This is from it:
+ I used to believe that the title of most ridiculous liberal columnist was a two-person race between between Thomas Friedman and Nicholas Kristof. But a third contender has suddenly emerged to challenge these two titans of tedium, the Nation’s National Editor John Nichols. This weekend Nichols, keyboarding from the secure confines of his Madison panic room, began firing off Tweets about the Trump fiasco, none more ludicrous than this one:
The “Party of Lincoln” cannot be the “Party of Trump.” Republicans who defend Trump at this point place partisanship ahead of principle.Really, John? Principle?
Why do Liberals like Nichols care about the “integrity” of the GOP or assume that it has had any for the last 150 years? The GOP hasn’t been the “party of Lincoln” since, well, Lincoln was assassinated.
Are we to assume that the GOP adhered to its principles during the graft-plagued administrations of Taft, Coolidge, and Hoover?
When “good” Republicans plotted a coup d’etat against FDR?
Did they stick firmly to their principles during the McCarthy era witch hunts? During the Nixon administration? Was it principled to firebomb Hanoi? Bomb Laos, Cambodia and the Brookings Institution? Break into the Watergate and the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s shrink?
Was Henry Kissinger a man of principle? Were they acting on high moral principles when the CIA overthrew Salvador Allende? Connived in the genocidal slaughter of East Timor?
Was the Iran/contra deal consecrated as an act of principle? How about Reagan’s new war on drugs? The busting of the PATCO strike? The glorious invasion of Grenada? The arming of the Contras and the Mujahideen?
Was the first Gulf War a moral war? How about the Iraq War? The PATRIOT Act? CIA renditions? Daisy-cutter bombs? Abu Ghraib? Enhanced interrogations, waterboarding and torture?
What are these “principles” of which you speak, Mr. Nichols?
+ Frankly, I don’t know if The Nation will be able to retain Nichols. If he keeps producing material this rich, the New York Times may well make him an offer he can’t refuse and we may soon find him grazing in the same stable with Friedman, Kristof and David Brooks.
Here's a rare photo of John Nichols, primping after reading the above:
And I found out about the above via the best Twitter feed around, John Stauber's Twitter feed:
John Stauber
.@JSCCounterPunch kicks my favorite cheerleader for @TheDemocrats, Mr, @NicholsUprising, he with the #BluePompoms. http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/10/ticker-tape-vs-sex-tape-notes-on-the-town-brawl-in-st-louis/ …
Kat's "Kat's Korner: The Lesbian Who Preferred Men" went up Sunday and takes on another dismal album from Melissa Etheride ("I'm The Only One" was apparently her only moment of inspiration) and also going up Sunday was Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Stand Up Hillary."
New content at Third:
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Not doing the work required is serious ...
- TV: The Man and The Boy Chick
- Last week at the White House . . .
- Thoughts on the second presidential debate (Ava an...
- Tweet of the week
- Critiquing the fashion of the debate (Rebecca, Bet...
- When they go low, Hillary goes high?
- Jim's World
- Whore of the week: Adam Peck
- This edition's playlist
- The establishment wants the Iraq War to continue (...
- Smug Hillary Clinton (Ann)
- Melissa Etheridge's lousy album (Kat)
- Marcia reviews ELIZABETH AND MICHAEL
- Chairman Miller'S Statement on Continued Delays an...
- Isakson on Continued Phoenix VA Negligence: Failur...
- Gloria La Riva weighs in on the debate
- Gloria La Riva: Exclusion from debates is blatant ...
- It's been a race to the bottom between the "lesser...
And it was written by Dallas and:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
Trina of Trina's Kitchen,
Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ,
Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends,
Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts,
and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Tuesday, October 11, 2016. Chaos and violence continue, Erdogan snarls
for Haider al-Abadi to know his "place," the federal court rules against
Haider, and much more.
We have to start with the Clintons -- because so much is avoided today.
Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and other unattractive goons working for MSNBC are in a tizzy.
They are appalled that Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broaddrick and Gennifer Flowers are back in the news. At least three of them were invited to Sunday's debate by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
There's no reason to clutch the pearls.
These women are part of history and if you are unable to deal with that fact, one wonders how you'd be able to deal with another Clinton presidency?
In the 90s, when human filth David Brock was working for trash but on the right (he still works for trash but now on the left), these women came forward.
Gennifer was the first.
She maintained, in 1992 as Bill Clinton was running for president, that she'd had an affair with Bill -- a long standing affair. This was born out behind closed doors by opposition research carried out by another Democrat seeking the party's presidential nomination that year. He ended up not using that research but everyone knew about it. Gennifer sold tapes of her conversations with Bill to the tabloids.
Bill and his dowdy wife Hillary -- still struggling with how to shape an eye brow -- appeared on 60 MINUTES and denied the affair though Bill did give vague responses acknowledging he cheated. Vague responses, over 20 years later, is all the likes of Andrea and Chuck can handle -- with Andrea, it's understandable -- for decades there have been rumors that her husband was cheating on her, that she knew and that she felt unable to address that in any way without suffering a loss of personal prestige.
Gennifer and Bill did have an affair.
Bill would have to own that under oath, but we're getting ahead of the story.
Bill had multiple affairs as governor of Arkansas and he continued to have affairs as president.
David Brock attempted to unearth one and ended up naming Paula Jones.
Paula Jones was outraged.
She had not had an affair with Bill Clinton.
She had, however, been assaulted by him.
She would eventually make that accusation publicly and sue him.
On the advice of Hillary, Bill would refuse to settle out of court.
This would allow the matter to drag on and for Bill to continue lying to the American public.
Kathleen Wiley next stepped forward to state that Bill had assaulted her while he was president.
Kathleen Wiley's charges linger.
Though idiots like Bob Somerby -- who painted himself into a corner long ago and can't be rational on the topic as evidenced by his referring to claims of assault and rape as the press "sniffing panties" -- charges of rape and assault are charges of crimes but like James Carville and other liars and whores, they destroy women who step forward and minimize charges of rape and assault.
Though idiots like Bob Somerby try to say that Starr himself -- Ken Starr -- found Wiley "unreliable" that doesn't disprove her statements or her charges.
Nor would any woman aware of violence against women look back at the 90s and some man sitting in judgment on a woman's charges of rape and/or assault and think that's the end of the story.
I don't know what -- if anything -- happened between Kathleen Wiley and Bill Clinton. I do know I believe her about what happened after she went public.
She was harassed. She was made to fear for her own safety.
For me, that's not in question. She was very believable when she spoke of that.
That doesn't mean the threatening acts came from Bill or were ordered by Bill (or by Hillary), it does mean -- just look at the press -- when somebody's hero is threatened, a lot of people who should know better turn into bullies and worse.
Another thing I should note about Kathleen.
Her 'friend' Julia said she lied.
Is it Julia or Julie?
I don't know.
When I despise someone, I tend to blot out there name.
As a Clintonista, I used to think Julie/Julia was so wonderful.
She'd stepped forward and helped Bill by telling the truth!
A few years after the whole thing was over, I met Julia/Julie who was being use to fund raise and I spoke with her. Maybe she was having a bad moment. But everything she said -- as she relived that period -- contradicted herself and I found her to be dishonest.
So we've got Katheleen, Paula and Gennifer in the public mix.
Hillary's shading business dealing -- and assorted other scandals -- had led to Kenneth Starr being allowed to investigate and he expanded his investigation.
Enter Monica Lewinsky.
Monica and Bill Clinton had an affair while he was President of the United States.
Though Hillary would attack her publicly as a stalker and worse, Monica didn't lie.
More importantly, Monica didn't come forward.
Someone she thought was a friend (Linda Tripp) outed her affair.
Left to her own devices, and not forced to give sworn testimony, Monica probably would've kept the affair quiet -- as she'd already done.
Forced to tell the truth or risk charges of perjury, Monica told the truth.
And Hillary branded Monica -- who loved Bill and didn't want to expose him -- a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy."
Hillary and others trashed her as a liar, a stalker, obsessed with the president.
Bill himself stood before the nation, wagging his finger, and swearing that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
He lied.
I have now idea why any woman would keep a dress that a man shot his wad on but, for whatever reason, Monica kept her blue dress that Bill "bedazzeled" with his penis. And good thing, because that was one of the pieces of evidence that forced Bill to get semi-honest.
Yes, they had an affair, a long standing one.
Bill had lied to the American people, worse from a legal stand point, he'd lied under oath.
This began impeachment proceedings against him.
The House of Representatives voted for impeachment.
The Senate decided to censure him.
Monica told the truth.
Gennifer told the truth.
Bob Somerby dismisses Kathleen Wiley as "unreliable."
Here's the reality about "unreliable."
If you lie about something under oath, you are considered unreliable.
More to the point, you're unreliable on the topic you lied about.
Bill lied about having sex with women under oath.
Confronted with Monica's dress -- that she'd never cleaned so his sperm contained his DNA -- he was forced to then get honest -- after having already demonstrated he would lie under oath about sex.
Bill is not reliable on this topic.
He has been proven to be a liar in a court of law.
He and Gennifer had an affair, he and Monica had an affair.
There were other women -- besides Kathleen and Paula -- who accused him of assault and worse. Some members of Congress felt their hands were tied because they knew of these charges but could not come forward.
One such woman was Juanita Broaddrick who maintained that Bill Clinton raped her.
Shortly after the impeachment proceedings concluded, NBC NEWS aired their interview with Juanita.
She has witnesses who back her up.
She made that charge nearly 20 years ago and has continued to stand by it.
Bill Clinton has never responded to that charge.
A sitting president was accused of rape and never publicly spoke to the issue.
To this day, in all of his interviews, no one has ever asked him about it.
Most men, if they were accused of rape, wouldn't need 18 years to respond.
They'd say, "No, I didn't rape her."
They'd say it to anyone who would listen.
But Bill Clinton has never said one word publicly on this matter.
(Bob Somerby, whore that he is, will insist Bill had a spokesperson speak. That doesn't count. Bill knows the law and he knows that. Which is why he had a spokesperson speak about his testimony -- trying to muddy the waters -- but refused to speak about it himself.)
Bill Clinton is now a public disgrace at this point.
He was impeached. He barely survived removal from office.
He's in the lame duck period of the presidency.
The Supreme Court will take action against him in terms of his ability to practice law.
But during this period, Bill Clinton pays Paula Jones nearly a million dollars.
That's for damages.
He settles out of court with her on the charges that he assaulted her.
Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Gennifer Flowers for years and was only exposed when put under oath. Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky and was only exposed when put under oath.
He then went on to settle with Paula Jones -- which in the court of public opinion is an admission of guilt.
Especially since, what more could be done to him at that point?
He'd already been censured.
Why settle then?
Bill Clinton is not a reliable witness. He is dishonest and that's established in the legal world.
I don't know what happened with Kathleen Wiley. I do believe she was threatened for her public statements. I do not know that the threats were orchestrated by Bill Clinton (or by Hillary Clinton). I do not believe her friend Julia/Julie (Hyatt Steele?) because I spoke with that woman for nearly half an hour and Julia/Julie's story doesn't hold up.
That leaves Juanita Broaddrick.
Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley's charges of assault are serious. These would be criminal actions.
Juanita's charge of rape is also be serious.
From Katha Pollitt's "Re: Juanita Broaddrick" (THE NATION, March 4, 1999):
Now that the impeachment trial is over, it’s time for progressives to get back to their drawing boards and let Bill Clinton clean up his own mess. If, as NOW president Patricia Ireland said, “There’s no way that Bill Clinton can look into the cameras and deny it and have anybody believe it,” that is a problem entirely of the President’s own making, and it would be a grave mistake for feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists and civil rights and civil liberties advocates to lend him a penny more of their moral capital. For six years too many progressives have given Clinton the benefit of the doubt, whether it was their ill-founded hope that he wouldn’t sign the Personal Responsibility Act or the equally ill-founded skepticism about the existence in an unlaundered state of a certain blue dress. We’ve seen Jesse Jackson hailing “our President” as the bombs were falling on Iraq and Barney Frank defending–wittily, tirelessly–the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. As the anti-impeachment slogan put it, enough is enough.
Juanita never stood a chance for people to hear her.
The American people were just exhausted by that point.
Bill was a liar.
It was embarrassing to the country that he was such a liar.
It was embarrassing on the world stage.
(Though the media kept pimping that in 'sophisticated' countries like France, rulers have affairs all the time -- to be clear, Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley were not saying they had affairs, they were saying they were assaulted. It's a point that many in the media missed.)
(Which is why we don't use the term "sexual assault." It's not about sex. Rape is not about sex, harassment is not about sex. Using the term "sexual assault" allows many in the media to treat it as something less than the crime it is. And we saw that on CBS nearly two years ago -- and called it out here.)
A tired nation just wanted the whole thing over.
So Juanita was never going to get a fair shake.
And by refusing to speak to the matter publicly, Bill Clinton ensured the story died quickly.
(If you charge something, the media reports that. For a second story, they need something else. If the person you're speaking about doesn't respond, the story can be allowed to die.)
I've admitted here that I didn't want to believe, at the time, that Bill would rape a woman. And that certainly Hillary would not stand by a man who raped a woman.
Two things changed, one I've already talked about here.
Hillary's defense of a rapist and attack on a rape victim.
Yes, it was an attack and I'm so sorry that THINK PROGRESS and other whores are so ignorant of the law.
If I'm an attorney and filing papers demanding that you submit to counseling, if I'm filing papers charging that you have delusions, I'm attacking your character.
And Hillary did that to an 12-year-old child.
A lot of liars/whores are saying she was his attorney and she owed him the best defense.
She did.
You don't have to assassinate someone's character to defend a rapist.
She could have, for example, used the court to attempt to create sympathy for her client.
There is no law or legal guideline that declares an attorney must assassinate someone's character.
(It is what Hillary does -- in a court of law and in a court of opinion.)
Today, such tactics in a court room would be considered outrageous.
'But that was the seventies!'
Last Sunday night was not 'the seventies.'
As we noted in "Thoughts on the second presidential debate (Ava and C.I.)," that 12-year-old girl is now a grown woman and she was present at the debate, Kathy Shelton was present.
Hillary was insisting in the debate that Donald Trump "never apologizes for anything."
But Hillary could have made an attempt to heal wounds she helped create by stopping to say, "To Kathy who is here tonight, I am sorry for any pain I may have caused you. I was attempting to offer a vigorous stand. By today's standards and looking back, I realize I crossed a line that I would not cross today and my apologies to you."
But she didn't.
She didn't even acknowledge Kathy.
Hillary wouldn't stand with a rapist?
Why not, she was right in front of Kathy, who she harmed as a 12-year-old girl, and she wouldn't even look at her, let alone apologize.
That's one reason I'm willing to consider Juanita's telling the truth.
Another reason?
When this site started, there was a man -- who I knew -- who was on cable constantly as a Democratic talking head. He was attractive, I'd even say he was sexy (so we know I'm not talking about James Carville).
He's not on now.
Because a woman wrote a very long e-mail to the public account explaining how this man had raped her daughter. I had the matter investigated and it confirmed the woman had been raped. Going forward would have destroyed the woman. She couldn't extract justice. But I could ensure that he wasn't on TV anymore and I did. And the word was put out what he'd done and what he was. He could have ended up with his own cable show. But he's rapist and when the word got out he was unemployable. And when I spoke to DNC friends, he also found himself encouraged to ease out of politics.
I knew that man. I would never have though he would rape a woman.
But we never know. (Which is not saying all men are rapists. They are not. But it is saying that some people can be so charming that you never know who they really are no matter how much time you spend with them.)
The above is public history.
If discussing it is too much for Andrea Mitchell or Chuck Todd, or anyone, then they need to find another line of work.
If Hillary is elected, Bill is back in the White House.
Americans to young to remember or have lived through the 90s deserve to know what that most likely means.
And the women of America would be bolstered by a serious discussion because that would make clear that a Clinton presidency this go round would not mean more press attacks on women.
Meanwhile in Iraq, the country Hillary Clinton helped set on fire, conflict continues between its government and the government of Turkey.
REUTERS reports that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's president declared, "The Iraqi prime minister is insulting me, first know your limits."
How is he being insulted?
Iraq wants the Turkish troops out of their country.
Haider al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, is only one of the officials calling for this.
Erdogan is the one who needs to "know your limits."
Iraq is not a part of Turkey.
It is its own country.
If the government is asking Turkish troops to leave its country, that's not open to debate.
Turkish troops either leave or they're declaring war by refusing to.
In terms of the region, should a war break out between Iraq and Turkey, Turkey's the odd one out. Iraq would find plenty of support from its neighbors.
So few people know the law (a point we noted earlier in the snapshot). If you're the leader of the country, you're still governed by its constitution and laws. So if you start trying to change the government by your mere word, you're going to be breaking the law. Haider has. ASHARQ AL-AWSAT reports Iraq's federal court has ruled that Haider does not have the power "to cancel the three posts of vice presidents" and they've overturned his action. Which would mean Osama al-Nujaifi, Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki remain vice presidents of Iraq.
At this point, we need to note the hypocritical US State Dept which repeatedly -- when something happens that they want -- says it's great but -- when something happens that they don't want -- insists the law must be followed.
The Iraqi Constitution never allowed the prime minister to abolish the post of vice president.
But the US State Dept spun it as 'reform.'
It was not reform, it was unconstitutional.
The US State Dept supports the law -- except when it doesn't.
We'll close on the topic of singer-songwriter Demi Lovato.
We have to start with the Clintons -- because so much is avoided today.
Andrea Mitchell, Chuck Todd and other unattractive goons working for MSNBC are in a tizzy.
They are appalled that Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, Juanita Broaddrick and Gennifer Flowers are back in the news. At least three of them were invited to Sunday's debate by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
There's no reason to clutch the pearls.
These women are part of history and if you are unable to deal with that fact, one wonders how you'd be able to deal with another Clinton presidency?
In the 90s, when human filth David Brock was working for trash but on the right (he still works for trash but now on the left), these women came forward.
Gennifer was the first.
She maintained, in 1992 as Bill Clinton was running for president, that she'd had an affair with Bill -- a long standing affair. This was born out behind closed doors by opposition research carried out by another Democrat seeking the party's presidential nomination that year. He ended up not using that research but everyone knew about it. Gennifer sold tapes of her conversations with Bill to the tabloids.
Bill and his dowdy wife Hillary -- still struggling with how to shape an eye brow -- appeared on 60 MINUTES and denied the affair though Bill did give vague responses acknowledging he cheated. Vague responses, over 20 years later, is all the likes of Andrea and Chuck can handle -- with Andrea, it's understandable -- for decades there have been rumors that her husband was cheating on her, that she knew and that she felt unable to address that in any way without suffering a loss of personal prestige.
Gennifer and Bill did have an affair.
Bill would have to own that under oath, but we're getting ahead of the story.
Bill had multiple affairs as governor of Arkansas and he continued to have affairs as president.
David Brock attempted to unearth one and ended up naming Paula Jones.
Paula Jones was outraged.
She had not had an affair with Bill Clinton.
She had, however, been assaulted by him.
She would eventually make that accusation publicly and sue him.
On the advice of Hillary, Bill would refuse to settle out of court.
This would allow the matter to drag on and for Bill to continue lying to the American public.
Kathleen Wiley next stepped forward to state that Bill had assaulted her while he was president.
Kathleen Wiley's charges linger.
Though idiots like Bob Somerby -- who painted himself into a corner long ago and can't be rational on the topic as evidenced by his referring to claims of assault and rape as the press "sniffing panties" -- charges of rape and assault are charges of crimes but like James Carville and other liars and whores, they destroy women who step forward and minimize charges of rape and assault.
Though idiots like Bob Somerby try to say that Starr himself -- Ken Starr -- found Wiley "unreliable" that doesn't disprove her statements or her charges.
Nor would any woman aware of violence against women look back at the 90s and some man sitting in judgment on a woman's charges of rape and/or assault and think that's the end of the story.
I don't know what -- if anything -- happened between Kathleen Wiley and Bill Clinton. I do know I believe her about what happened after she went public.
She was harassed. She was made to fear for her own safety.
For me, that's not in question. She was very believable when she spoke of that.
That doesn't mean the threatening acts came from Bill or were ordered by Bill (or by Hillary), it does mean -- just look at the press -- when somebody's hero is threatened, a lot of people who should know better turn into bullies and worse.
Another thing I should note about Kathleen.
Her 'friend' Julia said she lied.
Is it Julia or Julie?
I don't know.
When I despise someone, I tend to blot out there name.
As a Clintonista, I used to think Julie/Julia was so wonderful.
She'd stepped forward and helped Bill by telling the truth!
A few years after the whole thing was over, I met Julia/Julie who was being use to fund raise and I spoke with her. Maybe she was having a bad moment. But everything she said -- as she relived that period -- contradicted herself and I found her to be dishonest.
So we've got Katheleen, Paula and Gennifer in the public mix.
Hillary's shading business dealing -- and assorted other scandals -- had led to Kenneth Starr being allowed to investigate and he expanded his investigation.
Enter Monica Lewinsky.
Monica and Bill Clinton had an affair while he was President of the United States.
Though Hillary would attack her publicly as a stalker and worse, Monica didn't lie.
More importantly, Monica didn't come forward.
Someone she thought was a friend (Linda Tripp) outed her affair.
Left to her own devices, and not forced to give sworn testimony, Monica probably would've kept the affair quiet -- as she'd already done.
Forced to tell the truth or risk charges of perjury, Monica told the truth.
And Hillary branded Monica -- who loved Bill and didn't want to expose him -- a part of the "vast right wing conspiracy."
Hillary and others trashed her as a liar, a stalker, obsessed with the president.
Bill himself stood before the nation, wagging his finger, and swearing that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
He lied.
I have now idea why any woman would keep a dress that a man shot his wad on but, for whatever reason, Monica kept her blue dress that Bill "bedazzeled" with his penis. And good thing, because that was one of the pieces of evidence that forced Bill to get semi-honest.
Yes, they had an affair, a long standing one.
Bill had lied to the American people, worse from a legal stand point, he'd lied under oath.
This began impeachment proceedings against him.
The House of Representatives voted for impeachment.
The Senate decided to censure him.
Monica told the truth.
Gennifer told the truth.
Bob Somerby dismisses Kathleen Wiley as "unreliable."
Here's the reality about "unreliable."
If you lie about something under oath, you are considered unreliable.
More to the point, you're unreliable on the topic you lied about.
Bill lied about having sex with women under oath.
Confronted with Monica's dress -- that she'd never cleaned so his sperm contained his DNA -- he was forced to then get honest -- after having already demonstrated he would lie under oath about sex.
Bill is not reliable on this topic.
He has been proven to be a liar in a court of law.
He and Gennifer had an affair, he and Monica had an affair.
There were other women -- besides Kathleen and Paula -- who accused him of assault and worse. Some members of Congress felt their hands were tied because they knew of these charges but could not come forward.
One such woman was Juanita Broaddrick who maintained that Bill Clinton raped her.
Shortly after the impeachment proceedings concluded, NBC NEWS aired their interview with Juanita.
She has witnesses who back her up.
She made that charge nearly 20 years ago and has continued to stand by it.
Bill Clinton has never responded to that charge.
A sitting president was accused of rape and never publicly spoke to the issue.
To this day, in all of his interviews, no one has ever asked him about it.
Most men, if they were accused of rape, wouldn't need 18 years to respond.
They'd say, "No, I didn't rape her."
They'd say it to anyone who would listen.
But Bill Clinton has never said one word publicly on this matter.
(Bob Somerby, whore that he is, will insist Bill had a spokesperson speak. That doesn't count. Bill knows the law and he knows that. Which is why he had a spokesperson speak about his testimony -- trying to muddy the waters -- but refused to speak about it himself.)
Bill Clinton is now a public disgrace at this point.
He was impeached. He barely survived removal from office.
He's in the lame duck period of the presidency.
The Supreme Court will take action against him in terms of his ability to practice law.
But during this period, Bill Clinton pays Paula Jones nearly a million dollars.
That's for damages.
He settles out of court with her on the charges that he assaulted her.
Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Gennifer Flowers for years and was only exposed when put under oath. Bill Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky and was only exposed when put under oath.
He then went on to settle with Paula Jones -- which in the court of public opinion is an admission of guilt.
Especially since, what more could be done to him at that point?
He'd already been censured.
Why settle then?
Bill Clinton is not a reliable witness. He is dishonest and that's established in the legal world.
I don't know what happened with Kathleen Wiley. I do believe she was threatened for her public statements. I do not know that the threats were orchestrated by Bill Clinton (or by Hillary Clinton). I do not believe her friend Julia/Julie (Hyatt Steele?) because I spoke with that woman for nearly half an hour and Julia/Julie's story doesn't hold up.
That leaves Juanita Broaddrick.
Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley's charges of assault are serious. These would be criminal actions.
Juanita's charge of rape is also be serious.
From Katha Pollitt's "Re: Juanita Broaddrick" (THE NATION, March 4, 1999):
Now that the impeachment trial is over, it’s time for progressives to get back to their drawing boards and let Bill Clinton clean up his own mess. If, as NOW president Patricia Ireland said, “There’s no way that Bill Clinton can look into the cameras and deny it and have anybody believe it,” that is a problem entirely of the President’s own making, and it would be a grave mistake for feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists and civil rights and civil liberties advocates to lend him a penny more of their moral capital. For six years too many progressives have given Clinton the benefit of the doubt, whether it was their ill-founded hope that he wouldn’t sign the Personal Responsibility Act or the equally ill-founded skepticism about the existence in an unlaundered state of a certain blue dress. We’ve seen Jesse Jackson hailing “our President” as the bombs were falling on Iraq and Barney Frank defending–wittily, tirelessly–the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act. As the anti-impeachment slogan put it, enough is enough.
Juanita never stood a chance for people to hear her.
The American people were just exhausted by that point.
Bill was a liar.
It was embarrassing to the country that he was such a liar.
It was embarrassing on the world stage.
(Though the media kept pimping that in 'sophisticated' countries like France, rulers have affairs all the time -- to be clear, Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley were not saying they had affairs, they were saying they were assaulted. It's a point that many in the media missed.)
(Which is why we don't use the term "sexual assault." It's not about sex. Rape is not about sex, harassment is not about sex. Using the term "sexual assault" allows many in the media to treat it as something less than the crime it is. And we saw that on CBS nearly two years ago -- and called it out here.)
A tired nation just wanted the whole thing over.
So Juanita was never going to get a fair shake.
And by refusing to speak to the matter publicly, Bill Clinton ensured the story died quickly.
(If you charge something, the media reports that. For a second story, they need something else. If the person you're speaking about doesn't respond, the story can be allowed to die.)
I've admitted here that I didn't want to believe, at the time, that Bill would rape a woman. And that certainly Hillary would not stand by a man who raped a woman.
Two things changed, one I've already talked about here.
Hillary's defense of a rapist and attack on a rape victim.
Yes, it was an attack and I'm so sorry that THINK PROGRESS and other whores are so ignorant of the law.
If I'm an attorney and filing papers demanding that you submit to counseling, if I'm filing papers charging that you have delusions, I'm attacking your character.
And Hillary did that to an 12-year-old child.
A lot of liars/whores are saying she was his attorney and she owed him the best defense.
She did.
You don't have to assassinate someone's character to defend a rapist.
She could have, for example, used the court to attempt to create sympathy for her client.
There is no law or legal guideline that declares an attorney must assassinate someone's character.
(It is what Hillary does -- in a court of law and in a court of opinion.)
Today, such tactics in a court room would be considered outrageous.
'But that was the seventies!'
Last Sunday night was not 'the seventies.'
As we noted in "Thoughts on the second presidential debate (Ava and C.I.)," that 12-year-old girl is now a grown woman and she was present at the debate, Kathy Shelton was present.
Hillary was insisting in the debate that Donald Trump "never apologizes for anything."
But Hillary could have made an attempt to heal wounds she helped create by stopping to say, "To Kathy who is here tonight, I am sorry for any pain I may have caused you. I was attempting to offer a vigorous stand. By today's standards and looking back, I realize I crossed a line that I would not cross today and my apologies to you."
But she didn't.
She didn't even acknowledge Kathy.
Hillary wouldn't stand with a rapist?
Why not, she was right in front of Kathy, who she harmed as a 12-year-old girl, and she wouldn't even look at her, let alone apologize.
That's one reason I'm willing to consider Juanita's telling the truth.
Another reason?
When this site started, there was a man -- who I knew -- who was on cable constantly as a Democratic talking head. He was attractive, I'd even say he was sexy (so we know I'm not talking about James Carville).
He's not on now.
Because a woman wrote a very long e-mail to the public account explaining how this man had raped her daughter. I had the matter investigated and it confirmed the woman had been raped. Going forward would have destroyed the woman. She couldn't extract justice. But I could ensure that he wasn't on TV anymore and I did. And the word was put out what he'd done and what he was. He could have ended up with his own cable show. But he's rapist and when the word got out he was unemployable. And when I spoke to DNC friends, he also found himself encouraged to ease out of politics.
I knew that man. I would never have though he would rape a woman.
But we never know. (Which is not saying all men are rapists. They are not. But it is saying that some people can be so charming that you never know who they really are no matter how much time you spend with them.)
The above is public history.
If discussing it is too much for Andrea Mitchell or Chuck Todd, or anyone, then they need to find another line of work.
If Hillary is elected, Bill is back in the White House.
Americans to young to remember or have lived through the 90s deserve to know what that most likely means.
And the women of America would be bolstered by a serious discussion because that would make clear that a Clinton presidency this go round would not mean more press attacks on women.
Meanwhile in Iraq, the country Hillary Clinton helped set on fire, conflict continues between its government and the government of Turkey.
REUTERS reports that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey's president declared, "The Iraqi prime minister is insulting me, first know your limits."
How is he being insulted?
Iraq wants the Turkish troops out of their country.
Haider al-Abadi, prime minister of Iraq, is only one of the officials calling for this.
Erdogan is the one who needs to "know your limits."
Iraq is not a part of Turkey.
It is its own country.
If the government is asking Turkish troops to leave its country, that's not open to debate.
Turkish troops either leave or they're declaring war by refusing to.
In terms of the region, should a war break out between Iraq and Turkey, Turkey's the odd one out. Iraq would find plenty of support from its neighbors.
So few people know the law (a point we noted earlier in the snapshot). If you're the leader of the country, you're still governed by its constitution and laws. So if you start trying to change the government by your mere word, you're going to be breaking the law. Haider has. ASHARQ AL-AWSAT reports Iraq's federal court has ruled that Haider does not have the power "to cancel the three posts of vice presidents" and they've overturned his action. Which would mean Osama al-Nujaifi, Ayad Allawi and Nouri al-Maliki remain vice presidents of Iraq.
At this point, we need to note the hypocritical US State Dept which repeatedly -- when something happens that they want -- says it's great but -- when something happens that they don't want -- insists the law must be followed.
The Iraqi Constitution never allowed the prime minister to abolish the post of vice president.
But the US State Dept spun it as 'reform.'
It was not reform, it was unconstitutional.
The US State Dept supports the law -- except when it doesn't.
We'll close on the topic of singer-songwriter Demi Lovato.
- Watch Demi Lovato perform "Confident" live on her Future Now Tour!
Mike Adam
#DemiLovato visited Iraq to talk with officials about the refugee crisis! Celebs, take notes!! 
Pop Crave
Demi Lovato visited in Iraq with Cast Centers to talk and help Syrian refugees! Such an angel. 
iraq
