Bill Clinton testifies Trump was not involved with Epstein

[EvilCat Breath]

God, you're an asshole.
He's neither fat nor a rapist. Nor orange.
But it doesn't stop you from posting lie after lie after lie.

That's the democrat way. Keep lying under all circumstances.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Is Clinton protecting Trump and lying?

Is Clinton telling the truth?

Who knows?

Those who put FAKE NEWS.

Are you saying Bill did not say that, or that Bill is lying?

IT IS NOT FAKE NEWS. IT IS A DIRECT QUOTE.

 

[Nostra]

Did Bill Clinton follow Donald Trump everywhere he went? If Donald Trump molested a 13 year old girl with Jeffrey Epstein, for example, do you think he invited Bill Clinton along?

No?

Okay, then.

Nice try.

Your desperation is cute, kid.

Another Dimtard narrative keeps going down in flames.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The Hillary testimony and video are supposedly going to be released, so why was it a big deal that a picture of her testifying was released?

Hillary said she wanted her testimony broadcast live.

I am confused as to what all the hub bub is about with regards to the circumstances of her testimony.

As far as the testimony itself, I find it difficult to believe she never met Epstein and had no idea what was going on when her husband went to the island dozens of times and Epstein went to the White House 17 times when Bill was POTUS.

 

[Nostra]

The Hillary testimony and video are supposedly going to be released, so why was it a big deal that a picture of her testifying was released?

Hillary said she wanted her testimony broadcast live.

I am confused as to what all the hub bub is about with regards to the circumstances of her testimony.

As far as the testimony itself, I find it difficult to believe she never met Epstein and had no idea what was going on when her husband went to the island dozens of times and Epstein went to the White House 17 times when Bill was POTUS.

17 trips to the WH, and the Co-President never met him?

 

[beagle9]

The Hillary testimony and video are supposedly going to be released, so why was it a big deal that a picture of her testifying was released?

Hillary said she wanted her testimony broadcast live.

I am confused as to what all the hub bub is about with regards to the circumstances of her testimony.

As far as the testimony itself, I find it difficult to believe she never met Epstein and had no idea what was going on when her husband went to the island dozens of times and Epstein went to the White House 17 times when Bill was POTUS.

When the heat is on, quickly find a distraction. That's what takes place in these situations, and most know it when they see it take place. That's what they hate, otherwise that in reality it doesn't work just like Bill's definition of what the word "is" is when under pressure.

 

[Independent thinker]

Is Clinton protecting Trump and lying?

Is Clinton telling the truth?

Who knows?

The millions of Epstein files are all about who new the man, had dinner with the man, appeared in photos with the man, rode in the man's plane, visited the man's island, and sent the man birthday cards. None of the files prove any laws were broken.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Prove it.

Oops, you always make this same, stupid mistake.

It's not the world's job to disprove every claim and innuendo that fizzles into your brain.

It's your job to prove them.

And, go.

 

[Lockback]

Oops, you always make this same, stupid mistake.

It's not the world's job to disprove every claim and innuendo that fizzles into your brain.

It's your job to prove them.

And, go.

You've never proven any of your absurd charges against Trump.
It's your job to prove them.
See how this works?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Oops, you always make this same, stupid mistake.

It's not the world's job to disprove every claim and innuendo that fizzles into your brain.

It's your job to prove them.

And, go.

Your side does not believe in intellectual accountability by providing empirical data or otherwise third party validation to back your claim.

Do your job and disprove that it is not necessary for anyone to provide data or independent validation to back your claim.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your side does not believe in intellectual accountability by providing empirical data or otherwise third party validation to back your claim.

"I tell myself other people are stupid dicks to justify acting like a stupid dick."

 

[Lockback]

"I tell myself other people are stupid dicks to justify acting like a stupid dick."

Says a stupid dick ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Those who put FAKE NEWS.

Are you saying Bill did not say that, or that Bill is lying?

IT IS NOT FAKE NEWS. IT IS A DIRECT QUOTE.

But the thread title is 100% a lie.

@mods : Should be moved to the Rubber Room

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Clinton testimony was supposed to implicate Trump. It didn't so the Clinton's are lying. Virginia Giuffre was supposed to name Trump in her book. Nothing. What do democrats have? A claim that Trump was named over a million times but it has all been redacted and everyone is lying. This is what they are running with.

 

[beagle9]

The millions of Epstein files are all about who new the man, had dinner with the man, appeared in photos with the man, rode in the man's plane, visited the man's island, and sent the man birthday cards. None of the files prove any laws were broken.

I think you are right when think about it.

There has to be testimony from a witness in which the DOJ might investigate, but the statute of limitations had past long ago in the possibility of someone being groomed for political purposes to come forth now.

Crimes are usually reported immediately or later depending on the circumstances. That's why there is a statute of limitations that keeps a person from being manipulated for political reasons to say that a crime was committed when there wasn't or it can't be proven after going back year's now.

DNA can throw back open some cold case's, but that's about the extent of it, otherwise when it comes to keeping the he said she said from wasting the justice department's time on case's involving the he said, she said BS.

Dumb ace Bill Clinton threw DNA on Monica's dress... What a dumb ace he was, but worse is what a dangerous narcissistic arrogant power wielding monster he was to think that he could get away with the BS he did.

 

[Montrovant]

I think you are right when think about it.

There has to be testimony from a witness in which the DOJ might investigate, but the statute of limitations had past long ago in the possibility of someone being groomed for political purposes to come forth now.

Crimes are usually reported immediately or later depending on the circumstances. That's why there is a statute of limitations that keeps a person from being manipulated for political reasons to say that a crime was committed when there wasn't or it can't be proven after going back year's now.

DNA can throw back open some cold case's, but that's about the extent of it, otherwise when it comes to keeping the he said she said from wasting the justice department's time on case's involving the he said, she said BS.

Dumb ace Bill Clinton threw DNA on Monica's dress... What a dumb ace he was, but worse is what a dangerous narcissistic arrogant power wielding monster he was to think that he could get away with the BS he did.

Not all crimes have a statute of limitation.

And I’d say that dangerous narcissistic arrogant power wielding monster describes Trump at least as well as Clinton. And it probably applies to quite a few people in the Epstein files.

 

[Dragonlady]

Is Clinton protecting Trump and lying?

Is Clinton telling the truth?

Who knows?

Why are they asking Clinton about Trump and Epstein. And no Clinton did NOT say Trump wasn't involved with Epstein. He said he had no knowledge of Trump's involvement with Epstein. And why would Trump talk to Clinton about Epstein???

These are two entirely different things. Not knowing about it is not the same thing as there was no involvement.

But you're so desperate to deny that Trump is a pedophile that you're grasping at straws.

 

[Mick2]

It's interesting, but as your article states, Lubow's involvement does not disprove Katie's account of the event.....

It's not about "disproving". If I said you were molesting sheep 10 years ago how would YOU disprove it? You don't. The onus of proof is on the accuser.

What Snopes facts about this case indicate that it's not a scam? It was peddled by a man who produced the Jerry Springer show and who had a long history of peddling fraudulent and outlandish accusations. He was attempting to hide his identity by doing it under an alias until they busted him and he fessed up. The case was immediately dropped. The so-called anonymous accuser immediately disappeared into thin air. We don't even know her real name.


One would have to be clinically insane to keep clinging to this. Are you?

 

[Mack Brazile]

Jeb is a Mess, Jeb is a Waste, Jeb is a Big Fat Mess

 

[Care4all]

It's not about "disproving". If I said you were molesting sheep 10 years ago how would YOU disprove it? You don't. The onus of proof is on the accuser.

What Snopes facts about this case indicate that it's not a scam? It was peddled by a man who produced the Jerry Springer show and who had a long history of peddling fraudulent and outlandish accusations. He was attempting to hide his identity by doing it under an alias until they busted him and he fessed up. The case was immediately dropped. The so-called anonymous accuser immediately disappeared into thin air. We don't even know her real name.


One would have to be clinically insane to keep clinging to this. Are you?

I need a link, if you could....on the story being spread by this Jerry Springer producer....pretty please....

And if this unscrupulous producer, produced this girl's video that you hopefully watched... then that would put her account of events into question because of the type of guy he is....but I don't know that he did that....or any of what you said about him promoting her and story....though I am taking your word on it....for now... I still would like to see how he pushed the story and when, thus me asking for a supporting link.

But otherwise, what he does or did with this girl's story...if she is not connected to him or what he does with her story, ...should not be a reason to discredit her account of events imo....