Why Is Bill Cosby Finished While Bill Clinton Is Beloved?

[Camp]

He was telling the truth. A bj is not having sex. Drove the haters crazy back then and will drive them crazy again if they are dumb enough to try and use it again. Sexual relations has a well defined legal definition and bj's are not included in it. Now, maybe you will comprehend why he was called Slick Willie. He tricked the public by telling the truth a certain way. He was not lying.

A BLOW JOB isn't SEX, what is it, a ******* HOT DOG????? Please POST link to a BLOW JOB NOT A SEX ACT....Hell Fugly gets a quarter a shot, on her corner for those!

You and your cohort rustic are too stupid to comprehend what Clinton was doing, but for the sake of intelligent people I will offer this.
Clinton was careful to use the phrase "sexual relations". He did no say he did not have a sex act. Sexual relations have a legal definition and Clinton used the definition that sexual relations require coitus, sexual intercourse. According to this definition, fondling and oral sex do not come under the definition of "sexual relations". The confusion arises and the controversy occurs because many dictionaries give different definitions. Clinton however, used the interpretation accepted in the legal arena.

What Clinton did was give an answer that was literally true, but non-responsive. Did he have sex by indulging in a sex act, yes, but that was not the question or the video response Clinton was giving. Clinton was a lawyer and even taught some law classes. He would have been familiar with the SCOTUS ruling in Bronston vs. United States that allowed respondents to answer questions in non-responsive ways if not asked for a specific literal answer. Attorneys eventually demanded those literal answers and he was obligated to give accurate answers, but as for the video being promoted in this thread, Clinton was technically telling the truth. He "...did not have sexual relations with that woman...".

scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=cklawreview

People are free to accept the rants of hateful knuckleheads who have reputations as pathological liars, or they can believe some guy who writes legal briefs at a law school and the SCOTUS.

When you put someone's willie in your mouth, do you think you're having sexual relations with them? Let's leave the brilliant legal minds out of it and go to someone with doubtless extensive experience.

I provided a link that gives a scholarly and academic review of the difference between a sex act and the legal definition of a sexual relationship. I tried to bring the discussion onto an academic level. Obviously, you are more comfortable with the gutter and just being your old crude low information self. I figured small caliber folks like you would find the link I provided too complicated and academic to deal with.

 

[JoeB131]

When you put someone's willie in your mouth, do you think you're having sexual relations with them? Let's leave the brilliant legal minds out of it and go to someone with doubtless extensive experience.

Leave your sexual fantasies out of it, dude.

The fact is, most Americans don't consider oral to be the same as vaginal intercourse. Oral is considered foreplay.

 

[JoeB131]

Now......explain all the other women.....and the ones in the U.K.......tell us again how all of these women accusing him of rape and sexual assault and sexual battery are lying.....and bill clinton is the only one telling the truth...explain how that works.......

You mean the women who won't even give their names?

Again, Ken Starr spent 70 million sniffing every set of panties Clinton encountered.

and all he could prove was Clinton lied about a consensual relationship with Lewinski.

Nope...bill clinton raped women he had power over as a teacher, Attorney General of Arkansas, as Governor of Arkansas and then used his position as President to silence them...that and his wife hilary used his power in all those positions and private detectives to directly threaten these women...

and then the Space Aliens from Area 51 abducted them and after hours of anal probing gave them a mind-wipe.

Or maybe they were all lying gold-diggers.

 

[JoeB131]

Joey loves lying, rapist, scum. leftists and islamonazis

And you love Baby-murdering Zionist shits .

 

[Meathead]

He was telling the truth. A bj is not having sex. Drove the haters crazy back then and will drive them crazy again if they are dumb enough to try and use it again. Sexual relations has a well defined legal definition and bj's are not included in it. Now, maybe you will comprehend why he was called Slick Willie. He tricked the public by telling the truth a certain way. He was not lying.

A BLOW JOB isn't SEX, what is it, a ******* HOT DOG????? Please POST link to a BLOW JOB NOT A SEX ACT....Hell Fugly gets a quarter a shot, on her corner for those!

You and your cohort rustic are too stupid to comprehend what Clinton was doing, but for the sake of intelligent people I will offer this.
Clinton was careful to use the phrase "sexual relations". He did no say he did not have a sex act. Sexual relations have a legal definition and Clinton used the definition that sexual relations require coitus, sexual intercourse. According to this definition, fondling and oral sex do not come under the definition of "sexual relations". The confusion arises and the controversy occurs because many dictionaries give different definitions. Clinton however, used the interpretation accepted in the legal arena.

What Clinton did was give an answer that was literally true, but non-responsive. Did he have sex by indulging in a sex act, yes, but that was not the question or the video response Clinton was giving. Clinton was a lawyer and even taught some law classes. He would have been familiar with the SCOTUS ruling in Bronston vs. United States that allowed respondents to answer questions in non-responsive ways if not asked for a specific literal answer. Attorneys eventually demanded those literal answers and he was obligated to give accurate answers, but as for the video being promoted in this thread, Clinton was technically telling the truth. He "...did not have sexual relations with that woman...".

scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=cklawreview

People are free to accept the rants of hateful knuckleheads who have reputations as pathological liars, or they can believe some guy who writes legal briefs at a law school and the SCOTUS.

When you put someone's willie in your mouth, do you think you're having sexual relations with them? Let's leave the brilliant legal minds out of it and go to someone with doubtless extensive experience.

I provided a link that gives a scholarly and academic review of the difference between a sex act and the legal definition of a sexual relationship. I tried to bring the discussion onto an academic level. Obviously, you are more comfortable with the gutter and just being your old crude low information self. I figured small caliber folks like you would find the link I provided too complicated and academic to deal with.

Stop being sleazy and answer the question. Does putting someone's willie in your mouth mean you are having sexual relations? I defer to you for obvious reasons.

 

[Camp]

A BLOW JOB isn't SEX, what is it, a ******* HOT DOG????? Please POST link to a BLOW JOB NOT A SEX ACT....Hell Fugly gets a quarter a shot, on her corner for those!

You and your cohort rustic are too stupid to comprehend what Clinton was doing, but for the sake of intelligent people I will offer this.
Clinton was careful to use the phrase "sexual relations". He did no say he did not have a sex act. Sexual relations have a legal definition and Clinton used the definition that sexual relations require coitus, sexual intercourse. According to this definition, fondling and oral sex do not come under the definition of "sexual relations". The confusion arises and the controversy occurs because many dictionaries give different definitions. Clinton however, used the interpretation accepted in the legal arena.

What Clinton did was give an answer that was literally true, but non-responsive. Did he have sex by indulging in a sex act, yes, but that was not the question or the video response Clinton was giving. Clinton was a lawyer and even taught some law classes. He would have been familiar with the SCOTUS ruling in Bronston vs. United States that allowed respondents to answer questions in non-responsive ways if not asked for a specific literal answer. Attorneys eventually demanded those literal answers and he was obligated to give accurate answers, but as for the video being promoted in this thread, Clinton was technically telling the truth. He "...did not have sexual relations with that woman...".

scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3457&context=cklawreview

People are free to accept the rants of hateful knuckleheads who have reputations as pathological liars, or they can believe some guy who writes legal briefs at a law school and the SCOTUS.

When you put someone's willie in your mouth, do you think you're having sexual relations with them? Let's leave the brilliant legal minds out of it and go to someone with doubtless extensive experience.

I provided a link that gives a scholarly and academic review of the difference between a sex act and the legal definition of a sexual relationship. I tried to bring the discussion onto an academic level. Obviously, you are more comfortable with the gutter and just being your old crude low information self. I figured small caliber folks like you would find the link I provided too complicated and academic to deal with.

Stop being sleazy and answer the question. Does putting someone's willie in your mouth mean you are having sexual relations? I defer to you for obvious reasons.

You probably should visit some other site to address your sexual preferences. This is a political forum. I don't think anyone cares about what you put in your mouth.

 

[paperview]

C

When you put someone's willie in your mouth, do you think you're having sexual relations with them? Let's leave the brilliant legal minds out of it and go to someone with doubtless extensive experience.

Leave your sexual fantasies out of it, dude.

The fact is, most Americans don't consider oral to be the same as vaginal intercourse. Oral is considered foreplay.

Curiously enough, the Newtrix heading the charge to impeach Bill for lying about a BJ, who was also bopping an underling while married at the time --

also saw it that way --

Woman says she performed sexual acts on married Newt

"Manning told the National Enquirer that she performed a sexual act on Gingrich in a Washington, D.C. hotel room, but adds that they didn’t have sex so that “he could say he had not slept with me.”

 

[billyerock1991]

Juanita Broderick accused Clinton of rape,

She never brought charges and she signed a sworn affidavit she was not raped.

Paula Jones accused Clinton of using his office and power to try to have sex with Clinton.

Went to court and had her case thrown out as being "without merit."

Kathleen Willey claims Clinton abused his powers when he groped her.

And Kathleen Willey, that ****ed mess of a woman, said she was groped, only to find out after said groping, she wrote Bill Clinton love letters praising him, asking for jobs, and even asked for a freaking Ambassadorship! [The Willey-Clinton Letters]

Juanita Broderick....

Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?

She Changed Her Story:


In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did notassault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she wasraped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.



Clinton Is Innocent: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.

Clinton Is Guilty: Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.) She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.



She Told Friends:

Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.



Clinton Is Innocent: The friends' testimony isn't trustworthy. Kelsey and her sister have a grudge against Clinton because, as governor, he commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father. Broaddrick's current husband might lie on her behalf. Moreover, even if the friends are telling the truth, Broaddrick might have been lying 21 years ago. There is limited evidence that her first husband was abusive, so maybe she cooked up the story to explain a bloody lip he had given her. And if she was raped, why didn't she tell her own husband?

Clinton Is Guilty: If five friends say her story hasn't changed over 21 years, we can conclude that either that she's an unusually consistent liar or that her memory is reliable.

it amazes me here this right wing nut job pulls out of his ass all these allege rapes... the one that cracked me up the most was Gennifer flowers ... who never claimed any kind of sexual assault ... but this ass clowns posted she was quid pro quo, post incident character assault by clinton... she was never charter assaulted ... she had and affair with clinton and had to testify about the affair under oath ...these women were dragged into this bull shit frenzy fess by the republicans... flowers was forced to testify at his hearing ... then they tried to get these women to testify at his hearing too... they wouldn't testify ... the reason they wouldn't, what we all found out and the republicans frothing at the mouth found out they were all looking for money, accept flowers ... she was forced by the republicans to testify ... what the republicans found out that the women this ass clown posted would be lying under oath ... I've seen that list before and each and everyone said it never happen, after they claimed it had...when they were pushed to testify ... they knew they could go to jail for lying under oath ... but you continually get these ass clowns printing this list that they get from Whirlynutdaily with all these allegations .. I get tired of posting every one of their answers when they were pushed to testify ... good going you made these ass clowns look stupid

 

[Meathead]

You probably should visit some other site to address your sexual preferences. This is a political forum. I don't think anyone cares about what you put in your mouth.

OK, you're embarrassed then. So, a hypothetical: does one have a sexual relationship when he is having voluntary oral sex? Does it make any difference if one is the "pitcher" or "catcher"?

 

[paperview]

You mean the women who won't even give their names?

Again, Ken Starr spent 70 million sniffing every set of panties Clinton encountered.

and all he could prove was Clinton lied about a consensual relationship with Lewinski.

...
and then the Space Aliens from Area 51 abducted them and after hours of anal probing gave them a mind-wipe.

Or maybe they were all lying gold-diggers.

On the Freeper's Alamo Girl bullshit compilation of "all the woman" - is Connie Hamzy.

(When you start going through the list you see why they leave just random names and scurrilous allegations without anything more -- it's like the Clinton Body Count, just pile-on garbage)--

anyway, that Connie Hamzy...

She was a sex-crazed R&R groupie -- You know that Grand Funk Railroad song "We're an American Band" ?

The line "Sweet, sweet Connie, doin' her act/ She had the whole show and that's a natural fact." is about *that* Connie. ("the whole show" - cause she would **** every member of the band, even the roadies)

I kid you not. True story.

She supposedly flashed her titties at Clinton in a hotel lobby and said "What do you think of these?" That was about it. But she's on the list.

The cons, they sure loves them the hot tawdry stories, and laying it thick on ole Bill.

I think they're jealous of him.

 

[NightFox]

Curiously enough, the Newtrix heading the charge to impeach Bill for lying about a BJ, who was also bopping an underling while married at the time --

Yet more evidence that the supply of hypocrisy in Washington D.C. is infinite, the question I have is; how do they pull it off while keeping a straight face?

 

[paperview]

So, a hypothetical: does one have a sexual relationship when he is having voluntary oral sex? Does it make any difference if one is the "pitcher" or "catcher"?

If a woman is a virgin - and gives a guy a BJ, afterwards, is she still a virgin?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Why? Because liberals don't care about sexual harassment and rape unless the perpetrator is a conservative. It's really that simple. The rape charge against Bill Clinton is very credible, but liberals won't even examine the evidence because they just don't care because the accused is Bill Clinton.

 

[paperview]

Why? Because liberals don't care about sexual harassment and rape unless the perpetrator is a conservative. It's really that simple. The rape charge against Bill Clinton is very credible, but liberals won't even examine the evidence because they just don't care because the accused is Bill Clinton.

No, it's not, you ******* idiot.

Folks, Mike Griffith is famous for saying "no one ever talks about the good aspects of slavery."

Just so you know there he's coming from.

 

[Meathead]

So, a hypothetical: does one have a sexual relationship when he is having voluntary oral sex? Does it make any difference if one is the "pitcher" or "catcher"?

If a woman is a virgin - and gives a guy a BJ, afterwards, is she still a virgin?

I would yield to Slick Willie on that. Maybe he can say he protected her virginity, not!

 

[Freewill]

Why? Because liberals don't care about sexual harassment and rape unless the perpetrator is a conservative. It's really that simple. The rape charge against Bill Clinton is very credible, but liberals won't even examine the evidence because they just don't care because the accused is Bill Clinton.

Their attitude is strange considering Mrs. Clintion said that those making such accusations need to be heard and believed.

 

[Meathead]

Long and short of it is that Hillary can't really use the feminist slant without being bombarded with the actions of her husband and her actions in his defense. Going from floozy to floozy and trying cover his blow jobs and whatnot have not served his legacy well and has made the Beast the vindictive harridan that she is.

 

[paperview]

So, a hypothetical: does one have a sexual relationship when he is having voluntary oral sex? Does it make any difference if one is the "pitcher" or "catcher"?

If a woman is a virgin - and gives a guy a BJ, afterwards, is she still a virgin?

I would yield to Slick Willie on that. Maybe he can say he protected her virginity, not!

The answer is "yes, she's still a virgin."

That's Newt's way as well.


So, suck it.

 

[billyerock1991]

Ok all of the Clinton accusers were liars and sluts. all of the cosby accusers are fine upstanding women. you people are nuts.

I haven't said a word about Cosby, but I do know, as do most people with half a brain, the two are not comparable in any way.

There was one woman who has come forth and alleged Bill raped her.

That same woman signed an affidavit, under oath, saying she was *not* raped or sexually accosted by Clinton.

OK, great. Bubba Clinton never did anything wrong to any woman, he is a prince, your hero, best redneck ever out of Arkansas. Hillary is the perfect woman, beautiful, talented, honest, and trustworthy.

as I said, you people are nuts.

The Clintons are a pair of snake oil salesmen. Wouldn't trust either of them as far as I could throw 'em. They are amoral and too damned rich and powerful to feel the rules really apply to them. But Bill isn't a rapist. There's a difference.

and you know he isn't a rapist, how?

The same way we 'know' you're not a rapist?

redfish sources came from wnd or as I call it whirlynutdaily ... they were shown to be lies back then and they are still used by den/liberal haters ... you're wasting your time and effort on these kind of post they have made up their minds

 

[Camp]

Juanita Broderick accused Clinton of rape,

She never brought charges and she signed a sworn affidavit she was not raped.

Paula Jones accused Clinton of using his office and power to try to have sex with Clinton.

Went to court and had her case thrown out as being "without merit."

Kathleen Willey claims Clinton abused his powers when he groped her.

And Kathleen Willey, that ****ed mess of a woman, said she was groped, only to find out after said groping, she wrote Bill Clinton love letters praising him, asking for jobs, and even asked for a freaking Ambassadorship! [The Willey-Clinton Letters]

Juanita Broderick....

Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?

She Changed Her Story:


In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did notassault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she wasraped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.



Clinton Is Innocent: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.

Clinton Is Guilty: Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.) She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.



She Told Friends:

Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.



Clinton Is Innocent: The friends' testimony isn't trustworthy. Kelsey and her sister have a grudge against Clinton because, as governor, he commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father. Broaddrick's current husband might lie on her behalf. Moreover, even if the friends are telling the truth, Broaddrick might have been lying 21 years ago. There is limited evidence that her first husband was abusive, so maybe she cooked up the story to explain a bloody lip he had given her. And if she was raped, why didn't she tell her own husband?

Clinton Is Guilty: If five friends say her story hasn't changed over 21 years, we can conclude that either that she's an unusually consistent liar or that her memory is reliable.

it amazes me here this right wing nut job pulls out of his ass all these allege rapes... the one that cracked me up the most was Gennifer flowers ... who never claimed any kind of sexual assault ... but this ass clowns posted she was quid pro quo, post incident character assault by clinton... she was never charter assaulted ... she had and affair with clinton and had to testify about the affair under oath ...these women were dragged into this bull shit frenzy fess by the republicans... flowers was forced to testify at his hearing ... then they tried to get these women to testify at his hearing too... they wouldn't testify ... the reason they wouldn't, what we all found out and the republicans frothing at the mouth found out they were all looking for money, accept flowers ... she was forced by the republicans to testify ... what the republicans found out that the women this ass clown posted would be lying under oath ... I've seen that list before and each and everyone said it never happen, after they claimed it had...when they were pushed to testify ... they knew they could go to jail for lying under oath ... but you continually get these ass clowns printing this list that they get from Whirlynutdaily with all these allegations .. I get tired of posting every one of their answers when they were pushed to testify ... good going you made these ass clowns look stupid

They never tire of being fools. These are the type that made the American public look at the Clinton scandals and reject and trash them. The promoters turned out to be obscene, crude, dishonest hacks, just like the ones posting here.