One of the tricks used in politics is to keep shovelling controversial comments in the hope
that the masses stay in the 'now' and don't string anything that is hypocritical, together.
For the Clintons, it seems this tactic is being seriously leaned on and you can smell the
sweat!
But if one thinks back to when Hillary's husband was President of The United States and
was the one person who was decided on being -not only the voice of his nation, but also
-it could be debated, the moral and virtuous symbol of the United States.
It's now shown that Bill Clinton's time in the White House was not the best due to the regime
of bullying, deliberate deceit, drug abuse and his urge to have sex with any female that
entered the Oval Office.
He denied the incident with Monica Lewinsky and then admitted it, causing the House
Judiciary Committee to seek impeachment.
(Wikipedia)
'...The Impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was
initiated by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one
of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998.
The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern
Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment
lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones.
He was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 11, 1999.
Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse
of power – failed in the House...'
SOURCE:
So how would you rate this behavior for a leader of a superpower...?
How would you rate this behavior of a husband and father?
As the ex-Secret Service man explains below, it was certain that Hillary knew of these
trysts and even though some could deem these marital concerns as private, when an
act of deceit is tolerated within a immediate relationship, one can also ponder what
other 'allowances' are allowed, especially when it involves the nation.
This couple have been connected with many-many immoral allegations and illegal
situations and in the world of politics, this would cripple anyone's political career at
the first fence.
But the establishment still won't throw her out of the boat.
Why...? Why endorse a person who seems to wallow in a a realm of chicanery and
is directly connected to accounts of skullduggery?
Of course, we could ask her husband, but I'd wager it would involve falsehoods and
groping.
'...In 1995, Lewinsky, a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, was hired to
work as an intern at the White House during Clinton's first term, and was
later an employee of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs.
While working at the White House she began a personal relationship with
Clinton, the details of which she later confided to her friend and Defense
Department co-worker Linda Tripp, who secretly recorded their telephone
conversations.
When Tripp discovered in January 1998 that Lewinsky had sworn an affidavit
in the Paula Jones case denying a relationship with Clinton, she delivered the
tapes to Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel who was investigating
Clinton on other matters, including the Whitewater scandal, the White House
FBI files controversy, and the White House travel office controversy.
During the grand jury testimony Clinton's responses were carefully worded, and
he argued, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," with regard to
the truthfulness of his statement that "there is not a sexual relationship,
an improper sexual relationship or any other kind of improper relationship."...'
SOURCE:
It's that moral stance I'm interested in. Kenneth Starr was ALREADY investigating
Hillary's husband and the voice of the Free World for other alleged indiscretions,
when another one came around the corner!
Her political position is to hint at a fair hand and have a firm grip on today's world
and yet, her history is littered with disgraceful behavior of her family and an even
more disgraceful view that this conduct should be ignored.
that the masses stay in the 'now' and don't string anything that is hypocritical, together.
For the Clintons, it seems this tactic is being seriously leaned on and you can smell the
sweat!
But if one thinks back to when Hillary's husband was President of The United States and
was the one person who was decided on being -not only the voice of his nation, but also
-it could be debated, the moral and virtuous symbol of the United States.
It's now shown that Bill Clinton's time in the White House was not the best due to the regime
of bullying, deliberate deceit, drug abuse and his urge to have sex with any female that
entered the Oval Office.
He denied the incident with Monica Lewinsky and then admitted it, causing the House
Judiciary Committee to seek impeachment.
(Wikipedia)
'...The Impeachment of Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States, was
initiated by the House of Representatives on two charges, one of perjury and one
of obstruction of justice, on December 19, 1998.
The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern
Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment
lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones.
He was subsequently acquitted of these charges by the Senate on February 11, 1999.
Two other impeachment articles – a second perjury charge and a charge of abuse
of power – failed in the House...'
SOURCE:
So how would you rate this behavior for a leader of a superpower...?
How would you rate this behavior of a husband and father?
As the ex-Secret Service man explains below, it was certain that Hillary knew of these
trysts and even though some could deem these marital concerns as private, when an
act of deceit is tolerated within a immediate relationship, one can also ponder what
other 'allowances' are allowed, especially when it involves the nation.
This couple have been connected with many-many immoral allegations and illegal
situations and in the world of politics, this would cripple anyone's political career at
the first fence.
But the establishment still won't throw her out of the boat.
Why...? Why endorse a person who seems to wallow in a a realm of chicanery and
is directly connected to accounts of skullduggery?
Of course, we could ask her husband, but I'd wager it would involve falsehoods and
groping.
'...In 1995, Lewinsky, a graduate of Lewis & Clark College, was hired to
work as an intern at the White House during Clinton's first term, and was
later an employee of the White House Office of Legislative Affairs.
While working at the White House she began a personal relationship with
Clinton, the details of which she later confided to her friend and Defense
Department co-worker Linda Tripp, who secretly recorded their telephone
conversations.
When Tripp discovered in January 1998 that Lewinsky had sworn an affidavit
in the Paula Jones case denying a relationship with Clinton, she delivered the
tapes to Kenneth Starr, the Independent Counsel who was investigating
Clinton on other matters, including the Whitewater scandal, the White House
FBI files controversy, and the White House travel office controversy.
During the grand jury testimony Clinton's responses were carefully worded, and
he argued, "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," with regard to
the truthfulness of his statement that "there is not a sexual relationship,
an improper sexual relationship or any other kind of improper relationship."...'
SOURCE:
It's that moral stance I'm interested in. Kenneth Starr was ALREADY investigating
Hillary's husband and the voice of the Free World for other alleged indiscretions,
when another one came around the corner!
Her political position is to hint at a fair hand and have a firm grip on today's world
and yet, her history is littered with disgraceful behavior of her family and an even
more disgraceful view that this conduct should be ignored.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.