Shocking! Bill Clinton Secret Sex Search!!

Bill Clinton's foiled hunt for hot tarmac sex.   Read it here before you read it in the National Enquirer.

Guest Post Introduction by Peter Sage:   

Inquiring Minds Want to Know 

The story of Bill Clinton joining the plane of Attorney General Loretta Lynch to "put in the fix" is losing its steam.   The system is rigged, Trump said, as he suggested Bill and Loretta were probably there working out a sweet deal, where she would ignore the FBI insistence that Hillary be indicted.    The story is diminished by the fact that Lynch immediately pre-announced that she did not plan to exercise independent judgement and that she fully expected to accept the FBI recommendation.  

Worse for Trump, then the FBI announced its decision:  no indictment, because "no reasonable prosecutor' would indict, the Republican FBI director said.

Guest Post writer Thad Guyer is promoting a whole new approach in the form of a whole new motive for Bill Clinton.   Bill didn't go onto the plane so he could lobby for Hillary.   He went there to get into the pants of Loretta Lynch.  It was horny Bill on the prowl, looking for hot tarmac sex.

This is a way better and more lascivious motive.  Trump may find his way to it.   It is even more damaging to the Clintons than mere legal misconduct.   Besides, Bill trying to subvert justice  to help his wife--well, it almost seems sweet with Bill in his white haired dotage, trying to help his wife.    But Bill Clinton as womanizing creep, once again disloyal to Hillary?  This is far nastier, way more fun to email to friends.  It reaffirms the Clinton marriage disfunction and it humiliates Hillary.  Hillary must be  a man-hating bitch ifBill isn't just going after interns; he is so desperate--or so foggy in his old age--he going after mature professional women.

(Trump would love this, slut shaming them both, an old guy and a Lynch a mere 3 on a ten point scale.  What a loser, Bill is, chasing after a #3.    Compare Loretta Lynch to Melania Trump.  Melania is hotter.) 

Trump would love selling it.   Who would believe this suggestion?   Well, apparently over half of GOP voters tell pollsters that they believe Trump's "birther" assertion that the State of Hawaii, local newspapers, and multiple eyewitnesses were in on a conspiracy 50 years ago, so there clearly is a market.   And who better to advance it than the guy who said he thought Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK.

Don't reject out of hand the plausibility of Guyer's approach.   Guyer uses the same fact pattern that Bill Clinton  uses in his "cover story" of a mere social visit, and simply inserts a different motive.
Click here for the facts of the incident.

Thad Guyer Guest Post:

Guest Post by Thad Guyer

Bill Clinton Didn't Know Loretta Lynch's Husband-- Was on Her Plane.

As a trial lawyer, I take my facts as I get them. I supply the inference and innuendo for the jury. We call it circumstantial evidence.  Consider why Bill Clinton went to Loretta Lynch's plane, and consider these facts:

1. Bill said it was a chance meeting. Thus, he could not have know Lynch's husband was on the plane.

2.  His modus operandi is for younger women protoges. He appointed a young Lynch as US Attorney New York  near the end of his second term.

3.  Lynch is an attractive woman not dissimilar looking to Monica and others. 

4. Bill swears his sole agenda was personal-- to socialize with the attractive AG. This purely personal interaction motive is, therefore, irrevocably stipulated.

5.  Hillary was not around, and swears she had no idea the two were meeting.

6. Bill has an undeniable history of adultery with women who later claim he caught them unawares with no idea he could launch a quick predatory strike.

7. Bill cannot credibly defend himself. Besides his history, he is subject to the law's most severe credibility impeachment-- he is a disbarred Arkansas lawyer for moral terpitude.

Bill's new "type"

8. Few jurors could accept Lynch's claim that 30 minutes was spent on grandchildren and golf. That time interval is implausible, and she is unlikely to be able to explain it during cross examination on the stand. Even 30 seconds of verbiage per hole amounts to only 9 minutes. 

The circumstantial evidence, therefore, is compelling. The legal standard is mere preponderance of the evidence, a simple 51% probability.  Bill Clinton tried to have a sexual escapade with a pretty AG. He was thwarted in the most old fashion way-- the husband was home. 

Bill's only credible defense to adulterous motive (he himself lacks any credibility on such an issue unless the alternative is "statement against interest"), is this: He wanted to tell Lynch: "Hillary likes you. If she is elected, your lameduck Obama term could be resurrected into a full, historic Clinton AG term".

The jury of public opinion may decide.