Bizarre: Did Bill rape Hillary?

[RandFan]

Ok, I'm not comfortable with this. What possible good could come from it besides the profits Ed Kline stands to make?

Is Kline reputable?

The Truth About Hillary (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3ek.htm)

"I'm going back to my cottage to rape my wife," Klein quotes Bill Clinton as saying during a Bermuda getaway in 1979. The dialog sounds rediculous. Who would say something so stupid. I'm not buying it.

[Questioninggeller]

From Drudge...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
From Drudge... Yeah, do you think that the book doesn't make that claim? If it doesn't then I will appologize for furthering slander.

[Skeptic]

From the same book: "Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter Chelsea Clinton!"

So let's get this straight: Bill Clinton, of all people, needed to actually rape his wife, of all women; and it is just this precise rape that they can somehow prove was the precise sexual act that got Hillary pregnant with Chelsea. And Ms. Clinton, that liberated woman, does nothing for 25 years.

Yeah, right.

[DavidJames]

Originally posted by RandFan
The dialog sounds rediculous. Who would say something so stupid. I'm not buying it. Of course not, but then, somehow you couldn't help posting it. :rolleyes:

[clarsct]

*chuckle*
Maybe you're thinking too literally. Maybe it's just a sex game that was meant to be private.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Of course not, but then, somehow you couldn't help posting it. :rolleyes: Yes, because the book makes the claim (allegedly). I'm attacking the book. Why do you have a problem with that?

If you argue that I could have waited for conformation then I will accept your criticism. If the book doesn't make the claim then an apology from me is forthcoming and I will be more careful in the future. However, if the Book does make that claim then I think it appropriate to post it. Do you think differently? Why?

In the interest of disclosure, I'll concede that I have posted spurious information from Drudge before.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by RandFan
Ok, I'm not comfortable with this. What possible good could come from it besides the profits Ed Kline stands to make?

Is Kline reputable?

The dialog sounds rediculous. Who would say something so stupid. I'm not buying it.
Even if he said it it reads like a joke to me.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Even if he said it it reads like a joke to me. I have told my wife at times "Let's go home. I'm going to rape you."

Luckily nobody overheard it - or I didn't get famous enough for anyone to use the quote against me. :p

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Even if he said it it reads like a joke to me. I agree. I've never made this particular statement but I've said things like "when I get home I'm going to kill those kids". Yeah, I agree.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by RandFan
The dialog sounds rediculous. Who would say something so stupid.

I don't know. Maybe somebody who would have a strange woman brought to his room by state troopers, whip it out and say, "Would you like to touch it?"

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't know. Maybe somebody who would have a strange woman brought to his room by state troopers, whip it out and say, "Would you like to touch it?"
Is that proven?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Is that proven?

The lawsuit was settled for $850,000.00

[Random]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Is that proven?
It was claimed by two Arkansas state troopers. Granted, there is a bit of a credibility gap, as they were both paid large quantities of money from Richard Scaife (sp?), who also gave money to David Hale (the only man in the entire Whitewater mess who testified that Bill did anything illegal), and helped get Ken Starr a job at Pepperdyne University. It also didn’t help that by their own story they were using their authority as state troopers to be pimps.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Random
It was claimed by two Arkansas state troopers. Granted, there is a bit of a credibility gap, as they were both paid large quantities of money from Richard Scaife (sp?), who also gave money to David Hale (the only man in the entire Whitewater mess who testified that Bill did anything illegal), and helped get Ken Starr a job at Pepperdyne University. It also didn’t help that by their own story they were using their authority as state troopers to be pimps. What about Jim McDougal? Of course I think he has a credibility problem but then I think Susan does also. I'm not sure about the Troopers story. I'm really not sure about Brodericks claim.

[Random]

Ugh. Really should have thought for a bit before getting involved in the whole Whitewater thing again. Before you got the really straightforward Monica story, the whole thing was a cesspool of confusing allegations, misinformation, and misunderstanding. One genius wrote a 450 page book about how Hillary should go to jail for failing to sign a certain form, without once realizing that it was a two page form and she signed on the second page. I myself railed against Bill Clinton for months until someone asked me what specifically he was supposed to have done and I realized I didn't have a clue. Turns out he was the victim of a fraudulent land deal and lost about $50,000.

Most of my books on that mess are still boxed up from the last move. Trying to decide whether or not to open up that box again.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Random
Most of my books on that mess are still boxed up from the last move. Trying to decide whether or not to open up that box again. No way man. They'll do you a world more good if you leave them in the box and carry them up and down the stairs a few times a day.

Here's the Clinton scandal in a short paragraph. Being in Arkansas, the Clintons ended up in cahoots with some pretty shady guys. But the themselves were actually pretty clean. Kind of like Ed Koch but with a hick accent. In the meantime, Bill couldn't keep his dick in his pants. He was needlessly evasive about the political stuff and needfully evasive about the dick stuff. The more evasive he was, the more questions people asked. In a turn of events which would make the great Greek tragedy writers applaud, he got manuvered into lying about the dick stuff to a judge because of a law which he, personally, had signed to great fanfare. And thus by his own foibles and his own greatness is the mighty fallen. The end.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Random
Turns out he was the victim of a fraudulent land deal and lost about $50,000. Let's get it right. And for the record I was never confused as to what it was all about. It always amazed me when people claimed that it was confusing. What pray tell was so confusing?

Bill Clinton's re-election campaign for governer illegally recieved funds from a failed savings and loan funneled through his White Water land deal. There were only *4 people who could have written it and only one person who stood directly to gain from it (Bill Clinton).

Who wrote the check?

What did Bill know and when did he know it?

Unlike our old pal Nixon there were no incriminating tapes to prove Bill knew anything (plausible deniability). Jim McDougal first said that Bill wasn't involved and then said he was. Susn McDougal refused to testify and was made a local hero for serving jail time for refusing to testify. She was later convicted of fraud in another matter and served NO jail time for that incident. Hillary isn't talking.

Are we clear? BTW, the fact that Bill lost money is hardly a defense.

*Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Jim McDougal
Susan McDoubal.

[Random]

Originally posted by manny
No way man. They'll do you a world more good if you leave them in the box and carry them up and down the stairs a few times a day.
Yeah, you’re probably right. Won’t open that box again unless I really want to reread the Rogue Squadron series or Hillary runs for Prez.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by RandFan

Bill Clinton's re-election campaign for governer illegally recieved funds from a failed savings and loan funneled through his White Water land deal.

Fascinating. I say that because I didn't follow the whitewater case with a close eye, but I had never read about the re-election campaign money issue. You would think that would have played somewhat more prominently in the coverage.


As for the current report on Drudge, I think it's ridiculous. I would hope this silly rape allegation won't help the author sell books. Mr. Clinton's status as a sexual predator has been thoroughly documented, and so the idea that he would make crude comments about his sexual relations with his wife should come as no surprise. However, as I said during the impeachment process, the most disgusting thing about Bill's sexual behavior is that I know about it. There are things we just shouldn't know. This is one of them.

[daredelvis]

Originally posted by RandFan

Bill Clinton's re-election campaign for governer illegally recieved funds from a failed savings and loan funneled through his White Water land deal. There were only *4 people who could have written it and only one person who stood directly to gain from it (Bill Clinton).



Do you have a credible link for that allegation? (not that I don’t trust Drudge)

Daredelvis

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Fascinating. I say that because I didn't follow the whitewater case with a close eye, but I had never read about the re-election campaign money issue. You would think that would have played somewhat more prominently in the coverage. It played quite a bit actually. The problem is that there were so many other twists and turns with the Rose Law firm working both for the government and the savings and loans, Hillary's involvement with the law firm, her claims she did little work for the firm, documents removed from Vince Fosters office after he died, that Foster was involved with the whitewater deal, the documents removed were allegedly about the deal, Hillary's disappearing mystically re-appearing billing records, and many other seemingly sordid and confusing links to politicians and shady characters. Its one of those connect the dots sort of things. Kind of like the whole Bush going to war for oil and the benefit of his friends type of things.

There just wasn't any hard evidence besides crusted body fluids on a blue dress. Had Bill kept little Willy out of any oral orifice while in the oval office it would have all blown over. So to speak.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by daredelvis
Do you have a credible link for that allegation? (not that I don’t trust Drudge)

Daredelvis No, and I have said that A.) I have posted spurios information from Drudge before and B.) If it is shown false I will appologize.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by RandFan
Its one of those connect the dots sort of things. Kind of like the whole Bush going to war for oil and the benefit of his friends type of things."Kind of like" - do you believe both or none of them?

[jj]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Even if he said it it reads like a joke to me.

It has a strong smell of an intensely sarcastic reaction to a stupid question.

[corplinx]

Bill Clinton was a flawed man with a penchant for women other than his wife. It isn't inconceivable that perhaps he sought other women because Hillary has intimacy issues of some sort leading to frigidity. It isn't inconceivable that if the Juanita Broderick story was remotely accurate, that he may have had forced intercourse with his wife. In other words, I find the base claim plausible (though not likely).

The second claim about the rape being the source of Chelsea's birth I find lacking on the surface. Once again it is an anonymous source and could be crossed-wires between the source and Clinton (if the source actually exists and isnt flat out lieing).

However, the lack of evidence will always leave it unproven. Klein uses an anonymous source. Even if other claims the source makes can be validated, it doesn't mean the rape claim is.

On the surface I would say this claim is beyond skeptical inquiry unless some compelling evidence proves otherwise but I don't think it will. You have Bill, Hillary, and an anonymous source Clinton bragged about it to. If the source indeed exists, then Clinton obviously knows who the person is and can "out" them. The person would have been on Bermuda and close to the Clintons. I am sure a good reporter could deduct who it is from those clues alone or deduct that the source does not exist.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Bjorn
"Kind of like" - do you believe both or none of them? Kind of like I don't drink the Kool-Aide. Things aren't always as they appear. I like to stick with what I know. I don't mind speculation but I don't live my life by it. I suspect Bill Clinton did a number of shady things trying to get re-elected. I suspect Bush's motives were not always honorable.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by RandFan
It played quite a bit actually.... Its one of those connect the dots sort of things.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I am curious about those campaign contributions.

The reason I'm curious about them is that this would seem like an issue that is actually legitimate.

The fact that the Clintons were part of a shady real estate deal didn't bother me. All the stuff I read about the Rose Law firm didn't bother me. The fact that a lawyer's time sheet would not be 100% accurate doesn't bother me. The fact that Hilary was obviously lying about not being able to find her billing records didn't bother me much. Certainly not enough to make a federal case out of.

What I got out of what I did follow was that the Clintons were partners in a rather shady real estate deal that lost a bunch of money, and that Bill was a philanderer. Who cares?

But if they were actually lining their pockets via a campaign fund with money laundered through a losing real estate deal, that would bother me.

So, do you have to connect the dots to see that they got a 50,000 dollar campaign contribution illegally? Or is the campaign contribution a matter of record, but no one could prove where it came from?

[nightwind]

This has to be the most bizarre and ridiculous accusation I have heard about Clinton. You would almost think someone was trying to sell a book or something!

[daredelvis]

Originally posted by RandFan
No, and I have said that A.) I have posted spurios information from Drudge before and B.) If it is shown false I will appologize.

Sorry, I was specifically asking about a link or a reference for the accusations about campaign contributions. The Drudge comment was just poorly placed sarcasm.

Though I must comment that if I am to take you skepticism about the rape allegations seriously I would think that another thread title would have been used. Example: “More outrageous allegations about Clinton from partisan hack�.

Daredelvis

[jj]

Once again, at worst it sounds like an extremely sarcastic reply to a really stupid question asked at a really stupid time.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by daredelvis
Sorry, I was specifically asking about a link or a reference for the accusations about campaign contributions. The Drudge comment was just poorly placed sarcasm.

Though I must comment that if I am to take you skepticism about the rape allegations seriously I would think that another thread title would have been used. Example: “More outrageous allegations about Clinton from partisan hack�.

Daredelvis Fair enough. I think however that my words speak for themselves. Was the title provocative and perhaps unfair? Perhaps. However it is possible to be both skeptical and provocative.