Chuck Schumer Calls Police Over Forged Sexual Harassment Document

[Faun]

There’s no difference. In any of these cases, it’s women going public with unsubstantiated, unprovable claims of sexual abuse. It may become more prevalent in the future given its effectiveness, but the overall goal is the same in all cases — take down a politician.

It’s not as much fun when it happens to someone on your side of the aisle, is it?

It's not good for anyone really, is it?

And yes, I fully expect it to happen a lot more in the future.

No, it’s not. But the right is full of hypocrites who supported it when it was against Clinton but ***** about it now that the tables have been turned on them. Hell, even during last year’s debate, Trump paraded some of Clinton’s abusers on a national stage.

See if you can link to any rightwinger on this forum who criticized him for doing that....

Clinton’s abusers

Really? Don't you mean Clinton victims, both of Bill and the *****?


.

No, didn’t mean that either. Meant, Clinton’s accusers.

Would those be the ones he paid a settlement to, blew off on her blue dress or committed perjury over?


.

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The senator’s office and a former staffer have said the document is fake and the allegations in it are “completely false.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) contacted Capitol Police on Tuesday after his office became aware that news networks had received copies of a forged document accusing the senator of sexual harassment.

Schumer contacted police after multiple news organizations approached his office for comment. Axios was the first to report on the existence of the fake document and the senator’s response.

“This was an apparent effort to dupe reporters and smear a senator — both symptoms of an amped-up news environment where harassment charges are proliferating and reporters have become targets for fraud,” Axios’ Mike Allen reported.

Over the summer, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow had a similar experience and told viewers that her show had received a forged National Security Agency document seemingly filled with explosive allegations. The document, Maddow believes, was sent to her in an effort to discredit her show and other news organizations reporting on Russia’s interference with the 2016 presidential election.

The fake document about Schumer was purportedly signed by a former staffer accusing the senator of sexual harassment. Axios reported the former staffer said her signature on the 13-page document, which was meant to look like a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, was a forgery.

The document had “obvious red flags,” according to BuzzFeed News’ Kate Nocera, who said she had also seen the document.

More: Chuck Schumer Calls Police Over Forged Sexual Harassment Document

Looks and smells like another NaziCon smear campaign. Why can't they play fair without cheating and lying?

Should we just take him at his word that he is innocent?

Holyfuckingshit!

You rightards are such dupes. How about taking the word of the alleged complaintant, a former staffer of Schumer who says the allegations in the complaint in her name are false, Schumer never did what is in the complaint, and that it’s not her signature on the complaint?

I'm with you that if this is fake, bogus, whatever, there should be consequences.

I will also remind you and others that this is why people like me get so upset at fake news from all sides. The Russian Collusion investigation, if you ask me, is a scam. What's worse, it has propped up Putin to near God status in Russia. Here is this guy being given credit for stealing an election from America! They think he is the greatest mind in history. So, if you are going to try and impeach a guy and steal your citizens Will, you had better be careful and you had better be honest and absolutely sure. Now, the ability for the CIA and others to undermine Putins power is significantly reduced.

We see CNN in particular attack Trump on all kinds of bs. Why? To them the ends justify the means. Just as this guy seems to believe...ALL are wrong.

No one asked you if the Russian collusion investigation is a scam. There is all kinds of evidence that it isn’t, including two guilty pleas from people in the campaign who are now cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.

Yeah, two "Scooter Libby / Martha Stewart" guilty pleas! Neither lie had anything to do with the campaign. Try again!

Fishing expedition?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Moore should have asked the police to investigate the forged Yearbook, phony Mall stories and false accusers

Cannot be done. No crime. Slander is a civil offense. They can't lock you up for that.

 

[Faun]

There’s no difference. In any of these cases, it’s women going public with unsubstantiated, unprovable claims of sexual abuse. It may become more prevalent in the future given its effectiveness, but the overall goal is the same in all cases — take down a politician.

It’s not as much fun when it happens to someone on your side of the aisle, is it?

It's not good for anyone really, is it?

And yes, I fully expect it to happen a lot more in the future.

No, it’s not. But the right is full of hypocrites who supported it when it was against Clinton but ***** about it now that the tables have been turned on them. Hell, even during last year’s debate, Trump paraded some of Clinton’s abusers on a national stage.

See if you can link to any rightwinger on this forum who criticized him for doing that....

And next year, when the same tactics are used against democrats, the lefties will become all outraged and resort to the same attacks made famous by Hillary and crew decades ago. And you will see none of the usual suspects criticizing them for it.

Like we saw the right do against Moore’s accusers?

The claims against wild willie weren't 38 years old and roughly 10 elections later.


.

So?

 

[OKTexas]

It's not good for anyone really, is it?

And yes, I fully expect it to happen a lot more in the future.

No, it’s not. But the right is full of hypocrites who supported it when it was against Clinton but ***** about it now that the tables have been turned on them. Hell, even during last year’s debate, Trump paraded some of Clinton’s abusers on a national stage.

See if you can link to any rightwinger on this forum who criticized him for doing that....

Clinton’s abusers

Really? Don't you mean Clinton victims, both of Bill and the *****?


.

No, didn’t mean that either. Meant, Clinton’s accusers.

Would those be the ones he paid a settlement to, blew off on her blue dress or committed perjury over?


.

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

 

[Faun]

mmm.. a lot more Democrats running in 2018 and all you need is Democrat style false allegations to win now .. and oops Democrats have been introduced to morality ... interesting..

I wonder if Roy Moore with file charges on the cabal of accusers/fake media/Democratic Party...

Politics is fun...

I remember the owner of a fake news outlet saying that the right are easy to fool because they’ll believe anything if it aligns with their previously held beliefs. The left fact checks everything and fake news directed to left wing voters is debunked within 10 minutes of posting.

Moore lost because the women were telling the truth, and they had evidence and 30 corroborating witnesses. WAPO scrutinized their claims with great care before publishing.

They also scrutinized the woman who tried to claim Moore forced her to have an abortion and found inconsistencies in her story, and no supporting evidence.

Until right wingers pay more attention to facts and stop believing everything that issues out of the mouths of liars like Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, and the other dishonest politicians on the right, you’re going to be continually fooled into voting for people who are only in it for their own personal gain.

For about the 10th time, will you please learn the definition of "corroborating" and witness". You still haven't figured it out!

The WAPO should have demanded the yearbook and submitted it for testing, or dropped the whole story because if it proved she was lying, (which she was) the whole story falls apart!

Why? The Washington Post didn't break that story.

 

[Faun]

No, it’s not. But the right is full of hypocrites who supported it when it was against Clinton but ***** about it now that the tables have been turned on them. Hell, even during last year’s debate, Trump paraded some of Clinton’s abusers on a national stage.

See if you can link to any rightwinger on this forum who criticized him for doing that....

Clinton’s abusers

Really? Don't you mean Clinton victims, both of Bill and the *****?


.

No, didn’t mean that either. Meant, Clinton’s accusers.

Would those be the ones he paid a settlement to, blew off on her blue dress or committed perjury over?


.

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

 

[OKTexas]

Really? Don't you mean Clinton victims, both of Bill and the *****?


.

No, didn’t mean that either. Meant, Clinton’s accusers.

Would those be the ones he paid a settlement to, blew off on her blue dress or committed perjury over?


.

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

Yet he settled for 850K with Jones, plead out a perjury charge and got himself impeached, go figure.


.

 

[Faun]

No, didn’t mean that either. Meant, Clinton’s accusers.

Would those be the ones he paid a settlement to, blew off on her blue dress or committed perjury over?


.

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

Yet he settled for 850K with Jones, plead out a perjury charge and got himself impeached, go figure.


.

Ok, we're done here. The conversation is about women making claims of sexual assault and all you can talk about is a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit and another who never even accused Clinton of sexual assault.

 

[OKTexas]

Would those be the ones he paid a settlement to, blew off on her blue dress or committed perjury over?


.

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

Yet he settled for 850K with Jones, plead out a perjury charge and got himself impeached, go figure.


.

Ok, we're done here. The conversation is about women making claims of sexual assault and all you can talk about is a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit and another who never even accused Clinton of sexual assault.

There is a difference between claims that can't have any legal consequences and claims a payout was made on or other legal actions were taken. But you folks have been pretending otherwise for 25 years, no need to reevaluate yourselves now.


.

 

[Faun]

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

Yet he settled for 850K with Jones, plead out a perjury charge and got himself impeached, go figure.


.

Ok, we're done here. The conversation is about women making claims of sexual assault and all you can talk about is a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit and another who never even accused Clinton of sexual assault.

There is a difference between claims that can't have any legal consequences and claims a payout was made on or other legal actions were taken. But you folks have been pretending otherwise for 25 years, no need to reevaluate yourselves now.


.

Sure, gramps. Be sure to let me know when you find your first provable claim of sexual assault against Clinton.

 

[Dragonlady]

No, didn’t mean that either. Meant, Clinton’s accusers.

Would those be the ones he paid a settlement to, blew off on her blue dress or committed perjury over?


.

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

Yet he settled for 850K with Jones, plead out a perjury charge and got himself impeached, go figure.


.

The case had dragged on for four years while Republicans engaged in explicit talk of Clinton’s sex life on a daily basis, kind of like the Benghazi Investigations.

When the case was dismissed, the judge barred Jones from refiling so the Republican Party lawyer’s appealed the Dismissal, which meant that Clinton would continue to be attacked on the Jones case and impeached for perjury on the blow job. Also allowing them to talk about details of Clinton’s sex life on two fronts.

Clinton gave Republican lawyers $650,000 and Paula Jones $200,000 to end the matter once and for all so he could focus on the impeachment.

Jones didn’t even want to sue Bill Clinton. She just wanted an apology from the magazine writer who lied and said she gave Bill Clinton a blow job. The Republican Party talked her into suing for sexual harassment.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Dragonlady says .. nope, I'm not intensely biased, although, I do have a flare for it...

 

[Dragonlady]

Dragonlady says .. nope, I'm not intensely biased, although, I do have a flare for it...

I don’t like lies or liars much. So when idiots continually post provable lies, I like to fact check them.

 

[jc456]

Throw whoever did it in the slammer. False accusations of sexual harassment or sexual assault should earn the lying accuser some time wearing orange behind bars just like they do in Britain.

Anyone can make any kind of accusation. Intentionally falsified documents are fraud.

like the Dossier is. so why no outrage for that faked document?

Which parts do you think are fake?

The Dossier.

 

[OKTexas]

Would those be the ones he paid a settlement to, blew off on her blue dress or committed perjury over?


.

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

Yet he settled for 850K with Jones, plead out a perjury charge and got himself impeached, go figure.


.

The case had dragged on for four years while Republicans engaged in explicit talk of Clinton’s sex life on a daily basis, kind of like the Benghazi Investigations.

When the case was dismissed, the judge barred Jones from refiling so the Republican Party lawyer’s appealed the Dismissal, which meant that Clinton would continue to be attacked on the Jones case and impeached for perjury on the blow job. Also allowing them to talk about details of Clinton’s sex life on two fronts.

Clinton gave Republican lawyers $650,000 and Paula Jones $200,000 to end the matter once and for all so he could focus on the impeachment.

Jones didn’t even want to sue Bill Clinton. She just wanted an apology from the magazine writer who lied and said she gave Bill Clinton a blow job. The Republican Party talked her into suing for sexual harassment.

So you're saying willie wasn't sure he could prevail on appeal and just paid to make it go away? Would you consider those the actions of an innocent man? I guess the things his former security folks had to say were all just made up too. Face it, willie was a dog that used his position to satisfy his deviance.


.

 

[Faun]

Hmm, that would be one who took him to court and had her case thrown out due to lack of merit .... and the other engaging in consensual sex. Translation: no valid claims of sexual abuse.

But thanks for demonstrating what I said earlier about how the right is full of hypocrites who ***** and moan about what happened to Moore while they attack Clinton for the same.

<smh>

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

Yet he settled for 850K with Jones, plead out a perjury charge and got himself impeached, go figure.


.

The case had dragged on for four years while Republicans engaged in explicit talk of Clinton’s sex life on a daily basis, kind of like the Benghazi Investigations.

When the case was dismissed, the judge barred Jones from refiling so the Republican Party lawyer’s appealed the Dismissal, which meant that Clinton would continue to be attacked on the Jones case and impeached for perjury on the blow job. Also allowing them to talk about details of Clinton’s sex life on two fronts.

Clinton gave Republican lawyers $650,000 and Paula Jones $200,000 to end the matter once and for all so he could focus on the impeachment.

Jones didn’t even want to sue Bill Clinton. She just wanted an apology from the magazine writer who lied and said she gave Bill Clinton a blow job. The Republican Party talked her into suing for sexual harassment.

So you're saying willie wasn't sure he could prevail on appeal and just paid to make it go away? Would you consider those the actions of an innocent man? I guess the things his former security folks had to say were all just made up too. Face it, willie was a dog that used his position to satisfy his deviance.


.

The case was dismissed due to lack of merit. Jones had her day in court and failed. Clinton paid her off to get rid of her. Why drag it on further since she already failed once? You think that case should have been like the GOP’s investigation? Going over and over and over and over and......

 

[Lumpy 1]

Dragonlady says .. nope, I'm not intensely biased, although, I do have a flare for it...

I don’t like lies or liars much. So when idiots continually post provable lies, I like to fact check them.

Nobody does but if you consider your opponents always deplorable many could simply care less it seems.

 

[Dragonlady]

Dragonlady says .. nope, I'm not intensely biased, although, I do have a flare for it...

I don’t like lies or liars much. So when idiots continually post provable lies, I like to fact check them.

Nobody does but if you consider your opponents always deplorable many could simply care less it seems.

They don’t care about facts, and they’re too intellectually lazy to question anything. That’s what makes them deplorable. And completely gullible to right wing liars.

While Newt Gingerich was prosecuting Clinton for a consensual blow job, Gingerich was having an affair with a member of his staff.

While you go on and on about going after Roy Moore being sleazy tactics on unproven allegations, just over a year ago Donald Trump marched Paula Jones, Anita Broaddrick, Kathleen Wylie and Kathy Shelton in a debate against Hillary Clinton.

Republicans invented sleazy tactics on unproven allegations: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Fast and Furious, Uranium One, Pay for Play. The list is endless.

 

[Lumpy 1]

The same hardly, wild willies accusers didn't wait 38 years and roughly 10 bygone elections. BTW who did Moore pay a settlement to, leave DNA on, perjure himself over or get impeached over, can you say "no one", so not even close to the same.


.

The issue is women making unproven claims of sexual assault against politicians. The age of the complaint has no bearing.

And again, the women you're talking about regarding Clinton was 1) a woman whose case was thrown out of court due to lack of merit; and 2) a woman who had consensual sex with him. Neither are valid claims of sexual assault.

Yet he settled for 850K with Jones, plead out a perjury charge and got himself impeached, go figure.


.

The case had dragged on for four years while Republicans engaged in explicit talk of Clinton’s sex life on a daily basis, kind of like the Benghazi Investigations.

When the case was dismissed, the judge barred Jones from refiling so the Republican Party lawyer’s appealed the Dismissal, which meant that Clinton would continue to be attacked on the Jones case and impeached for perjury on the blow job. Also allowing them to talk about details of Clinton’s sex life on two fronts.

Clinton gave Republican lawyers $650,000 and Paula Jones $200,000 to end the matter once and for all so he could focus on the impeachment.

Jones didn’t even want to sue Bill Clinton. She just wanted an apology from the magazine writer who lied and said she gave Bill Clinton a blow job. The Republican Party talked her into suing for sexual harassment.

So you're saying willie wasn't sure he could prevail on appeal and just paid to make it go away? Would you consider those the actions of an innocent man? I guess the things his former security folks had to say were all just made up too. Face it, willie was a dog that used his position to satisfy his deviance.


.

The case was dismissed due to lack of merit. Jones had her day in court and failed. Clinton paid her off to get rid of her. Why drag it on further since she already failed once? You think that case should have been like the GOP’s investigation? Going over and over and over and over and......

So do you believe Juanita Broaddrick or have you accepted an alternate liberal line to justify probable rape and throw believing the victim aside?