault claim in the guise of an equal protection claim to be no more meritorious now than when it was raised in the context of a due process claim. 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.
---

Here that sound? It's your credibility shattering. How does "laughed out of court" equate to "sexual assault which he committed on a subordinate employee", as you directly stated? You got some 'splainin to do here. What drove you to get it so wrong?

Oh, we also know former conservative hero David Brock admitted to bribing State Troopers in return for their testimony against Clinton, and stated it was done as part of a deliberate anti-Clinton crusade. Some of the players have also admitted their roles, so denying that there was an active anti-Clinton crusade makes the denier look delusional and hopelessly partisan. See, it's possible for both things to be true -- that Clinton was a horndog, but that there also really was a VRWC aligned against him.

 

It wasn't laughed out of court so don't start making things up. Judge Wright ruled according to the law as it stood.

It's sounds better when you include her entire statement on the law.

"See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101 (2), ( (defining "forcible compulsion" as "physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical injury to or kidnapping of any person,""

Ahh the Judge wasn't laughing, while the molestation and assault occurred it did not meet the standard from criminal assault under AK law. And I stand corrected it was Broadrick who missed the statute of limitations to file a charge against him.

David Brock has no credibility.
Fact: Ferguson approach Jones, while she was on the job, and told her the Governor would like a word with her.
Fact: Ferguson escorted her to the hotel room Clinton had requested he get for him.
Fact: Once in the room Clinton sexually assaulted her and molested her.
Fact: He did not kidnap her threaten her with death or physical harm.
Fact: As she left the room he reminded her he knew her boss and that she should not say anything about the incident.

The Judge dismissed that charge, criminal sexual assault, because AK law requires certain threats.

The sexual harassment charge was dismissed because Jones could not prove a tangible effect on her job with the state as required under the law at the time. However after the Burlington decision Jones lawyers called and said we are refiling as the Burlington decision found that only the threat of tangible harm to the employee was required. Clinton settled in a heartbeat.

So why does the Democrat party embrace a man who sexually assaults and molest and threatens the job of subordinate employees?

 

And I stand to correct myself, it was the sexual harassment under federal law that missed the statue of limitations and she had to file under the AK law which required the strict limitations as posted above although cites are difficult to find at this late date:

From NPR at the time.

"DAN BALZ: Well, the problem is Paula Jones missed the deadline for filing this case as a sexual harassment case. As a result, there are three counts, two federal and one state counts, that fall more broadly under the definition of civil rights violations, employment discrimination and the Arkansas case having to do with emotional distress. There is a dispute as to what difference that will make in terms of what each side has to prove or show in this case. And we won't really know what the standards are going to be for this case until it goes to trial."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june98/balz_3-13.html

 

Yes it was. It was dropped on lack of evidence. Then it was appealed. Then it was settled out of court before the appeal could be approved. Clinton's lawyers claimed it was settled out of court without any admit of guilt. Clinton simply did not have time to waste on the lawsuit.

 

I actually LIKE Clinton's record. sure he was a horny toad sleaze. He's a politician. Kennedy was screwing his brains out until,,,,,,

I wonder what they're going to do about RECORDS of the 2. They cannot mention b.o.'s record while Clinton's record is there to make b.o. look like the incompetent dolt he is.

Clinton a sleaze, Gingrich also a sleaze, but just politicians. The plus is they worked together and benefited the nation. Fiscal SANITY, an actual surplus, not huge but better than even a little more debt. They put WORK requirements into welfare and reduced its rolls. Now UNDONE by b.o. Comparing their records would be like there were 2 different parties on the stage. Clinton, a Democrat, and obama, a Progressive Socialist, or something foreign to the politics of Clinton.

And the EXTRA funny thing is the Clinton really earns his "Slick Willy" nickname around b.o. because Clinton cannot STAND obama. Clinton knows obama is a fool doing long term damage to the Democratic Party. But Clinton is a pro politician. b.o. needs lesson to get up to amateur.

 

Er, no. Remember the Alzheimers? That was why Reagan dropped out of sight immediately. To anyone who wasn't blind, it had already become clear that, in Reagan's last year in office, he wasn't altogether there.

One should also remember that Reagan wasn't especially popular while he was in office, being less popular than Clinton. It was only after he left office that the GOP spin machine went into overdrive, ordering their pet conservative national media to redefine Reagan as the most popular president evah.

 

Like obama in congress, "almost present?"

 

Like obama in congress, "almost present?"

 

EXCELLENT, Bravo, Good post.

Now show obama's favorable rating from Gallup.

 

It was dismissed. The judge ruled that the law required that Jones showed tangible damage to her job. Not that Clinton didn't molest her or harass her.

No it was refiled after the Burlington decision which said you did not have to show tangible harm just that you were threatened and had reason to feel threatened.

Wrong again, he settled in a heartbeat because he didn't have a leg to stand on.

SOP

He had plenty of time to be engaging in sex while on the job, he could have fought it, but the preponderance of the evidence was entirely against him. What was his defense?

 

ROFL Gingrich is a Boy Scout compared to Clinton. Had Clinton's marriage fallen apart and he met someone else and fell in love and yes had an affair and divorced Hillary and remarried. He would have had NO problems like he had. Clinton ABUSED women, especially women he had power over. And he used the power he was elected to to facilitate it. Then he lied looking right into the eyes of the American people about how he had so dishonored the office he was elected to and then lied in a federal court and a federal grand jury. Comparing Gingrich to him is folly.

It is just amazing how the left and the Democrats so idolize such a sleaze bag.

 

and yet, somehow, Americans from the middle of the bell curve all the way over to the left think that Clinton was an effective president. I thought it was extremely funny that, in the middle of the kangaroo court impeachment show trial, there was a poll taken that asked, who people would vote for THEN if they had to choose between Clinton and Dole...the same choice they had in the previous election.... and Clinton had a higher percentage than he had when he won. Rabid partisans like you who view everything through that distorting partisan lens cannot really comprehend how loved Clinton was and still is by the majority of Americans.

 

Easy when you have the main stream media as your cheerleader and willing to misrepresent his term in office.

Many, including lots around here think he was impeached because he engaged in oral sex. Ignore the perjury, obstruction of justice and subornation of perjury he engaged in let alone his abuse of women especially women who worked for him or he had some power over due to his elected office. Simply put the man is a sleaze bag of the highest order but if that is who the Democrat party and the left want to put up on a pedestal and hold in admiration so be it, it says a lot about them.

 

and yet, somehow, Americans from the middle of the bell curve (not just hardcore democrats) and all the way over to the left think that Clinton was an effective president.

go figure. seems that many people in the real world - as opposed to the blogosphere - think differently than you do. hmmmmmm.

 

I'm certain that my conservative credentials are unquestioned.

What Clinton DID NOT do is leave the nation with a huge pile of crap [legislation and debt] that would take decades and decades to clean up.

Bush left us with a huge pile of legislation and debt that WILL take many decades to clean up.

And now Bush's steaming pile, looks small compared to the debt and legislation that obama will leave, that I cannot conceive it EVER being cleaned up.

I doubt that TOTAL cooperation between the new Presidents, and BOTH parties in Congress, could clean up b.o.'s mess [and Bush's] in 20 years. And we will NEVER have total cooperation with Presidents and both parties in Congress, and probably never should have total cooperation.
So everyone on this forum will be long DEAD before our present messes are cleaned up. If there is a USA.

ex, see when you're right, I back you. RARE tho it be!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

As I said, most are ignorant of what the true story is and what this sleaze bag did to women and how he dishonored the offices to which he was elected. That's why even here where you would think people would be in the know claim "it was none of our business" and " it was just a blowjob". And the media to this day will not speak of the perjury he committed and the abuse of subordinate workers and others over whom he had power.

Or is it the left and Democrats don't care? Such behavior is OK.

 

Because the Republican congress stopped him and forced him to sign legislation that did lower the deficits and produce a brief surplus and did reform the welfare entitlement program.

Bush and the Democrats held the deficit to a peak of $400 billion, a FOURTH of where Obama and the Democrats took them, and three years of declining deficits down to a measly $161 billion.

They can, and could do it in one term, look what Reagan accomplished cleaning up the mess of the 70's.