Trump Slams Rapist, & Sexual Abuser Bill Clinton, Reopens Feud With Hilary

[jknowgood]

I did not say I embraced Trump, but I do know that Bill Clinton is a lying, low life, bottom feeding scumbag and those would be his good points.

Who cares who you embrace?

The right embraces Trump in that he is their favored candidate in the polls. And like Clinton, he is a womanizer who cheated on his wife.

24 years ago, the right criticized the left for supporting a candidate who was accused of cheating on his wife.

Now they themselves support a candidate who is known to have cheated on his wife.

Goes to show why no one should pay any attention to rightwingers when they bitch & moan about anything.

When Trump lies to a federal judge, a grand jury and the entire world like Clinton dId I will condemn him. See how easy that was.

So cheating on your wife is ok with you as long as you don't lie about it to a Grand Jury.

It isn't an impeachable offense unless you lied about it to a Grand Jury.

And yet, the right bitched & moaned about Bill's purported affairs long before lying about Lewinski. So it certainly mattered to riightards then; even though it matters not to rightards now.

So where is the list of women that have stated that Trump sexually abused them.

 

[jknowgood]

I did not say I embraced Trump, but I do know that Bill Clinton is a lying, low life, bottom feeding scumbag and those would be his good points.

Who cares who you embrace?

The right embraces Trump in that he is their favored candidate in the polls. And like Clinton, he is a womanizer who cheated on his wife.

24 years ago, the right criticized the left for supporting a candidate who was accused of cheating on his wife.

Now they themselves support a candidate who is known to have cheated on his wife.

Goes to show why no one should pay any attention to rightwingers when they bitch & moan about anything.

When Trump lies to a federal judge, a grand jury and the entire world like Clinton dId I will condemn him. See how easy that was.

So cheating on your wife is ok with you as long as you don't lie about it to a Grand Jury.

The blue dress DNA was proof that no one was lying except Clinton. Keep on defending the low life bottom feeder and it brings you down to his level.

Cheating on your wife is not OK. Repeatedly cheating on your wife and trying to lie out of it is considerably worse. Lying to a Grand Jury and a Federal Judge are crimes. Then having the enabler Hillary call the women he conned nuts and sluts was also not OK. Trump paid for his mistake with his money, Clinton paid his women off with government jobs and taxpayers money.

If cheating on your wife is not ok, how can righties vote for Trump?

Oh, that's right... you're hypocrites who don't actually care that Trump cheated on his wife. Of course, had Trump been running as a Democrat -- then you'd care.

Any one but Hillary to be president. That's how.

 

[peach174]

Did Trump rape his wife like she claimed?

Why is Trump hiding the evidence?

Why does it matter? To the RWnuts in all their forms, an accusation is indistinguishable from a conviction.

Ask Bill Clinton.

Trump is a rapist

At least he did it with his own wife unlike Clinton.

 

[Faun]

Oh? Let's see the list of over a dozen such women from his Oxford days....

I know of only one who was brave enough to come forward and give her name Eileen Wellstone.

I don't ask for names. Just show there were others. Can you?

Can't do that when they refuse or are more than likely afraid to give their names.
I don't blame them.
Look what happens when they do.
Here is a link about from 2001
[CTRL] Is This Why Bill Clinton May Have Been Asked to Leave Oxford
The point is he has just as many if not more than Bill Crosby has had.

Again, I'm not asking for names. You said there were at least a dozen others. I'm merely asking for evidence of that......

Bill Clinton's Long history of sexual assault
A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''
Maybe we should ask the ones who wrote about it.
By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue

Umm... that doesn't say what you said.

That says there have been over a dozen complaints going as far back as his days in college. Meaning since then.

You said there were a dozen complaints at Oxford...

There was over a dozen who accused him of sexual misconduct right there at Oxford...

 

[Faun]

You're right in tha a smart lawyer would advise their client to take the money and run since they want to get paid rather than risk another trial they could easily lose again since the first ended so badly for them.

An injured party, however, would want justice for their injury. Jones just wanted the money. She didn't care about justice. She didn't care about him being found guilty for the offense she accused him of. Hell, she didn't even care that the settlement was a statement that Clinton would not apologize.

She was in it for the money. Which she ended up with very little anyway. After taxes and after paying off her legal fees, she had barely enough left over to pay for a nose job.

Read this link from the Wall Street Journal and then tell me Clinton is an innocent victim. LMFAO.

The Clinton War on Women

All I could see was the first paragragh.

Sorry, you can copy the link and plug it into google and read the entire article.

Thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new in there. It's the same sour grapes about Hillary standing by her man that I've been hearing from the right since the 90's. The fact is, the right tried their best to take Bill down. And despite his idiocy of having an affair and perjuring himself over it; a gift to the right, they failed in that effort. Clinton still avoided being convicted of his impeachment and still left office with the highest approval rating of any president on record. The right lost to Bill. The consolation prize they sought rested in the hopes that it would at least result in the collapse of his marriage and the public humiliation that would escort it. Thanks to Hillary, they were denied that as well. So now, as the article you posted reveals, the right still has sour grapes that the Clintons came out on top. Especially after they thought for certain the Monica Lewinski scandal would take them down.

The Wall Street Journal is not the right.

Yeah, sure. Tell that to Rupert Murdock. He'll get a good laugh at that too.

 

[peach174]

I know of only one who was brave enough to come forward and give her name Eileen Wellstone.

I don't ask for names. Just show there were others. Can you?

Can't do that when they refuse or are more than likely afraid to give their names.
I don't blame them.
Look what happens when they do.
Here is a link about from 2001
[CTRL] Is This Why Bill Clinton May Have Been Asked to Leave Oxford
The point is he has just as many if not more than Bill Crosby has had.

Again, I'm not asking for names. You said there were at least a dozen others. I'm merely asking for evidence of that......

Bill Clinton's Long history of sexual assault
A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''
Maybe we should ask the ones who wrote about it.
By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue

Umm... that doesn't say what you said.

That says there have been over a dozen complaints going as far back as his days in college. Meaning since then.

You said there were a dozen complaints at Oxford...

There was over a dozen who accused him of sexual misconduct right there at Oxford...

Sorry, my bad, I meant college overall not just Oxford.

 

[paperview]

I know of only one who was brave enough to come forward and give her name Eileen Wellstone.

I don't ask for names. Just show there were others. Can you?

Can't do that when they refuse or are more than likely afraid to give their names.
I don't blame them.
Look what happens when they do.
Here is a link about from 2001
[CTRL] Is This Why Bill Clinton May Have Been Asked to Leave Oxford
The point is he has just as many if not more than Bill Crosby has had.

Again, I'm not asking for names. You said there were at least a dozen others. I'm merely asking for evidence of that......

Bill Clinton's Long history of sexual assault
A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''
Maybe we should ask the ones who wrote about it.
By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue

Umm... that doesn't say what you said.

That says there have been over a dozen complaints going as far back as his days in college. Meaning since then.

You said there were a dozen complaints at Oxford...

There was over a dozen who accused him of sexual misconduct right there at Oxford...

Most of those are bullshit. The supposed women never formally accused him, and were just part of a compiled list of random names "Alamo Girl" from Free Republic put together which has a credibility factor of 0.

Clinton was a horndog, no doubt. But women everywhere threw himself at him.

And a good many made serious bank on it.

 

[Faun]

I don't ask for names. Just show there were others. Can you?

Can't do that when they refuse or are more than likely afraid to give their names.
I don't blame them.
Look what happens when they do.
Here is a link about from 2001
[CTRL] Is This Why Bill Clinton May Have Been Asked to Leave Oxford
The point is he has just as many if not more than Bill Crosby has had.

Again, I'm not asking for names. You said there were at least a dozen others. I'm merely asking for evidence of that......

Bill Clinton's Long history of sexual assault
A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''
Maybe we should ask the ones who wrote about it.
By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue

Umm... that doesn't say what you said.

That says there have been over a dozen complaints going as far back as his days in college. Meaning since then.

You said there were a dozen complaints at Oxford...

There was over a dozen who accused him of sexual misconduct right there at Oxford...

Sorry, my bad, I meant college overall not just Oxford.

No worries, but it didn't say college over all either. It said there have been over a dozen women since college, not, in college.

 

[TooTall]

Read this link from the Wall Street Journal and then tell me Clinton is an innocent victim. LMFAO.

The Clinton War on Women

All I could see was the first paragragh.

Sorry, you can copy the link and plug it into google and read the entire article.

Thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new in there. It's the same sour grapes about Hillary standing by her man that I've been hearing from the right since the 90's. The fact is, the right tried their best to take Bill down. And despite his idiocy of having an affair and perjuring himself over it; a gift to the right, they failed in that effort. Clinton still avoided being convicted of his impeachment and still left office with the highest approval rating of any president on record. The right lost to Bill. The consolation prize they sought rested in the hopes that it would at least result in the collapse of his marriage and the public humiliation that would escort it. Thanks to Hillary, they were denied that as well. So now, as the article you posted reveals, the right still has sour grapes that the Clintons came out on top. Especially after they thought for certain the Monica Lewinski scandal would take them down.

The Wall Street Journal is not the right.

The same guy who owns Fox News owns the WSJ. Yeah, it's the right.

There are fools that don't know that the facts printed in the WSJ about Clinton are not left or right. They are proven facts.

 

[TooTall]

Can't do that when they refuse or are more than likely afraid to give their names.
I don't blame them.
Look what happens when they do.
Here is a link about from 2001
[CTRL] Is This Why Bill Clinton May Have Been Asked to Leave Oxford
The point is he has just as many if not more than Bill Crosby has had.

Again, I'm not asking for names. You said there were at least a dozen others. I'm merely asking for evidence of that......

Bill Clinton's Long history of sexual assault
A continuing investigation into the President's questionable sexual history reveal incidents that go back as far as Clinton's college days, with more than a dozen women claiming his sexual appetites leave little room for the word ''no.''
Maybe we should ask the ones who wrote about it.
By Daniel J. Harris
& Teresa Hampton
Capitol Hill Blue

Umm... that doesn't say what you said.

That says there have been over a dozen complaints going as far back as his days in college. Meaning since then.

You said there were a dozen complaints at Oxford...

There was over a dozen who accused him of sexual misconduct right there at Oxford...

Sorry, my bad, I meant college overall not just Oxford.

No worries, but it didn't say college over all either. It said there have been over a dozen women since college, not, in college.

Now we are getting somewhere. A dozen women Clinton cheated on Hillary with and she agreed with Carville that they were all 'nuts and sluts.' Three of them that I know of were civil service employees that had Clinton as there big boss. He signed a law into effect that made it a crime to do exactly what he did to Monica. Some day you will figure out that they are both below what some call trailer trash.

 

[TooTall]

Read this link from the Wall Street Journal and then tell me Clinton is an innocent victim. LMFAO.

The Clinton War on Women

All I could see was the first paragragh.

Sorry, you can copy the link and plug it into google and read the entire article.

Thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new in there. It's the same sour grapes about Hillary standing by her man that I've been hearing from the right since the 90's. The fact is, the right tried their best to take Bill down. And despite his idiocy of having an affair and perjuring himself over it; a gift to the right, they failed in that effort. Clinton still avoided being convicted of his impeachment and still left office with the highest approval rating of any president on record. The right lost to Bill. The consolation prize they sought rested in the hopes that it would at least result in the collapse of his marriage and the public humiliation that would escort it. Thanks to Hillary, they were denied that as well. So now, as the article you posted reveals, the right still has sour grapes that the Clintons came out on top. Especially after they thought for certain the Monica Lewinski scandal would take them down.

The Wall Street Journal is not the right.

Yeah, sure. Tell that to Rupert Murdock. He'll get a good laugh at that too.

Murdoch does not dictate to the editorial staff who are mostly liberal bed wetters.

 

[paulitician]

He should have been punished during his rapist college days.
There was over a dozen who accused him of sexual misconduct right there at Oxford when he got a Rhodes Scholarship, let alone all the others while he was Governor.

Oh? Let's see the list of over a dozen such women from his Oxford days....

I know of only one who was brave enough to come forward and give her name Eileen Wellstone.

I don't ask for names. Just show there were others. Can you?

Can't do that when they refuse or are more than likely afraid to give their names.
I don't blame them.
Look what happens when they do.
Here is a link about from 2001
[CTRL] Is This Why Bill Clinton May Have Been Asked to Leave Oxford
The point is he has just as many if not more than Bill Crosby has had.

Again, I'm not asking for names. You said there were at least a dozen others. I'm merely asking for evidence of that......

His victims that did come forward, were viciously attacked all over again by Clinton Bootlickers like you. There are many more Clinton victims out there. But most will never come forward.

We'll never really know for sure how many women Clinton sexually abused. And that's a tragedy. But they did finally get Cosby, so there's still hope. Maybe Bill Clinton will have his day too. Let's hope so.

 

[hangover]

In one breath Trump says Shillary would make a great president, in the nest he says she'd be terrible. Trump double talks Bubba the same way. Gotta admit, Trump really knows how to play cons like a fiddle.

 

[Faun]

All I could see was the first paragragh.

Sorry, you can copy the link and plug it into google and read the entire article.

Thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new in there. It's the same sour grapes about Hillary standing by her man that I've been hearing from the right since the 90's. The fact is, the right tried their best to take Bill down. And despite his idiocy of having an affair and perjuring himself over it; a gift to the right, they failed in that effort. Clinton still avoided being convicted of his impeachment and still left office with the highest approval rating of any president on record. The right lost to Bill. The consolation prize they sought rested in the hopes that it would at least result in the collapse of his marriage and the public humiliation that would escort it. Thanks to Hillary, they were denied that as well. So now, as the article you posted reveals, the right still has sour grapes that the Clintons came out on top. Especially after they thought for certain the Monica Lewinski scandal would take them down.

The Wall Street Journal is not the right.

The same guy who owns Fox News owns the WSJ. Yeah, it's the right.

There are fools that don't know that the facts printed in the WSJ about Clinton are not left or right. They are proven facts.

Bullshit. The paper is owned by the same guy who owns Fox News. Perfect example is the article you linked...

It called Bill Clinton a "genuine sexual harasser." If that's a proven fact, you'd be able to prove Clinton sexually harassed anyone. You can't because all you have are allegations and one failed civil case, thrown out due to lack of merit.

So no they don't print "proven facts."

And check this out ....

• A line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Bill Clinton, a Democrat -- the WSJ calls him a "genuine sexual harasser."

• Another line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Herman Cain, a Republican -- the WSJ calls them "accusations."

Herman Cain Suspends Presidential Campaign​

 

[Faun]

Oh? Let's see the list of over a dozen such women from his Oxford days....

I know of only one who was brave enough to come forward and give her name Eileen Wellstone.

I don't ask for names. Just show there were others. Can you?

Can't do that when they refuse or are more than likely afraid to give their names.
I don't blame them.
Look what happens when they do.
Here is a link about from 2001
[CTRL] Is This Why Bill Clinton May Have Been Asked to Leave Oxford
The point is he has just as many if not more than Bill Crosby has had.

Again, I'm not asking for names. You said there were at least a dozen others. I'm merely asking for evidence of that......

His victims that did come forward, were viciously attacked all over again by Clinton Bootlickers like you. There are many more Clinton victims out there. But most will never come forward.

We'll never really know for sure how many women Clinton sexually abused. And that's a tragedy. But they did finally get Cosby, so there's still hope. Maybe Bill Clinton will have his day too. Let's hope so.

Ummm... they could have come forward at the time of the alleged incidents and avoided being attacked.

 

[TooTall]

In one breath Trump says Shillary would make a great president, in the nest he says she'd be terrible. Trump double talks Bubba the same way. Gotta admit, Trump really knows how to play cons like a fiddle.

It seems to me he knows how to play the Clintons like a fiddle.

 

[TooTall]

Sorry, you can copy the link and plug it into google and read the entire article.

Thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new in there. It's the same sour grapes about Hillary standing by her man that I've been hearing from the right since the 90's. The fact is, the right tried their best to take Bill down. And despite his idiocy of having an affair and perjuring himself over it; a gift to the right, they failed in that effort. Clinton still avoided being convicted of his impeachment and still left office with the highest approval rating of any president on record. The right lost to Bill. The consolation prize they sought rested in the hopes that it would at least result in the collapse of his marriage and the public humiliation that would escort it. Thanks to Hillary, they were denied that as well. So now, as the article you posted reveals, the right still has sour grapes that the Clintons came out on top. Especially after they thought for certain the Monica Lewinski scandal would take them down.

The Wall Street Journal is not the right.

The same guy who owns Fox News owns the WSJ. Yeah, it's the right.

There are fools that don't know that the facts printed in the WSJ about Clinton are not left or right. They are proven facts.

Bullshit. The paper is owned by the same guy who owns Fox News. Perfect example is the article you linked...

It called Bill Clinton a "genuine sexual harasser." If that's a proven fact, you'd be able to prove Clinton sexually harassed anyone. You can't because all you have are allegations and one failed civil case, thrown out due to lack of merit.

So no they don't print "proven facts."

And check this out ....

• A line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Bill Clinton, a Democrat -- the WSJ calls him a "genuine sexual harasser."

• Another line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Herman Cain, a Republican -- the WSJ calls them "accusations."

Herman Cain Suspends Presidential Campaign​

One woman accused Cain and a dozen accused Clinton. If you truly believe that Clinton was not a sexual harasser you are completely stupid.

 

[Faun]

Thanks for the tip.

Unfortunately, there is nothing new in there. It's the same sour grapes about Hillary standing by her man that I've been hearing from the right since the 90's. The fact is, the right tried their best to take Bill down. And despite his idiocy of having an affair and perjuring himself over it; a gift to the right, they failed in that effort. Clinton still avoided being convicted of his impeachment and still left office with the highest approval rating of any president on record. The right lost to Bill. The consolation prize they sought rested in the hopes that it would at least result in the collapse of his marriage and the public humiliation that would escort it. Thanks to Hillary, they were denied that as well. So now, as the article you posted reveals, the right still has sour grapes that the Clintons came out on top. Especially after they thought for certain the Monica Lewinski scandal would take them down.

The Wall Street Journal is not the right.

The same guy who owns Fox News owns the WSJ. Yeah, it's the right.

There are fools that don't know that the facts printed in the WSJ about Clinton are not left or right. They are proven facts.

Bullshit. The paper is owned by the same guy who owns Fox News. Perfect example is the article you linked...

It called Bill Clinton a "genuine sexual harasser." If that's a proven fact, you'd be able to prove Clinton sexually harassed anyone. You can't because all you have are allegations and one failed civil case, thrown out due to lack of merit.

So no they don't print "proven facts."

And check this out ....

• A line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Bill Clinton, a Democrat -- the WSJ calls him a "genuine sexual harasser."

• Another line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Herman Cain, a Republican -- the WSJ calls them "accusations."

Herman Cain Suspends Presidential Campaign​

One woman accused Cain and a dozen accused Clinton. If you truly believe that Clinton was not a sexual harasser you are completely stupid.

Herman Cain faces sexual harassment allegations from fourth woman

And another came forward as he dropped out of the race.

Again, the point [you avoided] here is both faced allegations of sexual harassment. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal, which you delude yourself into believing is not right leaning and posts 'proven facts," rightfully identified them as "allegations" in an article about Herman Cain; but in an article about the Clintons, they identify Bill Clinton as a "genuine sexual harasser."

 

[TooTall]

The Wall Street Journal is not the right.

The same guy who owns Fox News owns the WSJ. Yeah, it's the right.

There are fools that don't know that the facts printed in the WSJ about Clinton are not left or right. They are proven facts.

Bullshit. The paper is owned by the same guy who owns Fox News. Perfect example is the article you linked...

It called Bill Clinton a "genuine sexual harasser." If that's a proven fact, you'd be able to prove Clinton sexually harassed anyone. You can't because all you have are allegations and one failed civil case, thrown out due to lack of merit.

So no they don't print "proven facts."

And check this out ....

• A line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Bill Clinton, a Democrat -- the WSJ calls him a "genuine sexual harasser."

• Another line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Herman Cain, a Republican -- the WSJ calls them "accusations."

Herman Cain Suspends Presidential Campaign​

One woman accused Cain and a dozen accused Clinton. If you truly believe that Clinton was not a sexual harasser you are completely stupid.

Herman Cain faces sexual harassment allegations from fourth woman

And another came forward as he dropped out of the race.

Again, the point [you avoided] here is both faced allegations of sexual harassment. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal, which you delude yourself into believing is not right leaning and posts 'proven facts," rightfully identified them as "allegations" in an article about Herman Cain; but in an article about the Clintons, they identify Bill Clinton as a "genuine sexual harasser."

The blue dress is evidence fool.

 

[Faun]

The same guy who owns Fox News owns the WSJ. Yeah, it's the right.

There are fools that don't know that the facts printed in the WSJ about Clinton are not left or right. They are proven facts.

Bullshit. The paper is owned by the same guy who owns Fox News. Perfect example is the article you linked...

It called Bill Clinton a "genuine sexual harasser." If that's a proven fact, you'd be able to prove Clinton sexually harassed anyone. You can't because all you have are allegations and one failed civil case, thrown out due to lack of merit.

So no they don't print "proven facts."

And check this out ....

• A line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Bill Clinton, a Democrat -- the WSJ calls him a "genuine sexual harasser."

• Another line of women levy allegations of sexual abuse against Herman Cain, a Republican -- the WSJ calls them "accusations."

Herman Cain Suspends Presidential Campaign​

One woman accused Cain and a dozen accused Clinton. If you truly believe that Clinton was not a sexual harasser you are completely stupid.

Herman Cain faces sexual harassment allegations from fourth woman

And another came forward as he dropped out of the race.

Again, the point [you avoided] here is both faced allegations of sexual harassment. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal, which you delude yourself into believing is not right leaning and posts 'proven facts," rightfully identified them as "allegations" in an article about Herman Cain; but in an article about the Clintons, they identify Bill Clinton as a "genuine sexual harasser."

The blue dress is evidence fool.

The blue dress is evidence of consensual sex, not sexual harassment.