Major Earthquake Strikes Trump Campaign

[Gregory Matthews]

This morning I attempted to get an update on the weather damage that happened in Florida overnight.  In addition, I learned of a major upset to the Trump campaign.  NOTE:  Normally my viewing of TV, on Sabbath is limited to religious programs.

A tape has been discovered in which Trump states that he can get away with groping women due to the fact that he is a Star.  And he also brags about succeeding in his attempt to take a married woman to bed.

In response Trump has been asked not to attend a scheduled Republican unity meeting.  And a major Republican attacker of Clinton has issued a statement that he can not and will not vote for Trump.  This is believed to give cover for other elected Republican officials to come out against Trump.

In response Trump has issued an apology in which he has clearly stated that he did say what he is quoted as saying and that he was wrong and no longer holds to those views.  Near the end of that a90 second apology he  states that in the future he intends to go after Bill Clinton and his relations with women which were much worse than that Trump did.

It will be interesting to see how the American public views such.

 

 

[debbym]

pot calling the kettle black.... sigh

 

 

[bonnie]

This really is not a question to Gregory , it is just in general and Gregory prefers not to answer me in public. And please leave your opinion as to this means support for Trump out of it at least for now. The comparisons are for asking why this moral hand wringing now,not who is most guilty. You  can make what you will of the following but before you attack accusing me of supporting Trump answer my question if you can.

What has caused so many to discover the moral high ground and express so much righteous indignation. The report is disgusting in the extreme . It is truly amazing for those that are going to vote these two candidates are the only choice they really have for president. But my question isn't about either of them or their behavior past or present.

It is the sudden discovery of the moral outrage over disgusting behavior rather than the behavior of any hopeful candidate.

For years Ted Kennedy  and Dodd did far worse than disgusting comments as a senator. He was repeatedly re-elected. I find a waitress sandwich "chuckle" "chuckle" as demeaning and disgusting as this disgusting tape. A woman died ,whether by accident or design,depending on your support of the previous senator. Didn't seem to be a stumbling block for many. 

Bill Clinton"s past sexual deviancy is relevant  when you consider the self righteous moral outrage towards Trump, Those,and there is more than one here felt what he did in his private life was not the nations business, a female reporter remarked she would not mind being in Monica's position. I haven't seen yet where a female reporter has suggested she would liked to have been the one groped by Trump

Hillary Clinton's role in the lies,cover ups and personal attacks were seen as almost this righteous virtue of a woman trying to save her marriage. Commendable effort if done in the right way and for the right reasons and without attacking those you know to be innocent or remaining silent about a spouse and his destination with a known pedophile

There is moral outrage towards Trump and alleged underage girls for a could have,alleged,We don't know if this is true but  past behavior you know. For those of you that now find behavior like this disgusting and reprehensible and something that should keep him out of the white house ,did you have the same response to Bill Clinton ditching the Secret Service and going to an island devoted to abusing young underage girls with a pedophile. More to the question is a spouse that aids and abets this behavior by silence or attacking those that raise the accusation.

Very true Bill Clinton is not running but his spouse is and she kept this as quiet as possible. Would the candidate whoever wins this mess do same as president? 

My husband would regret the day he was born if I knew. Position,hoped for or otherwise would not be enough for me to be quiet if  he raped or sexually assaulted a  woman or young children were being abused by my spouse or if my spouse was traveling to an island or using another location with a pedophile to entertain young girls.

 

The current allegations are against the private life years ago of a candidate, disgusting as it is. If I were a Trump supporter it would certainly influence my decision to vote for him.

But the behavior of  Bill Clinton as governor and president ,the lies told by him and his ever faithful spouse had the same effect.

For those here that have not been all that concerned with past behavior of a president and actually voted him back in, in spite of,  tell me when the moral outrage was discovered and why.

He sexually assaulted Paula Jones,both he as sitting president, and his wife ,Bill lied to congress about a sexual sin, his wife lied twice very publically to the american people,no biggy right? Private business. Sexual deviancy was claimed not to be a reason to remove one from the presidency,yet now it should prohibit one from becoming president.

Trump as a private citizen is vulgar and disgusting in a private conversation and everyone salivates over it.

 

Neither of these two should even acknowledge sex exists let alone dig in the past to see what can damage the other.

What makes one re-electable at the time  and the other unelectable for behavior of a decade ago. What makes a spouse electable that has lied,covered up and attacked innocent people

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  

Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001), has been publicly accused by several women of sexual misconduct. Juanita Broaddrick has accused Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey has accused Clinton of groping her without consent; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her. Other women have alleged adulterous affairs with Bill Clinton (e.g., Dolly Kyle, Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky). In addition, rumors of additional sexual misconduct have been publicized in tabloid magazines and on the Internet.

Of all the allegations made against him regarding his sexual history, Clinton has only admitted extramarital relationships with Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers, although he settled the suit brought by Paula Jones for $850,000. He denied having an affair with Dolly Kyle.

 

1Juanita Broaddrick

2Dolly Kyle

3Paula Jones

4Kathleen Willey

5Gennifer Flowers

6Other allegations

 

Juanita Broaddrick

In a 1999 episode of Dateline NBC, former Clinton volunteer Juanita Broaddrick alleged that in the late 1970s Bill Clinton raped her in her hotel room. According to Broaddrick, she agreed to meet with Clinton for coffee in the lobby of her hotel, but Clinton asked if they could go to her room to avoid a crowd of reporters. Once Clinton had isolated her in her hotel room, he sexually assaulted her. Broaddrick stated Clinton injured her lip by biting it during the assault.[1][2] In 1999, Clinton denied Broaddrick's allegations through his lawyer.

Supporters of Clinton have questioned her account by noting that Broaddrick continued to support Clinton, and appear at public events on his behalf, weeks after the alleged rape.[3] In addition, Broaddrick had once signed a deposition stating that no sexual contact had occurred with Bill Clinton; although she subsequently stated that she had made this claim because "I didn't want to be forced to testify about the most horrific event of my life."[4][5]

Broaddrick's allegations resurfaced in the 2016 presidential campaign. In various media interviews, Broaddrick stated that Clinton raped her and that Hillary Clinton knew about it, and tried to threaten Broaddrick into remaining silent. She started giving some interviews in 2015 because Hillary Clinton's statement that victims of sexual assault should be believed angered her.[6]

In 1999, Slate did a piece on whether Broaddrick was telling the truth. [7]

Dolly Kyle[edit]

As part of Paula Jones sexual harassment case Dolly Kyle (formerly Dolly Kyle Browning), a childhood classmate of Bill Clinton, was deposed and stated that she had known Bill Clinton since she was eleven and had an affair with him starting around 1974 and ending in 1992.[8][9][10][11] Ms. Kyle had become a lawyer in Texas. She began writing a "semi-autobiographical novel" about her alleged affair with Bill Clinton. In the publication process, Browning asserted that Clinton did everything in his power to prohibit and undermine publication. Browning sued Clinton for damages, but the US Court of Appeals denied her appeal. Clinton denied that an affair had occurred.[12][13] She subsequently published a memoir (Hillary the Other Woman: A Political Memoir) on their alleged 18-year affair.[14]

Paula Jones[edit]

According to Paula Jones' account, on May 8, 1991, she was escorted to Clinton's hotel room in Little Rock, Arkansas[15] where he propositioned and exposed himself to her. She claimed she kept quiet about the incident until 1994, when a David Brock story in the American Spectator magazine printed an account. In any case, in 1994, Jones filed a federal lawsuit against Clinton, alleging sexual harassment. In the discovery stage of the suit, Jones's lawyers had the opportunity to question Clinton under oath about his sexual history; in the course of this testimony, Clinton denied having had a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, a denial that (once his affair with Lewinsky was exposed) would lead to his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.[16]

In April 1998, the case was dismissed by Republican Judge Susan Webber Wright as lacking legal merit.[17] But Jones appealed Webber Wright's ruling, and her suit gained traction following Clinton's admission to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky in August 1998.[18]

On appeal, in the midst of his trial for impeachment based on false testimony in the Jones case (about his affair with Monica Lewinsky), Clinton was faced with the prospect of having to go under oath again and testify more about his sexual history. Instead, Clinton agreed to an out-of-court settlement, paying Jones and her lawyers $850,000 to drop the suit.[19] Clinton's lawyer said that the President made the settlement only so he could end the lawsuit for good and move on with his life.[20]

Kathleen Willey[edit]

In 2015, Kathleen Willey alleged Clinton groped her in the White House Oval Office in 1993.[21] Kenneth Starr granted her immunity for her testimony in his separate inquiry.[22][23]

Linda Tripp, the Clinton Administration staffer who secretly taped her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky in order to expose the latter's affair with the President, testified under oath that Willey's sexual contact with President Clinton in 1993 was consensual, that Willey had been flirting with the President, and that Willey was happy and excited following her 1993 encounter with Clinton.[24] Ken Starr thought there was insufficient evidence to pursue her allegations further. In 2007 Willey published a book about her experiences with the Clintons.[25]

Gennifer Flowers[edit]

Gennifer Flowers (born January 24, 1950) is an American model and actress who obtained notoriety in 1992 by revealing a 12-year sexual relationship with formerU.S. President Bill Clinton. Clinton denied the affair at the time. However, In January 1998, as part of Paula Jones' case, Clinton testified under oath that he had [26]sexual relations with Flowers.[27][28] In 2016 Flowers stated that Hillary is an enabler of Bill Clinton's affairs.[29]

 

Eileen Wellstone is an English woman who alleged Clinton raped her in 1969 after she had met him at a pub near Oxford University, England. Clinton was a Rhodes Scholarship student at Oxford at that time. Ms Wellstone re-confirmed the incident in 1999, but asked to be left alone.[30]

In 1998, in response to what she called false media claims that Clinton had raped her, Elizabeth Ward Gracen (former Miss Arkansas and Miss America) recanted a six-year-old denial and stated she had a one-night stand with Clinton in 1982.[31] Gracen later apologized to Hillary Clinton.[31]

Sally Perdue, a former Miss Arkansas, said she had a four-month affair with him in 1983.[32]

Connie Hamzy, a self-described rock-and-roll groupie, who said Clinton propositioned her in 1984 while she was sunbathing by a Little Rock hotel pool.[33]

Lencola Sullivan, a former Miss Arkansas and fourth runner-up in the Miss America pageant was rumoured to have had a "sexual relationship" with Clinton by L.D. Brown, Clinton's state trooper body guard.[34]

See also[edit]

[GayatfootofCross]

just keep talking trump

just keep talking

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

the faux righteous indignation aimed at Trump is almost laughable, considering 1) the Clinton sex scandals, 2) the 70 other documented sex scandals of US politicians, of both parties, and 3) the entertainment industry's overabundance of films that depict amoral sex, violence, rape, and gore, which people seem to love, as they keep showing up at the theaters, and the films keep getting made.   

I think Trump's remarks were lewd and filthy.  But then, Hillary has a potty mouth herself, from what I've seen.

ehhhh.... neither one deserve my vote...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, GayatfootofCross said:

just keep talking trump

just keep talking

Now that we have that  misdirection out of the way can you take the time to answer the question. As of this point I will not be voting for either.

When does the moral compass of you and so many others kick in and begin working?  Are the actions of a sitting governor and president and his wife less reprehensible than vulgar,lewd comments of a private citizen in a private conversation. As you believe that this should prevent Trump from becoming president,did you feel the same moral outrage at the behavior of Clinton and the behavior of his wife in attempting to destroy those that accused her husband. 

Not who is worse but your reaction   to lewd vulgar behavior and belief this should prevent a man being president?

Did you have the same reaction?

Hillary Clinton actually managed to say with a straight face this man cannot be allowed to be president. It seems I missed that remark over sexually deviant behavior of a sitting president. Many will never look at a cigar in the same way again.

[CoAspen]

Abraham fathered a child by his servant, Moses murdered a man and covered it up, David was a man of violence, committed adultery and sent her husband to die on the battle field, which he did, Solomon had more wives than an Mormon man ever dreamed of, Saul/Paul rounded up Jewish followers of Christ for jailing and death, etc, etc etc. Makes one wonder if they would get in church doors today let alone get voted into any office of the land. We believe God is in control of all, yet we all wail and nash teeth in responce to what out politicians do or are claimed to have done.

Makes me wonder if we sometimes get waaaaaaaayyyy to worked up about things of this life!

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, The Wanderer said:

How can anyone be fit for public office when at the end of the "apology" he dismisses the whole thing with "well at least I wasnt as bad as so and so."  Where is the remorse or accountability in that?

For you as well as Gay,now that you have the misdirection out of the way could you answer my questions. Not what you think of Trump or Hillary but when vulgar behavior is considered a reason to remove or keep someone from the presidency. 

Should someone be president or remain president when the behavior in question has been committed by more than one and many have supported those to remain in office and re-elected them after the facts became known.  Should one that has actively attempted to cover up,and destroy those innocent,lie so convincingly to the american public be trusted as she has never taken accountability or expressed remorse for her lies and the trashing of others ,she knew at the time that it was a lie

Personally I am a little skeptical about apologies that come as a result of being found out. So where is your moral compass on sexually deviant and abusive behavior?

Mine says the behavior of Bill Clinton and Trump is the same. The behavior of Hillary Clinton is just as reprehensible for her role in protecting the guilty while attempting to destroy the innocent. Without remorse or accountability this is what she will take into the White house along with the human tom cat she brings with her

[GayatfootofCross]

We as Christians know  ..For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Luke 6:45

 

[bonnie]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

Abraham fathered a child by his servant, Moses murdered a man and covered it up, David was a man of violence, committed adultery and sent her husband to die on the battle field, which he did, Solomon had more wives than an Mormon man ever dreamed of, Saul/Paul rounded up Jewish followers of Christ for jailing and death, etc, etc etc. Makes one wonder if they would get in church doors today let alone get voted into any office of the land. We believe God is in control of all, yet we all wail and nash teeth in responce to what out politicians do or are claimed to have done.

Makes me wonder if we sometimes get waaaaaaaayyyy to worked up about things of this life!

Interesting take. One element you missed is a Change of heart. Nota pretend change but a true change.

I would hope that we would not vote into church office a unrepentant man that was rounding up Jewish follower for jailing and death. Can't see  unrepentant Hitler as conference president. Or a man with many wives like Solomon.

Wasn't David that asked God to create a new heart in him. Haven't heard that from Clinton or Trump.

Still unable to get an answer as to when the moral outrage kicks in for some

[bonnie]

43 minutes ago, GayatfootofCross said:

We as Christians know  ..For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Luke 6:45

 

I appreciate your response without an answer. Is We as Christians know ......

an exclusion of those that disagree with you and you don't want to commit to an outright claim?

Hypocrisy is a interesting word. Little about that in the bible as well I  think.

You are outraged at Trump for a lewd and vulgar private conversation. Yet you accept lewd, vulgar,lies and destruction of others as irrelevant.It sounds like you give a pass to one and get on the moral high ground with another guilty of same. 

I am not voting for either,I think both  are equally flawed in the character and integrity dept.  You are willing to place a known sexual predator with accusations of rape and sexual assault ,known lies concerning a daughter young enough to be his daughter back in the white house as a spouse and expect different behavior from either Clinton. To me that is hypocrisy,something that does not spell christian to most.

I probably will vote for others running for office but talking with my husband we will probably write in for president.

I will write in Pinocchio  for Clinton and my husband will do same for Trump

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bonnie]

8 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I was commenting on an individual post...not on your questions whatever they were or are. For some reason I dont have time for all that reading. Thank you for condidering me in your comment.

Really didn't expect that you would or could

[bonnie]

20 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Moral outrage whatever that is so that it would satisfy you is not manifested by everyone in the same way.

It is not what outrages me. This is a question that hopefully someone can answer about their selective moral outrage over one candidate.

I think regardless of who is guilty of lewd,vulgar behavior,sexual assault,rape,the sexual conduct with a young woman young enough to be your daughter, should prohibit any that are guilty from holding public office,let alone the presidency,whether that name is Clinton or Trump or anyone. 

I simply don't understand the selective outrage over one and the outrage that has been sorely lacking for another.

Again,didn't think any could explain why it is something that can be accepted in one and prohibit another..

[bonnie]

12 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Then why ask?  I was just expressing surprise and disgust for the post in question. I am not a politician and do not require or deserve a "hot seat."  I would say that forum members participating in this thread are simply saying they have a preference which I believe any US citizen should have. Some people just believe they should vote no matter what the available choices are. Thats not "wrong" and in some countries it could mean their life. When it comes to this kind of thing I try to respect everyones view.

My question was not about  having a preference. I asked because you chose to participate. The question was not even about who someone is voting for. when does the behavior in question concern people? 

It is how does someone reconcile their outrage over the behavior of one for crude behavior, private  by the w ay accusations of lies etc,and for decades literally fawn over two people that are guilty of the same. Bill Clinton is not running for office but will of course be back in the white house to do same. Unless you think accountability and remorse are only required for some to indicate a change of heart and behavior.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

52 minutes ago, bonnie said:

I simply don't understand the selective outrage over one and the outrage that has been sorely lacking for another.

that's what I don't understand, either...

[bonnie]

Melanie Trump made a statement concerning Trump's behavior (a nasty conversation)and still supporting his run for the president.  So much of the response for standing by him is derogatory. No "good for her,the little woman trying to save her marriage" She is a gold digger,Trump threatened her if she didn't,nothing but a w@#$%,etc. 

When Hillary stood by Bill Clinton for actual sexually deviant behavior and sexual assualt it was "Isn't that sweet she is trying to save her marriage by lies and trashing the innocent" 

Please tell me how this works?

[bonnie]

Based on the comments currently and remembering the past comments by "these forum members" during the Monica scandel the selectiveness would be hard to miss. The current concern over the alleged abuse of a 13 year old by Trump and a convicted pedophile is news and something that must be considered.Bill Clintons numerous trips with that same convicted pedophile to a island devoted to sex with young girls isnt a bump in the news. Matter of flight records that Clinton in fact did go with this pedophile and ditched the Secret Service to do it. So far it is an unproven allegation that Trump and this pedophile sexually abused this 13 year old in front of a witness. Any adult that stands by and watches a child being raped leaves a lot to be desired in the credibility dept. But if Clintons time on a sex island with young girls and a convicted pedophile isnt grounds for a very through investigation why pretend concern over Trump and the same man with a thirteen year old? We have a topic posted here that suggests that it should be taken seriously and give a lot of thought to. Why?  Nothing of the same concern about Clinton. Wonder if Hillary would try to destroy a 13 year old if faced with revelations like this if president? 

[Bravus]

One difference from most other sex scandals is that those are consensual affairs, Trump was talking about sexual assault of people against their will.

As I saw it said on Twitter: "Don't judge me by what I did 10 years ago, but definitely judge Hillary by what her husband did 20 years ago".

Bill Clinton is not running for office.

As I also saw it said, though: "Apparently you can say whatever you like about Muslims and Mexicans, but when you start on white women it's all over".

Trump's character has always been awful... I'm just pleased it has come out before the election, not after it.

Oh, and by the way, lots of people are saying "As a father of daughters I'm appalled by Trump's comments". The heck with that: as a human being I'm appalled. 

[bonnie]

36 minutes ago, David Geelan said:

One difference from most other sex scandals is that those are consensual affairs, Trump was talking about sexual assault of people against their will.                      

As I saw it said on Twitter: "Don't judge me by what I did 10 years ago, but definitely judge Hillary by what her husband did 20 years ago".

Bill Clinton is not running for office.

As I also saw it said, though: "Apparently you can say whatever you like about Muslims and Mexicans, but when you start on white women it's all over".

Trump's character has always been awful... I'm just pleased it has come out before the election, not after it.

Oh, and by the way, lots of people are saying "As a father of daughters I'm appalled by Trump's comments". The heck with that: as a human being I'm appalled. 

Paula Jones and others were sexual assaults. They said no so Trump did not assault them in the same forceful manner Clinton did.                                      What I asked was not a judgement of Hillary based on what her husband did?  I asked anyone to explain the selective moral outrage at Trump. This was lacking in a lot of the general public as well as on this forum concerning Bill Clinton and the  woman young enough to be his daughter in the whitehouse. Why is the dispicable behavior of Trump as a private citizen in a private conversation cause for so much moral outrage. And here and the media defended Clinton in that what he did privately concerning sex really wasnt anyone else's business. It isn't the actions of either , but the response to the same sexually deviant behaviour that mystifies me. One should not be elected to the presidency for truly private behavior,the other should remain as president and in addition be re-elected. Why the selective outrage?          Bill Clinton is not running for office but as president what would Hillary do in the very real possibilty that her deviant husband will be guilty of the same behavior? Would she set out to destroy anyone that came forward with accusations against the sexual predator she will bring with her?                                You might want to do a little reading on Hillary's comments on why we need a wall on the border                                          Oh and BTW there are also comments that say father's with daughter's would not want Bill Clinton near their daughters. I certainly wouldn't want my granddaughters as interns in the whitehouse with Hillary and Bill Clinton. One a sexual predator and one that protects a sexual predator by trying to destroy the innocent.  Nor would I want them alone with Trump.

[bonnie]

Not about the actions of Trump or Clinton.  About the now moral outrage of those like yourself on the forum and nationally that was and is lacking concerning the same type of behavior of others in public office or aspiring to be.I can't vote for Trump because of his behavior. I can't vote for Hillary because of hers. At least Trump was a private citizen when behaving in this manner.Hillary on the other hand lied and trashed and threatened innocent women from the Whitehouse

[lazarus]

5 hours ago, bonnie said:

 At least Trump was a private citizen when behaving in this manner.Hillary on the other hand lied and trashed and threatened innocent women from the Whitehouse

In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses^[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable—or even admirable and superior—by plausible means.^[

^{from Wiki}

[lazarus]

Trump and Clinton made the same mistake. Don't get caught abusing White Women!! Abuse Mexicans, Muslims, the disabled, retweet white supremacist crime stats but don't mess with White ladies. If Emitt Till were alive he would confirm that. 

 

 

[lazarus]

The Republicans are scrambling because they are afraid that Trump is going to take them down with him. What I saw in that videotape was that Trump was targeting white women like he has previously targeted blacks, Mexican-Americans, and Muslims. 

The Republican Party does not need any of those groups to vote for them in order to win, but it does need white women's support. 

It is virtually impossible for Trump to win without a strong majority of white women's votes. Down-ballot and other Republicans cannot win elections without white women going to the polls and casting Republican ballots. Republicans are alive to this -- they get it.

http://www.kxlf.com/story/33348784/real-reason-republicans-are-ditching-trump-its-white-women#

[bonnie]

3 hours ago, lazarus said:

In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses^[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable—or even admirable and superior—by plausible means.

Your implication that I have somehow rationalized this is a complete fabrication on your part. Trump's lewd and vulgar comments are dispicable. But not more so than the same mentality that actually put lewd and vulgar into action in the White House. Instead of fabricating why not just explain the difference in attitude that accepted Bill Clinton's actual behavior as a sitting president vs that of comments in a private conversation as a private citizen.

At that time one of the big worriers was about the right of the public to know about a private affair  of a president.

 

[bonnie]

http://what-when-how.com/privacy/clinton-lewinsky-scandal/

from Wiki

Clinton-Lewinsky scandal.............

. The events surrounding the revelation of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair elicited widespread concern about dwindling privacy protections for public figures and private citizens in the contemporary United States. Frequently likened to a form of “new McCarthyism,” the Starr probe in particular came to emblematize the pathologies of a society that no longer respects the right to privacy. The media was also widely condemned for what many considered to be excessive coverage of the details pertaining to a private affair.

 

WE are not hearing this now. In fact quite the opposite. Please  why the change in the moral outrage. Same kind of circumstances,one a sitting president and one a presidential hopeful ? Not whether you falsely claim I am rationalizing Trump's behavior. Where is this concern now

the Starr probe in particular came to emblematize the pathologies of a society that no longer respects the right to privacy. The media was also widely condemned for what many considered to be excessive coverage of the details pertaining to a private affair

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Jones claimed that she filed her suit in an effort to salvage her reputation after conservative journalist David Brock had published an article naming Jones as a participant in one of Clinton’s many extramarital affairs.

 

David Brock is the same upstanding,ethical individual that has offered a monetary reward for any dirt on Trump.

 

Linda Tripp was condemned ,mocked and otherwise ridiculed for releasing private conversations concerning a sitting president. Where are these same people now. Private citizen and a private conversation

It soon became clear that Starr had shifted the focus of his investigation from a concern with financial affairs to an interest in intimate ones. Following on the heels of a story published in Newsweek magazine detailing  the president’s alleged sexual advances toward White House staffer Kathleen Willey, Lewinsky was subpoenaed in December 1997 by lawyers for Paula Jones; in a sworn affidavit, Lewinsky denied having an affair with the president. Soon thereafter, Lewinsky confidante Linda Tripp turned over to Starr over 20 hours of taped telephone conversations with the unwitting Lewinsky that contained admissions of Lewinsky’s sexual relations with the president. In January 1998, Matt Drudge published Lewinsky’s name on his website, as well as a report that Newsweek had obtained the Tripp-Lewinsky tapes but had pulled a story about them under pressure from Starr, who feared it would jeopardize his investigation. On January 21, 1998, following a Washington Post report on his relationship with Lewinsky, Clinton told a television interviewer that “there is no improper relationship.” One week later, before an invited media audience at the White House, Clinton insisted, “I want you to listen to me. I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.”
Several months later, Lewinsky’s lawyers struck an immunity deal with Starr, in which she agreed to provide “full and truthful testimony” in exchange for full immunity from prosecution. For the next 15 days, Lewinsky was questioned by the grand jury. Shortly thereafter, the president was asked to provide a blood sample for DNA testing to determine if it was a match with semen stains found on a blue dress Monica Lewinsky had kept in her closet following a sexual encounter with the president. Two weeks later, President Clinton admitted to the grand jury that he had had “inappropriate intimate contact” with Ms. Lewinsky, although he continued to hold that his earlier statements had been accurate, explaining at one point that his answer to the question about the nature of his relationship with Lewinsky “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Clinton-Lewinsky scandal spawned widespread reconsideration of the meaning and extent of privacy rights in the contemporary United States. Throughout the ordeal, many suggested that the real scandal lay not in the fact that the president had had an extramarital affair, but rather in the invasion of the president’s privacy by the independent counsel’s office and the media. While scandals are nothing new in U.S. politics—nor is the tendency for presidents from Jefferson to Kennedy to stray from the terms of the marital oath—the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal set a new standard in terms of the public’s sense of its right to know personal details about public figures.

Now the real scandal is Trump's private conversation as a private citizen. A little hypocrisy ?

I
The media was charged with violating privacy as the scandal unfolded.

Is the same being done now with glee

I. The president’s affair with Lewinsky dominated headlines in the mainstream media for an extended period, leading to complaints that journalists had abdicated their responsibility to guard the public interest. The scandal also raised concerns about the growing influence of alternative and nontraditional media, including web-based news sites such as the Drudge Report and AM-frequency talk radio stations, which appeared to hold themselves to lower standards of verification and professional comportment when gathering and reporting the news than had been expected of more traditional news outlets.

Is the mainstream media doing the same now. Are they doing exactly what alternative and nontraditional media

were accused of?

 

 At the same time, many self-described feminists rose to Clinton’s defense, urging chastened members of the movement to rethink the meaning and limits of the imperative to politicize the personal, and to dedicate themselves to re-conceptualizing privacy rather than abandoning the ideal altogether.

Is this what we are hearing from many feminists now,same type of circumstances? 

Or does moral outrage shift depending on who they are being outraged at

 

 

Edited October 11, 2016 by Tom Wetmore
Too much shouting...