If you had a record on file of drug violations and being a chronic user, your regular association with this person would definitely affect public perception and would have much more significance than your just going to the same school with that person. This would not be anywhere near the scandal that it has become if Bill Clinton was not already on very public record of all sorts of sexual misconduct, accusations, allegations, and documented incidences.
The frustrating thing to a lot of us is that a Republican candidate is required to be squeaky clean and above reproach or he is demonized to ridiculous lengths and is considered unelectable. The same standard does not seem to apply to a popular Democrat however, who will be forgiven for just about anything and anything that can be denied will be denied. Hillary of course was not implicated in any of that, but she continues to use Bill for whatever political hay she can make with him.
It is rather pathetic when we set the bar so low for what we expect from our national leaders.
Squeaky clean? You mean like Gingrich? Obviously, you give accusations and allegations the same credibility as you might facts. Just because the right wing goes all "Hair On Fire" crazy about something doesn't mean there is any thing to it. Your little reference to past history demonstrated the reason for common disbelief of all right wing claims
There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.
LOL. Indeed.
I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.
As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.
Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?
The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.
Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.
And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.
Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?
