Skip to comments.What if Ken Starr Was Right?
Posted on 11/18/2017 10:13:48 PM PST by Kartographer
But a moment of reassessment is a good time to reassess things for yourself, so I spent this week reading about the lost world of the 1990s. I skimmed the Starr Report. I leafed through books by George Stephanopoulos and Joe Klein and Michael Isikoff. I dug into Troopergate and Whitewater and other first-term scandals. I reacquainted myself with Gennifer Flowers and Webb Hubbell, James Riady and Marc Rich.
After doing all this reading, Im not sure my reasonable middle ground is actually reasonable. It may be that the conservatives of the 1990s were simply right about Clinton, that once he failed to resign he really deserved to be impeached.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Eat sh*t, Dourhat, you rat bastard. Every honest person knew at the time that Starr, Broderick, Jones, etc were right. The elite’s studies “reexamination” just shows how disgusting and dishonest they were at the time.
As Hillary once said... it “will slowly dissipate over time under the weight of its own insubstantiality.”
MUHAHA... The vast right wing conspiracy has actually turned out to be the vast left wing conspiracy to ignore all negativity toward the Clinton’s and Democrats in general, but that conspiracy ‘over time’ is starting to unravel with each passing year.
But there's an old expression that if you aim to take out the king, you'd best not miss. It will be interesting to see how Bill (forget Hillary) handles getting his own legacy dragged through the mud and his pratorian guard of party hacks and media types suddenly turned on him.
dont see BC having the motivation to care. Also brazile et co have calculated for that
These crocodile tears.
Worse, though, are GOPe who now say it was a mistake to impeach Clinton, though they supported it at the time.
1. The answer is that no feminist would hesitate to take an opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.
2. On the other hand, I do not see feminists marching boldly forward to remove Al Franken. After all, he is a strong supporter of women's rights and abortion.
Nice try though idiot Douthat.
They would put this in micro print inside of the cartoon section, just to say they did cover the Clinton criminal network from decades past, as a rebuttal for leftist to be able to say - YES, the NYT did to cover those Clinton related issues.
Regardless, the NY Times is a far left anti-American propaganda outlet, meaning the NY Times is purely angling.
Haven’t seen much of either one.
I’m beginning to think one or both of them are so ill they couldn’t fight back anyway.
Has the DNC figured out that Hillary is demanding to be the nominee in 2020, and that she is a bad candidate?
Maybe the DC establishment has heard that Hillary will be indicted soon, and want to distance themselves?
Or do they really believe that if they sacrifice Bill, they will be able to pressure Trump to resign over the false accusations made in the dossier?
They are only reassessing their views because they now want the Obamas to be the face of the Democrat Party going forward. We might even be able to “lock her up” without the press even retaliating that hard. So “lock her up now”, and then go after the Obamas.
Yes, actually, she would and has. For example, the one who said that Al Franken should be given a pass for blatant and photographed sexual harassment because he's a Democrat. They did it then, they've been doing it since, and they're doing it now.
But the Clinton operation was also extraordinarily sordid, in ways that should be thrown into particular relief by the absence of similar scandals in the Obama administration...
...who is behind this article and the recent attacks on Hillary. Douthat is still a tool, his bosses have simply turned him in another direction and it's business as usual.
And what they did instead turning their party into an accessory to Clintons appetites, shamelessly abandoning feminist principle, smearing victims and blithely ignoring his most credible accuser...feels in the cold clarity of hindsight like a great act of partisan deformation.
That would be 20-year-old hindsight, wouldn't it? Justice delayed is justice denied, which was never truer than this case. "We got away with it but now we're sorry" doesn't cut it.
For which, its safe to say, we have all been amply punished since.
How so? By a public rejection of, and disgust at, a woman who had the temerity to claim that she was destiny's child despite all the lies and the corruption in a lifetime of abuse of political office? A little disappointment does not constitute punishment. And twenty years hence we may well be reading another hindsight article admitting that yeah, maybe she did take massive bribes to betray her office and her country and really was unworthy of the Presidency but entirely worthy of prison, but we were distracted by those mean Republicans being too partisan and so we let her slide but we're sorry now. Utter garbage, in short, and so is this.
The Democrats are signaling its time to discard the Clintons.
The Democrats finally realize the Clintons are more of a liability.
It most likely being orchestrated by the Obamas that are even further Left than the Clintons.
Next up: libs calling on Stephanapolous to resign from ABC
Star could have gave murder charges against them. He should've.
The ONLY reason ANY of them are talking about “we were wrong -— we should have believed Bill’s victims”, is so they can turn it around and try to make the allegations against Trump and Roy Moore be “believed”. But the fact is, Bill really did assault and rape multiple women, then he, Hillary, and his agents, including the MSM, bullied, intimidated, threatened, covered for, and lied about his victims. How stupid do they think we are?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.