David Brock's 1994 article about Bill Clinton's womanizing

David Brock wrote in his 1994 article about Bill Clinton entitled His Cheatin' Heart,

...Surely, it is nothing new that many politicians use their positions to solicit sexual favors and come to believe that the laws and mores that govern others don’t apply to them. So far as the troopers knew, Clinton’s activities did not include abuse of drugs or alcohol, and all of the women appear to have been willing participants in the affairs and liaisons. Some may well conclude, therefore, that Bill and Hillary Clinton’s loose sexual morals and their habitual foul language are irrelevant to their public roles and, in any event, are not uncharacteristic of their generation as a whole.

...From their direct observations, Patterson and Perry said they believe that Hillary is more obsessed than Bill with his political fortunes. She expressed this concern, as she did most everything, in language that makes the Watergate tapes sound like a Sunday school lesson. “I remember one time when Bill had been quoted in the morning paper saying something she didn’t like,” Patterson said. “I came into the mansion and he was standing at the top of the stairs and she was standing at the bottom screaming. She has a garbage mouth on her, and she was calling him motherf — -er, c — -sucker, and everything else. I went into the kitchen, and the cook, Miss Emma, turned to me and said, ‘The devil’s in that woman.'”

...Over the years, the troopers have seen Bill Clinton in compromising situations with dozens of women. They said their facilitation of the activities ranged from wiping make-up off his shirt collar, to standing “Hillary watch” while Clinton cavorted, to arranging sex sessions in hotel rooms and parking lots, to sneaking women into the governor’s mansion while Hillary and Chelsea slept.

...According to Patterson, the long-term mistresses since 1987, in addition to Gennifer Flowers, included a staffer in Clinton’s office; an Arkansas lawyer Clinton appointed to a judgeship; the wife of a prominent judge; a local reporter; an employee at Arkansas Power and Light, a state-regulated public utility; and a cosmetics sales clerk at a Little Rock department store. They ranged in age from their early 30s to their early 40s. According to both Patterson and Perry, throughout the period of their employment at the governor’s residence, Clinton visited one of these women, either in the early morning or the late evening, or one of them came to the residence to see him, at least two or three times a week.

...On one occasion, Perry recalled, Clinton said that Gennifer Flowers “could suck a tennis ball through a garden hose.”

Read more here.

Soros, Brock going after Sean Hannity

S. Noble at Independent Sentinal informs us here that George Soros and David Brock's Media Matters are in an all-in campaign to knock out Sean Hannity.

Business as usual in Clintonland

Once again Stephen Green helps us to understand something complex. He links to an article in The Citizens Audit alleging that Clintonite David Brock is running a money laundering scheme.

Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:

1.Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation

•The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission
•Media Matters would retain $930,000

2. Next, Media Matters would give what’s left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum

•The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $116,250 commission
•The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750

3. The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum

•The Bonner Group would ‘earn’ a $101,718 commission
•The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031

In the end, Brock’s solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That’s a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission.

As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.

Read the whole thing. But rather than “bizarre,” the scenario sounds more like “business as usual” in Clintonland.