Even you leftists on here can no longer deny the truth.

[Slade3200]

From the Article in the OP:

‘There is clearly overwhelming evidence that there are growing ties between U.S. radicals and the Islamic State, as well as several [ISIS] offshoots and splinter groups,’ stated the FBI field report, which was delivered to Acting Director Andrew McCabe on July 11, 2017, and which is being published for the first time in my new book All Out War: The Plot to Destroy Trump.

Do I really need to explain what's going on here?

It should come as no surprise to anyone that members of the far left and radical Islam are united in their hate for the American way of life, and that they are willing to work together to accomplish their goals. Neither is it surprising that the Obama administration would provide cover for these radical groups, which in so doing, has created a serious national security threat, as he was friends with Bill Ayers, a renowned, and unrepentant domestic terrorist.

BTW, Slade. I've searched the internet, using three different search engines. I couldn't find anything where the FBI denied that this report doesn't exist, or that it is in any way inaccurate. Do you really believe that these domestic terrorist groups would not have met with their Middle East counterparts? Why are you defending them? Are you one of them?

The FBI doesn't comment on conspiracy theories like this. That is their policy. Just because you can't find a denial doesn't mean its true, it means the FBI is sticking by their policy. This dude is trying to sell a book. You are a dupe

Well, this story is all over the internet, and I couldn't find anything that says it's not true. I guess time will tell. After all, Antifa has officially been labeled a terrorist group. So I have no problem believing this.

ANTIFA has been officially labeled a terrorist group? Officially by the US government or Officially by Breitbart?

And of course this story is all over the internet. It takes one wingnut to post about it and then it spreads like wildfire. Haven't you noticed that seems to be the norm now a days. It's called fake news.... Are any credible/non partisan outlets reporting it?

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has formally classified the activities of anti-fascist groups (antifa) as “domestic terrorist violence” since early 2016, according to confidential law enforcement documents obtained by Politico and interviews.

Federal authorities have reportedly warned state and local officials the antifa has become “increasingly confrontational” in efforts to thwart white supremacist groups.


Newly disclosed documents show authorities believed “anarchist extremists” were the main cause of violence at a number of public rallies. A confidential 2016 joint intelligence assessment by DHS and the FBI blamed the antifa for attacks on a range of targets, including police, government institutions and symbols of “the capitalist system.”

And what would you consider a credible news source?

See this is how misinformation gets spread, you take something that is partially true and slightly warp it and present it as fact. It is a dangerous game that can snowball out of control. I suggest just being honest and presenting things at face value.

You say that ANTIFA has been formally labeled as a terrorist group. This is not the case. There is a petition for the white house to label them as such, but thats as far as it has gotten.

Your article references a politico story where the ACTIVITIES of some ANTIFA groups have been classified as domestic terrorist violence. That is very different from labeling the group as a Terrorist group. They are investigating many extremist groups on both the left and right for domestic terror activities. Something else released in the report,
"The agency also acknowledged gaps in its understanding of antifa, saying it had only “medium confidence” in its assessments regarding both the affiliations among the various groups and the motivation of attackers."

On top of all this, the report was a classified private report not intended for public release. The story was leaked to the press. I'm not saying this makes it false, but it also shows that the claim of ANTIFA being formally labeled as a terror group is not the case.

You might think this is knit picking, labeling activities as terrorist violence vs labeling ANTIFA as a terrorist group. But it is not the same thing and like I said before it is a slippery slope. Best to just be accurate and honest with the information you present.

 

[jknowgood]

What has been proven?

That he was an "adult" male trying to date "teenage" girls. Mall-rat Roy has a thing for young meat and robbing the cradle. He's admitted to it.

No he hasn't.

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

If they were above 18 a little creepy, but not against the law. So did you hold Clinton to the same scrutiny?

Clinton didn't molest a 14-year-old (so it seems) or ask the mother of a 16-year-old (both mother and daughter say so) if he could "date" her.

And the standard is the same, go after a kid and I cut your balls off.

Those are accusations. So I see you okay with a man OVER double the age of the intern he took advantage of. As long he is a Democrat.

 

[Doubledareme]

That he was an "adult" male trying to date "teenage" girls. Mall-rat Roy has a thing for young meat and robbing the cradle. He's admitted to it.

No he hasn't.

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

If they were above 18 a little creepy, but not against the law. So did you hold Clinton to the same scrutiny?

Clinton didn't molest a 14-year-old (so it seems) or ask the mother of a 16-year-old (both mother and daughter say so) if he could "date" her.

And the standard is the same, go after a kid and I cut your balls off.

Those are accusations. So I see you okay with a man OVER double the age of the intern he took advantage of. As long he is a Democrat.

One is an accusation, the other is not. Moore was well-known for hitting on young meat, that's obvious. And Clinton should have kept it in his pants but Monica wasn't 14 or 16 at the time.

 

[RWNJ]

That he was an "adult" male trying to date "teenage" girls. Mall-rat Roy has a thing for young meat and robbing the cradle. He's admitted to it.

No he hasn't.

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

In their teens? 18 and 19 are in the teens. In some states, 16 is legal.

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

No he hasn't.

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

If they were above 18 a little creepy, but not against the law. So did you hold Clinton to the same scrutiny?

Clinton didn't molest a 14-year-old (so it seems) or ask the mother of a 16-year-old (both mother and daughter say so) if he could "date" her.

And the standard is the same, go after a kid and I cut your balls off.

Those are accusations. So I see you okay with a man OVER double the age of the intern he took advantage of. As long he is a Democrat.

One is an accusation, the other is not. Moore was well-known for hitting on young meat, that's obvious. And Clinton should have kept it in his pants but Monica wasn't 14 or 16 at the time.

How many trips did Clinton make to PEDO Island? What do you think he was doing there? Give me a break.

 

[Slade3200]

That he was an "adult" male trying to date "teenage" girls. Mall-rat Roy has a thing for young meat and robbing the cradle. He's admitted to it.

No he hasn't.

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

In their teens? 18 and 19 are in the teens. In some states, 16 is legal.

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

 

[bendog]

No he hasn't.

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

In their teens? 18 and 19 are in the teens. In some states, 16 is legal.

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Perhaps helpless rather than lazy.

they can defend Moore by saying he'll vote to overturn Roe or vote with Trump, so ignoring his praying on children is acceptable to them. But honesty is sort of tawdry. LOL

 

[RWNJ]

No he hasn't.

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

In their teens? 18 and 19 are in the teens. In some states, 16 is legal.

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Moore has not been convicted, or even indicted for anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. And I have yet to see any credible evidence against Moore. There is also the fact that the yearbook with his signature was forged. Why would they need to manufacture evidence if he was guilty?

Also, how about getting back on topic? We're discussing a terrorist group called Antifa.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

In their teens? 18 and 19 are in the teens. In some states, 16 is legal.

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Perhaps helpless rather than lazy.

they can defend Moore by saying he'll vote to overturn Roe or vote with Trump, so ignoring his praying on children is acceptable to them. But honesty is sort of tawdry. LOL

Thats politics, it happens on both sides, which is why womens groups defended Clinton and why many on the Left are defending Franken. While I don't see Frankens offenses even in the same ballpark as Moore, he acted inappropriate and those on the Left want to dismiss the accusations because he is a political ally. Plus he is a pretty funny guy that knows how to grill his opponents. I understand it all to a degree, but there is a point where morals need to outweigh politics.

 

[theHawk]

Anti-fascists in Germany?

lol, where were they in 1932?

This lot that calls themselves “Antifa” would had been happy in the Nazi Party.

 

[Slade3200]

Yes, he has.

"Hannity pressed Moore on whether he had dated girls in their teens when he was in 30s. “Not generally, no,” the former judge said in response."

We have a word for that, we call it "yes".

In their teens? 18 and 19 are in the teens. In some states, 16 is legal.

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Moore has not been convicted, or even indicted for anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. And I have yet to see any credible evidence against Moore. There is also the fact that the yearbook with his signature was forged. Why would they need to manufacture evidence if he was guilty?

Also, how about getting back on topic? We're discussing a terrorist group called Antifa.

I addressed the false ANTIFA claim you made and you haven't responded yet

 

[RWNJ]

In their teens? 18 and 19 are in the teens. In some states, 16 is legal.

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Moore has not been convicted, or even indicted for anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. And I have yet to see any credible evidence against Moore. There is also the fact that the yearbook with his signature was forged. Why would they need to manufacture evidence if he was guilty?

Also, how about getting back on topic? We're discussing a terrorist group called Antifa.

I addressed the false ANTIFA claim you made and you haven't responded yet

And I asked you if Antifa is a terrorist group. You haven't answered me yet.

 

[bendog]

In their teens? 18 and 19 are in the teens. In some states, 16 is legal.

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Perhaps helpless rather than lazy.

they can defend Moore by saying he'll vote to overturn Roe or vote with Trump, so ignoring his praying on children is acceptable to them. But honesty is sort of tawdry. LOL

Thats politics, it happens on both sides, which is why womens groups defended Clinton and why many on the Left are defending Franken. While I don't see Frankens offenses even in the same ballpark as Moore, he acted inappropriate and those on the Left want to dismiss the accusations because he is a political ally. Plus he is a pretty funny guy that knows how to grill his opponents. I understand it all to a degree, but there is a point where morals need to outweigh politics.

Welll.... with Clinton voters knew, or should have known, they were getting a serial marital cheater. I didn't vote for him against BushI but I didn't really care about his personal life. What he pulled with Lewinsky was sexual harassment even if she was very willing, if not the instating party, and even if he didn't coerce her jobwise.

I realize I'm in a minority, but I really don't see harassment in taking a photo where one pretends to grab the breasts of Hooters Calenedar girl while she wears a Kevlar vest and helmet. It's wrong, but it's also not groping. And again there was no coercion. If there's a pattern to ass grabbing, he's done. It may be a partisan slime attack though.

Coercion and child abuse are the things I find actually disqualifying. And harassment, and yeah Slick should have resigned. But at the time guys didn't resign over harassment unless there was some nasty coercion involved .... like the Godfather Pizza guy "how bad do you want this job."

BUT, I don't think Clinton supporters (-: came close to the level of hypocrisy Moore/Trump supporters stoop too. It's NOT ok to touch a teenager even if you want Roe overturned.

 

[Doubledareme]

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Moore has not been convicted, or even indicted for anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. And I have yet to see any credible evidence against Moore. There is also the fact that the yearbook with his signature was forged. Why would they need to manufacture evidence if he was guilty?

Also, how about getting back on topic? We're discussing a terrorist group called Antifa.

I addressed the false ANTIFA claim you made and you haven't responded yet

And I asked you if Antifa is a terrorist group. You haven't answered me yet.

Terrorist group? It's not even a group group. It's a bag of mindless right-wing propaganda.

 

[Syriusly]

US Antifa and other Leftist groups met in Germany with al-Qaeda and ISIS to plot Trump’s destruction

It's a fact. They're all a bunch of violent terrorists and deserve to die.

US Antifa and other Leftist groups met in Germany with al-Qaeda and ISIS to plot Trump’s destruction

LOL if you are posting it- then we can be fairly certain that it is a lie.

 

[Slade3200]

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Moore has not been convicted, or even indicted for anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. And I have yet to see any credible evidence against Moore. There is also the fact that the yearbook with his signature was forged. Why would they need to manufacture evidence if he was guilty?

Also, how about getting back on topic? We're discussing a terrorist group called Antifa.

I addressed the false ANTIFA claim you made and you haven't responded yet

And I asked you if Antifa is a terrorist group. You haven't answered me yet.

Go back a page and read post #41. I addressed your false claim.

 

[bendog]

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Moore has not been convicted, or even indicted for anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. And I have yet to see any credible evidence against Moore. There is also the fact that the yearbook with his signature was forged. Why would they need to manufacture evidence if he was guilty?

Also, how about getting back on topic? We're discussing a terrorist group called Antifa.

I addressed the false ANTIFA claim you made and you haven't responded yet

And I asked you if Antifa is a terrorist group. You haven't answered me yet.

You lied about the evidence about Moore. People have come forward and confirmed he was known to sniff after young girls.

but you guys have no lowest bar to your partisan hypocrisy.

 

[Slade3200]

18 and 19 are late teenagers and far too young for a man nearly twice their age.

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Perhaps helpless rather than lazy.

they can defend Moore by saying he'll vote to overturn Roe or vote with Trump, so ignoring his praying on children is acceptable to them. But honesty is sort of tawdry. LOL

Thats politics, it happens on both sides, which is why womens groups defended Clinton and why many on the Left are defending Franken. While I don't see Frankens offenses even in the same ballpark as Moore, he acted inappropriate and those on the Left want to dismiss the accusations because he is a political ally. Plus he is a pretty funny guy that knows how to grill his opponents. I understand it all to a degree, but there is a point where morals need to outweigh politics.

Welll.... with Clinton voters knew, or should have known, they were getting a serial marital cheater. I didn't vote for him against BushI but I didn't really care about his personal life. What he pulled with Lewinsky was sexual harassment even if she was very willing, if not the instating party, and even if he didn't coerce her jobwise.

I realize I'm in a minority, but I really don't see harassment in taking a photo where one pretends to grab the breasts of Hooters Calenedar girl while she wears a Kevlar vest and helmet. It's wrong, but it's also not groping. And again there was no coercion. If there's a pattern to ass grabbing, he's done. It may be a partisan slime attack though.

Coercion and child abuse are the things I find actually disqualifying. And harassment, and yeah Slick should have resigned. But at the time guys didn't resign over harassment unless there was some nasty coercion involved .... like the Godfather Pizza guy "how bad do you want this job."

BUT, I don't think Clinton supporters (-: came close to the level of hypocrisy Moore/Trump supporters stoop too. It's NOT ok to touch a teenager even if you want Roe overturned.

I agree with you. Frankens photo was immature and inappropriate but not groping and not criminal. He owed her an apology for it. The bigger offense was the aggressive kiss, which again, he apologized for and the victim forgave him. Now we have a butt grab claim, while he was in office. Again, a different league than molesting teenagers, but it could be damaging... I wish these two cases of Moore and Franken weren't conflated and equivocated as much as they have been

 

[Slade3200]

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Moore has not been convicted, or even indicted for anything yet. Innocent until proven guilty. And I have yet to see any credible evidence against Moore. There is also the fact that the yearbook with his signature was forged. Why would they need to manufacture evidence if he was guilty?

Also, how about getting back on topic? We're discussing a terrorist group called Antifa.

I addressed the false ANTIFA claim you made and you haven't responded yet

And I asked you if Antifa is a terrorist group. You haven't answered me yet.

You lied about the evidence about Moore. People have come forward and confirmed he was known to sniff after young girls.

but you guys have no lowest bar to your partisan hypocrisy.

I guess witnesses don't count as evidence unless they have a photo or video... Of course if they do then it is either a fake or a conspiracy.

 

[bendog]

I

Wow, and I bet you stood up for clinton?

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Perhaps helpless rather than lazy.

they can defend Moore by saying he'll vote to overturn Roe or vote with Trump, so ignoring his praying on children is acceptable to them. But honesty is sort of tawdry. LOL

Thats politics, it happens on both sides, which is why womens groups defended Clinton and why many on the Left are defending Franken. While I don't see Frankens offenses even in the same ballpark as Moore, he acted inappropriate and those on the Left want to dismiss the accusations because he is a political ally. Plus he is a pretty funny guy that knows how to grill his opponents. I understand it all to a degree, but there is a point where morals need to outweigh politics.

Welll.... with Clinton voters knew, or should have known, they were getting a serial marital cheater. I didn't vote for him against BushI but I didn't really care about his personal life. What he pulled with Lewinsky was sexual harassment even if she was very willing, if not the instating party, and even if he didn't coerce her jobwise.

I realize I'm in a minority, but I really don't see harassment in taking a photo where one pretends to grab the breasts of Hooters Calenedar girl while she wears a Kevlar vest and helmet. It's wrong, but it's also not groping. And again there was no coercion. If there's a pattern to ass grabbing, he's done. It may be a partisan slime attack though.

Coercion and child abuse are the things I find actually disqualifying. And harassment, and yeah Slick should have resigned. But at the time guys didn't resign over harassment unless there was some nasty coercion involved .... like the Godfather Pizza guy "how bad do you want this job."

BUT, I don't think Clinton supporters (-: came close to the level of hypocrisy Moore/Trump supporters stoop too. It's NOT ok to touch a teenager even if you want Roe overturned.

I agree with you. Frankens photo was immature and inappropriate but not groping and not criminal. He owed her an apology for it. The bigger offense was the aggressive kiss, which again, he apologized for and the victim forgave him. Now we have a butt grab claim, while he was in office. Again, a different league than molesting teenagers, but it could be damaging... I wish these two cases of Moore and Franken weren't conflated and equivocated as much as they have been

I thought Franken pretty much denied the "aggressive kiss" or that it was inappropriate or not related to preparing for the comedy sketch, but that he apologized for any impression it left with her otherwise.

Maybe Franken's a grabber. But the second accuser is shown smiling with him in the photo. If there's a pattern, Franken will resign.

I've got no doubt that women (and men) set up others, and even lie for partisan/personal gain. Moore's actions are not deniable. The only defense is that "he's doing theLord's work."

 

[Slade3200]

I

You lose the argument when you have to pivot to Clinton. Its called the "whatabout" tactic. Clinton was wrong, and the hypocrisy you are trying to point out in this argument you would also be guilty of if you accused Clinton and are now dismissing Moore. Best stay away from this obvious diversion. It makes you look like a lazy debater

Perhaps helpless rather than lazy.

they can defend Moore by saying he'll vote to overturn Roe or vote with Trump, so ignoring his praying on children is acceptable to them. But honesty is sort of tawdry. LOL

Thats politics, it happens on both sides, which is why womens groups defended Clinton and why many on the Left are defending Franken. While I don't see Frankens offenses even in the same ballpark as Moore, he acted inappropriate and those on the Left want to dismiss the accusations because he is a political ally. Plus he is a pretty funny guy that knows how to grill his opponents. I understand it all to a degree, but there is a point where morals need to outweigh politics.

Welll.... with Clinton voters knew, or should have known, they were getting a serial marital cheater. I didn't vote for him against BushI but I didn't really care about his personal life. What he pulled with Lewinsky was sexual harassment even if she was very willing, if not the instating party, and even if he didn't coerce her jobwise.

I realize I'm in a minority, but I really don't see harassment in taking a photo where one pretends to grab the breasts of Hooters Calenedar girl while she wears a Kevlar vest and helmet. It's wrong, but it's also not groping. And again there was no coercion. If there's a pattern to ass grabbing, he's done. It may be a partisan slime attack though.

Coercion and child abuse are the things I find actually disqualifying. And harassment, and yeah Slick should have resigned. But at the time guys didn't resign over harassment unless there was some nasty coercion involved .... like the Godfather Pizza guy "how bad do you want this job."

BUT, I don't think Clinton supporters (-: came close to the level of hypocrisy Moore/Trump supporters stoop too. It's NOT ok to touch a teenager even if you want Roe overturned.

I agree with you. Frankens photo was immature and inappropriate but not groping and not criminal. He owed her an apology for it. The bigger offense was the aggressive kiss, which again, he apologized for and the victim forgave him. Now we have a butt grab claim, while he was in office. Again, a different league than molesting teenagers, but it could be damaging... I wish these two cases of Moore and Franken weren't conflated and equivocated as much as they have been

I thought Franken pretty much denied the "aggressive kiss" or that it was inappropriate or not related to preparing for the comedy sketch, but that he apologized for any impression it left with her otherwise.

Maybe Franken's a grabber. But the second accuser is shown smiling with him in the photo. If there's a pattern, Franken will resign.

I've got no doubt that women (and men) set up others, and even lie for partisan/personal gain. Moore's actions are not deniable. The only defense is that "he's doing theLord's work."

I agree with you... I'm simply pointing out that instinct that you felt when you heard about Frankens butt grab. You probably thought that it was harmless or made up, I had the same initial instincts. She's smiling, in public, husband taking photo, just didn't make sense. Its funny how its easy to feel that way when a political ally is getting accused but when it is an opponent you have the opposite reaction. It goes on both sides. But there should be a line where politics not longer matters and morality takes over.