Clinton Supporters - Don't All Bill Clinton's Rapes Bother You?...

[PoliticalChic]

Well, it wasn't "rape" rape.

Just rape.

Ya' think many of 'em will write in 'Bill Cosby'???

 

[emilynghiem]

Why don't RWNJs know that President Clinton is not running for office?

Why don't they mind that their candidate bragged about being a serial sexual predator who has raped many women?

Hi Luddly Neddite
I have heard that he has bragged.
Is this more parroting of stories posted online to generate hype?
How can I confirm where the original sources of this are?

The internet is so packed with spam where even foreign groups are reported making money
generating news stories as bait for ad clicks to make money off this hype.

Is there a central no hype site that has the pure sources and not any nonconfirmed mixed in there.
I found one on the outline of FBI investigation on Clinton without any of the spin or hype.
Has anyone set one up on Trump so I can tell the difference?
Thanks LN!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why don't RWNJs know that President Clinton is not running for office?

Why don't they mind that their candidate bragged about being a serial sexual predator who has raped many women?

liar, quote trump, the transcript is out there, trump never said or did what you proclaim.

Bill Clinton will be in the most powerful office in the World if his wife is elected. As an ex two term president, as the spouse of the President he will have unprecidented power for a "first lady".

As an abuser of women, that power over the first woman president is even more profound.

You mean we're in danger of having to relive the Clinton years of relative peace and prosperity all over again?

 

[Londoner]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape.

Donald Trump was never convicted of rape.

Both men have had well publicized consensual affairs and both men have had well publicized accusers whose claims did not meet the legal standards required for a conviction.

If you trust the American Legal System - which is the greatest one on earth - than you cannot invent a rape conviction that does not exist, unless you are as politically motivated as the accusers of these men and your standards for a conviction rise no higher than unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.

Those are the facts.

Problem is: paulitician wants to live in a world where the accusers of Clinton are telling the truth but the accusers of Trump are lying - yet Paulitician offers zero legal proof. He is just slinging mud.

[And he supports a candidate who literally goes into an emotional meltdown whenever he is accused of anything. Can you imagine what Donald Trump would do if he faced a 30 year witch-hunt like the Clintons? Trump can't handle the slightest provocation without becoming an unhinged baby]

It gets worse for paulitician. If mere accusations are sufficient for paulitician to assume guilt, than he has zero basis to vote for Trump, who is currently being accused of fraud in his Trump University case, and who was just recently accused of rape by a 13 year old girl. The case was dropped, but why not use the rightwing strategy of dignifying accusations with no legal standing?

Trump and paulitician don't see what they are doing. If they treat accusations against the Clintons as true prior to any legal finding, than Trump himself is disqualified based on the accusations against him.

The reason paulitician doesn't see this hypocrisy is because I would bet my life that his post high school education is extremely thin. I cannot imagine he has spent much time in any intellectual environment that required the construction of arguments that follow from well built premises. He doesn't make arguments, nor does he respect the legal process. He epitomizes a system that has replaced civil debate with pure mudslinging.

By paulitician's vacant standard of proof, all the accusations about Trump's collusion with Russia to hack this election are true.

Why not respect the rule of law and only call something a crime once it has been proved in a court of law? [Why do all people who hate the Constitution act the same way?]

 

[2aguy]

Clinton didn't rape anyone.

Juanita broad Erick testified under oath to FBI agents, under threat of prison that he did.....

 

[2aguy]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape.

Donald Trump was never convicted of rape.

Both men have had well publicized consensual affairs and both men have had well publicized accusers whose claims did not meet the legal standards required for a conviction.

If you trust the American Legal System - which is the greatest one on earth - than you cannot invent a rape conviction that does not exist, unless you are as politically motivated as the accusers of these men and your standards for a conviction rise no higher than unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.

Those are the facts.

Problem is: paulitician wants to live in a world where the accusers of Clinton are telling the truth but the accusers of Trump are lying - yet Paulitician offers zero legal proof. He is just slinging mud.

[And he supports a candidate who literally goes into an emotional meltdown whenever he is accused of anything. Can you imagine what Donald Trump would do if he faced a 30 year witch-hunt like the Clintons? Trump can't handle the slightest provocation without becoming an unhinged baby]

It gets worse for paulitician. If mere accusations are sufficient for paulitician to assume guilt, than he has zero basis to vote for Trump, who is currently being accused of fraud in his Trump University case, and who was just recently accused of rape by a 13 year old girl. The case was dropped, but why not use the rightwing strategy of dignifying accusations with no legal standing?

Trump and paulitician don't see what they are doing. If they treat accusations against the Clintons as true prior to any legal finding, than Trump himself is disqualified based on the accusations against him.

The reason paulitician doesn't see this hypocrisy is because I would bet my life that his post high school education is extremely thin. I cannot imagine he has spent much time in any intellectual environment that required the construction of arguments that follow from well built premises. He doesn't make arguments, nor does he respect the legal process. He epitomizes a system that has replaced civil debate with pure mudslinging.

By paulitician's vacant standard of proof, all the accusations about Trump's collusion with Russia to hack this election are true.

Why not respect the rule of law and only call something a crime once it has been proved in a court of law? [Why do all people who hate the Constitution act the same way?]

The accusers of Clinton reported their rapes and sexual assaults immediately to friends and family.......the woman in England brought in the police, the female Air Force mmber serving on Air Force one told her chain of command, and Juanita Broaderick testified under oath to FBI agents under threat of prison time that she was raped........a lot different than the Trump accusers........and bill the rapist was,impeached for using the powers of his office to escape sexually harassing Paula Jones....

Of the two...far more evidence that bill is an actual rapist and sexual predator...

 

[2aguy]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape.

Donald Trump was never convicted of rape.

Both men have had well publicized consensual affairs and both men have had well publicized accusers whose claims did not meet the legal standards required for a conviction.

If you trust the American Legal System - which is the greatest one on earth - than you cannot invent a rape conviction that does not exist, unless you are as politically motivated as the accusers of these men and your standards for a conviction rise no higher than unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.

Those are the facts.

Problem is: paulitician wants to live in a world where the accusers of Clinton are telling the truth but the accusers of Trump are lying - yet Paulitician offers zero legal proof. He is just slinging mud.

[And he supports a candidate who literally goes into an emotional meltdown whenever he is accused of anything. Can you imagine what Donald Trump would do if he faced a 30 year witch-hunt like the Clintons? Trump can't handle the slightest provocation without becoming an unhinged baby]

It gets worse for paulitician. If mere accusations are sufficient for paulitician to assume guilt, than he has zero basis to vote for Trump, who is currently being accused of fraud in his Trump University case, and who was just recently accused of rape by a 13 year old girl. The case was dropped, but why not use the rightwing strategy of dignifying accusations with no legal standing?

Trump and paulitician don't see what they are doing. If they treat accusations against the Clintons as true prior to any legal finding, than Trump himself is disqualified based on the accusations against him.

The reason paulitician doesn't see this hypocrisy is because I would bet my life that his post high school education is extremely thin. I cannot imagine he has spent much time in any intellectual environment that required the construction of arguments that follow from well built premises. He doesn't make arguments, nor does he respect the legal process. He epitomizes a system that has replaced civil debate with pure mudslinging.

By paulitician's vacant standard of proof, all the accusations about Trump's collusion with Russia to hack this election are true.

Why not respect the rule of law and only call something a crime once it has been proved in a court of law? [Why do all people who hate the Constitution act the same way?]

Wrong...we actually know that energy companies controlled by Putin gave the Clinton foundation 23.5 million dollars and paid bill Clinton for speeches......and ended up with 20% of ur uranium....

Nice lie though....

 

[Londoner]

Trump and paulitician continually say that Clinton is a criminal, yet there has been no legal finding. The Republicans have subjected her to 20 years of Soviet style investigations, and they still have zero convictions. Nobody has been more hunted or given more legal testimony or been more legally vetted than the Clintons. And you have no legal conviction on Hillary, yet you still won't exonerate her because you don't accept legal outcomes. You don't trust our Constitutionally sanctioned process of rights and procedures when they produce an outcome you don't like.

You have contempt for the American rule of law.

 

[Londoner]

Trump - by calling all his policy opponents crooks, and by holding himself above the law - is likely going to shut down the free press by encouraging Federal agencies to open cases on anyone critical of his regime. This is what happened to Eliot Spitzer after he wrote a scathing op-ed about Bush's complicity in the housing meltdown. The Bush Fed responded by using the Patriot Act to track his finances. They knew he wasn't a terrorist, but they were more concerned with protecting their political power than keeping the nation safe from terrorism, so they used tools meant for terrorists to hunt political enemies. Let me explain.

When it turned out that Spitzer was not involved with terrorism, the Bush Fed didn't drop the case (so they could get back to focusing on actual terrorists). They kept the case open until they got Spitzer for buying a high priced escort service. Rather than tracking actual terrorists, they used tools designed exclusively to fight terrorism to open cases on the free press and policy opponents. This is what tyrannical regimes do. They create national security laws meant to protect the nation from foreign enemies, but then they use those expanded legal powers to hunt domestic political opponents.

Look at the behavior of the Republican appointees at the FBI. They aren't concerned with prosecuting law-breakers wherever they exist. They are obsessed with hunting domestic political enemies.

If Trump gets elected, we will see this disturbing trend blossom into a full soviet style nightmare where Federal Law Enforcement Agencies merely protect the executive from threats to his political power. True libertarians should be disgusted by this. True libertarians should understand that this fits the dictionary definition of concentrated Federal Power, i.e., power without Constitutional checks or oversight to ensure that these abuses don't happen. I'm not saying Clinton is any better, but Trump is showing some extremely disturbing signs - and paulitician, who claims to be a libertarian, does not seem like he will be a check on Federal Power if his side wins.

'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaking, sources say

 

[owebo]

It's sad people can even think of voting for filth like the Clinton's to be in our WH......

 

[elektra]

You mean we're in danger of having to relive the Clinton years of relative peace and prosperity all over again?

Peace? In 1989 Clinton bombed Iraq.

1993, Black Hawk Down in Somalia.

1st time the World Trade Center bombing in 93.

Killing of civilians by Clinton's command in Serbia.

USS Cole bombing, how many sailors dead?

Saddam gasing thousands of children dead while Clinton in command of Iraq.

Rwanda massacre, while Clinton cries afterward he should of stooped it.

NYcarbine? You are either a moron or a liar.

 

[Londoner]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape.

Donald Trump was never convicted of rape.

Both men have had well publicized consensual affairs and both men have had well publicized accusers whose claims did not meet the legal standards required for a conviction.

If you trust the American Legal System - which is the greatest one on earth - than you cannot invent a rape conviction that does not exist, unless you are as politically motivated as the accusers of these men and your standards for a conviction rise no higher than unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.

Those are the facts.

Problem is: paulitician wants to live in a world where the accusers of Clinton are telling the truth but the accusers of Trump are lying - yet Paulitician offers zero legal proof. He is just slinging mud.

[And he supports a candidate who literally goes into an emotional meltdown whenever he is accused of anything. Can you imagine what Donald Trump would do if he faced a 30 year witch-hunt like the Clintons? Trump can't handle the slightest provocation without becoming an unhinged baby]

It gets worse for paulitician. If mere accusations are sufficient for paulitician to assume guilt, than he has zero basis to vote for Trump, who is currently being accused of fraud in his Trump University case, and who was just recently accused of rape by a 13 year old girl. The case was dropped, but why not use the rightwing strategy of dignifying accusations with no legal standing?

Trump and paulitician don't see what they are doing. If they treat accusations against the Clintons as true prior to any legal finding, than Trump himself is disqualified based on the accusations against him.

The reason paulitician doesn't see this hypocrisy is because I would bet my life that his post high school education is extremely thin. I cannot imagine he has spent much time in any intellectual environment that required the construction of arguments that follow from well built premises. He doesn't make arguments, nor does he respect the legal process. He epitomizes a system that has replaced civil debate with pure mudslinging.

By paulitician's vacant standard of proof, all the accusations about Trump's collusion with Russia to hack this election are true.

Why not respect the rule of law and only call something a crime once it has been proved in a court of law? [Why do all people who hate the Constitution act the same way?]

Wrong...we actually know that energy companies controlled by Putin gave the Clinton foundation 23.5 million dollars and paid bill Clinton for speeches......and ended up with 20% of ur uranium....

Nice lie though....

And Trump paid tons of money to the Clintons over the years, but this doesn't make him a Democrat.

Let me ask you a question.

If the sum total of financial relationships to Russia is your metric, than would you walk away from Trump if you had evidence that his ties to Russia were far more direct & comprehensive than the Clinton Foundation, which has used corporate donations from every continent and nearly every country to fund their work on Climate Change, Economic Development, Global Health, etc.

Trump has praised Putin. The FBI has EVIDENCE that leads them to the suspicion that Russians have hacked Clinton's campaign.

But let's face it. This doesn't bother you anymore than Reagan selling arms illegally to Iran in the 80s and funding a secret war in Central America, which was in direct violation of the American Constitution, and far more impeachable than lying about a Monika Lewinsky blower. Your job is not to investigate the Russian problems of Trump. He is the one you trust more in this election. Your job is to dig up dirt on the other side. You don't care about any dirt on your side. You are a foot-soldier who is fighting for the side you believe in.

If David Duke and his white supremacist neo-nazi coalition supported Hillary Clinton, you'd use this information to hurt her. But if that same evil coalition supports Trump, you say nothing. This is why we think you're full of shit with the Cold War and War on Terrorism. These were always political footballs used to win elections and control the head lines. When we peel back the onion layers, we realize that Russia and the KGB's Putin isn't really that much of an enemy.

FBI Suspects Russia in Hack of John Podesta Emails

Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

 

[2aguy]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape.

Donald Trump was never convicted of rape.

Both men have had well publicized consensual affairs and both men have had well publicized accusers whose claims did not meet the legal standards required for a conviction.

If you trust the American Legal System - which is the greatest one on earth - than you cannot invent a rape conviction that does not exist, unless you are as politically motivated as the accusers of these men and your standards for a conviction rise no higher than unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.

Those are the facts.

Problem is: paulitician wants to live in a world where the accusers of Clinton are telling the truth but the accusers of Trump are lying - yet Paulitician offers zero legal proof. He is just slinging mud.

[And he supports a candidate who literally goes into an emotional meltdown whenever he is accused of anything. Can you imagine what Donald Trump would do if he faced a 30 year witch-hunt like the Clintons? Trump can't handle the slightest provocation without becoming an unhinged baby]

It gets worse for paulitician. If mere accusations are sufficient for paulitician to assume guilt, than he has zero basis to vote for Trump, who is currently being accused of fraud in his Trump University case, and who was just recently accused of rape by a 13 year old girl. The case was dropped, but why not use the rightwing strategy of dignifying accusations with no legal standing?

Trump and paulitician don't see what they are doing. If they treat accusations against the Clintons as true prior to any legal finding, than Trump himself is disqualified based on the accusations against him.

The reason paulitician doesn't see this hypocrisy is because I would bet my life that his post high school education is extremely thin. I cannot imagine he has spent much time in any intellectual environment that required the construction of arguments that follow from well built premises. He doesn't make arguments, nor does he respect the legal process. He epitomizes a system that has replaced civil debate with pure mudslinging.

By paulitician's vacant standard of proof, all the accusations about Trump's collusion with Russia to hack this election are true.

Why not respect the rule of law and only call something a crime once it has been proved in a court of law? [Why do all people who hate the Constitution act the same way?]

Wrong...we actually know that energy companies controlled by Putin gave the Clinton foundation 23.5 million dollars and paid bill Clinton for speeches......and ended up with 20% of ur uranium....

Nice lie though....

And Trump paid tons of money to the Clintons over the years, but this doesn't make him a Democrat.

Let me ask you a question.

If the sum total of financial relationships to Russia is your metric, than would you walk away from Trump if you had evidence that his ties to Russia were far more direct & comprehensive than the Clinton Foundation, which has used corporate donations from every continent and nearly every country to fund their work on Climate Change, Economic Development, Global Health, etc.

Trump has praised Putin. The FBI has EVIDENCE that leads them to the suspicion that Russians have hacked Clinton's campaign.

But let's face it. This doesn't bother you anymore than Reagan selling arms illegally to Iran in the 80s and funding a secret war in Central America, which was in direct violation of the American Constitution, and far more impeachable than lying about a Monika Lewinsky blower. Your job is not to investigate the Russian problems of Trump. He is the one you trust more in this election. Your job is to dig up dirt on the other side. You don't care about any dirt on your side. You are a foot-soldier who is fighting for the side you believe in.

If David Duke and his white supremacist neo-nazi coalition supported Hillary Clinton, you'd use this information to hurt her. But if that same evil coalition supports Trump, you say nothing. This is why we think you're full of shit with the Cold War and War on Terrorism. These were always political footballs used to win elections and control the head lines. When we peel back the onion layers, we realize that Russia and the KGB's Putin isn't really that much of an enemy.

FBI Suspects Russia in Hack of John Podesta Emails

Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

No.....Trump did business in Russia...as a businessman trying to build buildings and other enterprises....he has businesses all over the world...

hilary took money thru the clinton foundation to sell her Public Office.......which is breaking the law....and she gave russia access to Uranium which they are using to fuel their new nuclear arsenal...

Do you understand the difference?

 

[2aguy]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape.

Donald Trump was never convicted of rape.

Both men have had well publicized consensual affairs and both men have had well publicized accusers whose claims did not meet the legal standards required for a conviction.

If you trust the American Legal System - which is the greatest one on earth - than you cannot invent a rape conviction that does not exist, unless you are as politically motivated as the accusers of these men and your standards for a conviction rise no higher than unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.

Those are the facts.

Problem is: paulitician wants to live in a world where the accusers of Clinton are telling the truth but the accusers of Trump are lying - yet Paulitician offers zero legal proof. He is just slinging mud.

[And he supports a candidate who literally goes into an emotional meltdown whenever he is accused of anything. Can you imagine what Donald Trump would do if he faced a 30 year witch-hunt like the Clintons? Trump can't handle the slightest provocation without becoming an unhinged baby]

It gets worse for paulitician. If mere accusations are sufficient for paulitician to assume guilt, than he has zero basis to vote for Trump, who is currently being accused of fraud in his Trump University case, and who was just recently accused of rape by a 13 year old girl. The case was dropped, but why not use the rightwing strategy of dignifying accusations with no legal standing?

Trump and paulitician don't see what they are doing. If they treat accusations against the Clintons as true prior to any legal finding, than Trump himself is disqualified based on the accusations against him.

The reason paulitician doesn't see this hypocrisy is because I would bet my life that his post high school education is extremely thin. I cannot imagine he has spent much time in any intellectual environment that required the construction of arguments that follow from well built premises. He doesn't make arguments, nor does he respect the legal process. He epitomizes a system that has replaced civil debate with pure mudslinging.

By paulitician's vacant standard of proof, all the accusations about Trump's collusion with Russia to hack this election are true.

Why not respect the rule of law and only call something a crime once it has been proved in a court of law? [Why do all people who hate the Constitution act the same way?]

Wrong...we actually know that energy companies controlled by Putin gave the Clinton foundation 23.5 million dollars and paid bill Clinton for speeches......and ended up with 20% of ur uranium....

Nice lie though....

And Trump paid tons of money to the Clintons over the years, but this doesn't make him a Democrat.

Let me ask you a question.

If the sum total of financial relationships to Russia is your metric, than would you walk away from Trump if you had evidence that his ties to Russia were far more direct & comprehensive than the Clinton Foundation, which has used corporate donations from every continent and nearly every country to fund their work on Climate Change, Economic Development, Global Health, etc.

Trump has praised Putin. The FBI has EVIDENCE that leads them to the suspicion that Russians have hacked Clinton's campaign.

But let's face it. This doesn't bother you anymore than Reagan selling arms illegally to Iran in the 80s and funding a secret war in Central America, which was in direct violation of the American Constitution, and far more impeachable than lying about a Monika Lewinsky blower. Your job is not to investigate the Russian problems of Trump. He is the one you trust more in this election. Your job is to dig up dirt on the other side. You don't care about any dirt on your side. You are a foot-soldier who is fighting for the side you believe in.

If David Duke and his white supremacist neo-nazi coalition supported Hillary Clinton, you'd use this information to hurt her. But if that same evil coalition supports Trump, you say nothing. This is why we think you're full of shit with the Cold War and War on Terrorism. These were always political footballs used to win elections and control the head lines. When we peel back the onion layers, we realize that Russia and the KGB's Putin isn't really that much of an enemy.

FBI Suspects Russia in Hack of John Podesta Emails

Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

john podesta has 75,000 shares in the putin owned energy companies that bribed hilary with 23.5 million dollars...and passed them to his daughter to keep control of them even though he works for hilary...the corruption is just mind blowing....

 

[2aguy]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

Bill Clinton was never convicted of rape.

Donald Trump was never convicted of rape.

Both men have had well publicized consensual affairs and both men have had well publicized accusers whose claims did not meet the legal standards required for a conviction.

If you trust the American Legal System - which is the greatest one on earth - than you cannot invent a rape conviction that does not exist, unless you are as politically motivated as the accusers of these men and your standards for a conviction rise no higher than unsubstantiated accusations and innuendo.

Those are the facts.

Problem is: paulitician wants to live in a world where the accusers of Clinton are telling the truth but the accusers of Trump are lying - yet Paulitician offers zero legal proof. He is just slinging mud.

[And he supports a candidate who literally goes into an emotional meltdown whenever he is accused of anything. Can you imagine what Donald Trump would do if he faced a 30 year witch-hunt like the Clintons? Trump can't handle the slightest provocation without becoming an unhinged baby]

It gets worse for paulitician. If mere accusations are sufficient for paulitician to assume guilt, than he has zero basis to vote for Trump, who is currently being accused of fraud in his Trump University case, and who was just recently accused of rape by a 13 year old girl. The case was dropped, but why not use the rightwing strategy of dignifying accusations with no legal standing?

Trump and paulitician don't see what they are doing. If they treat accusations against the Clintons as true prior to any legal finding, than Trump himself is disqualified based on the accusations against him.

The reason paulitician doesn't see this hypocrisy is because I would bet my life that his post high school education is extremely thin. I cannot imagine he has spent much time in any intellectual environment that required the construction of arguments that follow from well built premises. He doesn't make arguments, nor does he respect the legal process. He epitomizes a system that has replaced civil debate with pure mudslinging.

By paulitician's vacant standard of proof, all the accusations about Trump's collusion with Russia to hack this election are true.

Why not respect the rule of law and only call something a crime once it has been proved in a court of law? [Why do all people who hate the Constitution act the same way?]

Wrong...we actually know that energy companies controlled by Putin gave the Clinton foundation 23.5 million dollars and paid bill Clinton for speeches......and ended up with 20% of ur uranium....

Nice lie though....

And Trump paid tons of money to the Clintons over the years, but this doesn't make him a Democrat.

Let me ask you a question.

If the sum total of financial relationships to Russia is your metric, than would you walk away from Trump if you had evidence that his ties to Russia were far more direct & comprehensive than the Clinton Foundation, which has used corporate donations from every continent and nearly every country to fund their work on Climate Change, Economic Development, Global Health, etc.

Trump has praised Putin. The FBI has EVIDENCE that leads them to the suspicion that Russians have hacked Clinton's campaign.

But let's face it. This doesn't bother you anymore than Reagan selling arms illegally to Iran in the 80s and funding a secret war in Central America, which was in direct violation of the American Constitution, and far more impeachable than lying about a Monika Lewinsky blower. Your job is not to investigate the Russian problems of Trump. He is the one you trust more in this election. Your job is to dig up dirt on the other side. You don't care about any dirt on your side. You are a foot-soldier who is fighting for the side you believe in.

If David Duke and his white supremacist neo-nazi coalition supported Hillary Clinton, you'd use this information to hurt her. But if that same evil coalition supports Trump, you say nothing. This is why we think you're full of shit with the Cold War and War on Terrorism. These were always political footballs used to win elections and control the head lines. When we peel back the onion layers, we realize that Russia and the KGB's Putin isn't really that much of an enemy.

FBI Suspects Russia in Hack of John Podesta Emails

Since the 1980s, Trump and his family members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities, and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the world.
“Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets,” Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. “We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

Obama gave 150 billion dollars to iran....and is allowing them to build their nuclear weapons....and you complain about Reagan.....really?

 

[Londoner]

I am still disturbed that even the Ted Kennedy case involving Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopechne
was never fully resolved to public satisfaction.

The problem is with our whole justice and legal system that rewards people for lying, taking the
fifth, and exploiting "reasonable doubt". If lawyers fail to use every trick in the book to defend their client,
they can be sued for malpractice. So they have to take advantage of any loophole that could get their client off,
which are used to demand mistrials over any mistake, or it's arguably malpractice.

Well put!!!

Agree on Ted Kennedy 100%, also agree that the rules have created terrible incentives.

I would love a legal system that more effectively prosecuted:

• Ted Kennedy for Chappaquiddick.
• Ronald Reagan for Iran-Contra
• Dick Chaney for Valerie Plame
• Bush administration for mishandling war intelligence.
• Donald Trump for Trump University

Here is my problem. Every time I say that I'd love to see both sides prosecuted equally, I discover that even the most elegant and well-reasoned jurists lack the required sense of detachment and neutrality. They deploy their mental acuity to putting only the other side in jail.

This leads to the biggest problem of all: a legal system that selectively prosecutes is far more dangerous than Teddy Kennedy.

So I'm with you and I appreciate your post, but I'd want extremely powerful oversight rules to guard against selective prosecution. For instance, all the New York FBI agents who have openly declared antipathy to one candidate or the other should be investigated and removed if it is demonstrated that they are not fulfilling their role as non-partisan investigators.

 

[Meathead]

Hillary's sleaze bothers me far more. Her compromising of national security more still.

 

[bodecea]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

What rapes?

 

[sealybobo]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

Same way trump being a rapist doesn't bother you

 

[The VOR]

Clinton supporters continue to obsess over some comments Donald Trump made about women years ago. So i think it's fair to ask them how they feel about Bill Clinton's numerous sex assaults. Is it just faux outage they're expressing over Trump's comments? Or do they really care about women?

There is absolutely no proof --- zero, zip, zilch, nada --- that Bill Clinton raped or sexually assaulted anyone.

But, continue on with your lies if you must, you partisan hack.