“Psst…remember not to smirk when you lie…”
Paula Jones is speaking out again after almost 16 years. Good.
I can’t say she is an ethics hero, for she has vengeance on her mind, and maybe even some desire to cash in…or who knows? Maybe she can get a stipend from the Clinton Foundation to keep quiet. Nonetheless, her reemergence is a good thing. Too many have forgotten, or indeed never learned, about how she was sexually harassed by Bill Clinton when he was a governor and she worked for Arkansas, and systematically vilified and denigrated by Hillary, the Clinton team, and soulless Clinton enablers in the media before her lawsuit exposed the Monica Mess. I had even forgotten how outrageously she was treated, and I had followed the cases carefully.
I had not forgotten, however, the disgusting Democratic and feminist hypocrisy where she was concerned. Back in 1997, I remember confronting a prominent female trial lawyer, outspoken feminist, and then president of The Association of Trial Lawyers (before they changed their name to the stealth “American Association for Justice” to hide the fact that they were lawyers) whom I overheard trashing Jones as a lying, politically-motivated gold-digger. Recalling that during the Clarence Thomas hearings she had sported an “I believe Anita Hill” button, I asked her, in a room full of people, “Why don’t you believe Paula Jones, if you believed Anita Hill?” She just walked out of the room. She believed Anita Hill, whose accusation of ClarenceThomas was entirely politically motivated and unprovable, because she wanted to. She didn’t believe Paula Jones, who had a much stronger case, because Jones was a big-haired, working-class woman who dared to try to hold accountable a powerful, liberal, serial sexual predator that her association had contributed millions to elect. She was ashamed of the answer to my question. She should have been.
Here’s Paula on the “most admired living President” and the presumptive standard bearer for the Democratic Party in 2016, who will be running on a pro-women platform and accusing Republicans of waging a “war on women”:
‘There is no way that she did not know what was going on, that women were being abused and accosted by her husband. They have both lied…She should not be running with the terrible history they have. Who would want Bill Clinton back a second time, doing the same stuff he was doing before, philandering with women?…He does not have a right to be in the White House to serve the people the way he treated women, sexually harassing women. There were many women that came out and spoke out about what he did to them. He does not have a place in the White House to serve the American people.”
Have you forgotten? Here was the key section of Jones’s deposition that the Clinton team, guided by Hillary, claimed was all fabricated:
We talked for a few minutes. Mr. Clinton asked me about my job. He told me that Dave Harrington (who at that time was in charge of the AIDC) was his ‘good friend’. Mr. Clinton then unexpectedly reached over to me, took my hand, and pulled me toward him, so that our bodies were close to each other. I removed my hand from his and retreated several feet. Mr. Clinton approached me again, saying ‘I love the way your hair flows down your back’ and ‘I love your curves.’
While saying these things, Mr. Clinton put his hand on my leg and started sliding his hand toward my pelvic area. I did not consent to him doing this. He also bent down to kiss me on the neck, but I would not let him do so. I exclaimed, ‘What are you doing?’ and escaped from Mr. Clinton’s reach by walking away from him. I was extremely upset and confused and I did not know what to do. I tried to distract Mr. Clinton by asking him about his wife and her activities, and I sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door.
Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to ‘kiss it’.
I was horrified by this. I jumped up from the couch and told Mr. Clinton that I had to go, saying something to the effect that I had to get back to the registration desk. Mr. Clinton, while fondling his penis, said: ‘Well, I don’t want to make you do anything you don’t want to do.’
Mr. Clinton then stood up, pulled up his pants and said: ‘If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I’ll take care of it.’ As I left the room, Mr. Clinton detained me momentarily, looked sternly at me and said: ‘You are smart. Let’s keep this between ourselves.’
Incredibly, Judge Susan Webber Wright initially tossed out Jones’s case, ruling that even if Clinton’s behavior had been ‘boorish and offensive’ it did not amount to sexual harassment under the law. She was not just wrong but unbelievably wrong, and she was overruled. (Today she could not possibly make such a ruling, because sexual harassment is much more reasonably defined.)
Those allegations principally describe events that are said to have occurred on the afternoon of May 8, 1991, during an official conference held at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Governor delivered a speech at the conference; respondent–working as a state employee–staffed the registration desk. She alleges that Ferguson persuaded her to leave her desk and to visit the Governor in a business suite at the hotel, where he made “abhorrent” sexual advances that she vehemently rejected. She further claims that her superiors at work subsequently dealt with her in a hostile and rude manner, and changed her duties to punish her for rejecting those advances. Finally, she alleges that after petitioner was elected President, Ferguson defamed her by making a statement to a reporter that implied she had accepted petitioner’s alleged overtures, and that various persons authorized to speak for the President publicly branded her a liar by denying that the incident had occurred.
Some non-partisan questions that Democrats should be asking as much as Republicans: How could Democrats make Bill Clinton their star speaker at the 2012 convention highlighting women’s rights and look at themselves in the mirror without gagging? How can the party attempt to anoint this man’s co-conspirator and abettor as he attempted to destroy his victims? Why are principled Democrats tolerating such hypocrisy and such a cynical betrayal of the party’s core constituency and values? How can they accept the candidacy of a such a fraudulent feminist, who set out to discredit and undermine a woman who personifies the supposed beneficiaries of progressive ideology? If a supposedly progressive party is this corrupt and conflicted, what good is it? Why would anyone want to be a part of such an organization? If Hillary Clinton, who was capable of such a despicable betrayal of progressive core beliefs in order to save her sexual predator husband’s political career and thus her own, is really the best candidate the democrats have, what does that say about the party?
Democracy can’t function like that, and won’t.
Ethics Alarms 
This should be interesting.
I can’t wait for the first “In France they don’t care about this stuff.”
Hahahahahahahah.
Of course, Jack, you know this is all old news.
Hahahahahaha.
If you get a call from Lanny Davis, do not pick up the phone!
“It was just personal conduct, and irrelevant to his professional duties.”
How many more quotes?
He was pro-abortion and the alternative to him was the hated Republicans (not that they don’t count a few offenders in their ranks), so any woman he felt up was just going to have to “take one for the team.”
My old boss, a stereotypical liberal Jew from Brooklyn, complete with the Mel Brooks accent, DOMINATED lunch conversations with how Clinton had important and significant things to do and how all these accusers were either sluts or nuts. It didn’t strike him as the slightest bit ironic that he himself flirted outrageously with the few good-looking female support staff he had and made life for the one female attorney in the office (who was there and gone before I was) apparently very uncomfortable.
I was employed elsewhere by the time of the 2000 election, but, according to the lawyers who had stayed on, apparently every lunch conversation from Election Day into the new year was this guy bitching and moaning about how the people in Florida were getting it wrong and how this should have been a slam-dunk Gore victory.
You can’t fix stupid, and you certainly can’t fix partisan.
I am desperately trying to find some way to respect people like that, or at least not to have so much contempt for them that I can’t be in the same room.
“Not being in he same room with them” is a slam-dunk for me. Unfortunately, and my prognostication skill has not been up to snuff lately, I am very much afraid that Ms. Clinton is destined to be our next President. Eight years of her and even you will agree that “We are doomed”.
I’m going to sacrifice a goat every morning from now until election day, in the hope that the God of Abraham will have pity on us. I’ll accept goat donations at GoGoatMe.
I still know a couple of German ranchers up in hill country Texas that raise goats. I’ll see if I can get ’em to send you a couple.
That would be helpful, thanks!
I can’t. I appreciate people with passion, but I have no use for those who use their position to pound their views home every.single.day That’s unfortunately the case with people who get too much success and let it go to their heads. This guy had indeed been a lot more successful when he was younger, been involved in the changing law on certain issues, and now was the undisputed master of this firm. No one could tell him anything and no one could challenge him on anything, including a 22yo receptionist not being able to tell him not to grind her during the holiday party. Go figure.
I’m of the opinion that stupid and partisan are the same thing in government.
For me the resignation from the DTC (Democratic Town Committee) happened with the support of the party for Gerry Studds. Been an unenrolled ever since.
Who was Gerry Studds?
A Congressman who didn’t use bookmarks….he preferred bending over the PAGES! 😀
Bad boy! Bad, bad boy!!
jvb
I wonder just how much Hillary knew about his behavior. She was a busy attorney at the time — she might not have known anything. Paula’s assertion that “she must have known” is based on nothing. I would stand by my husband unless presented with proof. And then … well, I picture police cars, sirens, and ambulances … but I digress.
For me, I lost respect for Hillary when she did not leave Bill after the Lewinsky affair. It was not just a betrayal to her but it was also a betrayal to the office — even if not grounds for impeachment. So either they had an open marriage (yuck), or she stayed in it for her own self-interest. She would have been a more attractive candidate to me if she had left him while he was President.
These are my personal beliefs though. There are tons of marriages (just not in the limelight) that stick together even though there has been infidelity.
Well, I’m in the realm of under the table inside info here. I know two people, professionals, smart, ethical (and disillusioned) who worked closely with the Clintons on the way to the White House…one worked there during the first term. I both trust and admire them greatly. They have told me, with absolute certainty on their part, that 1) Hillary has been completely aware,always 2) this is a marriage of mutual career aspirations, respect, admiration, and ruthless self-interest, much like “House of Cards,” 3) Hillary is gay (That means Huma), 4) Much of the press corps know it,and 5) All in Clintons’ inner circle know it.
That’s all hearsay and anonymous, and proves nothing. But it would explain a lot. If that is true, I think it’s almost as irresponsible for Hillary to run as for John Edwards to have run the last time.
So Huma swings both ways, then? Is her involvement with Wiener another Clintonesque marriage in the making?
Damn it, you can’t play the “inside information” card! I have some too on one of your favorite scandals that you constantly blog about (incorrectly I might add), but I don’t talk about it because I don’t want various security agencies raining hellfire down on both of us.
Why not? I’ve never seen him use this, so it’s not as if he abuses the privilege. He also carefully delineated the logical limitations of such information, so it doesn’t seem to be an “argument from (or of) authority. Also, I’m not sure how he’s earned the heated response, unless you think he should have somehow divined the fact that you’re refraining from giving “inside information”. I don’t know why, but this reminds me of the whole “fairness doctrine” thing.
Jack needs to revise his rule on emoticons. That was false outrage — but obviously I can see how you interpreted it the way you did.
I know exactly what you mean. I’ve had that happen to me countless times. Sometimes I wish we had teleconferencing forums for that reason, among others. You know, wouldn’t it be interesting to have Jack put up a post, and then the regulars could pick 2 or 3 people to have a live videoconference debate with Jack for the rest of us to watch? Maybe at the end Jack (or we) could declare a winner.
If it matters, I got it exactly the way Beth intended. But then, we know each other.
Oh, great, THAT ruined my day/week/month…
Now which scandal am I “constantly blog about” incorrectly? The fake moon landing? LBJ’s complicity in the JFK assassination?
I seriously don’t want to say. I can already picture the black helicopters circling my house.
But no, it’s not one of the crackpot theories out there — it is one your Obama-themed ones.
THERE’S SOMEONE AT MY DOOR!!!!!!
Door? They’ve already hacked into your computer. You really shouldn’t insist on real identities. That’s going to bite you in the ass one day. And you can’t claim journalistic privilege.
TOR/VPN/gpg4usb is the way to go. Bitmessage too.
You could even use this, in addition to the above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad
Oh-oh! LBJ engineered the IRS harassment of Tea party groups from the MOON??????
You got me. That’s the one.
The moon landings were real. The takeoffs from the moon were fake.
The conspiracy wasn’t Lyndon, it was the other LBJ…Lady Bird.
Why is it that every blog I follow ends up putting me in one of those lists?
See? It IS a cult !! The anger and scorn shown to anyone not willing to give their body to the leader? Remember Jonestown? Look at the denial on display right here, right on cue !
I always thought Anthony Weiner was a complicit beard for Hillary and Huma Abedin. How’s that for selling your soul, Anthony? Great to hear my suspicions confirmed. And how’d you like to be the Weiner/Abedin child. “I was a Democratic talking point.”
First, if you realize Clintonistas and Obidiots are just like Scientologists, you may cease to be so surprised. But look, they’ve been doing this for years. Consider Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventures: http://wp.me/p55CgN-e7
Scientologsts are relatively harmless outside of their group.
Ugg, I can just hear him croaking out those lines in his smooth Arkansas accent…