The entire quote was as follows:
========================
I haven't backed off my position. I simply pointed out that when a man uses rohypnol to intoxicate a woman then sexually assault her, that power is well known to be an "intoxicant", and that Clinton's absuse of his power, effectively "intoxicating" Lewinsky, a near-teenager, it ought to be thought of as rape.
I stand by my statement. But I think Tim made a good argument against my statement. I still feel that what Clinton did to Lewinsky was tantamount to some kind of sexual assault. Call it rape, sexual assault, DWI, I don't care.
There is something wrong when the most powerful man in the world can sodomize a naive 22 year old and get away with it. The imbalance of power makes its flatly impossible, from a rational perspective, for her to have given consent.
I don't believe I ever said Clinton RAPED Lewinsky****. I also don't think she was in any position to consent to a sexual relationship with the most powerful man in the world.
**** I have, however, stated that Clinton RAPED Broaderrick, as clear and convincing proof to this effect has been presented. He got away with it, as surely as did OJ Simpson. |
