Stormy Daniels and Monica Lewinsky? Why the Hypocrisy

[Sapidus]

So are we supposed to be as morally outraged about our current president having an affair as we were supposed to be about Monica?


Personally I don't care what politicians do behind closed doors. It's between husband and wife imo.

What i find hypocritical is the reaction from the right " He gets a Mulligan" "He is a changed man" Vs the reaction to Clinton


Is it because Trump has not denied it and therefore isn't lying ( for once) to the American people? or because he paid her for her troubles?

Do you feel one is different from the other?

 

[Gilligan]

Stormy Daniels was in the White House?

I had no idea...

 

[Sapidus]

Stormy Daniels was in the White House?

I had no idea...

So your premise is it makes a difference where the affair happened?

Or are you just being snarky with nothing to add as usual?

 

[Gilligan]

So your premise is it makes a difference where the affair happened?

Or are you just being snarky with nothing to add as usual?

Where...and when... You trying to be "extra slow" today?

And you conveniently left out the part that got Clinton impeached...lying about that affair under oath. ;-)

 

[PsyOps]

So are we supposed to be as morally outraged about our current president having an affair as we were supposed to be about Monica?


Personally I don't care what politicians do behind closed doors. It's between husband and wife imo.

What i find hypocritical is the reaction from the right " He gets a Mulligan" "He is a changed man" Vs the reaction to Clinton


Is it because Trump has not denied it and therefore isn't lying ( for once) to the American people? or because he paid her for her troubles?

Do you feel one is different from the other?

The Lewinsky affair wasn't about the affair - the sex. It was about Clinton lying under oath about it. You do know lying under oath is a crime?

 

[Sapidus]

The Lewinsky affair wasn't about the affair - the sex. It was about Clinton lying under oath about it. You do know lying under oath is a crime?

Yes Obviously since that is what I wrote in my first message if you would read through it and not be in a rush to respond in anger.

"Is it because Trump has not denied it and therefore isn't lying ( for once) to the American people? "

So are you saying if he lies under oath about it he should be impeached?

 

[Monello]

President Trump(apples) hasn't told a fib during a deposition. That's the part about slick Willy(oranges) that was the issue, not that he got a hummer in the oval office. He lied to avoid repercussions pertaining to the Paula Jones sexual harassment charge.

Bottom line the issue wasn't about sex. It was/is about admitting the truth under oath.

 

[PsyOps]

Yes Obviously since that is what I wrote in my first message if you would read through it and not be in a rush to respond in anger.

"Is it because Trump has not denied it and therefore isn't lying ( for once) to the American people? "

So are you saying if he lies under oath about it he should be impeached?

I recommend you do two things:

1. Learn what the law says about lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
2. Go back and read about what the Lewinsky line of questioning was all about. Hint: it wasn't about the actual sexual affair.

 

[Sapidus]

Can no one read a full paragraph before they respond anymore?

 

[GURPS]

What i find hypocritical is the reaction from the right " He gets a Mulligan" "He is a changed man" Vs the reaction to Clinton

If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand anyway ....



the simple fact you even POSTED this tells me you are clueless as the day is long, or you are being intentionally obtuse in an effort to

na na boo boo ... Trump sucks

 

[GURPS]

The Lewinsky affair wasn't about the affair - the sex. It was about Clinton lying under oath about it. You do know lying under oath is a crime?

actually it should have been about Supervisors do not #### / get blow jobs from / stick cigars into employee privates

 

[Sapidus]

I recommend you do two things:

1. Learn what the law says about lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
2. Go back and read about what the Lewinsky line of questioning was all about. Hint: it wasn't about the actual sexual affair.

As I stated I am well aware of the issue. Which is why I asked the next question about Trump lying under oath?

Why do you need to keep repeating the same information without answering the question?


The moral outrage was the reason Clinton was asked the question in the first place. However in this case the excuses for Trumps behavior are coming fast and from the the very people who claim to the moral compasses of society.

 

[Sapidus]

If I have to explain it to you, you wouldn't understand anyway ....



the simple fact you even POSTED this tells me you are clueless as the day is long, on intentionally obtuse in an effort to

na na boo boo ... Trump sucks

So you have a problem with Clintons affair as you state below but none wth Trumps?


That is the exact thing I am try9ing to figure out. Why does one so offend you while the other doesn't?s

 

[GURPS]

Which is why I asked the next question about Trump lying under oath?

be specific now, when was Trump Questioned under oath about something that happened prior to him being Elected President

 

[GURPS]

So you have a problem with Clinton's affair as you state below but none wth Trumps?
That is the exact thing I am try9ing to figure out. Why does one so offend you while the other doesn't?s

no you are trying to imply disparity where there is none ...

Bill Clinton was caught purging himself ....

 

[Sapidus]

be specific now, when was Trump Questioned under oath about something that happened prior to him being Elected President

Again. none of this would be necessary if you could read.

The question was "if Trump was questioned under oath and lied......"

Why does it take 2 pages of explaining something for you guys to even understand your own hypocrisy.

I know you are deliberately obtuse but the is insane

 

[PsyOps]

Can no one read a full paragraph before they respond anymore?

Look, you're focused on the sex and the hypocrisy of condemning Clinton while forgiving Trump. Personally I find extra-marital affairs reprehensible. But it's not legal disqualifying for holding any public office. The people get to decide if it's disqualifying. If Trump did have this sexual affair with Stormy, I find it reprehensible. But that's between he and Melania; and, of course, the voters.

Now consider this... If this affair did happen, did Trump abuse his power to have this encounter? Bill Clinton was the president of the United States. Monica Lewinski was an intern; a subordinate to Clinton. Not only did he overstep his power as president by not exercising discipline not to engage in sexual encounters with people under his authority; but he committed his acts of indiscretion in the White House; and worse, in the Oval Office. This is reprehensible on levels I can't even accurately put into words.

So, now I've addressed the sex part of this. Trump has never been put under oath to answer for this affair with Stormy; and he never will. Clinton in answering for whether he had this affair, under oath, committed a crime. A CRIME! So, why are you even making this comparison?

 

[This_person]

So are we supposed to be as morally outraged about our current president having an affair as we were supposed to be about Monica?


Personally I don't care what politicians do behind closed doors. It's between husband and wife imo.

What i find hypocritical is the reaction from the right " He gets a Mulligan" "He is a changed man" Vs the reaction to Clinton


Is it because Trump has not denied it and therefore isn't lying ( for once) to the American people? or because he paid her for her troubles?

Do you feel one is different from the other?

Well, given that we already know he cheated on one wife with the woman who became another wife, I would say that the people who voted for him were not overly concerned with whether or not he cheated on a wife. I thought that was common knowledge, but apparently it is not with you.

As far as the differences with Clinton, there was no suborning perjury, there was no perjuring himself, there was no distraction from the public job of president (BJ while a head-of-state was waiting on him), there's no lying to the public, there's no supervisor/subordinate role involved, etc. There are so many differences as to make the comparison very labored and difficult to see.

 

[Gilligan]

Again. none of this would be necessary if you could read.

The question was "if Trump was questioned under oath and lied......"

Why does it take 2 pages of explaining something for you guys to even understand your own hypocrisy.

I know you are deliberately obtuse but the is insane

You've flamed out, crashed and burned so badly with your lame attempt here that the heat has warmed the county up several degrees. Thanks!

 

[PsyOps]

As I stated I am well aware of the issue. Which is why I asked the next question about Trump lying under oath?

Why do you need to keep repeating the same information without answering the question?

You're posing a hypothetical for what reason I don't understand. Trump has not been questioned under oath about his alleged affair with Stormy. If he had, and lied about it, I would feel no different than I did about Clinton - impeach. The law is no different just because it's a president I voted for.