We the people have the right to judge only the public life of the POTUS we hire
Seems ironic to rehash this one - now that we have one who is there because he cheated the onew we hire and says things like "There was a moment of accountability - it was called the 2004 election"

But we did hire Bill Clinton and he is accountable to us about what he did as president. On the job - like any other employee would.

His private life - is still his own. Remember, if not for the Arkansas project Lucianne Goldberg wiring Monica and Starr broadcasting the deposition, this would have stayed
private. Is it a good idea to cheat on your wife? Depends on the marriage. I know enough "open marriages" to know that individual people view this matter differently.
I have no idea what the Clinton's arrangement was - NOR SHOULD I HAVE IT.
It's none of my biswax.
I am not even interested in the Brangelina and that whining one triangle - much as it jumps in my face at the supermarket.
The thing about sex is: it's much better when you have it than when you obsess about others having it. People tend to project their own experiences on this - and shouldn't.
Let the Mighty Clenis be! Go home, hug your sweetheart, have some grat sex - and stop begrudging a man a consensual BJ!
let the family values crowd be outraged about it.

were having affairs at the same time.

(although the hypocrisy of his anti-gay stands remains). But I don't want to go to a bathroom and be faced with things that belong in private.
"get a room: kinda covers it.

and other far darker things than the one they were so "outraged" by.
That's why I say it's the curse of attacking Clinton - sooner or later, karma catches up with you. I wish someone kept a running list of impeachers & friends who are now in jail, shamefuly ousted from their office, suspected of a crime (dead intern in the office Scarborough). Like the gambler "where is the outrage?"Bill Benett.
Or "can you spare a dime" Linda tripp?
If the anti-Hillary movement here want to bring up the Mighty Clenis - go right ahead! Hillary brings the women outraged by sexism. The Mighty Clenis will add some men angered by the hypocrisy! Let's have a 70% voting base!

Even LBJ had more affairs than Clinton but the media just simply responds to their puppetmeisters.
It's all a sham. The biggest sham of all is that people actually think that a black man named Barack Obama can be elected President in 2008. This is still America. America is still a racist society as is most of the rest of the world.

was abnormal.

From what I read, the majority of our presidents have likely been unfaithful while in office

that's what screwed us.

and I understand what you say, otherwise ;-)

Anybody who does that at work will be fired. Ordinary people that is.

And I bet secret service had a clue.

approved of him? I read it's 89% now. Do you really want to bring this up? Abetter recruitment poster I can't imagine!

VOTE CLINTON! BECAUSE THE PRUDES ARE AT IT AGAIN!

The Senate trial found him not guilty.

No intercourse, and even Monica said she did not reagard a BJ as "having sex." A lot of so-called "innocent" young girls do not regard having sex as anything but intercourse. That's why so many can claim to their parents that they are "virgins." Especially in those RW funddie families. Anything goes but actual intercourse.

Glad however to see the "it isn't the sex but the lie" RW talking point advanced here on DU. Ironically, that's exactly what W said too "I think he should be impeached because he lied" - which makes the irony more...ironical.

I would have liked to have seen the definition he was given, if anything, because I was making that argument in the beginning and I thought I was shot down on it.

I will research.

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -
(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

In regards to his response:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.

Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false," the judge wrote of Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition.

Who'd have thought?

the mouth, which is how oral sex is typically performed. Hence oral sex did not meet the definition used.

engages in or causes -
(1) contact with the genitalia

"The person" in question in the definition was Bill Clinton.

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -
(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;"

The Person (Bill Clinton) did not do the above.

hahaha.

Thats funny.

Bill Clinton didn't write the definition.

if she does this to me, and I don't touch her anywhere here, and if I use this here cigar...then I can use this here definition to save my butt!

Hilarious.

Its sad.

or breast (or inner thigh, for that matter). The idea that he just stood there or sat there and was "serviced" is kinda silly.

Also, what about the cigar deal. I won't go into the details but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about...

That actually makes sense...

Clinton aroused her to climax. But, no, I don't know and maybe that "happens" to strippers also according to strip club protocols. Somehow that seems a bit artificial. He and Monica did what they did in private, which IMO makes a big difference.

disingenuous and evasive. And any putz over the age of 12 knows that what Monica and Bill were up to WAS sex and being cute about it wasn't going to save Mr. Rhodes Scholar's ass.

WTF was he supposed to do? Offer more information than requested? Would ANYONE on trial ever be expected to do so?

it in his pants. And for another, he could have given up cigars. He proved that they're mighty bad for ya in more ways than one.

clear enough for you.

I did it. It's none of your business.'

It was the lying and the way he tried to play cute.

ever forget that.

But on the bright side, it did indirectly get Paula Jones a much needed nose job.

billions spent, and the full power of the federal government, al they could get was a consensual blow job.

with married men) in the White House on the taxpayers dime.

He was an adulterous lying ass. With some really tacky taste in mistresses.

?

then I guess sex is defined as intercourse - penis in vagina.

And all gays are perverted!

:sarcasm:

Was he supposed to use a different definition?

He had sex with the woman, regardless of the deposition.

The impeachment was WRONG, but everyone knows he had sex with Monica.

Bill and Monica didn't have sex. They were having tea and crumpets!

Edit to add: no one outside of their personal relationships.

Maybe you need to rephrase that.

or blow jobs, or mutual masturbation, or a lot of things.

But what matters is a deposition isn't what I think sex is, but what the deposition uses as the definition.

For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in "sexual relations" when the person knowingly engages in or causes -
(1) contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;

The deposition describes the contact it considers sex that Bill Clinton would have had to had - contact with genitalia, anus, groin,breast, inner thigh, or buttock. He got a blow job - it doesn't say MOUTH.

This is ridiculous.

contacted?

lol.

Why the inquisition over a BJ anyway?
We can't impeach Bush over illegal wars and torture, and yet you drool all over the Starr report...

is not private behavior. Sorry.

Try that with your office intern at your desk at your work place and see how that goes over.

And then try saying in a legal deposition that you "did not have sex with that woman" when there is physical evidence to the contrary.

Not good.

then hiring her so that you have easy access to her as far as I know is illegal in any company in the USA.

Companies determine policies.

Companies do not determine laws; they follow them or they get hit with large law suits.

Sexual harassment is illegal. Consensual sexual activity is not.

Get your BS charge right.

it can still be present even if consent is given. Sexual harassment is about power and power imbalance.
And when it it is present in the workplace, others ine the workplace who are disturbed by it can also sue.

Sexual harassment is far more complex than your understanding would indicate.

Sexual harassment requires SOME complaint from SOMEONE. But there was none - no laws were broken.

Whatever you argue does not excuse Clinton's behavior. It was inappropriate and embarrassing for the President of The United States
to be having sex with a young intern whom he later hired for even greater access in the Whitehouse

Nothing illegal happened.

We do know that a complaint of harassment was issued by Kathleen Wiley.
We know that she was mocked and ridiculed by the Clinton surrogates even though
she had been a loyal Clinton supporter.

And we know that many American people were very embarrassed by Clinton's immature and narcissistic behavior.

Have you raped anyone?

And I do not beat my wife either.

How do we know it hasn't happened?

Or, if it makes you feel better, have you sexually harassed anyone? If not, how can we know?

Accusing me of a crime is a serious matter. One could argue that your posts to me
are becoming harassment in themselves. I do not see how they advance your arguments
justifying Bill Clinton's behavior, They appear to weaken them.

I know that it sis important for you to have the last word. But I would
suggest that you quit while you are behind.

in which the deciding factor is the consent of the potential victim.

Are you now suggesting that asking you questions in a public forum is harassment?

Your accusations and insinuations are highly inappropriate and yes are harassing.

It was not intended as such.

How Orwellian of you guys!

is not necessarily consensual.

Same as any scenario in which the difference between legal and illegal is consent.

Wrong. Some do not have the ability to give consent.
And when consent is given in a situation where there is a power imbalance, it can be illegal.

in this scenario.

A power imbalance can result in harassment or coercion, but it does not necessarily occur simply because there is a power imbalance.

Monica Lewinsky was an adult, and has NEVER claimed she was coerced or harassed. Neither has any other staff at the White House at the time.

A power imbalance in and of itself does not make sex harassment or coercion.

You might as well argue that consensual sex is rape just because if one of the partners didn't consent it would have been.

"Feminism, Clinton and Harassment". Interesting read from this vantage. :)

Feminism, Clinton, and Harassment
By Franklin Foer
Posted Sunday, April 19, 1998, at 3:30 AM ET

Last month, feminist foremother Gloria Steinem took to the New York Times op-ed page to argue that the sexual harassment laws should not protect Paula Jones. Steinem's position was roundly dismissed as a scholastic contortion of logic, performed to protect her ideological friend Bill Clinton. Conservatives gloated over the feminist's hypocrisy on sexual harassment, the movement's sacred cow. No less than the New York Times editorial page accused Steinem of selling out her cause. Did Steinem and the feminists sacrifice their principles to protect Bill Clinton? What are the different feminist schools of thought on sexual harassment? How have they changed post-Clinton?

http://www.slate.com/id/1090

not admissible evidence in court, why is it in the court of innuendo? in the "high and mighty" crowd?

depositions even.

obstinately prosecuting?

And it was a civil suit, not a criminal one.

70% of Americans were opposed to this masquerade.

It is illegal to commit perjury, whether in a civil or criminal lawsuit.

cuz no one round here agrees with anythin I write.

not that what he did was perfectly fine and hunky dory.

I don't agree in impeachment either. I thought it was overkill and I was part of that 70%.

According to you, he never had sex with Monica anyway.

Or are you saying he should have made up his own definition?

nobody here wants to listen to you harp on your right wing garbage about the Clenis.

it is private behavior.

even if it becomes a personnel issue which is also private, not public.

its like the bigger issues of morality dont exist any more.

That is the biggest problem I have with the Clintons.

From Wikipedia:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") has three principal meanings.

In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience.

In its second, normative and universal, sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions. To deny 'morality' in this sense is a position known as moral skepticism.<1>

In its third usage 'morality' is synonymous with ethics, the systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.<2>

your truth telling is in the toilet.

You know that actually hurts to be called a liar, because I don't lie intentionally. If I say something wrong because I am misinformed I try to correct it.

And my "goalposts" moved because I started off being upset about the lying, then I got upset about how he treats women, and on and on.

I post because I am mad at the guy. So sue me.

it on the field.

situation.

I addressed them as they came.

And I acknowledged that some of my views came out of my own worldview, which a lot of people here don't share. I am expressing why I am mad with him. That is all I am doing.

Not even the Bush's horrors did bring some perspective for some. happily, it's different out there, in the real world.

Now we have to think about the future we want and who can get us there and who has done what in the past to make us mistrust them.

Rationalize all you want about the privacy of sex. Clinton neither showed good character or good judgment in the Lewinsky affair.
And when is phone sex great sex?

judgement and character.

and mostly sexism

The only one who is punish Hillary is Bill who is a serial cheater.

My, my, my-- we at DU have certainly become a pristine receptacle of Victorian-era sexual prudishness lately...

I imagine that if this particular egg continues to float, not only we will continue to repeat Rush Limbaugh's arguments on this from ten years ago, but we'll also begin to use some of Jerry Falwell's infamous monologues on sexual standards and the decline of the American family.

the evidence he left on a blue dress.

Don't like it? Don't read it.

lying skunk when I see one. And at that place and at that time that describes Billy Clinton perfectly. He let down his family, he let down his party, and he friggin' cost the dems dearly.

Nothing you can say can change any of that.

includes Mr Obama's pals.

I just think you're projecting some personal s* and your priorities are ...unique.
Anyway, most Democrats out there - in fact most Americans out there - think differently. Men AND women. (sorry if you were betrayed, but it wasn't really Bill who did it, OK?)

Our country tortures.(kills, steals, spies on its own people)
How many posts on DU do you have on torture?
Just a bit of reality check for yourself and the rest of the outrage crowd

Good for you!

and DU posts.

Just because you say so! Look, i'm a long time, totally faithful married man and don't look favorably on infidelity. However, i'm not sure that the good character or good judgment you expect meets my definition of the good character and judgment for the job of president.

So, it matters to you and you say he showd poor character and judgment. So, now that's it? Your definition is the only one?

The Professor

Rule #1 is don't shit where you eat.

If the general public was half as interested in a current
president's foreign policy, our economy,healthcare crisis
plummeting housing market, the homeless, our veterans
etc.---as they are in his sex life,

we'd be getting somewhere.

:hi:

I didn't see a thread condemning torture get that many recs on DU as the Mighty Clenis one!

Some people have their priorities ass backwards.

;(

Has nothing to do with family values or whatever. His (private-in the Oval F'ing Office????) sex life was used against him.

If he is not able to pass up whatever *temptations* that come along and allow this to be used against him, then that is a different matter.

Also..c'mon...the LYING trying to cover up? Just say hey, we fooled around or whatever. A little honesty upfront and things might have played differently.

Nope ...one mistake that followed another IMO.Has nothing to do with fidelity or values...has to do with integrity. If you make a mistake- own up to it and deal with it. I wonder just how much leverage Bill's BJ gave to the repubs...I'd say it gave us 8 lovely years with bushjr.

It will bring Hillary's base to 70-89% of democrats.

So Rudy like. That's another embarrassment.

:shrug: He's an embarrassment to them too.

they are too thrilled with his blatant philandering either. Maybe I am wrong. My daughter speaks fluent French, I will ask her to peruse some of the big dailies in France. I am curious myself. :shrug:

There are many posts on this thread that appear to be using precisely the same talking points Rush Limbaugh used some years back. I guess that could mean we have a lot of converts on DU who used to listen to his radio show. Although that's not the only possible answer, I think that's the one I'll go with so as not to assume the worst.

It was a non-issue to me ten years ago. It's a non-issue to me now. And since I don't base my votes or opinions on what the GOP may or may do, I think I'll safely file Pres. Clinton's E! Entertainment Tonight non-issue peccadillo's where they belong... (flush)

He should have told the press and the Repugs that his private life was off limits and refused to answer any questions.

Instead, as usual, he tried to "triangulate" it.

As I said - pour it on - the Mighty Clenis will be running in SC - along with the women you put down up to this point with the "tears" and "pity" attitudes.

C'mon, the Clenis is is as done as grunge rock.

so, I needed to respond.

But to the whole Clenis-obsession trend around here.

It's a full schism going on on DU.
Gee, I wonder whose view will prevail in the
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES?

That damn bunch of crotch sniffers need to quit mouth harping on the Clenis and splitting pubic hairs on a dime and get down to some real politicking.

It's none of anybody's goddamn business what goes on in a marriage except those who said, "I do" to each other. Everybody else is just nosy and being entirely too much of a busybody. No good ever came from gossipmongering crotch sniffers. Trust me.

I know. I live in a small rural town where everybody knows everybody else's business. Goddamn nosy bunch of lifestyle nazis that they are, they even know when I fart sideways in the fucking bathroom. I've seen life after life after life destroyed by their petty first stone throwing nosiness. Every goddamn one of them needs to go take a look in the mirror and ask if they are that fucking perfect in the first place. Trust me. They are not. One day their glass houses are all going to come down and I'm going to be the only one left standing laughing my ass off at them in the most vengeful nasty psychotic way possible. Fucking Hollywood couldn't hire an actor to laugh the maniacal laughter I will be laughing.

Now, think about this:
Don't you wish we had universal health care so I could get the medicine I need to counteract the effects of my PMS and PMDD? I shit you not. This is how I really feel every 3 goddamn weeks on time on a dime for the past 30 years. I'm sick and goddamn tired of it. An Uzi wouldn't be enough weapon for me during this time of the month.

It SUCKED! I was in High School and couldn't get away with anything! I'll never forget the night I had my boyfriend over for a sleepover. I was a Senior. My mom and dad were out of town and my boyfriend parked his car in the alley behind the house to hide it, but I'll be DAMNED if the neighbor behind us didn't call my dad and tell him about it!:grr: It was none of his fucking business, but that didn't matter. Asshole. I hate small towns...for THAT reason. You can't do anything without the entire freakin' town knowing about it. I couldn't wait to move away from there..

- for teachers, bank employees, counselors and the like there is a "morals clause" written into the employment contract that states that you can be dismissed for personal activity that is considered inappropriate and may reflect badly on the business. Teachers who have nudity on personal websites, counselors who date patients, bank officers who are town drunks, etc. are examples of the behavior that can get you dismissed. I know because I had to sign such a clause for my job.

Plus, I can't think of any business outside of the porn industry where it's permissable to engage in sexual activity at the workplace.

I think it is not only okay, but imperative, though, that people recognize the connections between private and public life.

A person who is not trustworthy in private is also not trustworthy in public. While we all have our private self and public "self," we are still the same person underneath the public "mask."

People who will, for self-gratification, violate a vow, betray a family member, behave irresponsibly, and LIE in their private lives cannot be trusted to behave differently in their public lives.

A public figure has inherently less privacy than a private citizen. :shrug:

THAT is the difference. If you run your political party as the "MORAL values" party, you deserve to be outed as a freakin' hypocrite. I don't recall the Democratic Party being the party of bedroom Gestapo.

I agree! LAY OFF THE CLENIS!