WTF: Bill Clinton, ‘The Norms Of What You Can Do To Someone Against Their Will Has Changed’

Written by Doug Giles on June 12, 2018

“Do to something against their will”, huh? That’s an interesting turn of phrase for a man who has been accused of doing precisely that on more than one occasion.

Does he have ANY sense of self-awareness whatsoever? Or is he so locked into the belief that Clintons are untouchable, that it doesn’t even occur to him?

Watch the statement at the 5:40 mark:

Trending: WATCH: Melania In A CLASSY & COOL Way Dropkicked Her Critics Into Next Week

In general, I think it’s a good thing that we should all have higher standards. I think the norms have really changed in terms of what you can do to somebody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work, you don’t have to physically assault somebody to make them, you know, uncomfortable at work, at home, or in their other, just walking around. That I think is good.

Then he moves into the Franken case, which was part of the original question.

After a few qualifying statements, he says, “Maybe I’m just an old-fashioned person, but I — it seemed to me that there were 29 women on Saturday Night Live that put out a statement for him, and the first, and most fantastic story was called, I believe, into question, too late to wade into it now. Man I think it’s a grievous thing to take away from the people a decision they have made, especially with his election coming up again. But it’s done now. I think all of us should be focussing on how to do better, and how to go forward.

We just broke another irony meter on this video.

Where should we even begin?

Ok, first — Clinton was always called a silver-tongued devil, wasn’t he? Did he ALWAYS stammer like this in interviews? Or does it have something to do with the topic at hand?

Second — higher standards? He didn’t even fall within the LEGAL standards of how to treat women. What right does he have to offer ANY opinion on the right way to treat a woman? His most famous piece of advice was to ‘put some ice on that’ after (and we mustn’t forget the obligatory ‘allegedly’) raping Juanita Broadrick. You can read the book and judge the facts for yourself.

Third — it’s awfully nice of Bill to decide that (now that he’s an old man, and it no longer affects him) that it’s ‘good’ that it’s unacceptable for men to ‘play grabass’ (as it was once called) with female coworkers or employees. How magnanimous of him.

Fourth — that odd comment about Franken and the will of the people. Does he think we’ve forgotten about THIS story? Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud

And finally — It costs nothing for Bill to turn the public attention to the future, rather than the past. But if we let him, he gains so much.

Especially since even some with the NYT were willing to admit the likelihood that Bill really did rape Juanita.

He wants to put as much space between himself and that story as he can manage.

If power, wealth, and popularity weren’t enough to save the reputation of Weinstein or Cosby… he’s got everything to lose and nothing to gain if we keep looking backward.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.