[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV] . . . with the exception of a blow job.[/quote]Umm, make that hundreds (thousands?) of blow jobs over a period of at least 22 years. [/quote]
No, a single blow job. That’s it.[/quote]If you say so . . . :=][/quote]You’re aware of formal investigations that came up with blow jobs other than Monica Lewinsky? . . .[/quote]There were likely dozens of instances with Monica over several months in and out of the oval office and surrounds and their respective broom closets. Bill was caught lying about one instance . . . damn blue dress! There were many other “investigations” of Bill’s philandering but I wouldn’t call them “formal investigations.” However, the percipient witness’ findings, the evidence and the “testimony” of the other party themselves in at least a dozen of Bill’s affairs is enough for me. Bill was “philandering” and Hill’s MO was to try mightily to silence (in any way, shape or form she thought she could get away with) the women who bravely came forth, even decades later, and described (with both eyewitnesses and percipient witnesses) what Bill did to them. That’s good enough for me. Even Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes assumed the Clintons’ had come to an “understanding” and had an “arrangement” as early as 1992, which they tried to emphatically deny:
That is simply how the American electorate sees it. Don’t you love Hill’s “fake” Arkansas accent?
In all cases like this, the responsibility for the adulterous liaison falls upon the “married” party. About half the time, the unmarried party initially has no idea if the “married” party is actually even married! In Bill’s case, his affair partners (plural as in double digit) did know he was married but HE did all the heavy pursuing. He held the position of power and perhaps some of the women felt they would be able to climb the ladder faster at work and thus get a promotion if they succumbed to his wishes. None of his pursuits in the line of duty were “illegal” at that time.
