Wednesday, December 4, 2019

LAWYER PAMELA KARLAN CLAIMS TRUMP HAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED MORE VICTIMS THAN BILLARY CLINTON. - THAT EVEN POSSIBLE? - “He likes porn stars, as we’ve seen throughout his life. And he has these habits. He’ll push somebody against the wall and try and kiss them. He’ll grab a breast or a buttock"



Pamela Karlan Unleashed: ‘Trump Has Sexually Assaulted More Women than 99.99%’ of All Illegal Immigrants

(INSET: President Donald Trump) Constitutional law expert Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutional grounds for the impeachment of President Donald Trump, Wednesday, Dec. 4, 2019, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Jacquelyn Martin/AP, Win McNamee/Getty
2:43

Standford Law School professor Pamela Susan Karlan, one of three Democrat witnesses testifying before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry, once asserted hyperbolically that President Donald Trump “has sexually assaulted more women than 99.99 percent of all of the people” who have illegally entered the United States.
Karlan made the remark, among other rants that were critical of the president, speaking on a 2017 panel organized by the American Constitution Society featuring Bill Kristol, founder of the defunct Weekly Standard, and moderated by the Washington Post‘s Ruth Marcus.
“Every day Trump says something outrageous and people go, ‘ah, at least it’s not as outrageous as the day-before thing,’ the professor began. “I remember this during the campaign, where he would say things, and you would think, ‘okay, that’s the end.’ When he mocked John McCain for having been shot down. When he made fun of the reporter with the disability. When the infamous tapes about grabbing women came out, and you kept thinking… Donald Trump has sexually assaulted more women than 99.99% of all of the people who have entered this country illegally.”
“By himself, he’s done more. And people have stopped — think about it, because it’s just like every day it’s a new one. And I worry about that, because I think that may stop us from ever getting to the red-light moment,” she added.
Karlan’s comments have resurfaced as she told House Judiciary panel members today that President Trump’s activities with Ukraine are impeachable offenses by using an analogy about a hypothetical disaster in Texas or Louisiana to explain why the president should be ousted.
“Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that’s prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president said, ‘I would like you to do us a favor? I’ll meet with you, and send the disaster relief, once you brand my opponent a criminal,’ she said. “Wouldn’t you know in your gut that such a president has abused his office? That he’d betrayed the national interest, and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process? I believe the evidentiary record shows wrongful acts on those scale here.”
Karlan began her appearance before the House committee on a contentious note, scolding the panel’s ranking member, Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA), in her opening statement and taking a bizarre dig at Trump’s teenage son Barron.
Joining Karlan in appearing before the panel were University of North Carolina Law School’s Michael Gerhardt, Harvard Law School’s Noah Feldman, and George Washing University law professor Jonathan Turley, the sole Republican witness.



“He likes porn stars, as we’ve seen throughout his life. And he has these habits. He’ll push somebody against the wall and try and kiss them. He’ll grab a breast or a buttock. When he’s in a property that he owns, whether it be a hotel or Mar-a-Lago, he feels that he has the right to walk in on a woman in her room.”

                                                                                                          

Donald Trump And The Making Of A Predatory President

 

In “All The President’s Women,” journalists Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy uncover 43 new sexual assault allegations against the world’s most powerful man.

In “All The President’s Women,” journalists Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy uncover 43 new sexual assault allegations against the world’s most powerful man.
In the New York Military Academy’s 1964 yearbook, there is a striking photo of a young man with a young woman by his side. He stares smugly into the camera under the caption “Ladies Man.”
This young man would go on to become president of the United States.
 “The young lady in the picture, however, was not graduating senior Donald Trump’s girlfriend. Nor was she a visiting friend,” write journalists Barry Levine and Monique El-Faizy in their new book, “All The President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator.”
“The woman in the picture is 19-year-old Fran D’Agati Dunn, a secretary who worked at the school at the time and was asked to step in for the photo. Nothing more than a prop.” 
It is this sort of narration, combined with a stunning 43 new allegations of Trump’s sexual misconduct, that makes “All The President’s Women” such an impactful read. Levine and El-Faizy painstakingly document Trump’s decadeslong history of treating women as objects and accessories, from making derogatory comments to walking into the dressing rooms of underage beauty queens to alleged rape.
In early 2018, when adult film star Stormy Daniels was dominating the news cycle, Levine took notice. Between Daniels’ claim that Trump had paid her hush money and the accounts of 20 other women who came forward against Trump during the 2016 election, Levine knew there had to be more there.
Once he started digging, he realized he wanted to collaborate with another seasoned journalist, specifically a woman, on the project. After a couple of initial conversations, he decided he wanted to work with El-Faizy to tell a story that went beyond individual allegations of inappropriate behavior.
“I think we wanted to look at not just what he had done, but why and what it meant,” said El-Faizy. “How he came to be formed as the predator he became.”
HuffPost spoke with Levine and El-Faizy about the more than 100 interviews they conducted over the year they were writing the book, the patterns that emerged, and what the predatory behavior of the “most visible man on earth” says about our culture at large.
You reported 43 new allegations of misconduct against the president in this book. How did you all just go about locating the women that you spoke to? And also what made these women want to share their stories publicly?
Levine: It was extremely difficult. It was a very intensive period to cover, and that’s why I focused on the reporting while Monique was able to shape the narrative. But in terms of the women, I was fortunate ― in addition to finding Monique ― there were two other journalists that I was able to put together on my small team. One was Whitney Clegg, an investigative producer who re-interviewed some of the victims who came forward in 2016. And then I also was able to collaborate with Lucy Osborne, a producer for the BBC in London, who had done a documentary on Donald Trump and women. She had some leads on some women, particularly young models, that she had wanted to chase down. So she went off in one direction, Whitney went off in another direction, Monique was taking all the interviews as we were filing them and, under a tremendous deadline, turned the book into what I would consider a great read.
But I’ll just tell you one story, about Karen Johnson. She’s the woman who made the allegations about the night at Mar-a-Lago during a New Year’s Eve party, [during the time] when Melania Trump was dating Donald Trump. [Johnson says that] when Melania was upstairs, she was attacked [by Trump]. She said he had actually done to her [what he described doing in] the “Access Hollywood” tapes, in terms of grabbing her. She was someone who held onto this story for many, many years, and was fearful originally to come out with this story because she had been a dancer in her earlier life. And she thought, if I come out and say this, they’re going to attack me, they’re going to call me a liar because I had once been a dancer. And so she kept this secret.
It took me two full months before she even felt comfortable to begin telling me the details. So, it’s been a very emotional journey in terms of getting these brave and courageous women to come forward. And I just have to say, I’m just so thankful that I was able to work with Monique and Lucy and Whitney to pull all this together.
What patterns emerged for you as you were going through all of the reporting?
El-Faizy: To me, that was the unexpected power of the book. We’ve all heard the stories, the women would come forward one by one. But when you put it all in one space, first of all, it’s enormous, and that’s shocking in and of itself, but these patterns really do emerge. [Trump] clearly has a thing for younger women. He started talking about Ivanka being sexy when she was around the same age as these models that he was kind of staring at backstage and pursuing at parties. So that’s one of the patterns.
He likes porn stars, as we’ve seen throughout his life. And he has these habits. He’ll push somebody against the wall and try and kiss them. He’ll grab a breast or a buttock. When he’s in a property that he owns, whether it be a hotel or Mar-a-Lago, he feels that he has the right to walk in on a woman in her room.
What’s interesting is that there were very few one-offs. We only put things in [the book] that fit the pattern, because he has such well-established patterns over the years. What was powerful about that is, when we would interview the women, almost all of them in some way blamed themselves: “What kind of vibe was I putting off? What was I wearing?” And when you look at them in the context of these patterns, you realize it has almost nothing to do with that woman. If it wasn’t that woman, it would’ve been another woman wearing something else and putting off a totally different vibe.
He’ll push somebody against the wall and try and kiss them. He’ll grab a breast or a buttock. When he’s in a property that he owns, whether it be a hotel or Mar-a-Lago, he feels that he has the right to walk in on a woman in her room.El-Faizy
I think that really comes across in the book, especially when you get to the end and you’re reading the appendix, which outlines every single allegation. There are stories that you’ll get to one and say, oh, that sounds exactly like that other woman’s story, down to the details. It’s very striking.
Levine: About six months into the reporting, we were getting all these new stories, in addition to cataloging the earlier allegations that were made in 2016. And at the same time, I was also digging into research and finding stories about [Trump’s] inappropriate behavior with women that had popped up in the media but had never really been cataloged ― everything from making horrible comments to a model that was seated at a table with Graydon Carter, to incidents where he himself said that he attacked women, [like] pouring a glass of wine on a reporter in New York.
To me, [these incidents] all needed to be cataloged. I think it’s very powerful, after you go through the beautifully shaped narrative that Monique wrote, that you then get, in very black and white fashion, every single allegation of inappropriate behavior, in addition to the disparaging comments that I found he made involving so many women. I just think when you read them one after another, it is extremely impactful. And so the appendix of this book, to me, is as important as the narrative itself.
As you both alluded to earlier, you take a deep look into Trump’s early years, which is probably something that most readers will know less about. To me, it seemed like his treatment of women as objects and accessories began very early. Would you say that that’s accurate?
El-Faizy: Absolutely. That’s why I chartered the book the way I did. In his graduation photo from the military academy, the woman standing next to him is an accessory. To me, that said it all.
And I think that that comes from his father, too. His father would bring these young, pretty girls up to the academy. From what his classmates say, these were not women that Donald Trump knew or had any kind of relationship with. They were just girls that his dad would bring up for him, presumably for the image of it. So I think that he didn’t develop that attitude in a vacuum.
And how do you think those early experiences with women then impacted his relationship with women later on in his life?
El-Faizy: What’s interesting is that he never changes. We interviewed one of his classmates, Sandy McIntosh, who said, “We were in an all-male academy. We learned about women and girls from Playboy magazine. But then we got out and realized, oh no, that’s not an appropriate way to look at women.”
And Trump just never made that change. To me, what’s interesting is that nothing later in his life impacted him enough to force him to reconsider his attitude.
The book also gets into Trump’s obsession with models, with Playboy, and with beauty pageants. You include a quote from a former Miss Arizona who says that she believes Trump purchased the Miss Universe organization explicitly “to utilize his power to get around beautiful women.” What did you take away from that?
El-Faizy: Trump is, at his heart, a business guy. And if that’s your mind state, you buy whatever you want in life. He had the money to do it; he wanted these women, so he just went out and bought access to women, with the beauty pageant, with the modeling agency. And I think for a lot of these men, it’s as much about being around the women as it is how it looks to other men.
There’s a story in the book from a hairstylist who used to blow-dry Marla Maples’ hair. And he told me that Trump would come into the salon and just stand by her chair and look around and see who was watching him be with Marla. So it wasn’t that much about, “Oh, I want to see my girlfriend Marla.” It was about, “I want to be seen in the presence of this young, beautiful blonde.” It’s the equivalent of driving a red Ferrari.
Levine: I tend to take a much darker view of those years. It’s absolutely clear in the book that for Donald Trump, creating his own modeling agency and being a part of some of these other beauty pageants and contests that he would arrange parties for at the Plaza Hotel in the ’90s — that became his personal hunting ground.
Take the story, for instance, that Heather Braden told. Heather was a model, and she told a story where Trump and these actors were in this giant Miami Beach mansion with like 50 models. It really wasn’t a party. The whole thing was an exercise for Donald Trump and these three other men to see how many of these models they could take in the private rooms, sometimes two or three women at a time.
Heather was older at the time, and she was kind of watching everything take place. She turned down Trump, but she said these younger models didn’t know any better. And they would come out disheveled; they would look very uncomfortable when they came out of the private rooms, and there was no question in her mind that these were sexual experiences taking place. Donald Trump had created this private hunting ground to allow himself access to young models. And he formed a very tight relationship with John Casablancas, the founder of the Elite modeling agency.
For Donald Trump, creating his own modeling agency and being a part of some of these other beauty pageants and contests ... that became his personal hunting ground.Barry Levine
This book puts all of these allegations together and uncovers a lot of new information, but for years now, there has been a pretty well-documented history of Trump’s misogyny and sexual misconduct. And yet it largely has not been seen as a dealbreaker for his supporters. Why do you think that there are a lot of people who feel allegations of sexual misconduct can be dismissed or overlooked?
El-Faizy: Yeah, it’s interesting. I had written a book about evangelical Christianity years ago, so I went back to that community for this book because, of course, the evangelical community is probably what put Trump over the edge in 2016. That community is very much run by male leaders, and so it was the men who really drove that train for Trump.
One of the evangelical women I spoke to and I said, “What is it? Why are they supporting him?” She said, “I think that a lot of them think, ‘If I wasn’t a Christian, that’s what I would be doing.’” Trump is surrounded by porn stars and beautiful blondes and whatever. And so she thought there was a certain kind of male envy.
The structure of the evangelical church, where Trump gets the bulk of his support, is very patriarchal. For them, this kind of patriarchy is what God has instructed them to do, and they find all kinds of different ways of rationalizing it. Early on, I called an old source of mine. I said, “how on earth are you supporting him?” And they said, “God uses imperfect vessels.” So they rationalize it by saying, [Trump] is being used, he’s a tool of God. He doesn’t need to be perfect, we’re all sinners. But at the very core of their support is just a comfort with patriarchy and the idea that women are supposed to be submissive to men.
And then the more cynical answer is the community supports him because he does what they want him to do. He gets them conservative judges, he’s helping roll back abortion laws, things like that. But in terms of the women being able to support him, it’s because they live within a world in which they’ve completely accepted the idea of patriarchy.
I feel like another sentiment that I hear a lot, even among people who believe that Trump is predatory, is exhaustion and frustration that these allegations don’t seem to stick to him. So, why bother? What would you say to those people?
El-Faizy: I think that’s part of the reason why it was important to put all these [allegations] in one place, because it is easier to dismiss individual behaviors. But when you look at it all in the aggregate, you realize it’s not really just about one man’s behavior; it is about systems that allow this behavior to go on for decades and decades. Trump is one of many men who has been able to be predatory with women. I would argue, right now, he’s the one we should be looking at because he’s the most visible man in the world and he sets an example. But there needs to be a look at the systems that allow this to go on.
When we brush aside or when we say we’re tired of this, we’re being complicit, we’re letting it go on. We have to get outraged about every one of these things. I’m now sort of going off-topic a little bit, but when I read the Ta-Nehisi Coates book “Between the World and Me,” that was the thing that I came away with. We can’t just say, “Oh, there’s another black kid getting shot.” We have to be outraged every time or this never ever changes.
It’s not really just about one man’s behavior; it is about systems that allow this behavior to go on for decades and decades.El-Faizy
Levine: This is a man who wants another four years to be president of our country. You can’t say, ‘Who cares?’ You can’t turn away from the truth.
Given the sheer breadth of allegations that exist against President Trump, do you think that we should be speaking about him in the same way that we speak about predatory men like Bill Cosby or Harvey Weinstein?
El-Faizy: I think absolutely.
Levine: The reporting shows that Donald Trump has been a predator over the course of many decades. There needs to be a reckoning here of his behavior. And we had to attempt to connect the dots to show not only the actual instances of the allegations but also to talk about how he became a predator. And I hope that the readers will get answers to that.
Why is it so essential for the American public to grapple with Trump’s predatory behavior? What does this one man’s story say about our culture at large?
El-Faizy: I think it’s his behavior, but also his policies. His behavior reveals an attitude about women, and that attitude is being held by the man who formed policy for American women and also for women around the globe. And we see the manner in which those attitudes are affecting women around the world, and the systems that are supporting these kinds of things.
What was so hurtful about the confirmation [of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh] was that you had an accuser [Christine Blasey Ford] who came forward, she was credible, people listened to her. And yet there was very little investigation and he was confirmed anyway. So I think a lot of women felt like, we thought we made all these advances since the ’60s, but in fact, the patriarchy is alive and well and still completely in control of the system. And I think that’s important to examine.
So now the book is out there in the world and we have this information. What should we be doing with it? What do you hope comes next?
Levine: I really think it is so important now, despite everything else going on with the impeachment inquiry, that investigative news organizations take the time to pick up these allegations and dig deeper because there are still so many stories. There is so much more material out there on Donald Trump and women.
When I was wrapping up the book, the E. Jean Carroll allegations [that Trump had attempted to rape Carroll in the mid-’90s] surfaced. And first of all, after the reporting I had done, everything that she said rang true. But beyond that, there were news organizations who were wrestling with whether they were going to present her allegations to begin with. And to me, that is the absolutely wrong thing. We need to allow these women to tell their stories. To me, that’s the most important thing.
El-Faizy: I think that we’ve seen that women are not fully valued in society and we need massive change. And I think that the midterm elections with all these young, newly elected women, were the beginning of that. And I hope that that’s not just a one-off and that that continues, because until we reach parity in the power structures of organizations and in government, this is not going to be fully addressed and fully changed. We need to see more women getting elected and that this is not just a moment, but actually the beginning of some real change.
Levine: I hope that even if people hear these allegations and don’t even read the book, that it will make them aware that the story of Donald Trump and women, his predatory behavior, has not been fully written, and that this is something they should remember when they consider whether or not they want him to be president for another four years.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

And there's more than a few indicators that Clinton wasn't naive at all about Epstein. Though he wasn't accused by Epstein's credible accuser Virginia Giuffre, Clinton's been accused repeatedly being a sexual predator by others earlier.


She is incredibly incompetent, fundamentally dishonest, and criminally corrupt, and these are her good qualities. KENNETH ELIASBERG
Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

Hillary the Punisher: Ronan Farrow says he was cut dead from Clinton circles after he exposed Weinstein


Apparently, the queen and her moneymen are not to be challenged.
Young Ronan Farrow learned that the hard way when he found out he was persona non grata from charmed social circles of Hillary Clinton following his investigation into Hollywood movie producer Harvey Weinstein's long career of sexual harassment and intimidation, an investigation which won him the Pulitzer prize.
Which culminates a long road of indignities for the young man. Seems the threats from Weinstein's minions to him were not enough. Nor was the rejection he encountered from assorted media organizations who refused to run his work until the New Yorker finally picked it up. Nope, the punishment Farrow endured also extended to House Clinton, which cut him dead.
Which, to the rest of us, seems like a good thing, given their long history of moral turpitude. But to young Ronan, it was another sling and arrow, because he was a Democrat and that was his social circle.
According to the Washington Examiner:
“It’s remarkable how quickly even people with a long relationship with you will turn if you threaten the centres of power or the sources of funding around them,” Farrow told the Financial Times.
“Ultimately, there are a lot of people out there who operate in that way. They’re beholden to powerful interests and if you go up against those interests, you become radioactive very quickly,” he said.
Clinton appointed Farrow as her special adviser on global youth issues in 2011 when she was secretary of state. Farrow said he had worked with Clinton “for years” when he was looking into the Weinstein story.
Instead of praising young Ronan for standing up for the interests of sex-harrassed women, for igniting the #MeToo movement, Hillary, that supposed big champion of women's progress, shut him out, probably refusing to take his calls, and in his view, solely on the grounds that one of her most important moneymen was put out of commission. He was dead to her.
And that tells us a lot more about Clinton than it does about Farrow. 
It's a reminder of Clinton's pay-to-play orientation, and privilege-of-kings morality. Rules of decency do not apply to her. Women's rights, or anyone's rights, are window dressing. Money talks. Maybe that can be brought up next time someone bruits about her name for president again.

Everyone knows she stood by her man, blamed his women, and perhaps was a psychological co-rapist for the sake of her political ambitions.

Bill and Hill - and the Evil that Men Do

If you asked one hundred people what they think about when they hear the name Bill Clinton, a goodly number will say womanizer, cheater – a few will use the dreadful word rapist. And that number will increase. Time and neurology are working against the Clintons.
Most memory training programs are simply a matter of learning how to associate memories with emotionally charged ideas. This is because the brain is designed to remember where the dangers and the goodies lie and to forget the dry statistics. The brain is more inclined to remember Jennifer Flowers than the unemployment rate in 1996. This effect has tainted the collective memory of many presidents, for example, disclosures about the mistresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Kennedy. This effect will increase for Bill Clinton both because of the outrageous nature of his conduct and the way it has and will be reported.

People tend to cut quite a bit of slack for the weaknesses of the flesh because there’s a lot of that going around. But Hillary will gain no benefit from that latitude. Everyone knows she stood by her man, blamed his women, and perhaps was a psychological co-rapist for the sake of her political ambitions.  Before the next president is elected, Hillary will not only have an albatross around her neck, she will be covered with names like Wellstone, Broaddrick, Moffet, Ward Gracen, Brown, Dowdy, Jones, Ferguson, Zercher, Willey, and more. A majority of those one hundred people will remember the evil the Clintons did, and their legacy will be lost in the folds of tattered dresses and bleeding lips.
Lives -- after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with the Clintons.
If you asked one hundred people what they think about when they hear the name Bill Clinton, a goodly number will say womanizer, cheater – a few will use the dreadful word rapist. And that number will increase. Time and neurology are working against the Clintons.
Most memory training programs are simply a matter of learning how to associate memories with emotionally charged ideas. This is because the brain is designed to remember where the dangers and the goodies lie and to forget the dry statistics. The brain is more inclined to remember Jennifer Flowers than the unemployment rate in 1996. This effect has tainted the collective memory of many presidents, for example, disclosures about the mistresses of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Kennedy. This effect will increase for Bill Clinton both because of the outrageous nature of his conduct and the way it has and will be reported.
People tend to cut quite a bit of slack for the weaknesses of the flesh because there’s a lot of that going around. But Hillary will gain no benefit from that latitude.
 Everyone knows she stood by her man, blamed his women, and perhaps was a psychological co-rapist for the sake of her political ambitions.  Before the next president is elected, Hillary will not only have an albatross around her neck, she will be covered with names like Wellstone, Broaddrick, Moffet, Ward Gracen, Brown, Dowdy, Jones, Ferguson, Zercher, Willey, and more. A majority of those one hundred people will remember the evil the Clintons did, and their legacy will be lost in the folds of tattered dresses and bleeding lips.
Lives -- after them, the good is oft interred with their bones. So let it be with the Clintons.

 

Hillary Clinton Is not just a sore loser, she is a total loser

As one can readily see, Hillary Clinton has been unable to recover from having lost the 2016 presidential election -- a self-inflicted wound that she will never cop to. Or, possibly, an act of divine intervention. She has come up with well over a dozen reasons for her defeat -- every one but the real one, i.e. she is a loser -- not just a sore loser, but a total loser. She is incredibly incompetent, fundamentally dishonest, and criminally corrupt, and these are her good qualities. In addition, she is bereft of a trace of integrity or character, has absolutely no judgment, and is devoid of people skills ( she’s very easy to dislike and distrust and thereby become a member of her deplorables). The 2016 race was hers to lose, and by failing to listen to advice on where to campaign, she managed to do just that -- lose! Thank God -- a Hillary Clinton presidency would be the last nail in America’s coffin.
We could go through the litany of Hillary Clinton’s failures – Cattlegate, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, her clumsy and opaque handling of the health care assignment her husband handed her, her tour of duty in the U.S. Senate, or her stint at the State Department, starting with her failure to get the Russian word for “reset” correct and ending with her dereliction of duty in the case of Benghazi (which produced four dead Americans, including her “friend” Ambassador Christopher Stevens), which, on testifying before Congress, she fobbed off with “what difference, at this point, does it make?”
But, for present purposes, I would just like to focus on the liberties that she has always taken with the truth. When Bill Safire of the New York Times called her a congenital liar, he flattered her. You see, the Clintons don’t just tell lies, they live them.
Consider her most recent whopper -- the one in which she observed, on being asked what was her most difficult decision, that it was remaining in her marriage. Why was this her biggest whopper? Because she had no choice but to remain in her marriage, if, indeed, the arrangement that the Clintons have qualifies as a “marriage,” rather than a political partnership looking to advance the ambitions of each of the partners.
Some have applauded her incredible loyalty to Bill in view of his tawdry behavior. However, if all they had was an “arrangement” to advance their ambitions, his infidelities were irrelevant as far as hurt feelings were concerned.
But they were necessary to make her both the object of sympathy (although one has to wonder why you are deserving of pity on your husband’s 1000th marital transgression). Also, every time he got caught, so it goes, he owed her one. Ergo, the health care assignment, her Senate term, and, finally, her stint as Secretary of State. In each of these situations she distinguished herself more for her failures than any accomplishment.
The point here is that Hillary had no choice but to stay in her marriage. Without her connection to Bill Clinton, Hillary could not be nominated for, let alone be elected to, dog catcher of even the smallest of communities. Her successes in  securing all of these positions was achieved by attaching herself to Bill’s coattails and riding them to each one of these positions.
So why did Hillary lose the 2016 Presidential election? Because she’s Hillary Clinton, a born loser. And, more to the point, Hillary Clinton belongs in the Big House, not in the White House.

BILL CLINTON: SERIAL RAPIST and his enabler, Hillary!
MONICA’S VIDEO ON SERIAL RAPIST BILL CLINTON, HUSBAND OF SWAMP EMPRESS HILLARY CLINTON, CHARITY FOUNDATION FRAUDSTER

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

Monica Lewinsky says Bill Clinton hinted she should perjure herself, arranged a farewell Christmas tryst before dumping her




Why is no one helping or caring about all these women? Who Hillary Viciously went after. The hypocrisy right now on the left is utterly stunning me. Bill Clinton-12 women on record telling their stories of him sexually assaulting them starting back in college! Imagine all the women who still have never told their stories about him?

Eileen Wellstone (1969)

Allegation: S-exual assault

Anonymous female student at Yale University (1972)

Anonymous female student at the University of Arkansas (1974)

Anonymous female lawyer (1977)

Juanita Broaddrick (1978)

R-ape

Carolyn Moffet (1979)

Elizabeth Ward (1983)

Sally Perdue (1983)

Paula Jones (1991)

Sandra Allen James (1991)

Christy Zercher (1992)

Kathleen Willey (1993)

Monica Lewinsky. 22-year-old intern working for the President

 

Ronan Farrow: Bill Clinton ‘Credibly’ Accused of Rape, Investigation Is ‘Overdue’

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2019/11/03/ronan-farrow-bill-clinton-credibly-accused-of-rape-investigation-is-overdue/

 

 

3 Nov 20192,510
2:29

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Ronan Farrow said on HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher, that “credible” accusations of rape had been made against former President Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick, adding that an investigation into the allegations is now “overdue.”

Maher asked Farrow, who is best known for helping uncover the Harvey Weinstein sexual assault scandal, whether Clinton could have survived in today’s political climate of hyper-awareness about sexual misconduct.
“I think that it is very important to interject that Bill Clinton is a different conversation,” responded Farrow. “He has been credibly accused of rape. That has nothing to do with gray areas. I think that the Juanita Broaddrick claim has been overdue for revisiting.”
Broaddrick, a former nursing administrator, first made the allegations against Clinton in 1999, claiming that he raped her in her hotel room in Little Rock in 1978, when he was Arkansas attorney general and running for governor. Clinton has denied the allegation through his attorney.
Farrow recently accused Hillary Clinton in his best-selling book Catch and Kill of pressuring him during his investigations into Harvey Weinstein’s behavior. According to Farrow, Clinton’s publicist Nick Merrill described the story as “a concern” for her reputation.
Meanwhile, Maher also pressed Farrow on longtime rumors that he is the son of singer Frank Sinatra, with his mother Mia Farrow having been romantically involved with the singer and the pair bearing a strong physical resemblance.
“Now, what do you think your father would think about what you’re doing now?” Maher asked Farrow, in reference to his investigative reporting.
“I knew I was walking into that so I asked,” Farrow said. “I didn’t want to give you the sound-bite of ‘Which one?’”
In 2013, Mia Farrow said in an interview with Vanity Fair that Sinatra could “possibly” be her son’s biological father.
“I feel like there’s no one more #MeToo-y than Frank Sinatra,” Maher said, asking. “You do own a mirror, don’t you?”
Farrow eventually admitted that he “doesn’t know” what Sinatra would have thought of his journalism, but joked that Maher could “ask my mom” for answers.
Follow Ben Kew on Facebook, on Twitter at @ben_kew, or email him at bkew@breitbart.com


Where were the HOWLERS when serial rapist Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby and Harvey Weinstein were on the prowl?

 

http://hillaryclinton-whitecollarcriminal.blogspot.com/2016/07/30-lies-of-hillary-clinton-and-thats.html

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom
"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com

Leaked Julian Assange Message:

Hillary Is A ‘Well Connected, Sadistic Sociopath’

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com

Hillary, Billary, Cosby, Buttman Affleck, Oliver Stone, Harvey Weinstein and their boy Obomb….. new definitions of
degradation and sleaze.                              


Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom

"But what the Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal. Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to every person on the planet by now."  ----  Patricia McCarthy - AMERICANTHINKER.com
DO YOU GET SICK AND TIRED OF HOLLYWOOD’S STAGGERING HYPOCRISY???
RICH LIBERALS AND THEIR CELEBRATES P IMPS AND PERVS
…. The parasitism of  Hillary,  Billary, Obomb, Heffner, Cosby, Buttman Affleck, Oliver Stone, Weinstein and the rest.

Harvey Weinstein has been exposed in the media as the sexual predator he is, and Hillary Clinton has been exposed as the craven money-grubber she is; money over morality is the mantra she lives by. PATRICIA Mc CARTHY – AMERICAN THINKERcom



Former President Bill Clinton speaks during a plenary session at a Clinton Global Initiative meeting in Marrakech, Morocco, on May 6, 2015. (Abdeljalil Bounhar/AP Photo)

Bill Clinton Accusers Speak Out After Ronan Farrow Says Ex-President Was ‘Credibly Accused of Rape’

November 6, 2019 Updated: November 6, 2019
Share
   
Juanita Broaddrick, who has long accused former President Bill Clinton of sexual assault, said that she agrees with comments made by reporter Ronan Farrow.
Farrow wrote the book “Catch and Kill: Lies, Spies and a Conspiracy to Protect Predators,” touching on NBC News’ attempts to silence his reporting about Harvey Weinstein. He told “Real Time with Bill Maher” that Broaddrick had credibly accused Clinton of rape.
“Bill Clinton is a different conversation. He has been credibly accused of rape … That is, I think the Juanita Broaddrick claim has been overdue for revisiting,” he said on Nov. 1.
He was answering a question from Maher, who asked a panel, “Could Bill Clinton, if he had done what he did in 1998 survived today? Or would his own party have thrown him under the bus?”
According to the Daily Caller, three women who have accused Clinton of assault, including Broaddrick, said they are hoping for justice.
Clinton has denied all of the allegations.
“I always have thought that this should be revisited. … I would like for something to be done in order to expose this man for all of the things that he has done and possibly get all of his past presidential perks taken from him,” Broaddrick told the website. “That would be my biggest goal, because I don’t think anything else can be done after 40 years.”
Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump (C) sits with, (L-R)Paula Jones, Kathy Shelton, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey, before the second presidential debate with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at Washington University in St. Louis, on Oct. 9, 2016. (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)
Broaddrick said that the allegations of assault never amounted to anything because of the power he wielded.
“I think it’s because of who it was,” she said. “[Lauer and others] are all lower characters. Who should have been exposed was the president of the United States.”
She accused him of rape when he was campaigning for governor of Arkansas in 1978.
Leslie Millwee, another Clinton accuser, told the Daily Caller that she was pleased to hear Farrow’s interest in the allegations.
“I absolutely agree that it’s long overdue. … I think that more things are going to come to light,” Millwee said. “I’m really excited that Ronan’s looking into it. I was sexually assaulted three times by Bill Clinton … and I would not only like for Juanita to get justice, you know, I’d like to get justice. I’m elated that he’s looking into this.”
“I don’t care what your political affiliation is—whether you lean left or right—sexual assault is bad and wrong and it should be looked at in that way, and nothing to do with political affiliation,” said Millwee, a former Arkansas reporter.
And Kathleen Willey, a former aide in the White House, said that she doesn’t believe Farrow’s interest in the topic will actually lead to charges against Clinton.
“The world knows that the Clintons have everybody in their back pocket, and I just don’t know who’s willing to come forward and take something like that on,” she told the news outlet. “I certainly agree with what Ronan Farrow said. … What does ‘revisit’ mean? Is the [district attorney] going to look into this? Is the special counsel?” Willey said. “It’s been 40 years, and I can’t see anybody picking the ball up and running with it.”
Willey claimed that Clinton assaulted her in 1993 in the Oval Office while she volunteered as an aide, according to Business Insider. Clinton denied the allegations.
Millwee alleged that the former president sexually assaulted her in 1980 several times at the television station where she worked. She came forward with the allegations in 2016, speaking to Breitbart.
Clinton eventually was impeached in 1998 by the House of Representatives for lying under oath and obstruction of justice following the publication of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
The Senate ultimately acquitted him in 1999 and he served out his second term until January 2001.

O.K., Prince Andrew's out of public life. Why isn't Bill Clinton?


The press is making a big deal out of Britain's Prince Andrew now being ousted from public life, based on his pretty gamy associations with pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. He had his hand draped around the bare midriff of a 17-year old, in one photo. He kibbitzed with Epstein after his Florida slap-on-the-wrist conviction and there's a photograph there, too. Flight records show he rode the Lolita Express. And incredibly, he claims he never knew anything untoward was going on.
little rich there, old chap. Or very, very, naive...
U.K.'s Daily Mail has this comprehensive report, reasonably explored from a U.K. perspective. But the U.S. press has been all over it, too. Here's CNNWashington PostVanity FairCNBCTimeFox News... 
It's good clean fun for the American press, given that the British royal family is unimportant here, and relies on a pristine public image to maintain U.K. public support which is pretty incompatible with jetting around with Epstein, but it also raises questions about why that other famous friend of Epstein's, Bill Clinton, who rode the Lolita Express again, and again, and again, isn't getting the same pariah treatment. Fact is, the press hasn't brought the disgusting thing up at all, even as Clinton's wife (and daughter) gallivant around the country on a thinly disguised campaign for Hillary as president.
Joe Biden's gotten all kinds of questions based on his son Hunter's gamy business dealings. But Hillary Clinton remains immune -- and not a word has been said in the media about hubby Bill, who's still carrying on his public life as usual. It's as if he's out of the picture, and all those denials he's thus far made are simply factual ... albeit about as factual as Prince Andrew's denials.
And there's more than a few indicators that Clinton wasn't naive at all about Epstein. Though he wasn't accused by Epstein's credible accuser Virginia Giuffre, Clinton's been accused repeatedly being a sexual predator by others earlier. Someone like Clinton turning up with Epstein, is pretty obviously a matter of public interest, particularly with his wife's presidential ambitions. Just recently, one of Clinton's accusers, Juanita Broaddrick, gave this interview to Australia's Sky News, bringing up the constant issues with the much-vaunted Democratic ex-president, and still seeking justice. She's not getting any so far:


My interview with Sky News Australia this evening

MeToo movement "never wanted anything to do with the victims of Bill Clinton” | Sky News Australia https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6108127574001 

MeToo movement "never wanted anything to do with the victims of Bill Clinton” | Sky News Australia




Which brings up again why Clinton isn't getting any attention, let alone ostracization, on his well-known relationship with Epstein. Why not? The Brit press is interested in British angles, the American press should be similarly interested in American angles. But only Prince Andrew gets the full press attention. Maybe that's because he's not a Democrat to protect?
It just shows the press's credibility problem in conveniently attempting to protect another Democrat from any uncomfortable questions.


Is someone gonna ask the Clintons about all those trips to Epstein's 'cowboy village'?


The press is piling on against the U.K.'s Prince Andrew, who's been probably credibly accused of participating in "suicide" pervert Jeffrey Epstein's sex-with-little-girls operations.
Yes, it's wretched and appalling.  It's bad for a royal family that for decades has portrayed itself as the embodiment of middle-class values.  This is Shaka Zulu or Genghis Khan territory.
But it's also of limited interest, given that Prince Andrew is not even important in the royal succession lineup, and frankly, who cares what some rich overseas princeling is up to?  The media sure didn't, up until now.
There's likely a reason for it — to deflect attention from the growing evidence that Bill, Hillary, and even Chelsea Clinton have had a pretty spectacularly intense association with the very same pervert.
The Daily Mail has been on the job and has found another credible witness, a former contractor of Epstein's at his New Mexico "cowboy village" ranch who says the Clintons jetted in annually on Epstein's Lolita Express and had a grand old time on Epstein's many-camera'ed grounds.  Some opening points from the Mail:
  • Bill and Hillary Clinton would stay at Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexico ranch frequently after they left the White House, former estate workers told DailyMailTV

  • The former president was Epstein's closest 'celebrity mate' and the Clintons visited Zorro Ranch 'a whole bunch of times', a former contractor who ran the IT system at the property said

  • The family never stayed in the main house but bunked down in a special cowboy-themed village created by Epstein, which lies a mile south of his own villa, sources said 

  • The guest homes are next to other traditional Wild West-style buildings such as an old schoolhouse and saloon bar, which are all near Epstein's private airstrip, where he arrived on his private planes
And to read the details of the report is enough to give the gross-outs to anyone.  Why were the Clintons going to a place Epstein called his "baby-making ranch"?  What was that about Epstein having an eight-person "party shower"?  Did the Clintons do the "party shower"?  Was it on film?  How many times?  And who else was in the pen with them?  What about that party room with the stripper poles?  Did the Clintons go there, too?  What was the Secret Service thinking, or did Bill bug out again on his Secret Service?  And why are taxpayers paying for this farce?
Why again did Epstein have that icky portrait of Bill Clinton wearing a blue dress on his Manhattan mansion wall?
As one of the contractors who witnessed this, Jared Kellogg, told the Mail:
'My contact was Brice, their main concern was that there was no video surveillance on the property at all. I thought this was a simple request, as they wanted surveillance to protect their investment. It's a huge site.
'But what was weird was that the whole time I was on site, Brice would be bragging about how the Clintons would visit, the whole family. Not just Bill, but Bill, his wife, their kid, and they would stay on the ranch itself.
More ickiness about Epstein's obsession with cameras:
Instead of using an expensive, robust camera system, which used underground cables, he wanted a 'point-to-point wireless fluid mesh design', which means cameras are operating via antenna, and is considerably cheaper.
After Kellogg did an estimate and sent in a plan, he never heard back.
He said: 'They had this huge facility, but it felt like they didn't have the money to do anything. They were trying to find the most cost-effective way to transmit video footage and we had to come up with a point-to-point wireless fluid mesh design because normally we want to trench everything. It saves money as you don't have to build a trench and put in a cable.
Sound like someone who's been blackmailed?  You decide.
Now, arguably, one could argue that the press is saying nothing about this, given that the contractor was a different kind of witness from Virginia Giuffre, the credible young woman who says Epstein trafficked her with Prince Andrew when she was a teenager.
But the Mail slips in something that hasn't appeared significantly in the press at all: that Giuffre also says she saw Bill Clinton at Epstein's pervert haunts being honored by the pedophile himself. 
Why aren't the media covering that?  Now we have the Clintons pinned at two places — the "cowboy ranch" and the Caribbean pervert island — and no one's saying anything.  It's all about Prince Andrew.
Yet Eptein was obsessed with cameras and obviously blackmail.  He roped in Prince Andrew.  But the real question is to what extent he got the Clintons.  With all these new revelations rolling out, why is the press silent?
Image credit: Photo montage by Monica Showalter from public domain sources.

Convicted sex offender and Mueller witness George Nader indicted for illegal contributions to boost Hillary Clinton

Convicted sex offender George Nader, who was a key witness in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation, has been indicted by United States prosecutors for his alleged role in a scheme to conceal large sums of illegal campaign contributions to help Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Nader, a 60-year-old Lebanese American lobbyist, is accused of conspiring with Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, the Los Angeles-based 48-year-old chief executive of Allied Wallet, to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions to political committees associated with a presidential candidate to gain influence during and after the 2016 campaign.
Nader and Khawaja were charged on Nov. 7 as part of a 53-count indictment dealt by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia. The indictment was unsealed on Tuesday.
Khawaja gave more than $4 million to Clinton's campaign and other Democrats during the 2016 cycle but later donated $1 million to President Trump's inaugural committee after Clinton lost, according to the Associated Press. As he shifted his focus to Republicans after the 2016 election, the Lebanese-born Khawaja met with Trump at a Manhattan fundraiser and got a photo with the president in the Oval Office.
The Justice Department announced on Tuesday that Khawaja allegedly conspired with Nader to make $3.5 million in straw donations to boost a presidential candidate from March 2016 through January 2017.
No candidate is mentioned by name, but the indictment and campaign finance records make it clear that the money was directed towards helping Clinton during the 2016 campaign.
"By design, these contributions appeared to be in the names of Khawaja, his wife, and his company. In reality, they allegedly were funded by Nader," Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and FBI Washington Field Office chief Timothy Slater announced in a statement.
"Khawaja and Nader allegedly made these contributions in an effort to gain influence with high-level political figures, including the candidate. As Khawaja and Nader arranged these payments, Nader allegedly reported to an official from a foreign government about his efforts to gain influence," they continued.
According to the indictment, after the election Khawaja used his company to steer $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee and attended Trump's inauguration with Nader.
The other charges in the indictment allege Khawaja and six associates — Roy Boulos, Rudy Dekermenjian, Mohammad “Moe” Diab, Rani El-Saadi, Stevan Hill, and Thayne Whipple — conspired to conceal executive contributions, totaling more than $1.8 million, to various political committees in 2016 through 2018. "Among other things, these contributions allegedly allowed Khawaja to host a private fundraiser for a presidential candidate in 2016 and a private fundraising dinner for an elected official in 2018," Benczkowski and Slater said.
Khawaja is also charged with obstructing the grand jury investigation in the summer by providing a witness called to testify in the case with false information about Nader and his connection to Khawaja’s company, while four of his associates are charged with obstruction by lying to the FBI.
Nader is already in federal custody on other charges. In July, he was charged with sex trafficking for allegedly transporting a 14-year-old boy from Europe and then abusing him. Nader pleaded not guilty in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia.
Part of a rap sheet dating to the 1980s, Nader pleaded guilty in 1991 to a federal child porn charge involving footage of 13- or 14-year-old boys and received a six-month sentence, served at a Baltimore halfway house.
Nader acted as a connection between Trump’s circle and Russian, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabian officials in 2016 and 2017 as he pursued business deals in the Middle East. This included helping to set up a January 2017 meeting in the Seychelles between Trump associate and Blackwater founder Erik Prince and a Russian official with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, records indicate Nader visited the White House at least 13 times to meet with Trump’s then-chief strategist Steve Bannon.
Nader was interviewed by Mueller's team on multiple occasions regarding possible UAE efforts to influence members of Trump's campaign, and was mentioned in Mueller's final report more than 100 times.
An attorney for Nader declined to comment to the Washington Post, and an attorney for Khawaja could not immediately be reached by the outlet.
Federal Election Commission records detail the millions of dollars Khawaja admitted donating to Democratic candidates, campaigns, and political action committees.
Khawaja told the Federal Election Commission he donated $2,700 in October 2015 and $2,700 in July 2016 to Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary for America. He said he donated $135,000 in March 2016, $150,000 in April 2016, $68,400 in June 2016, and $60,000 in September 2016 to the Clinton campaign’s joint fundraising committee, the Hillary Victory Fund. The records also show a donation totaling $200,400 in July 2016 to the Hillary Action Fund, a joint fundraising effort between Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
Khawaja told the FEC about donations to the DNC totaling $231,100, in addition to donations to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee totaling $33,400 in 2016 and $43,900 in 2017 and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee totaling $233,400 in 2016, $230,000 in 2017, and $237,300 in 2018.
Khawaja also reported donating massive sums to liberal PACs, including $1,100,000 to Priorities USA Action, the primary super PAC supporting Clinton's campaign, and $100,000 to Senate Majority PAC in 2016. He also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Senate and congressional races around the country with a special focus on his home state of California, including $4,200 in 2016 and $3,900 in 2017 to Schiff for Congress, the campaign committee for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.
In addition, Khawaja’s company, Allied Wallet, reported giving $550,000 to the Philadelphia 2016 Host Committee, the Democratic National Convention’s fundraising arm, in July 2016. The business also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic super PACs in 2017 and 2018.
FEC records show Nader reported giving $595 in donations to Trump’s presidential campaign committee in 2016, as well as $100 dollars to Ben Carson's campaign, but not to any Democrats that election cycle.
Nader was a business associate of Elliott Broidy, a top Republican fundraiser and deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee who resigned from that position in April 2018 after reports that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen negotiated a $1.6 million settlement in 2017 between Broidy and a former Playboy model who said Broidy impregnated her. Nader and Broidy worked to influence U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East prior to Broidy's resignation and Nader's arrest in June.