NeoGAF forum owner accused of Sexual Misconduct

[Anult]

Tyler should have taken the $10 million and ran when he could have done so.

 

The website was living off it's past accomplishments for a quite a while now and most of the user-base over the last 4 years devolved into a turbo SJW echo-chamber ever since the events of gamergate.

 

The user-base may find a new home somewhere but they won't be able to influence the industry like they've been able to ever again. The public humiliation the neogaf users went through on twitter and subsequent sabotage efforts by the chans have seen to that.

 

 

[Brooksie359]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I think the issue was that for some she was just trying to ruin him and for others he outright lied about it and they didn't want that type of person as their president.  The whole affair made people legitimately upset for opposing reasons.

 

Either way, some people see people using positions of power to engage in sexual misconduct as unethical all the same.

 

 

Honestly what he did was crappy but all things considered I really don't think it is all the things people make it out to be. A man cheated on his wife and tried to lie about it. Never heard of that before lul.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly what he did was crappy but all things considered I really don't think it is all the things people make it out to be. A man cheated on his wife and tried to lie about it. Never heard of that before lul.

 

I know, it's not like the US has had an honest and above reproach president yet, but the reality is some expectations are just a matter of course even when they are unrealistic  (people tend to hold onto such an ideal/belief as it gives them comfort).

 

 

[Trik'Stari]

 

12 hours ago, Commodus said:

Well in this case, there is corroborating evidence suggesting he's behaved badly around women before.  And despite what the chauvinists insist, women are usually telling the truth about these instances because they happen all the time.  That #metoo campaign that was floating around this month?  That wasn't coming out of the blue... it's an acknowledgment that virtually every woman has had men grope, catcall or otherwise sexually harass them at some point.

 

Also... what?  You think that leaving the bathroom door unlocked amounts to consent for anyone else entering the shower?  No, the only thing that amounts to consent to other people entering the shower is telling them they can come in.  There's an implied consent if both sides are part of a sexually involved couple, but even then, if someone says "no," that's the end of it.

Questioning whether or not a woman is telling the truth in sexual assault cases does not make one a "chauvanist". If you're going to accuse someone of a crime, you have to have evidence to prove that it happened. Sorry, but I cannot just judge someone based on someone elses word, and I would not support a criminal "justice" system that did. There are plenty of times where it's come out that a woman was lying, after the man had been prosecuted, or were conspiring to get a man falsely convicted of such an crime. Linus Torvalds has had to deal with it for years now.

 

I would also really like to know where you get off on appointing yourself the authority to claim that "women are usually telling the truth". Sorry, but you're not qualified to make that statement, no one is. This kind of thing has to be looked at on a case by case basis, because we don't have magic truth technology that shows us what actually happened in each case.

 

 

Edit: Correction, you have to have proof any time you accuse anyone of any crime. Doesn't matter what crime it is.

Edit2: I am not defending this guy or what he's doing on his forums. Simply addressing your post directly.

[AnonymousGuy]

Can't wait for this me-too shit to burn itself out.  Reminds me how if you interrogate a kid long enough you can convince them that anything happened:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

 

Dude misread a situation, corrected it, and that was that.  Chick needs to let it fucking go.

[Trik'Stari]

2 minutes ago, AnonymousGuy said:

Can't wait for this me-too shit to burn itself out.  Reminds me how if you interrogate a kid long enough you can convince them that anything happened:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

 

Dude misread a situation, corrected it, and that was that.  Chick needs to let it fucking go.

I wonder if the same thing could apply to racism.

 

As in, when you raise a generation of kids teaching them that they were born racist, because of something their ancestors did a generation ago, they become racist because "I have no other choice" or "what difference does it make, either way I'm a monster in their eyes".

 

Might explain the sudden resurgence of certain facist parties.

[apm]

14 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

Questioning whether or not a woman is telling the truth in sexual assault cases does not make one a "chauvanist". If you're going to accuse someone of a crime, you have to have evidence to prove that it happened. Sorry, but I cannot just judge someone based on someone elses word, and I would not support a criminal "justice" system that did. There are plenty of times where it's come out that a woman was lying, after the man had been prosecuted, or were conspiring to get a man falsely convicted of such an crime. Linus Torvalds has had to deal with it for years now.

 

I would also really like to know where you get off on appointing yourself the authority to claim that "women are usually telling the truth". Sorry, but you're not qualified to make that statement, no one is. This kind of thing has to be looked at on a case by case basis, because we don't have magic truth technology that shows us what actually happened in each case.

 

 

Edit: Correction, you have to have proof any time you accuse anyone of any crime. Doesn't matter what crime it is.

Edit2: I am not defending this guy or what he's doing on his forums. Simply addressing your post directly.

typical SJW bullshit. listen and believe.

woman would never lie obviously.

the funny part is how evilore accuses the woman of the same or even worse crime without any proof in message directed at his mods. https://pastebin.com/p4Nqw1Lh

[LAwLz]

15 hours ago, knightslugger said:

Question #1: Why was she nekkid in the first place?

I know, right?

What a massive slut who showers naked.

 

 

13 hours ago, Commodus said:

And despite what the chauvinists insist, women are usually telling the truth about these instances because they happen all the time.  That #metoo campaign that was floating around this month?  That wasn't coming out of the blue... it's an acknowledgment that virtually every woman has had men grope, catcall or otherwise sexually harass them at some point.

Source on that? I can only speak from anecdotal evidence (I doubt you have anything better though) but only 1 out of the ~10 or so of my friends on Facebook who has posted #metoo has actually been raped. Of course I don't know every single detail about their lives, but I do know that at least a few of them are not exactly that careful with who they sleep with. If you get drunk at a party and then sleep with someone then you can hardly say it was rape or sexual harassment, but that's mostly what I have seen from the campaign.

 

Also, the campaign is dumb. By bundling things like rape together with crap like catcalls you trivialize actual issues. It makes me sick seeing my friend who was raped post #metoo, and then see someone who had some guy whistle on her go #metoo, as if they are even remotely similar.

It's like walking up to someone who has been kicked in the head and say "I know how you feel honey, I was called a slut by some stranger".

 

By the way, the entire justice system is founded upon the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. That means there has to be solid evidence in order to punish someone. Sadly, we are getting farther and farther away from that. You should not assume an accusation is true without evidence. You wouldn't believe me if I said my 65" TV was stolen by some random guy yesterday if I have no evidence of it, nor should you believe me saying I was raped yesterday without any evidence.

[TidaLWaveZ]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

-snip

 

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

What a massive slut who showers naked.

LMAO .

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Source on that? I can only speak from anecdotal evidence (I doubt you have anything better though) but only 1 out of the ~10 or so of my friends on Facebook who has posted #metoo has actually been raped. Of course I don't know every single detail about their lives, but I do know that at least a few of them are not exactly that careful with who they sleep with. If you get drunk at a party and then sleep with someone then you can hardly say it was rape or sexual harassment, but that's mostly what I have seen from the campaign.

Interesting....

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

By the way, the entire justice system is founded upon the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. That means there has to be solid evidence in order to punish someone. Sadly, we are getting farther and farther away from that. You should not assume an accusation is true without evidence. You wouldn't believe me if I said my 65" TV was stolen by some random guy yesterday if I have no evidence of it, nor should you believe me saying I was raped yesterday without any evidence.

^^

[Jito463]

9 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Side note: despite being despicable for cheating on his wife, the sexual actions Bill Clinton had with Monica Lewinsky were completely consentual. 

 

They had an affair. He didn’t rape or assault her. 

 

How do I know this? Monica herself spilled the beans back in 2014 and gave an extensive accounting of the entire thing. 

 

So not comparable in the slightest to Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby. 

I'll just append this then drop it, since it starts to delve into politics, but look up Juanita Brodderick.  It's far worse than ol' BJ Clinton having an affair on his wife.

 

And while you're at it, may as well check the connection between BJ and Jeffrey Epstein, given that the child pornography connection to this story was mentioned earlier.

 

There's far more to the story than Monica Lewinsky.

[kilgore_T]

this whole situation is very interesting

neogaf crashed and burned because the mods deserted en masse

 

[Commodus]

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

 

Questioning whether or not a woman is telling the truth in sexual assault cases does not make one a "chauvanist". If you're going to accuse someone of a crime, you have to have evidence to prove that it happened. Sorry, but I cannot just judge someone based on someone elses word, and I would not support a criminal "justice" system that did. There are plenty of times where it's come out that a woman was lying, after the man had been prosecuted, or were conspiring to get a man falsely convicted of such an crime. Linus Torvalds has had to deal with it for years now.

 

I would also really like to know where you get off on appointing yourself the authority to claim that "women are usually telling the truth". Sorry, but you're not qualified to make that statement, no one is. This kind of thing has to be looked at on a case by case basis, because we don't have magic truth technology that shows us what actually happened in each case.

 

 

Edit: Correction, you have to have proof any time you accuse anyone of any crime. Doesn't matter what crime it is.

Edit2: I am not defending this guy or what he's doing on his forums. Simply addressing your post directly.

I'm not saying that you should automatically judge based solely on someone's word.  But if there's nothing fishy about an accusation, it's better to be inclined to believe the woman than to assume she's lying, because the odds are that she's telling the truth.

 

And yes, I can speak with some authority.  Most studies of false rape accusations show that they're clearly in the minority (a few percentage points); the ones that MRA types like to cite usually have terrible methodology or a very vague definition of "false" (for example, cases where there just isn't enough evidence to move forward).  And that's rape, let alone sexual harassment and other acts that are much easier to pull off without getting caught.  Men frequently confuse the impact of a false accusation with its frequency, and while false rape/harassment allegations can be horrible, they're rare.

 

Yes, always study an accusation before you rush to conclusions, but you don't need to wait for a court conviction to decide whether or not a woman is likely to be telling the truth.  If you don't see anything fishy, if the guy has a history of poor treatment of women, if you see multiple women making similar accusations, she's probably right.

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly what he did was crappy but all things considered I really don't think it is all the things people make it out to be. A man cheated on his wife and tried to lie about it. Never heard of that before lul.

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

I know, it's not like the US has had an honest and above reproach president yet, but the reality is some expectations are just a matter of course even when they are unrealistic  (people tend to hold onto such an ideal/belief as it gives them comfort).

 

 

Sure but on the other hand, most American President's have done the same as Clinton or worse - even some of the most popular ones. Granted, we should hold the President up to high standards, but when it comes down to it, Clinton and Lewinsky were consenting adults, and as long as it doesn't affect their ability to govern, it really shouldn't be any business except Bill, Hilary, and Monica's.

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I'll just append this then drop it, since it starts to delve into politics, but look up Juanita Brodderick.  It's far worse than ol' BJ Clinton having an affair on his wife.

 

And while you're at it, may as well check the connection between BJ and Jeffrey Epstein, given that the child pornography connection to this story was mentioned earlier.

 

There's far more to the story than Monica Lewinsky.

Interesting - I did look up both of those people. For the first one, Juanita - she made allegations that she was raped. She later then swore an affidavit that she was not raped. Then she again changed her story and now again claims that she was raped.

 

I have no idea if she was raped or not. But changing her story like that doesn't do her any good. One could of course say "Well the Clinton's paid her off", but there's even less proof of that then there is that she was actually raped.

 

As for Epstein? Aside from the fact that they knew each other to some degree, there's zero evidence from what I've seen that indicates Clinton knew anything about Epstein's sexual conduct with underage girls - let alone condoned or partook in said matters.

 

I've heard the conspiracy theories about Bill Clinton being involved in a child sex ring, etc, but I've also heard the conspiracy theories about the Earth being flat, or that we didn't go to the moon. There's little evidence for any of them.

[Jito463]

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

As for Epstein? Aside from the fact that they knew each other to some degree, there's zero evidence from what I've seen that indicates Clinton knew anything about Epstein's sexual conduct with underage girls - let alone condoned or partook in said matters.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo/

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/343048-clinton-epstein-lolita-express/

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

 

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Interesting - I did look up both of those people. For the first one, Juanita - she made allegations that she was raped. She later then swore an affidavit that she was not raped. Then she again changed her story and now again claims that she was raped.

I didn't recall her testifying that she wasn't raped (will do some further research), but there's also the allegations of Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones to consider.  Again, much more to the story.

 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2014/02/05/bill-clintons-recurring-nightmare-n1790369

 

_{*so much for one post and dropping it, LOL}

 

*EDIT*

 

11 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

I've heard the conspiracy theories about Bill Clinton being involved in a child sex ring, etc

To be fair, I never accused him of being involed in a child sex ring, but I have to question his repeated associations with a known pedophile.

Edited October 24, 2017 by Jito463
Addendum

[Commodus]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I know, right?

What a massive slut who showers naked.

 

 

Source on that? I can only speak from anecdotal evidence (I doubt you have anything better though) but only 1 out of the ~10 or so of my friends on Facebook who has posted #metoo has actually been raped. Of course I don't know every single detail about their lives, but I do know that at least a few of them are not exactly that careful with who they sleep with. If you get drunk at a party and then sleep with someone then you can hardly say it was rape or sexual harassment, but that's mostly what I have seen from the campaign.

 

Also, the campaign is dumb. By bundling things like rape together with crap like catcalls you trivialize actual issues. It makes me sick seeing my friend who was raped post #metoo, and then see someone who had some guy whistle on her go #metoo, as if they are even remotely similar.

It's like walking up to someone who has been kicked in the head and say "I know how you feel honey, I was called a slut by some stranger".

 

By the way, the entire justice system is founded upon the belief that you are innocent until proven guilty. That means there has to be solid evidence in order to punish someone. Sadly, we are getting farther and farther away from that. You should not assume an accusation is true without evidence. You wouldn't believe me if I said my 65" TV was stolen by some random guy yesterday if I have no evidence of it, nor should you believe me saying I was raped yesterday without any evidence.

As mentioned in a recent reply, the general consensus from ethically sound studies is that false rape accusations are in single-digit percentages.  Studies with higher figures usually either have problematic methodology or are conflating merely unproven cases with false ones.  And that's rape, not groping, catcalling, sex under pressure (such as the "casting couch") and other horrible acts.

 

Also: I'm sorry, but "she was drunk" is never an excuse.  If she's not sober enough to reliably give or refuse consent, and you force yourself on her, it's sexual assault.  No exceptions.

 

I think you misunderstood what #metoo is about.  It's not about the specific gravity of each case; it's about pointing out how many women have dealt with sexual harassment or assault in their lifetimes.  Rape is far more grave than catcalling, to be sure, but that's not the point.  It's that there needs to be a fundamental shift in how many men see women, and that we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that only a handful of women have encountered harassment or assault.  It's far more common than we frequently care to admit.

 

I know what the justice system entails, and I'm not saying that you should make a definitive conclusion.  Rather, it's that sexual assault allegations are more often than not true based on both stats and, frankly, the pervasive nature of male-on-female sexual harassment and assault.  You should be inclined to believe a plausible accusation, even though it's important to verify the claim.  Part of why the Harvey Weinsteins of the world get away with their crimes is because they're counting on others to back them up, to cast those doubts and make their victims look like liars and money grabbers.  Hell, remember the Brock Turner case?  Even though he was caught in the act, the judge and his parents were more concerned about his future than the lifetime of trauma he inflicted on the woman he raped.  If we lean toward trusting women, we discourage harassment and rape by guys who might otherwise assume they'll have public support.

[Commodus]

13 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo/

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/343048-clinton-epstein-lolita-express/

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html

 

I didn't recall her testifying that she wasn't raped (will do some further research), but there's also the allegations of Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones to consider.  Again, much more to the story.

 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/carolplattliebau/2014/02/05/bill-clintons-recurring-nightmare-n1790369

 

_{*so much for one post and dropping it, LOL}

 

*EDIT*

 

To be fair, I never accused him of being involed in a child sex ring, but I have to question his repeated associations with a known pedophile.

You cite two hard-right American outlets that are known to distort stories to suit their agenda... and Russia Today, the Putin-backed outlet that bent over backwards to support Trump and attack Clinton during the election?  That's not a very good case.  If anything, picking those automatically invalidates the argument.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Commodus said:

You cite two hard-right American outlets that are known to distort stories to suit their agenda

You think Fox is hard right?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Oh, you're funny.  Thanks for the laugh.

 

 

Fox has both conservatives and liberals.  Sometimes I think they have too many liberals, which is one of the reasons I don't usually pay attention to them.

 

As for RT, I didn't even realize what it was.  I just searched DDG for information on the subject, and that was one of the links that came up (actually, that's where all the links came from).

 

Besides, if you don't like the sources then find proof to refute the evidence.  Going on a tangent against the sources I cited just makes your own case weak.

 

I was tempted to address your provocative posting about the election, but I'd rather not see this post locked because of politics.

[Daniel644]

8 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Honestly what he did was crappy but all things considered I really don't think it is all the things people make it out to be. A man cheated on his wife and tried to lie about it. Never heard of that before lul.

honestly it's less about him cheating on his wife (which is already deplorable) and more about not just Lying, but Lying UNDER OATH, that's called PERJURY, that's where the real issue was.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Daniel644 said:

honestly it's less about him cheating on his wife (which is already deplorable) and more about not just Lying, but Lying UNDER OATH, that's called PERJURY, that's where the real issue was.

Indeed - back then, we held the US President up to high standards.

 

Now? Apparently you can be president, lie about whatever the fuck you want, and actually become more popular for doing it.

 

But I will add that the question should have never been asked to begin with. Because it should never have been anyone's business about his sexual preferences between two consenting adults.

 

if Hilary wanted to do something about it, she could have filed for divorce or otherwise dealt with the situation personally between the three of them.

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

Yes, always study an accusation before you rush to conclusions, but you don't need to wait for a court conviction to decide whether or not a woman is likely to be telling the truth.  If you don't see anything fishy, if the guy has a history of poor treatment of women, if you see multiple women making similar accusations, she's probably right.

This is an assumption of guilt without evidence, and in the US, it is a violation the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution, that of an impartial jury. Public opinion is one thing and the public is certainly free to think what it will, but if you found yourself on a jury with these sorts of personal convictions and did not excuse yourself for them, you're in for a world of hurt.

[Commodus]

58 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You think Fox is hard right?  BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Oh, you're funny.  Thanks for the laugh.

 

 

Fox has both conservatives and liberals.  Sometimes I think they have too many liberals, which is one of the reasons I don't usually pay attention to them.

 

As for RT, I didn't even realize what it was.  I just searched DDG for information on the subject, and that was one of the links that came up (actually, that's where all the links came from).

 

Besides, if you don't like the sources then find proof to refute the evidence.  Going on a tangent against the sources I cited just makes your own case weak.

 

I was tempted to address your provocative posting about the election, but I'd rather not see this post locked because of politics.

Fox is hard right.  It includes a handful of liberals, who to be fair do get to say their piece, but they're token examples meant to feign objectivity -- the company is unapologetically pro-Republican.  It omits stories that paint the Republicans in an unflattering light; it posts reports citing questionable sources as long as they're in favor of the Republicans (for example, bogus claims of finding WMDs in Iraq); most of its opinion hosts are firmly in the right wing and will even make unfounded claims during their segments (such as Sean Hannity and his obsession with the non-existent Seth Rich conspiracy).  Rupert Murdoch is known to espouse conservative views and insist that his news outlets reflect them.  Hell, notice how Trump's only TV interviews since taking office have been with Fox?  Gee, I wonder why.

 

Ever heard the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?  It's not my job to disprove audacious claims from sources that are known to be highly unreliable, it's your job to prove that the claims hold up using reasonably neutral sources.  That you didn't even realize RT was a Russian propaganda outlet suggests you have a lot to learn about presenting a solid argument.  Always check your sources; don't assume they're legitimate just because they come from professional-looking publications and sound vaguely plausible.

 

At any rate, to get this vaguely back on topic... I don't think there's much dispute that Bill Clinton has been a letch, and he's an example of yet another man who has gotten away with gross sexual behavior like we've seen from the NeoGAF guy.  There's just no credible evidence to suggest he's as depraved as Fox or RT want him to be.

[Commodus]

50 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

This is an assumption of guilt without evidence, and in the US, it is a violation the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution, that of an impartial jury. Public opinion is one thing and the public is certainly free to think what it will, but if you found yourself on a jury with these sorts of personal convictions and did not excuse yourself for them, you're in for a world of hurt.

When did I say this applied to court?  Of course jurists should keep an open mind, and if you've definitively made up your mind, you shouldn't be included in a trial.  The whole point is that us in the general public should be inclined to trust women who make plausible accusations of sexual assault.  Not just because sexual predators count on the public to preserve their reputations, but because evidence suggests that most claims are legitimate and that these women desperately need support.

[knightslugger]

1 hour ago, Commodus said:

When did I say this applied to court?  Of course jurists should keep an open mind, and if you've definitively made up your mind, you shouldn't be included in a trial.  The whole point is that us in the general public should be inclined to trust women who make plausible accusations of sexual assault.  Not just because sexual predators count on the public to preserve their reputations, but because evidence suggests that most claims are legitimate and that these women desperately need support.

But it does apply to trial. There's always a court involved. Court of law, and court of public opinion. To be honest, i'm not sure which one can destroy a person more regardless of whether or not the accusation is factual and that it stands up to reasonable scrutiny... The problem i have is more with court of public opinion. Just look at what happened in St. Louis over Michael Brown's death. An entire city was ready to burn itself to the ground before any REAL evidence was brought to bare, because of what i mentioned before. Guilty, dead to rights, in the mind of the citizenry who know little to nothing about the facts.

 

I'm not saying that from the utterance of accusation that a woman should be scrutinized and a man be labeled innocent. I'm not saying the reverse of that either. To de facto take one side over the other as truthful and plausible based on sex alone screams sexual prejudice. Last time i checked, the women's movement was an effort to REMOVE sexism from society. Is that the basis of Feminism? Is that why we ought to choose the woman's word over a man's? I'm talking "I don't know shit from shinola about the facts, all i know is she accused him of sexual assault." and you're telling me (us) that we should take her word as truth because she's a woman. I don't know why we should take any one person's word over another simply because of their sex. or color, or creed, or what they ate for breakfast. It feels like an abandonment of a very powerful movement in history. I would feel a WHOLE lot better taking the word over another's based on FACT.

[Daniel644]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Indeed - back then, we held the US President up to high standards.

 

Now? Apparently you can be president, lie about whatever the fuck you want, and actually become more popular for doing it.

 

But I will add that the question should have never been asked to begin with. Because it should never have been anyone's business about his sexual preferences between two consenting adults.

 

if Hilary wanted to do something about it, she could have filed for divorce or otherwise dealt with the situation personally between the three of them.

yes to some extent that is true (although things get sketchy when it's a BOSS and EMPLOYEE, or Intern in this case, relationship, this is why most companies don't allow them), he probably never should have had to testify to a grand jury in the first place regarding this matter, but regardless of how he got into the situation in the first place doesn't excuse PERJURY, just like if a cop has a search warrant to search your house for 1 thing and finds other criminal activities in plain view you can be charged for those crimes too. Ultimately his actions are what tainted the presidency that allowed Obama to LIE through his teeth for 8 years and still be popular to the point that anyone who spoke against him would be branded a racists.

 

I also don't understand why Hillary stayed with a cheater all these years, she might have been seen as a stronger woman when she ran last year had she ditched that cheating piece of shit. Not that she didn't have other major flaws, but thats not a discussion for these forums.