Let me make this crystal clear: there's a discussion to be had about Trump and his misconduct. That's an important conversation. There's a discussion to be had about Bill Clinton and his misconduct. That's an important conversation. But don't try to undermine the discussion of one by bringing up the other.



Agreed. Ultimately the issue is the criminal freedom and lack of accountability of the rich generally. Bring back the guillotine.

What other evidence is there that you think is incriminating? We've already talked about the New York Magazine quotation. I don't know if you accept my interpretation of it or not, but that's the only piece of "evidence" you've cited so far, and I think saying that the quotation is circumstantially incriminating is a stretch. I mean, what's it even incriminating *of*? It's not at all clear to me what one is supposed to infer on the basis of it, except some version of the nebulous "the walls are closing in" on Trump meme.

Of course you could look at the quotation against the broader background of unverified allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump. But guess what. That's just as true of Bill Clinton. So you can describe your suspicion as reasonable, but it seems to me like it's better to say that such a suspicion is merely politically motivated/politically expedient. (Which, to be clear, is to say that I think your view on suspicion here is guided by priors, rather than by an impartial look at the "evidence". It's not a whataboutism.) It's more prudent to suspend judgement, I believe.

The Clintons are kind of terrible, though. Like, why does anyone feel any sense of obligation to protect the Clintons? Whatever happened to describing the 2016 primary as a "rigged" coronation? Whatever happened to complaining about Hillary's Goldman Sachs speeches? Whatever happened to Bill's tone deaf response to sexual misconduct allegations in the past few years? What about Bill Clinton's "the era of big government is over" SOTU, and his general being an agent of neoliberal reform? How, at this point, do the Clintons align with the political orthodoxies of the Democrats? I don't understand why anyone -- especially people on the economic left -- feels any need to defend these people.

As the first question in a series of questions, most of which are rhetorical, it seems like when I asked "why does anyone feel any sense of obligation to protect the Clintons?" I was asking a rhetorical question, but I'm actually asking quite earnestly. It makes no sense to me. I don't understand why you wouldn't just let Wookie's remarks go without comment, unless you actually cared.

They also are definitely "extra scandalous" and it's hardly "misguided" to say so. I'd argue it's actually a more accurate perception of the truth. Scandal has touched them wherever they go. You can't chuck it up to conservative media propaganda alone, because they have faced plenty of hostility from so-called liberal media outlets as well. They may simply be bad at handling the media, or maybe they're just terrible liars. Or maybe, of course, they're just really corrupt. But it's easy to make big blanket assertions like "the Clintons aren't so bad" without actually getting into the details. If you do go through them, I think you'd see that, at the very least, they're actually really really bad at not attracting suspicion, and therefore deeply untrustworthy.

I don't think either of us were politically conscious during the 1990s, but the Clinton administration was mired in scandal, effectively before it even began; the first rumblings of the Whitewater scandal were in '92 (and it was of course the special council's investigation into Whitewater that ultimately led to investigating Clinton and Monica Lewinsky's affair); the Jennifer Flowers adultery allegations occurred in the midst of the Democratic primaries in '92. Then early on in the administration, there was the travel office scandal, the appointment of Arkansas cronies, etc. etc. It's not as if these things only exercised conservatives like some weird conservative Benghazi sideshow obsession, while liberals saw the Clinton admin as squeaky clean, as they did during the Obama admin. There was non-stop scandal for 8 years.

You're like arguing against a specter of something and IDK what you're talking about. Do you not know what "circumstantial evidence" means? Genuine question, you're acting like I'm being accusatory when I'm not. You're also imposing beliefs on me that I haven't stated. I haven't commented on Bill Clinton and Epstein specifically.



What you're describing aren't scandals, though, they're just normal politics. Like Bill Clinton being a neoliberal? It's ****ty, but not a scandal.

I'll repeat myself again - this isn't about defending the Clintons, it's about the way discourse is held. You just can't comment on Republicans without some annoying douchebag interjecting about the Clintons when it's not relevant for the conversation.



I'll repeat myself: it's a comment on how people discourse, and not about the Clintons.



Really now, was Clinton's administration all that more scandal-ridden than.. Bush.. Trump.. Reagan.. Nixon.. about the only presidents in recent times I can think of without major scandals are Carter, Bush Sr., and Obama. Were Clinton's really any worse?

In any case, you seem to have missed the post where I made the very pointed comment that it's about people using any and all narratives about Clinton they can find to distract from Republicans. "The left does this as well," I just saved you the reply. I wish people could keep the discussions separate.

idk, I’ve brought up all of these things within the last 5 or 10 pages. Maybe what you’re misinterpreting as a Clinton defense is actually



why does anyone feel any sense of obligation to protect the Trumps? I can’t understand why you wouldn’t just let our **** flinging go without comment, unless you actually cared.

Reid stop it, I just can’t understand why you can’t let wild Republican conspiracy theorizing stand without comment. So what if Wookie06 thinks Bill and Hillary Clinton are members of a child sex trafficking ring out of a DC pizza parlour, letting him think and say those things doesn’t hurt anybody who doesn’t deserve it. Nobody believes you that you are trying to defend sane discourse by mocking Republican insanity, you’re clearly mounting a partisan defense of Bill Clinton which he doesn’t deserve because was basically a Republican.

Yes. The Clinton administration was wildly more scandal prone than either Bush administration, Reagan, or the Carter administration. Perhaps less so than the Nixon administration or the Trump administration, but nothing close to the Obama administration.

I do. Are you sure that you do?



I didn't say they are.



Uh, yes you have? Here:



We've been having a fairly direct conversation about the relative suspiciousness of Trump and Clinton vis-a-vis Epstein. It's a little odd that you're suddenly losing the thread after we've already had some back and forth on it. You can back off on your claim if you want, but right now I'm noting that you didn't answer my questions about the Trump remarks that you mentioned, and instead just accused me of not knowing what circumstantial evidence is.



I didn't say that, so it's a little odd that you're lecturing me about how I'm falsely attributing arguments to you when you just did the exact same thing to me at least twice in one post.

Maybe (I'm not going to check), but I haven't been addressing you about the Clintons.

There's only so long that you can say you're talking about discourse about a thing rather than the thing itself and still have a meaningful conversation. Eventually you have to weigh in on the thing itself. I don't know what you think here, about where the negative anti-Clinton discourse originates (Reid mentioned a "right-wing propaganda machine" -- although he isn't you), but as I said in an earlier post, I don't think it can be reducible to conservative media fever dreams, as much as that is still a factor. The Clintons themselves do a lot that at the very least attracts scandal and inspires conspiratorial thinking, if they are not themselves corrupt. You can disagree with me and say that, by saying that, i'm talking about the Clintons instead of the discourse, but I think I'm talking about the discourse too. They're responsible for a lot of the nasty things that are said about them, because they actually do a lot of terrible things, and that influences what people say and think about them.

Just to try to get on the same page on this, because I think your last remarks kind of derailed things. You first claimed fairly directly you thought that there's more Trump-Epstein stuff that elicits suspicion than there is Clinton-Epstein stuff, and you mentioned specifically an incriminating quotation from Trump. When I said this:



I was asking if you'd clarify what you meant by that. if the quotation is circumstantially incriminating, what does it suggest that Trump is guilty of? That's all I'm asking. Because I don't think that NY Mag quotation is very incriminating at all. It seems like you're just saying that he's just guilty... not guilty of something in particular.

Weird how ****in a girl is considered more “scandal prone” than a government that conspired with hostile powers and financed terrorism by selling weapons to embargoed countries. I’d guess you think so because Bill Clinton raised the top marginal rate and supported a 10% yacht tax, while Ronald Reagan helped rearchitect the global economy to ensure the absolute domination of oligarchs over all others. Although you might not think that’s why.

*yawn* socialists gonna socialist

*yawn* contrarian radical centrist pseudointellectuals gonna defend the ****tiest behaviour because they think partisan balance is the same thing as critical thought

Like hey Bill and Hillary Clinton are **** people, but they’re middle class **** people. Like scummy real estate schemes, having an affair with the secretary, abusing their employees. The kinds of people who’d own a used car lot if they hadn’t politicked themselves into the good life. Nothing about them warrants defense, but maximizing their bad judgment while simultaneously hand waving away the people who did Iran-Contra is some of the most odious **** I think I’ve ever seen you post.

When did I wave away Iran-Contra?

“wildly more scandal prone”


Because the last time I checked, the Clintons never did anything even remotely as scandalous as Reagan did (incl. H.W., because he was a part of that). The media simply paid more attention to Clinton’s scandals despite the fact that all of them were petty ****.

The Clintons sold me on an investment and we all lost money!! Bah, sob, please oh please conservative media, spend the next 30 years telling my story

Scandals/controversy and malevolent behavior aren’t the same thing. The Clinton administration was under a barrage of scrutiny from the media and from the public since before the presidency began, largely because of decisions that the Clinton administration made (sometimes even in poorly calculated good faith attempts to exonerate themselves!). That the Clintons were involved in a steady stream of scandals, and so eroded their trustworthiness, is not the same as the issue of abuse of power or of corruption, even if it is related.

IDK, I seriously doubt that. I don't know all of the political scandals, but I looked at a list of them on Wikipedia, and Clinton's seems like one of the most squeaky clean relatively speaking. Especially for having two terms. At some point you said "There's only so long that you can say you're talking about discourse about a thing rather than the thing itself and still have a meaningful conversation", I think that applies here. When I attempt quantitative analysis, Clinton's administration looks pretty clean, and Bush has what seems like bigger scandals with Lawyergate, something I just learned about and am not familiar with. Are you sure you're not a victim of Republican hysteria about Clintons, and a media tendency to amplify their wrongdoings to astronomical levels beyond what the actual actions warrant?



I could be wrong - the gist of what you were saying was that the conversation was explained as Trump trying to minimize distance between him and a famous person to seem more important. I don't disagree that this is a possible, even likely explanation.



Like be Democrats? Haven't we learned that the right-wing in America churns out hysteria about Democrat presidents when they're in office?



The only evidence against Clinton, as far as I can tell, is that he had some proximity to Epstein while doing Clinton Foundation work. While Epstein was donating large amounts of money. I can't find any evidence he knew about Epstein's activities.

Trump's comments, on the other hand, reveal possible intimacy with Epstein's sexual crimes. It's no smoking gun of course, but it suggests Trump was aware of his activities and moreover was somewhat okay with them.

I find it surprising that this needs to be explained to you. I honestly think it's so obvious it shouldn't need explanation. I don't have any confidence that Trump is actually guilty of anything - just that his comments reduce the distance between him and Epstein's crimes than Clinton's comments and actions.

Oh, because of the luxury tax and the top marginal tax rate?

Socialists gonna socialist :smugdog:

I mean, if the right-wing media outlet Slate's Slow Burn podcast is part of the Republican hysteria machine, then maybe?

Really rude comment, dude. I think it would be a good idea to really question if the Clinton administration was scandal-prone, or if it only seems that way do to the undue attention given to it via the 2016 election and general trend of political writing today.

I remember during the 80s Trumps philandering being all over tabloid covers. I assume Clinton didn't succeed him in that regard until the 90s.



I believe you misread that. I said most of the recent allegations about Trump are about as credible as the ones AOC is making about her border visit. Now, I did not consider him credible during the election but that's a conversation I've already had here.



I just think it's silly to attach Trump to the Epstein scandal but that seems to be what people are doing. But not only that, Clinton is legitimately connected to Epstein and that infamous plane. I only observed that the current scandal fits with a segment I heard on the radio around the time he first started flying on that plane. Although (see below)...



But that's not really true, is it? Hillary won't let it go. She just needs to ride of into the sunset. I do think her and former president Clinton are morally bankrupt and need to embrace their ultimate role as private citizens. I think Democrats, Republicans, and others are fine with them removing themselves from the public arena. Should they choose not to do so, and I think Bill is totally down with doing so and probably doesn't want any attention, I think every last thread of a scandal should be tugged on until they do. Just personal opinion there and I actually agree with you overall about these sorts of arguments.

Uh yeah, probably? US media is privately owned corporations? Rupert Murdoch owned several yachts? Ted Turner literally competed in the America’s Cup? Do you expect these people to be happy about the luxury tax and top marginal rate, and not to use their editorial veto to force their outlets to report negatively on the government that did those things?

At least half of the scandals should be committed by women

Okay, question then: why the Clintons in particular? Why not harass George W. Bush for his role in expanding the NSA, starting the Iraq war, and other unrelated scandals until Jeb Bush resigns?

I look forward to the day when prisons are both run and populated half by women.

I think I got that, what I'm saying is the fact you're making that comparison is just a subtle way of flinging **** at Democrats.

Let me give you a good answer, because Wookie06 won’t: Republicans don’t invent wild conspiracy theories about other Republicans. He never lets himself be exposed to anything that wasn’t written by a Republican for the benefit of the Republican Party, so naturally he’d never be exposed even to some of the wilder stuff that Democrats made up about W.

Speaking of which, can someone please explain the difference between state propaganda and an editorial partnership between Fox News and the dominant political party? Republicans hate the former but don’t seem to find the latter problematic, and my lil ol brain can’t quite figure out why that is.

ctrl+f "(R" - 292 results

ctrl+f "(D" - 131 results

hmmm

That's a woefully incomplete list of Clinton's scandals, FYI. Honestly, check out the Slate podcast. It's worth listening to. Sure, it's long, but it's also good, they make it entertaining and topical, I think it's mostly fair, even if a little more generous towards Clinton than it should be given what it reveals about Clinton.

AFAIK, Lawyergate wasn't a very big deal, on a scale similar to the WH travel office scandal during the Clinton admin.



Yeah, being a Democrat really hurt Obama in the eyes of the media.

I think the Clintons' party affiliation doesn't really tell the whole story. I mean, I think the Clintons actually had a complex and adversarial relationship with members of the media that didn't help them much. There was a a vicious cycle: in short, they were a little cagey because they'd gotten burned a few times, which made reporters more suspicious, and the reporters' suspicions in turn made the Clintons more cagey. Amy Chozick, who followed the HRC campaign in 2016 for the NYT, wrote about it in her 2018 book. They're also particularly bad liars.

Anyway, I'm sticking to my guns on this. I don't think it's just the "vast right-wing conspiracy", to use HRC's words, although that certainly plays a role. But it's also that the Clintons are really bad at not courting negative media attention, and that there also kind of corrupt, but more the former than the latter.



Right, but as I said before, that incriminates Epstein, not Trump. Those remarks could easily be Trump repeating hearsay amongst NYC socialite circles and saying an open secret, rather than talking from direct experience. I don't think I'd take the step and infer that it implies that Trump condones the behavior or was "somewhat okay" with it; I think the remarks are entirely consistent with the idea that he was actually distancing himself from them.

But just to be clear, I don't think any of this evidence incriminates either Trump or Clinton. And, whatever, for all I know, the way you interpreted Trump's remarks actually are more consistent with the truth than mine. I just don't think there's anything to suggest that either of our interpretations are really conclusive, and so I think it's more prudent to suspend judgment.



Yeah, interesting, isn't it, how something that seems obvious to you might not be to other people. It's almost as if there are reasons why conversation is valuable.

I don't really think that's a logical question. Clinton is directly related to the Epstein scandal and his wife is generally considered to be a complicit enabler in his horrible behavior, likely due to her thirst for power. I get what you're trying to ask and about the closest you can get with that comparison is to try to attack Jeb Bush for failing to condemn his brother's decisions as president and that just doesn't make sense.



Because these are all current news stories and the media is treating both Trump/Epstein conspiracy theories and AOC's border accusations as credible news. Or at least that appears to be the case from bits I've seen online. Maybe you can correct me on that if I'm wrong.

I don't think Jon would dish it out so much if he couldn't take it

He always gives better than he gets. Very generous in that regard.

There’s a button sweat meme here but I’m too lazy to make it.

don;t kinkshame