It’s amazing what happens over time isn’t it?
You may remember Ken Starr. Starr was initially appointed to investigate the death of Deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments. He later discovered and reported in his Starr Report that Clinton lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky under a sworn deposition. That led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment as president.
In addition, you may be interested to know that in 2007, Starr joined the legal team of Palm Beach billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, who was criminally accused of the statutory rape of numerous underage high school students. Epstein would later plea bargain to plead guilty to several charges of soliciting prostitutes and serve 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach jail.
That brings us to present times…
On Saturday, Ross Douthat, an Op-Ed columnist penned an editorial piece titled “What if Ken Starr Was Right?” for the New York Times that seemed to indicate that the end of the Clinton empire could very well be a reality in today’s climate.
He accused Clinton of using his political power to entice women, and then lie about encounters with them and, if need be, bully his victims to keep them quiet.
In light of the dozens of unearthed sexual allegations from decades ago, NY Times columnist Ross Douthat considered if Clinton could ever survive in today’s environment.
Douthat wrote that in the 1990’s, the prevailing thought was that Clinton’s affairs were his business, and his sexual relationship with his young intern Monica Lewinsky should never have jeopardized his presidency.
But that narrative could never survive the current outrage we have recently witnessed about sexual misconduct claims.
And Douthat is wondering if it ever should have.
“(L)iberals might be willing to concede that the Lewinsky affair was a pretty big deal morally, a clear abuse of sexual power, for which Clinton probably should have been pressured to resign,” he wrote.
Douthat said that after rereading about Clinton’s past, he had to accept the fact that perhaps the Republicans were right about the former president.
“It may be that the conservatives of the 1990s were simply right about Clinton, that once he failed to resign he really deserved to be impeached,” he added.
“Yes, the Republicans were too partisan … But the Clinton operation was also extraordinarily sordid,” he explained. He added that “everything” connected to Clinton’s sexual misconduct was bad, from using the office to procure women to buying silence and bullying accusers to “brazen public lies and perjury.”
You can say that again.
“If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape?” he asked, noting that any feminist today would not hesitate try and remove a similarly predatory CEO or supervisor.
Douthat’s right, and his questions bring us back to the hypocrisy of Democrats. When they had the opportunity to remove Clinton, they instead shamelessly abandoned their feminist principles, smeared victims, and ignored his accusers, “all because Republicans funded the investigations and they’re prudes and it’s all just Sexual McCarthyism.”
Douthat pointed out how politics wrongly trumped everything else in the 1990s — especially when it came to the Clintons — and how the Democrats might have been wrong to let that happen.
So now it seems after 19 years of loyalty to the Clintons, even the NY Times realizes it was wrong. The NY Times is finally throwing the Clintons under the bus.
Bill Clinton’s behavior is no different that all the other Harvey Weinsteins in the world – pure, disgusting and totally inappropriate behavior. Do you think Harvey and Bill took the same plane to ‘Sin Island’ on a few occasions?
You remember ‘Sin Island’ or as many politicians or top celebrities may have known of it as ‘Orgy Island.
It’s this lavish private island off the coast of Puerto Rico which boasts a beautifully landscaped plush luxury estate complete with its own helipad, privy only to certain members of the global elite.
Owned by Jeffery Epstein, a wealthy American financier and convicted sex offender, Little St. James Island was known as somewhat of a gathering place and was a well desired hangout among key figureheads, actors and royalty to the likes of former U.S. President Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey.
Back in 2005 police conducted an 11-month-long undercover investigation on Jeffery Epstein and his estate after the mother of a 14-year-old girl went to police after suspecting her daughter was paid $300 for at least one sexual act on the island in which she was ordered to strip, leaving on just her panties while giving Epstein a massage.
Although police found tons of photos of young women on the island and even interviewed eyewitnesses, Epstein was hit with a mere slap on the wrist after “pleading to a single charge of prostitution.” Epstein later served 13-months of his 18-month service in jail.
In 2008 Epstein was hit again, this time with a $50 million civil suit after another victim, a woman, made a filing in a federal court claiming that she was “recruited” by Epstein to give him a “massage” but was essentially forced into having sexual intercourse with him for $200, which was payable upon completion.
Additionally, Bill Clinton was mentioned by the press often over the years — and not just for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship with Jeffery Epstein.
In fact, flight records indicate that ol’ Billy-boy would frequent the island paradise around the 2002 and 2005 era, while Hillary, Bill’s wife, was a Senator in New York.
From Zero Hedge, one woman wrote,
It’s about time! Now let’s put a stop to the ‘Hush Fund’ in Congress that uses taxpayers money to pay victims of sexual harassment to stay quiet, shall we?
What say you? Was Ken Starr right?