Top journalists lay out the facts about Flowers!


An "affair" to misremember:
On paper, Alyssa Rosenberg had all the advantages.

Rosenberg writes for the Washington Post. Not long ago, she graduated from Yale, Class of 2006.

(Dad is editor of Harvard Magazine. Mom is executive director of the Lexington Historical Society, a nonprofit organization in Lexington that works to preserve buildings from the Revolutionary War.)

Earlier this week, Rosenberg was explaining what was up, back in the day, between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. She was reacting to blustery threats from Donald J. Trump. But even after all these years, this is the best they can do:
ROSENBERG (9/26/16): Gennifer Flowers is probably not coming to the first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump tonight, but that's not really the point. When Clinton invited Mark Cuban, a businessman and sharp critic of Trump, to the debate, Trump responded (whatever his campaign says now) not by inviting someone who questions Clinton's credentials to be president, like Patricia Smith, whose son died in Benghazi, to join him. Instead, he suggested that he might bring along a woman who had an affair with Clinton's husband. The point wasn't to debate Clinton but to reduce her, yet again, to being nothing more than Bill Clinton's wife.
According to Rosenberg, Gennifer Flowers is "a woman who had an affair with [Hillary] Clinton's husband."

Does Rosenberg know if her statement is true? If we're all still speaking the English language, we'd have to suggest that she doesn't.

Other scribes at the Washington Post have been saying such things about Flowers. Mary Jordan is a Pulitzer winner. On Monday, she began a report in the Post by saying this:
JORDAN (9/26/16): Donald Trump's threat to seat Gennifer Flowers, who had an extramarital affair with Bill Clinton, in the front row at Monday night's presidential debate focuses new attention on Trump's own history of infidelity and could further weaken his support among female voters.
You're right! It's the same thing Rosenberg said!

Other writers at the Post have sliced the baloney with slightly more care. Yesterday, Aaron Blake described Flowers as someone "with whom Bill Clinton in 1998 acknowledged having extramarital relations in the past." On September 25, he had described Flowers as someone "who revealed a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton in the 1990s."

On the front page of this morning's Post,
Shawn Boburg's writing almost seemed to be slightly "Clintonesque." He described the matter as follows:
BOBURG (9/29/16): Hillary Clinton's support for her husband [in 1992] was crucial, and she sat by his side during a crucial "60 Minutes" interview, saying she was not like the victim in Tammy Wynette's "Stand By Your Man." Campaign pollster Stan Greenberg said at the time that the public would disregard the allegations if they believed he had been truthful to his wife.

Six years later, Bill Clinton acknowledged a sexual encounter with Flowers.
According to Boburg, Bill Clinton "acknowledged a sexual encounter with Flowers." He seemed to be picking his words with great care. We'll guess that he may know the facts, such as they actually are.

Last week, Donald J. Trump threatened to bring the eternal Flowers to the first presidential debate. As a result, our "journalists" began making feeble attempts to explain who Flowers is.

Words like "affair" and "mistress" were thrown around. Our question: How many of these flyweights knew what they were talking about?

In our view, there is no evidence—none at all—that Clinton and Flowers ever had an "affair." There is no evidence that Flowers was Clinton's "mistress." (These statements are based on the presumption that we're all speaking English.)

That said, our "journalists" have always loved the juicier story. And when our journalists love a tale, that tale will never expire.

It seems to us that Boburg was choosing his words with great care. We thereby get the impression that he may even know what he's talking about, even if he isn't trying real hard to let Post readers know.

It seems to us that Rosenberg and quite a few others were basically spouting this week. Tomorrow, we'll quote a few other accounts of this matter, and we'll post the source of what's actually known about this famous "affair."


  1. There isn't "no evidence" -- there is some evidence. Flowers' assertion is evidence.

    1. I know that there is really no sense in saying this to you, as close-minded as you are David. However, her "assertion," as you call it, has been shown to be highly unreliable.

    2. Horace, I do not disagree with you. My point was that Bob exaggerated when he said there was "no evidence—none at all".


    4. Waaaah! Bob exaggerated!

    5. An impeached witness is not considered capable of providing evidence.

    6. Waaaah! Bob exaggerated!
      Yes, Bob exaggerated in a post complaining about others exaggerating how many times Bill and Gennifer had sex.

      An impeached witness is not considered capable of providing evidence.

      So, Bill, Hillary and Donald Trump all cannot provide evidence?

    7. David, numerous people assert there is racism behind many Republican actions that you routinely deny and dismiss as being without evidence. An assertion is most definitely not evidence. When tested, her assertion was found not reliable.

    8. Anon 9:08 -- the problem with your example isn't the assertion; it's that the alleged racism is a conclusion, not an observation.

      Frankly I have no idea in how many times Bill and Gennifer had sex or what kind of sex, and I don't care. I was addressing the loose use of the term "No evidence", when what's meant is "weak evidence", or "refuted evidence" or "Evidence that I don't buy".

      "No evidence" has a specific legal meaning. If I were on trial for murder and the prosecution produced no evidence, the judge would throw the case out. But, if the only evidence were that Gennifer Flowers said that she had seen me do it, then the case would proceed.

    9. "Yes, Bob exaggerated ...."

      Like the troll has never exaggerated, misinformed, misrepresented, falsified, made up, lied, doubled down on his lies, ...etc.

    10. " ...if the only evidence were that ..., then the case would proceed." = strawman = dishonest argumentation = David's stock and trade as Howlertroll.

    11. Dave said: "But, if the only evidence were that Gennifer Flowers said that she had seen me do it, then the case would proceed."

      Actually, if Gennifer Flowers on cross-examination were shown to be a liar, with no opportunity to even witness that murder, there would be a motion for dismissal by the defense and the judge would throw the case out.

  2. "what's actually known"

    Oh, that!

    Why would we let that spoil our fun?

  3. BTW I don't why it's important how often Clinton and Flowers had sex. Clinton admitted at least once. It's pretty well acknowledged that he had lots of extramarital sex.

    If you can separate his infidelities from his performance as President, as I can, then the frequency of sex with Flowers doesn't matter. If you think that infidelity automatically makes one a bad President, then the frequency of sex with Flowers doesn't matter.

    1. No, Clinton didn't admit intercourse. He admitted some kind of sexual encounter. That could have been as little as a pat on the butt.

    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    3. Almost everyone makes a distinction between a one-night stand and an "affair," the latter involving emotional involvement (short for "love affair"). Most people also make a distinction between a blow job or hand job and intercourse. Most people don't consider kissing (making out) to be infidelity. If neck massages count, then Bush is in big trouble. So, David, the frequency and type of sex matter a lot to people, including married people whose spouse's find out what has been happening.

      Clinton has never acknowledge that he had "lots of extramarital sex". That is the picture Republicans have been painting, abetted by late-night TV hosts, but it is not what the record shows.

      About 70% of men admit to cheating on their wives. About 17% of divorces are caused by cheating. Maybe that's why no one gets that upset about Clinton's occasional blow job (assuming any of the accusations are true).

    4. "It's pretty well acknowledged by the wingnuts like myself that he had lots of extramarital sex."

      FTFY - NFO

    5. Caesar -- According to CNN
      President Bill Clinton in sworn testimony has acknowledged he had a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers during his tenure as Arkansas governor, something he flatly denied in the 1992 presidential campaign, sources have told CNN.

      Sources familiar with Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case say Clinton denied Flowers' claim of a long-running, 12-year affair. But the sources say he acknowledged they did have a sexual relationship.

      I wasn't wrong. I didn't say Clinton had admitted intercourse with Gennifer. I said he admitted that they had sex. A sexual relationship involves having sex.

    6. I think Seinfeld had an episode where Jerry believed that "that the appearance of the nipple" signaled having sex. That must be what this troll means by having sex.


    7. Dave, Paula Jones' lawyers handed Clinton a definition of sexual activity which ranged from intercourse to a pat on the butt. He admitted he'd done something on that list, with Gennifer Flowers, once.

  4. " It's pretty well acknowledged that he had lots of extramarital sex" By who?

  5. What difference does it make in evaluating Hillary's qualification to run this country, except to the gotcha wingnut Clinton haters, who conveniently overlook the multiple sexual transgressions by many of the leaders of their own sorry tribe.

    1. I pretty much agree. Now, Hillary's efforts to tamp down "bimbo eruptions" ought to have some significance to feminists. Instead of believing the woman when she cried "rape", Hillary helped destroy her reputation. But, I don't think many feminists will vote for Trump.

    2. I don't think you think. You just blurt out your trollish wingnut throwout lines and, given your absolute lack of credibility, a dry fart has more gravitas than what you "think."


      But, if Broaddrick's story sounds familiar, it also sounds fishy--and raises too many questions for me to believe her.

      * Broaddrick says she can remember every detail of the rape, except the month and day it occurred. If it scarred her for life, wouldn't she remember the date? Or at least the month?

      * Broaddrick says she told her husband, David, what happened. But, at the time, David was not her husband. He was her boyfriend, with whom she was cheating on her first husband. Question: What if Clinton and Broaddrick had consensual sex? If you're cheating on your husband, and then cheat on your boyfriend, do you tell your boyfriend the truth?

      * Within one year of the alleged rape, Broaddrick attended a fund-raiser for Clinton and accepted appointment by him to a state advisory board. Why did she still want to support a man who raped her?

      * Broaddrick claims Clinton kissed her so hard he left her lip visibly black and blue, and she covered up by telling people she'd had an accident. But her first husband, Gary Hickey, says he remembers no such injury when she returned from Little Rock, nor such a story.

      * One year later, Broaddrick filed divorce papers against Hickey, claiming he struck her on the mouth. Was that the only time?

      * Broaddrick also told two girlfriends, who are sisters, what happened, which both confirm. But both admit they hate Clinton because he commuted the death sentence of the man who murdered their father. Can they be trusted?

      * In 1997, Broaddrick signed an affidavit and gave a deposition in the Jones case, denying twice under oath that Clinton raped her. "These allegations are untrue and there is no truth to these rumors." If Clinton did rape her, 20 years later, why would she still not tell the truth?

      * Last year, Broaddrick told independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr that her Jones testimony was false, but that she had been under absolutely no pressure from the president or the White House to file a false affidavit. So, did she lie to the Jones team? Or did she lie to Starr? Or is she now lying to NBC? How do we know?

      The truth is, we don't know. And we'll never know. But we do know this. We know that Starr's investigators talked to Broaddrick and listened to her story--and decided not to pursue it. That, in itself, casts huge doubts on Broaddrick's credibility. If Starr would impeach Clinton for oral sex, he would certainly indict or impeach him for rape, if he could prove it. Which nobody can.

      Yes, it's disturbing to hear the president of the United States accused of rape. But it's even more disturbing to see an innocent man condemned, without the evidence. In this case, the evidence against Clinton is simply not there.

    4. Whatever Hillary may have said would be about a woman who had sexual relations with a married man, her husband. These are not sexual abuse victims.

  6. My marriage of 3 years was sinking and i was devastated. My husband broke up with me and I got no explanations from him. for me to get him back, i have to find a solution, I went to 3 different spell casters they all failed to bring back my husband, I really wasn’t sure anymore if spells were real so as i was making a search one morning i saw some great reviews about, I was a bit skeptical at first but a friend asked me to try and see what happens, so I requested for a love spell from this spell caster, he said he will take his time to do a love spell that will bring my man back to me, after some days my husband reconciled with me, It felt good to have my husband back, when he returned he said he would never leave me again. I saw him transform, all thanks to Dr happy he was like a father to me when i loose hope. now my lover is more open, with happy Spell I know love spell is real, Thanks to Dr happy Spell for getting me my man back. I appreciate all his time, effort, and energy he puts during the spell cast. contact him on via mail he is the best of all spell casters Add him on Whats-pp +2348133873774??????.

  7. The consistent help I got from King Omituko’s Love Solution gave my marriage a second chance and increase the wellbeing of my family. When I was suffering from damaged heart, his love spell brought the final solution I needed and also the way to a brighter world.
    I remembered when I constantly cry every night for more than a week after my husband left me. I was seriously going crazy, he wasn’t the man I marred anymore and I missed the old him so much. It was a nightmare, I didn’t know what to do anymore before I contacted King Omituko via for help which was gladly rendered, and he proved he is a genuine caster to me and my family.
    Throughout my entire marital life, I have never had a happy, peaceful, lovely, romantic and prosperous home like I do now. All thanks to King Omituko Love Solution via He is indeed a savior.

  8. In our simple life, love plays a very specific role.Now you are able to make your love life healthy and it has no space for any type trouble. These all are possible with the help of AGBAZARA TEMPLE OF SOLUTION. He helped me cast a spell that brought my long lost lover back withing 48hours who left me for another woman. you can also contact him on ( ) or whatsapp or call him on +2348104102662 and be happy forever like am now with his experience.

    from USA.