Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Bill Clinton Has Meltdown When Asked If He Ever Apologized to Monica Lewinsky

Bill Clinton Has Meltdown When Asked If He Ever Apologized to Monica Lewinsky

Admits he never apologized beyond a blanket public apology

https://twitter.com/comfortablysmug/status/1003605152291610624?s=11

Monday, NBC’s Today Show aired a fabulous interview with Bill Clinton. In the interview recorded Sunday, the former President went full US Americans when asked if he ever apologized to Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton dodged the question repeatedly. Interviewer Craig Melvin persisted and finally pushed Clinton to admit that he never contacted Lewinsky to apologize, though he did apologize publicly. Neither does Clinton believe he owes Lewinsky an apology.

In his scramble to redirect, Clinton whined that Trump hasn’t received the same media treatment Clinton received, despite numerous accusations of sexual misconduct. He said of this seriously, as though Stormy Daniels hasn’t been a headline mainstay these last months.

In March, Lewinsky wrote a lengthy and thoughtful op-ed exploring how her views on the relationship she once had with Clinton have evolved as a result of the #MeToo era.

Given my PTSD and my understanding of trauma, it’s very likely that my thinking would not necessarily be changing at this time had it not been for the #MeToo movement—not only because of the new lens it has provided but also because of how it has offered new avenues toward the safety that comes from solidarity. Just four years ago, in an essay for this magazine, I wrote the following: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” I now see how problematic it was that the two of us even got to a place where there was a question of consent. Instead, the road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege. (Full stop.)

Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern. I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)

But it’s also complicated. Very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of “consent”? “To give permission for something to happen.” And yet what did the “something” mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the “something” just about crossing a line of sexual (and later emotional) intimacy? (An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.) He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college. (Note to the trolls, both Democratic and Republican: none of the above excuses me for my responsibility for what happened. I meet Regret every day.)

“This” (sigh) is as far as I’ve gotten in my re-evaluation; I want to be thoughtful. But I know one thing for certain: part of what has allowed me to shift is knowing I’m not alone anymore. And for that I am grateful.

Many things change and evolve in this world, but not the Clintons.

Obfuscation, blame shifting, and the willingness to tank everyone around them in order to survive the political battleground are so deeply embedded in their ethos that they know no other response.

Time will judge them accordingly, but in the meantime, enjoy watching a sad old sack get thrown off his game, a game he no longer dominates.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Willy Jeff might want to rethink those book tour interviews before he’s asked about which VIP seat was his favorite on the Lolita Express.

He loves to wave those bony fingers of his around and point them in people’s faces.

Particularly when he is lying.

Which is most of the time.

What a disgusting piece of garbage he is.

The most disgusting thing is Patterson coming to his defense. I say listen to his initial denial, listen to his testimony in front of the grand jury, listen to his speech right after. Keep in mind that not only did he lie in court, he also bribed Ms Lewinsky to lie in court.

Then you tell me what you think of it.

“Apologize? Hey, com’n, what she did down there with Ol’ Smokey was pretty good, but not that good. And don’t forget, I’m a Democrat; I get special privileges from the leftist media. After our fun escapades in the White House – well, fun for me anyway – we each went our separate ways. Me, to even greater fame, and a lot more fortune. Heh, heh, heh. Her, well, she’s got them handbags to sell and a whole lot of good memories about sucking me off. Seems about fair, don’t it? After all, I did let her keep the blue dress. She don’t need no personal apology from me. I mean, she could read about them weak public apologies. They were on Drudge.”

blah deblah | June 4, 2018 at 6:27 pm

STFU and go away, Bill. The world stopped giving a rat’s ass about you over a decade ago.

Apologize?
Royalty don’t apologize. That’s for commoners.

Close The Fed | June 4, 2018 at 7:05 pm

I have felt very sad for Miss Lewinsky for years. As fscarn noted, she has handbags. But she’s evidently never married because the infamy makes her persona non grata as a wife.

Very sad for her. She didn’t deserve that. Definitely too young for what he did, but he has an insatiable appetite. I remember the look Hillary gave him at the inauguration while he was ogling someone…. He is uncontrolled.

He owes it to her to try to make it right, but the media and the left don’t require it of him, so he doesn’t. Very shallow man. Amazing he became president. I liked what Ross Perot had to say, but he completely mangled that race.

Have either of them bothered to address the fact that their lies violated Paula Jones’ right to discovery?

If you are hanging an affair with your secretary and an intern accusses you of sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and sexual assault, that intern has a right to “any and all information that edtablishes a pattern of predatory behavior in the workplace on the part of the accused”.

That means the intern’s counsel gets to interview your secretary to see if she was also coerced to pleasure you or if it was consensual.

If you lie about the relationship, you are obstructing and violating the intern’s rights.

and the #FakeNews Media still defends Bill Clinton.. smh

And wow, hard to believe it’s been 18 years since I came up with Fen’s Law. Where does the time go?

It was over this. For a decade, the feminists had been hectoring and lecturing us about the evils of sexual abuse in the workplace. Couldn’t watch a movie or a game without some harpy getting on her soap box. Then came Clinton and suddenly “it’s just about sex, Move on.” Even Gloria Steinheim beclowned herself with her One Free Grope rule, ie. If you stop grabbing her but after she says no then no harm no foul. That’s the moment I stopped taking feminism seriously and realized:

“The Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture the rest of us about”

And I started applying it to everything they did. Its meant as a reminder that you cant get any traction attacking their double standards and hypocrisy because they don’t believe in those things to begin with. Waste if you your time, like shelling a hill they never occupied. You have to find their true position instead.

For example, you can shame a Global Warming Cultist about his carbon footprint till you are blue in the face, won’t budge him an inch. Because he doesn’t care about Warming, he cares about redistriction of wealth via limits on energy consumption and production.

My 15 minutes of fame were great. Fen’s Law caught fire for a bit, showed up on a few blogs used by people I had never met who thought I was some dead white guy from another century (true). Even my wife, who never follows politics, beamed and put up with my ego when I came jumping into the room with a “guess who used it this time?! Guess?!” LOL that poor woman.

Then came the penultimate momentba few years ago, driving wife to the Metro, flip the stereo to AM to escape some dumb earworm and we hear: “…next hour I want to talk to you about something known as Fen’s Law. After the break. (cutaway music) You’re listening to Rush Limbaugh on the EIB network -“. I almost wrecked the car. Had to pull over. And yah, I was unbearable for about a week.

And that trip started 18 years ago. What a world.

    Fen in reply to Fen. | June 4, 2018 at 8:01 pm

    Meh, my editor is drunk agaun

    Waste OF YOUR time, like shelling a hill they never occupied.

    Warming, he cares about REDISTRIBUTION of wealth via limits on energy consumption and production

The only reason Pound Me Too threw Bill Clinton under the bus is because his self life was approaching expiration, his utility diminished (as in tiny) and they couldn’t attack Trump’s pussy grabbing remarks without being laughed out of the room.

I was still on FB when they turned on him. It was hysterical. Not even a week after, liberals had begun self-righteously taunting: “the difference between the Left and Right is that WE take sexual harassment seriously”.

Heh. Okay Bub. And welcome to the 21st century.

Clinton’s transgressions occurred while he held an elected office. Trump’s before he held an elected office.

mochajava76 | June 4, 2018 at 8:45 pm

I agree with everything that is said about Bill.

But I do have a question about Monica. I do agree that there is no concept of consent when one side is not only your boss, but the most powerful man on the planet.

But I do seem to recall the story that Monica had told a friend she was going to the White House to earn her presidential kneepads *before* she worked for Bill.

OK, I just looked it up and this was from a statement by her former high school drama teacher, Andrew Bleile, and his wife.

Was this ever proven to be concocted by the Clinton machine, or was this shown to be correct?

This does not absolve Bill at all, but would show that Monica was not the innocent young woman in this tryst.

“Monica was not the innocent young woman in this tryst.”

Agreed. She was an adult too. And she knew Bill was married.

I don’t remember if the Bleile’s were credible. But you don’t need them to make your point. Monica initiated the sexual relationship by snapping her thong at Clinton to attract his attention. She came on to him, not the reverse.

Well, I thought they made a cute couple. Not exactly JFK and Norma Jean league, but as close as Billy Jeff’s ever going to get.

Hillary, now … Hillary’s about as cute as a scorpion in your shorts.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | June 4, 2018 at 9:55 pm

Did Mueller work for/with or on this legal case with Bill?

Revealed: Robert Mueller’s FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion

Establishment DC types who reflexively defend Mueller haven’t explained how they came to trust him so completely. It’s a question worth asking given the bumpy historical record of Mueller’s tenure as FBI director.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | June 4, 2018 at 9:55 pm

    thefederalist.com/2018/04/19/revealed-robert-muellers-fbi-repeatedly-abused-prosecutorial-discretion/

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | June 4, 2018 at 10:00 pm

      Also see this entry in Mollie Hemingway’s run-down of Mueller’s previous abuses of prosecutorial discretion.

      An Israeli Spy Ring That Wasn’t
      Another black mark on Mueller’s record at the FBI was the pursuit of what the bureau dramatically claimed was an Israeli spy ring operating out of the Pentagon. The news broke in August 2004 that a spy working for Israel was in the Department of Defense.

      It turned out that the bureau had gone after a policy analyst who had chatted with American lobbyists at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Charges were also pursued against two AIPAC employees. Those charges were later dropped and the sentence of the first person was dropped from 13 years to 10 months of house arrest and some community service.

      The Washington Post wrote:

      The conspiracy case against two former AIPAC lobbyists came to an inglorious end in May when the government dropped all charges after 3 1/2 years of pre-trial maneuvers.
      It was a curious case: First, the lobbyists, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, were charged under an obscure section of the Espionage Act of 1917, a law that had been used only once before — unsuccessfully and never against private citizens for disclosing classified information. Second, they were targets of a bizarre sting in which they were fed false information suggesting that the lives of U.S. and Israeli operatives in Iraq were at risk and that American officials were refusing to take steps to protect them. The accusation was not that they brokered this information to some foreign enemy but that they offered it to everybody they could, hoping, among other things, to get a reporter from The Post to publish it so that it might draw the attention of the right U.S. officials and save U.S. lives. In short, even if the two were guilty as charged, they look more like whistle-blowers than spies.

      Knob.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | June 4, 2018 at 10:03 pm

    Meant the Monica Impeachment Case……..

Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern. I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)

At the time of the tryst, this idea – that there was a power differential between men in power and other women – was very prevalent in the sexual harassment narrative from the left and feminists.

Whether or not it is true, even if the sex is consensual, is open for debate. What is not open for debate is how the NOW and other feminist groups pushed that narrative except when it came to Bill Clinton. They clammed up. It was never brought up or mentioned any time that I can remember,. I always wondered who paid them off or how much of their soul these groups had to sell to get something for keeping quiet.

But silent they were.

The other person who was silent was HRC who seems to have her silence bought by a run at the Senate from a state in which she never had lived.

Hypocrites all.

BTW – I disagree with Clinton’s idea that “2/3′ of the American people agree with me.” They might agree on the sex part, but we have never seen or known anyone who agrees with Clinton that lying under oath is acceptable.

    ” I disagree with Clinton’s idea that “2/3′ of the American people agree with me.” They might agree on the sex part- ”

    I don’t think even Clinton believes this. He weighed admission of a consensual affair vs Impeachement for obstruction/perjury in the PR relations sphere and best against the public agreeing with him.

He never owed an apology to that stupid little tramp. What he really owes is many years of incarceration for the women he raped.

Bill Clinton: “I’ve had nothing but women leaders in my office…”

Uhm. Not helping.

#MeToo to Dem Underground STAT

Was doing a bit of oppo research over there and found some Democrats who think it “weird” that Monica would keep a dress covered in Bill’s DNA.

They’re been parroting your talking points but you never asked them to show their work. Else they would have arrived at the answer to their question on their own.

What an old lecher Bill Clinton is!

She lost and now He is paying.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend