@media(max-width: 600px) {.adace_adsense_5a145e39e53ba {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 601px) {.adace_adsense_5a145e39e53ba {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 801px) {.adace_adsense_5a145e39e53ba {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 961px) {.adace_adsense_5a145e39e53ba {display:block !important;}}
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
According to a New York Times interview, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, who holds Hillary Clinton’s former seat, said that Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency after his inappropriate relationship with an intern came to light nearly 20 years ago.
A former aide for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton responded to Gillibrand by calling her a “hypocrite” for saying Bill Clinton should have resigned as president following the 1998 revelation of his relationship with an intern.
“Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite,” Philippe Reines wrote on Twitter. Reines is a former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton.
Ken Starr spent $70 million on a consensual blowjob. Senate voted to keep POTUS WJC. But not enough for you @SenGillibrand? Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite.
Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck.https://t.co/KIsnfY4WLT@media(max-width: 600px) {.adace_ad_5a145e39e46a2 {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 601px) {.adace_ad_5a145e39e46a2 {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 801px) {.adace_ad_5a145e39e46a2 {display:block !important;}}
@media(min-width: 961px) {.adace_ad_5a145e39e46a2 {display:block !important;}}
— Philippe Reines (@PhilippeReines) November 17, 2017
Via The Huffpost…
In a statement which has received an enormous amount of attention, New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand indicated her belief that Bill Clinton should have resigned as President because of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Unfortunately, her apparent boldness in attacking someone honored by many, though hardly all, Democrats was entirely irrelevant to the current moment in which every day brings allegations of sexual crimes committed by politicians, performers, and cultural gatekeepers. More significantly, Gillibrand’s exercise in false equivalence may have let Clinton off a bigger hook.
Gillibrand was remarkably ignorant of the distinction between an affair between two consenting adults and the use of force to sexually abuse, assault or rape an adult or minor. Lewinsky, rather than being manipulated or feeling powerless to resist Bill, has always maintained the affair was mutual. One can, of course, criticize Clinton, especially as a President and at risk of blackmail, for having an affair, or for his trashing of Lewinsky once the story surfaced, but those issues are not relevant to criminality.
But Gillibrand, who has been called brave for her thoughtless remarks, would have made perfect sense if she was even bolder and called for a reconsideration of the matter of whether Bill Clinton did engage in criminal offenses: the possible rape of Juanita Broaddrick and sexual assaults of Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones. The accusations by these women, especially Broaddrick, have no less credibility, even if they subsequently have been used for political purposes, than some of the allegations against Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Roy Moore, Bill O’Reilly and, indeed, Donald Trump. Even if it’s too late to file criminal charges against Clinton and the others (which, of course, would have had to be proven and not merely alleged), it is hardly too late to socially ostracize Clinton if one considers the allegations as plausible as those having led to the same treatment of the others who have been accused of sexual crimes. Bill Clinton’s Teflon has been world-class, but that’s because of the same refusal by political allies and friends of Bill to do what they insist right-wingers should do vis-a-vis the sexual predators in their circles.
Gillibrand’s focus on the Lewinsky affair, might, in fact, even serve to draw attention away from the gravest charges against Clinton (and the thorny side issue of whether Hillary Clinton should have left him the way Weinstein’s wife did after the revelations about him). She almost surely did not do this deliberately as a clever diversion, but it’s always foolish to underestimate the possibility of complex political calculations behind seemingly idealistic actions,
Now that Bill Clinton’s sexual misconducts have been resurrected, and Democrats are at war with each other…rethinking Bill’s past, and the pass they gave Bubba those many years ago.
Everything was done for the pursuit of power, which the Clinton’s held with an iron fist…meaning that Clinton cash trumped Clinton rape.
Via The Gateway Pundit…
Democrat analyst, pollster and author Doug Schoen ripped New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Friday night on Hannity.
Schoen told the Hannity panel, “There’s a special place in hell for Kirstin Gillibrand.”
Schoen was not impressed with Gillibrand’s sudden come to Jesus moment on the Clintons after years of taking their campaign support and dollars.
Doug Schoen: “I think there is a special place in hell for Kirsten Gillibrand. She was elected with the help of both Clintons. They campaigned, they fundraised. They extended themselves. And now you saw how she jumped at the chance to say Bill Clinton should retrospectively resign from office.”
The post Senator Gillibrand blowback: “Over 20 yrs you took Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite” appeared first on The Duran.