Oh, no, Ignacio, I do not think you are a sexual predator! I am not sure, in fact, how you could have deduced such an implied insult from my post. I have read it over and over again, in anguish, trying to see if there was some nuance you perceived that I actually insinuated, but I could not.
In fact, this is my very mellow, California-style statement:
<So for the moment I am reluctant to drop my intuitive feelings that Clinton is probably a sexual predator. But certainly, I would be most relieved to find out that he is not. Why don't we wait and see?>
I have heard that Chelsea is warmer toward her dad than her mom. He took care of her while her mother worked, when she was little, and indeed he seems to have a softer, cuddlier nature. I doubt that Chelsea's affection for her dad will ever diminish markedly, because that is what love is all about--acceptance of imperfection. But certainly it has been an embarrassing experience for a child who is already going through plenty of adjustments in her first year of college, and needs to concentrate on her nascent life as an adult.
Sexual assault, somewhat surprisingly, does not have to be a crime of great violence using a weapon or anything. As I understand it, it can also be forcing yourself on a woman who is protesting, or blocking a doorway so that she cannot leave. I am not an attorney, and am on very shaky ground here, however. Perhaps one of the many attorneys who reads this thread could define it more succinctly for us.
And predatory sexual behavior is simply seizing power in situations when a woman is at a disadvantage, or needy, to try to use her in a sexual sense.
How can I argue that no assault took place? Two women--Jones and Willey--have come forth stating that they felt assaulted. There is also the former Miss USA who is staying in Europe so she can avoid a subpoena to testify. She accused Clinton of overpowering her in the back of a limo, and forcing sex on her. Then, in the very typical way this seems to happen with Clinton, she signed an affidavit that she recanted her story. I saw her in an interview, and believe she was lying. Now why would she evade a subpoena if truthfully, nothing happened? These scandals have gotten to the point where you would have to create convolutions of the sort where you would jump through hoops, to argue that NONE of these things happened. The sheer number of women coming forward, to me at least, in an indicator that we should just wait and see. And that is exactly what Hillary says, also.
Besides that, the sex scandals are a sub-plot. We do not really know what the Starr investigation has discovered about other felonies or high misdemeanors in Watergate, Filegate, Travelgate or any of the other, myriad situations where there may have been improprieties, or in the more important issues around the sex scandals, which are perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice.
Christine |
