K-9

I don't see the false equivalency nor did I make one. Nobody has confused misdemeanors with felonies, either. I understand fully what JJ's point is and I don't disagree. Again, I don't disagree with this point. There need not be any "gravitas of criminal charges" to pursue a civil case. I'm not sure where that even comes from. Has no bearing on anything whatsoever. Four charges of non-criminal harassment, adjudicated in a civil proceeding, has GREAT potential to harm E Kane. I disagree with anyone who would say because those charges aren't of the criminal variety, that they don't pose a threat to E Kane. I doubt Kane and Cambria are whistling past the graveyard, either.

In the initial post of yours that I responded to, you suggested the most serious charge against E Kane was misdemeanor trespass. I get that from a legal definition standpoint. My suggestion was that the other four charges have great potential for harm to E Kane and are very serious from that standpoint alone and I doubt Cambria is pooh-poohing them, either. What the city investigated, the seriousness of the charges, etc., and whether the city couldn't find evidence to file more serious charges does not change that fact and is immaterial at this point. The simple fact of the matter is, he has been charged with those four counts and will either settle or face a civil suit in court.

Not sure how you can argue "baseless claims" and "beside the point" when, regardless of the legal classification of the charges, they have great potential to inflict harm on E Kane in civil proceedings. And we didn't have to be cynical to think that civil courts and/or settlements before those civil court proceedings weren't a real possibility. I'm not following your argument about the city not supporting their claims after their investigation. The four complainants are pressing charges, regardless. I guess it's to E Kane's benefit that they aren't more serious in nature, but the charges have potential to harm him greatly. That's my only point. Any talk of them being baseless remains to be seen.

By all means. But those conversations with your feminist friends won't make Clinton's and Lewinsky's consensual relationship any more germane to their cause. Indeed, from where I sit, feminists who insist on making the Clinton/Lewinsky affair all about abuse of power by an employer, etc., have the potential to undermine real, legitimate cases. I have actually heard that opinion expressed by feminists, too. Good luck. I wonder why the GOP didn't try to exploit that aspect of it in the first place. I mean in terms of actual charges against Clinton. Consent means something, I guess. Better to let the media shills and lackeys suggest poor little Monica was an innocent fawn rather than face up to the fact that their witch hunt created other victims.

Still disagree, barrister. Those four charges and their potential to invite civil proceedings, have the potential to harm E Kane greatly.

Disagree. Trespassing and harassment charges often go hand in hand. To suggest the four charges of non criminal harassment are less serious is underestimating their potential to harm E Kane.

It took an organized legion of goose stepping lackeys in the GOP to orchestrate a 5 year, nearly $80m dollar investigation that yielded nothing but a lie about a an extra-marital affair between two consenting adults. I find the mention of "issues" like women in the work force, power leveraging CEOs and interns nothing more than obfuscation. More importantly, none of those "issues" apply to the consenting adults in the room. So no, that issue is not "real" in the least as it relates to Clinton and Lewinsky. Of course Bill Clinton should have used better judgement, imo. But that's only my opinion. I don't get to say what's right and wrong with somebody else's morality regarding extra-marital affairs or work place affairs between consenting adults. Watergate, Benghazi, IRS, and Iran Contra are nothing more than false equivalencies use to, again, obfuscate and somehow justify the actions of an out of control political party and a special prosecutor whose sole motive was to undermine the president. There was no other legitimate reason for the GOP to conflate BJs with the unsuccessful investigations of Whitewater and Paula Jones. They needed something, ANYTHING and, , they were gonna get it. Additionally, Watergate and Iran-Contra were legitimate investigations into FELONIOUS acts. As distasteful as it may be to some, extra-marital affairs just don't rise to that level. And I certainly don't recall any close friends of the suspects in those cases being made to wear hidden wires in order to record incriminating conversations. Perjury is illegal, plain and simple. And wrong. Bill Clinton should have simply told the truth. And early on, too. It would have avoided the mess and it would have made the GOP's witch hunt look even more ridiculous in the process. It's hard to justify the lengths they went to in order to entrap the president. There is no justification for Bill Clinton to lie under oath. None. But he never should have been trapped in that position in the first place. Bad judgement? Of course. Still, none of our business. Strictly between him and his wife. A private family matter that the GOP insisted on getting involved in. Then again, the GOP often likes to get involved in the privacy of people's bedrooms. Perhaps most importantly, and this is the only time I can recall agreeing with Dick Cheney when he alluded to similar opinions, it served to make impeachment a feckless tool of the Constitution. We've had idiots from both sides screaming for impeachments ever since. Ridiculous. Again, well done GOP. So much to be proud of here. LMAO! Just like the "death panels" the GOP couldn't stop talking about.

Point taken and EJ had as miserable a three series stretch as any QB in history. Literally could not have played worse. And I still put more blame for the loss on the defense. EJ left the field with the lead and our D couldn't make a stop when it counted. Phantom pass interference penalties didn't help matters, either.

My mission is not to sway anyone here, that's for damned sure.

Preach on, brother. Keep the faith, fight the fight. Especially where the rubber meets the road.

And with an intractable legislature for most of his tenure. A congress whose stated goal was to limit him to one term and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. And you can't tell me that is what their constituencies elected them to do as their approval ratings are abysmal and so much lower than the president's. Congress has been derelict in their duties as sworn representatives of the people. There is no just no escaping that.

Been saying for years, it's about politics. ISIS and others like them, use religion as a recruiting tool for soldiers to fight for a political agenda. People who insist on believing it's all about religion are playing right into their strategy.

I've been both a boob and an ass at certain times. Oh, wait...

I take it you didn't read what he had to say about Clinton not mentioning the Starr investigation, impeachment, etc. No worries. Feel free to conduct your conversion therapy. Personally, I think he's little more than a troll some of the time. And when he's called out or otherwise met with the same highly charged rhetoric, he gets all insulted, and tells us how rude we are which is unfair because he acts in the same rude manner he accuses everyone else of before insisting he must leave the forum. I'll save my attempts to sway others for personal discussions with rational people truly interested in having meaningful discussions. I don't get that sense from anonymous posters in an internet political forum. If that's doing a great disservice to the efforts to capture hearts and minds, so be it. I don't believe for a second certain people around here are actually open to the suggestion.

That's probably for the best.

Condescension of my ilk? Stuart Smalley moment? That is priceless. Yes, I will carefully contemplate and consider how I might have offended a partisan political lackey of a party I have absolutely no respect for after said partisan political lackey threw out some flammable rhetoric of his own to get things started. Then again, I'm not surprised at the hypocrisy. And I call bullschit on not looking up synonyms. How many are there for "butt hurt"? I'm not shouting. Just not putting up with partisan hypocrisy, that's all. And I wouldn't waste a minute trying to convince our boy in Atlanta of anything regarding a potential change of his political stripes. Did you read his offerings to me regarding the Starr investigation? Anyone who wonders why Bill Clinton chose not to mention that episode in last night's speech is beyond reasoning with along those lines.

It's not my spin at work here. It's the way the history books are being written, too. Any more synonyms for "uncouth" or did you reach the end of that internet search? Major points for "opprobrious", though. Hope you didn't pull anything trying to dig that one up.

You're one of the ever decreasing GOP goose stepping crowd that actually takes pride in how that party acted during that witch hunt. Even Ken Starr regrets that time. Only the staunchest GOP lackeys aren't embarrassed by the $74m required to get a man to lie about a BJ. BJs and stains on a dress. Good times, GOP, good times. Again, well done.

More tripe.

Well done, GOP. Free thinker, my ass.

That's a load of garbage. 75 million dollar investigation by Ken Starr and the best the GOP could do was to have Linda Tripp covertly record Lewinsky saying what they needed to hear and then entrapping a president to lie about an extra-marital affair. You and the GOP have no right to dictate to anyone what is sanctified in another person's marriage and what isn't. It's a private family matter. But I get why you and the GOP would want the Clintons to rehash the salacious details. It makes for good GOP television.

That 1998 political theater production was a private family affair that was nobody's business until the republican Congress spent millions of dollars beating the bushes, wiring Linda Tripp who got Lewinsky to say what they needed to hear, and then used that covert recording to entrap a president into lying about receiving . Well done, GOP.

Sad thing is, I'd vote for a Kardashian before I would vote for Trump.

Good luck with that, then. But that won't qualify you any more than it does Trump to lead the most powerful nation on earth.

Trump's "skill set" is celebrity. Period.