Bubba's Encore: I Did Not Have Sex With That Sex Slave

[BULLDOG]

There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.

LOL. Indeed.

I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.

As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.

Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?

The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.

Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.

And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.

Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?

I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.

Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.

 

[Jarhead]

Keep in mind people, young girls were held captive and repeatedly raped on this island. That has been proven. And Bill Clinton was there. So you do the math. It's not about Republican vs. Democrat. These young girls still haven't received real justice.

It's about evidence. You got any?

Yup, and Ted Kennedy didn't kill that young girl and get away with it either. I hear ya.

You gave up on the Clinton thing huh?

Yeah, pretty much. I realize he's a NWO Globalist Elite bastard who will not be held accountable. I fully expect the Elite-controlled American Government/Corporate Media to quickly sweep this one under the carpet. They have to protect their own. These girls lives mean nothing to them. They're mere slaves to be used & abused. Sadly, it is what it is.

Of course it's tragic for young girls to have to suffer through that, but what has that got to do with your dumb ass claim that Clinton did it?

If you "owned" the place....would you invite someone like Bill Clinton if he did not know of what was going on there?

 

[Jarhead]

LOL. Indeed.

I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.

As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.

Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?

The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.

Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.

And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.

Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?

I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.

Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.

And you will believe it without question......just as you fell for the "lower premiums, keep your policy, keep your doctor" crap.
You people are so enamored by your idols, they can say anything they want to you and you will believe it....no matter HOW insane it sounds.

I mean...."we will insure 40 million more people and your premiums wont go up and it will be deficit neutral and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

And you believed it....

I mean.....really?

 

[BULLDOG]

There goes Gingrich's wife's presidential run in 2016.

LOL. Indeed.

I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.

As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.

Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?

The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.

Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.

And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.

Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

As long as Hillary uses Bill for his fund raising ability and for other political clout, and as long as they are married which will give Bill access to the White House and the most innermost workings of government again, Bill's conduct is a issue. Or it certainly should be.

And before you try to make it an issue of "teabaggers', can you honestly say that if a Republican candidate's wife or husband was involved in sex crimes whether documented or alleged or really suspicious, that it would not matter to you? That you would not make an issue of it? That you would be looking for a way to dismiss suspicions against that spouse? That you would be trying to make it look like it did not matter to that candidate's qualifications and credibility to be POTUS?

Well, I guess that's the republican strategy, but they have long been nothing more than the little boy who cried wolf. What are they going to do, say "Yes we lied before, but it's true this time"? What am I thinking, they are crazy right wingers, of course they will say something similar to that. Yes it will be an issue for people who would never vote for her to start with, but I don't see it having much effect on anyone else.

 

[Carib Gyal]

LOL. Indeed.

I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.

As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.

Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?

The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.

Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.

And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.

Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?

I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.

Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.

And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's about evidence. You got any?

Yup, and Ted Kennedy didn't kill that young girl and get away with it either. I hear ya.

You gave up on the Clinton thing huh?

Yeah, pretty much. I realize he's a NWO Globalist Elite bastard who will not be held accountable. I fully expect the Elite-controlled American Government/Corporate Media to quickly sweep this one under the carpet. They have to protect their own. These girls lives mean nothing to them. They're mere slaves to be used & abused. Sadly, it is what it is.

Of course it's tragic for young girls to have to suffer through that, but what has that got to do with your dumb ass claim that Clinton did it?

If you "owned" the place....would you invite someone like Bill Clinton if he did not know of what was going on there?

Let it go. When you come up with something besides wild accusations, let me know.

 

[Redfish]

I remember you didn't think you'd lose so bad last November either, yet you did, didn't you?

I'm not too worried. The majority of Americans are fed up with you progs and the likes of bath house Barry and dingy Harry ramming your marxist, commie agenda down the throats against the majority of Americans who are against it.

It's amazing how in DEFEAT, you progtards think you actually WON something, or you're somehow on GOOD FOOTING. Well, dream all you want, but the movement is AGAINST you, whether you're able to DEAL with that or not.

I was also correct about the Electoral College distribution in 2008 and 2012

Republicans BARELY reached 270 EV when Bush ran in 2000 and 2004. The electoral college has turned more blue since that time. Jeb Bush could make it interesting by competing in Florida and Ohio. Any other Republican candidate would get swamped and take his party down with him

2016 is a long ways off, dude. I know that you want the country run totally by liberal socialist democrats, but I seriously doubt that you will get your wish---------------ever.

The Demographics in swing states HAVE changed...they have become more blue

Republicans playing to the right will not help those demographics

Thats the best you got?

smilies?

How Republican of you

I was being kind, your ignorant post did not even merit smilies.

 

[g5000]

If you "owned" the place....would you invite someone like Bill Clinton if he did not know of what was going on there?

If you "owned" the place, would you be having a sex orgy on the front lawn if you invited Bill Clinton and his Secret Service detail there?

Christ, people just don't think around here. It's as if they believed there were underaged sex orgies 24/7 at this place, and therefore Clinton had to know what was going on when he visited.

 

[Redfish]

If you "owned" the place....would you invite someone like Bill Clinton if he did not know of what was going on there?

If you "owned" the place, would you be having a sex orgy on the front lawn if you invited Bill Clinton and his Secret Service detail there?

Christ, people just don't think around here. It's as if they believed there were underaged sex orgies 24/7 at this place, and therefore Clinton had to know what was going on when he visited.

It was very likely WHY he visited.

 

[g5000]

If you "owned" the place....would you invite someone like Bill Clinton if he did not know of what was going on there?

If you "owned" the place, would you be having a sex orgy on the front lawn if you invited Bill Clinton and his Secret Service detail there?

Christ, people just don't think around here. It's as if they believed there were underaged sex orgies 24/7 at this place, and therefore Clinton had to know what was going on when he visited.

It was very likely WHY he visited.

In your dreams.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?

The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.

Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.

And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.

Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?

I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.

Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.

And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.

I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.

 

[jknowgood]

But you know, Romney tied his dog's cage to the top of his car, and Sarah Palin posted a pic of Trig standing on the dog. Those are so much worse than Bubba sexually exploiting underage girls (and setting himself up for blackmail while his wife was Sec of State.)

We know as fact that Trig stepped on the dog, stood on it, and we know for a fact that Romney drove his car with his dog in a cage on the roof. We do not know for fact that any of these allegations about Clinton are true or that he had any involvement with underage women. Allegations are not fact.

Oh, you're serious??

Yes I am serious. Believing allegations as fact is about as stupid as you can be. The only reason you automatically accept it is because you don't like Clinton and because he is a Demcrat. You are not using reason at all, only emotion.

Lol, coming from someone who believed that Romney didn't pay taxes, just because Reid told them so. Clinton is a sex offender and shouldn't been allowed around young girls. Your defending him, your no better.

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL. Indeed.

I have to agree with Boedicca that it is interesting to watch the leftwingers who love Clinton defend him so passionately and indignantly. They simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that his history puts him at a much higher degree of suspicion than the average citizen would be. But they are frantically dragging Republicans out of the woodwork along with their 'crimes' presumably as proof that Clinton isn't so bad.

As I said, it is unfortunate that any of us set the bar so low for what we expect from our elected leaders.

Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?

The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.

Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.

And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.

Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

As long as Hillary uses Bill for his fund raising ability and for other political clout, and as long as they are married which will give Bill access to the White House and the most innermost workings of government again, Bill's conduct is a issue. Or it certainly should be.

And before you try to make it an issue of "teabaggers', can you honestly say that if a Republican candidate's wife or husband was involved in sex crimes whether documented or alleged or really suspicious, that it would not matter to you? That you would not make an issue of it? That you would be looking for a way to dismiss suspicions against that spouse? That you would be trying to make it look like it did not matter to that candidate's qualifications and credibility to be POTUS?

Well, I guess that's the republican strategy, but they have long been nothing more than the little boy who cried wolf. What are they going to do, say "Yes we lied before, but it's true this time"? What am I thinking, they are crazy right wingers, of course they will say something similar to that. Yes it will be an issue for people who would never vote for her to start with, but I don't see it having much effect on anyone else.

Translation: deflection, nonsequitur, ad hominem. But I will give you props for not flat out lying that you would not be bashing a Republican in similar circumstances for all the mileage you could get out of it.

The point I am making is that NONE of us--Democrat or Republican--should be setting the bar so low for what we expect of our elected representatives. Just having a D or R after a name is NOT sufficient reason to believe he or she is qualified or well suited to be in high office.

And, the point I am making is that a person's track record and reputation is ALL we have to go on to evaluate whether a person is qualified and well suited to be in high office. All Americans should set the bar very high for those we put in power and authority over us all. Electing Hillary and, by association, Bill to high office is setting the bar very low indeed.

 

[Carib Gyal]

It's possible Clinton and Pete Townshend were doing research for a book they were writing with Carla_Danger.

 

[Jarhead]

Yup, and Ted Kennedy didn't kill that young girl and get away with it either. I hear ya.

You gave up on the Clinton thing huh?

Yeah, pretty much. I realize he's a NWO Globalist Elite bastard who will not be held accountable. I fully expect the Elite-controlled American Government/Corporate Media to quickly sweep this one under the carpet. They have to protect their own. These girls lives mean nothing to them. They're mere slaves to be used & abused. Sadly, it is what it is.

Of course it's tragic for young girls to have to suffer through that, but what has that got to do with your dumb ass claim that Clinton did it?

If you "owned" the place....would you invite someone like Bill Clinton if he did not know of what was going on there?

Let it go. When you come up with something besides wild accusations, let me know.

Sadly, you have no interest in knowing if it is true.
Lets look at the evidence we know as fact:

1) The place he stayed had teen sex slaves
2) Clinton has been know to have trouble keeping it in his pants
3) Clinton refused to admit about his sexcapades, and was willing to lie to congress about it

Now, with that circumstantial evidence, only a ******* moron would not say "dam, they should look into this"....

And a person a ******* moron would refer to as a ******* moron would say "I aint see no evidence, so they are wild accusations".

Making you a ******* moron in the eyes of a ******* moron.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just 1 little provable fact tying Clinton to anything bad that might have happened there is too much to ask for?

The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.

Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.

And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.

Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?

I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.

Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.

And you will believe it without question......just as you fell for the "lower premiums, keep your policy, keep your doctor" crap.
You people are so enamored by your idols, they can say anything they want to you and you will believe it....no matter HOW insane it sounds.

I mean...."we will insure 40 million more people and your premiums wont go up and it will be deficit neutral and anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

And you believed it....

I mean.....really?

So you have no facts about your Clinton claims, so you want to jump to healthcare now?

 

[Carib Gyal]

The provable fact is that he was on speed dial from Epstein's estate and had been for years, that he had made multiple trips to the island, that he had flown many many times on Epstein's jets. And his history strongly suggests that he would take advantage of sexual encounters with young women given opportunity to do so. Is there proof he did take such advantage on Epstein's island? No there is not at this time. But is there reason to believe he would have taken advantage given opportunity to do so? Absolutely. He broke off contact with Epstein only after Epstein was formally arrested for sex crimes making him a strong political liability.

Yes other powerful figures like Dershowitz and Trump have also been named as friends of Epstein, but their histories do not include multiple sexual improprieties as is the case with Clinton. Therefore there is far less reason to suspect them of sexual misconduct than there is to suspect Clinton who we KNOW has a history of that, both alleged and proven.

And no, it is not too much to ask that however much a person deserves to be hung, that we hang them for a crime they actually commit.

Can you say in all honesty say that if it was a prominent Republican with a history of improper womanizing who had been named as a frequent visitor to Epstein's island, that you would be demanding proof of wrong doing before you accused him? Or that it would not matter to you if a presidential candidate had a close association with such person?

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?

I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.

Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.

And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.

I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.

lol. OK.

 

[g5000]

It's called "circumstantial evidence" for a reason, Jarhead.

Basically, all you have to support your wild accusations is, "I wouldn't put it past 'im!"

Partisan hackery. Wishful thinking.

 

[Redfish]

If you "owned" the place....would you invite someone like Bill Clinton if he did not know of what was going on there?

If you "owned" the place, would you be having a sex orgy on the front lawn if you invited Bill Clinton and his Secret Service detail there?

Christ, people just don't think around here. It's as if they believed there were underaged sex orgies 24/7 at this place, and therefore Clinton had to know what was going on when he visited.

It was very likely WHY he visited.

In your dreams.

not my dreams, but definitely Bubba's

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. I can say that. I might have a suspicion, but that is far from the crazy accusations made here. Bottom line, it isn't about him anyway. It's about the right desperately searching for anything they can think of to smear Hillary. Do you honestly think this will work? Of course the hard core teabaggers will tie it to her, they always do, but do you see that happening to anyone who is sane?

Are you really so naive as to think Lizzy or Big Joe might not mention it in the Dem debates? Do you really think if Hillary is constantly denying rumors (true or not) it won't play into the game?

I'm thinking the Clintons will have to come up with some kind of response to this, and quick. My guess is that it will be flat out denial.

Of course it will be there. As long as there are teabaggers, there will be crap like this. I expect her, if she says anything at all, to say it's just more stupid manufactured crap, similar to the birther thing. Of course she will be more eloquent when she says it, but that's what she will mean.

And her Teabagged Dem rivals will respond that it is similar to the Lewinsky thing. Of course they will be more eloquent than that, but that is what they will mean.

I don't put any politicians on a high moral scale, but I don't see something that sleazy coming from any legitimate Democrat. That's more of a republican thing.

lol. OK.

And I bet he gives himself more credit for being honest and fair than he does those evil 'teabaggers'.

But I guess anybody who really thinks Bill Clinton or any Democrats are incapable of sleazy behavior will probably believe anything so long as it makes a Democrat look good.