and showed her thong underwear.

His behavior was not the same as Trump's. To this day Lewinsky asserts that their relationship was consensual; that what hurt her was the media attention, not Clinton.

according to Lewinsky's testimony in the Starr report. She has consistently, even twenty years later, insisted that their whole relationship was consensual.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/6narritii.htm

long before she came to Washington for her Internship. I believe he was also one of her professors at the university she attended. It showed that she was a sick young women who preyed on older men with families for attention. She seemed to have many security issues, and Bill Clinton seemed just as needy as she did at the time.

There use to be an infomercial on many years ago, called "Light His Fire" for woman whose husbands had had affairs, and for women who wanted to keep their husbands from having affairs. The woman who starred in the Infomercial was a psychiatrist and selling a book and a series of tapes. The central theme of it all was that men have affairs not because they didn't love their wives and their family, but because of the way the woman with whom they were having the affair (or just sex) made them feel, when they were with them. So the tapes and the book were pretty informative and they were marketed towards women whose husbands had had affairs, and those who want to keep their husbands from having affairs. She also came out a Light Her Fire version which were geared towards men, though men rarely by these kinds of books. While the book and the tapes were informative, it still seemed to put the majority of the responsibility of having a successful marriage on only one of the parties in the relationship. However, the advice was good, and it pretty much concluded that men are simple creatures; women are more complex.

Broaddrick claims she was raped.

sexually assaulted.

Later, she signed a deposition for Ken Starr saying that he had assaulted her. But we also know that Ken Starr tried to intimidate another witness, Julie Hyatt Steele, into falsely swearing an affidavit confirming the assault report of Kathleen Willie. When Steele wouldn't do so, he pressed charges against Steele for obstructing justice, and she faced years in prison. She faced him down in her trial, however, and won.

Meanwhile, Linda Tripp, the same woman who brought Monica Lewinsky's tapes to the Starr investigation, testified in dispute of Kathleen Willie's account. There were many other problems with that case, too. But Starr was desperate to corroborate it -- so desperate that he had pushed Steele to lie.

So why did Broaddrick first swear that he hadn't assaulted her and then swear that he had? Maybe she was telling the truth to Starr -- or maybe he had intimidated her, just as he tried to intimidate Steele.

Knowing how hard he pushed Steele -- the real hero in this whole debacle -- it is obvious that if he could have prosecuted Clinton for anything more than lying about Lewinsky, he would have. But he didn't have the evidence, after all those years of a $70 million investigation.

And neither does anyone else.

And is tweeting right this very moment that she was raped by BC and Trump is retweeting those tweets.

This is the angle that Trump is going to try to push.

investigation. And she has received plenty of money for her new story over the years. Nothing she says could be proven then or now.

By the way, her husband at the time was one of the people who disputed her story.

Trump can push that story, just as he pushes lots of stories. But he will never be able to prove it's true.

I am just telling you the direction that Trump appears to be wanting to take this.

We've seen enough of him to know how he acts.

He could say something like: "Are you calling this woman a liar?"

Does she respond the way you did above or is there a better way to deal with him on this front?

I'm not sure that pointing out that Broaddrick signed a deposition denying any assault wouldn't be a bad thing.

But Hillary has got this, I'm sure.

She certainly did get the better of him last time.

Bill might have fucked everything in sight. Hillary didn't. It will only piss off women (aka "pussy" to Trump) if he blames her for Bill's philandering.

I just hope Hillary does not defend Bill tomorrow night.

nominated Trump.

Trump is also claiming Clinton raped women other than Lewinsky. I really do hope that is untrue, but does not excuse Trump's vile misogyny, regardless.

and enjoys their company out of bed, as well as in. And men like that are extremely attractive to women.

Trump's personality disorder does not allow him to develop normal relationships with others, but his wealth has always drawn women to it, and it's allowed him to purchase sexual favors as needed. Without it, he'd be an extremely lonely man.

we assume it's untrue until evidence proves otherwise.

Numerous women came forward to report Bill's sexual assault.

I see them as the same.

Last I heard, Bill Clinton's name was not on the ballot. I think you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque.

If she is to be believed, that was not consensual.

Just pointing out that he is going the Broaddrick route, not the Lewinsky one.

If she goes there, she'll be in court for libel after the election
There is fucking limit to the shit

Trump probably assaulted hundreds of women, many ynderafed

Hopefully some if not all of the truth will be known in the next few days instead of the conspiracies

Posted above a couple links may want to look at

all of this shit, millions of dollars, countless hours/witnesses/experts. Nothing.

A settlement to Jones (or anyone else) proves nothing, certainly not illegal (non-consensual) behavior. High profile defendants often settle out of court in order to hide embarassing details about their lives from coming out in public.

Many women coming forward proves nothing, since Bill had many affairs and many enemies, who could use the women as pawns and claim it was non-consensual. Again, there is zero evidence of illegal behavior, and much to suggest it was fabricated for political reasons.

Trump/GOP is trying to paint Hillary as either an enabler or clueless, which is why a defense of Bill is essential, as well as the fact that he'll become the first gentleman if Hillary is elected, and she has stated she will appoint him to a role in her admin. Avoiding this issue is not an option.

What Bill did was reckless to say the least. His presidency and the fate of the Democratic Party hung in the balance. Bill was the most powerful man in the world and he could have barred Monica Lewinsky from the White House. He could have easily told his aides to keep her away. He brought that on himself and, unfortunately, us as well. We had to waste time and effort just to keep him in the White House. He had the power to stop her and he didn't.

to Republicans who insist on using this avenue to condemn her. The blatant sexism behind charging her with her husband's actions is completely lost on them.

Hillary will do just fine as long as he stays away from this

Infidelity is one thing, that's something else
The state commission tried real hard to get more and could NOT

So, all I got is innuendo

I'm not arguing that he
Wasn't a bad husband
And probably did his share
Of sexual harassment
But

Implying a settlement means assault is quite something else

Trump describes sexual assault as a routine "séduction" technique

A la 90s and accepting innuendo as true
Despite 100m of wasted investigation saying different
Would be so much better
Pushing back on this is why Clinton is why she and bill are here to fight another day

Words also have meanings, using assault or rape when it isn't ts not right

and once his enemies discovered this, they could easily use it against him, and what many of those investigations in the 90's (imo) revealed was that the women were used as political pawns to bring him down.

So yes, there were many women, but there has never been evidence to suggest these were anything other than consensual affairs that were then later weaponized for political effect by claiming they were non-consensual.

If he did that, it was WRONG -- but when she came forward, it was with Republican handlers. Who knows whether it really happened?

Ken Starr spent years and $70 million, but all he could find worth prosecuting Clinton for was obstruction of justice for lying about consensual relations with Lewinsky.

of rape or sexual assault.

I want to believe all of his affairs were consensual, but I also want to believe victims. Bill was my "first" - first presidential election I could vote in, so my memories of those times are rose colored. But to staunchly say that the other women who accused him of assault are liars without evidence makes me no better than the Trump surrogates on TV now


And to the more salient point already raised - we are voting in 2016 for Hillary, and she has not sexually assaulted anyone

Accused this, accuse that
Again, more than 120 million in 2016 money
Was spent going after Bill and they
Got nothing
That's a monstrous amount of investigative power

They did. Paula Jones got a $850,000 settlement from him for assault.

A civil case where the standard of proof are lower too and it's not that person either
The Jones claim wasn't assault even if it was true which was not demonstrated.
So, try Again.

that would show Clinton assaulted someone, but couldn't find anything to prosecute him for, except for lying about consensual sex with Lewinsky.

The only other person he prosecuted was a woman, Julie Hyatt Steele, because she wouldn't confirm Kathleen Willie's story. He charged Steele with obstruction of justice because she wouldn't falsely confirm Willie's story, and she faced years in prison. But she faced him down in a trial and won.

She was a Republican who had no reason to help Clinton. She was just an ethical person with true courage.

I see no Bill on my Ballot. Only a Clinton named Hillary.

I am married to a strong woman. I love being married to a strong woman. My actions do not define her.

And when Bill is brought up as an attack on Hillary...Misogyny is the word.

and bragged about how he got away with it.

Bill has always denied the claims of his questionable accuser Broddrick and her constantly-changing story. (When under oath, she swore nothing happened)

Then why did he pay a $850,000 settlement to Paula Jones for assault?

She claimed he exposed himself and asked if she wanted to do something.

She said no and left.

If he did expose himself, that was wrong -- but when she came forward, it was with Republican handlers, during the Ken Starr investigation. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't. But he was smart to settle so she'd go away.

The fundamental difference has to do with consent, worldview and evidence.

Bill Clinton was pro-women's rights and viewed women as equals, whose choices and consent mattered. His actions with women seem to be more of his own personal weakness, like an overweight person who eats too much, or an alcoholic who drinks too much.

Trump, OTOH, holds an aggressively misogynistic worldview where women exist to serve men, especially powerful men like himself, and his actions w/women are an expression of hierarchical and gender dominance.

Evidence. There is a mountain of evidence, mainly Trump's own recorded words, that he sees nothing wrong with behaving in inappropriate, illegal and non-consensual manner with women, including his own family members (wives, daughters), co-workers, friends, aquaintances or strangers.

Bill Clinton has lived a lifetime in the public eye and had been investigated ad-nauseam, and zero evidence has ever turned up that he behaved in a non-consensual manner with anyone.

IMO, there is evidence to suggest that he was the repeated target of political witchhunts, and thus was the victim himself.

Trump has not been able to do the same, aside from threatening to sue.

On edit: sue the newspapers, not the accusers/victims.