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

[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​

Perhaps you would be interested in what the Washington Post says about Clinton.

A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing

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.

The law that Clinton signed calls sex between the boss and an employee sexual harassment.

 

[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​

Perhaps you would be interested in what the Washington Post says about Clinton.

A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing

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.

The law that Clinton signed calls sex between the boss and an employee sexual harassment.

Name the law and the part in it you think pertains to Clinton/Lewinski....

 

[HenryBHough]

Is it because liberal males are born with chains instead of dicks that they're so easy to jerk around?

 

[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​

Perhaps you would be interested in what the Washington Post says about Clinton.

A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing

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.

The law that Clinton signed calls sex between the boss and an employee sexual harassment.

Name the law and the part in it you think pertains to Clinton/Lewinski....

Title IV violent crime control and law enforcement act 1994

 

[Rustic]

Everything anyone needs to know about slick Willy's character in 38 seconds...

 

[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​

Perhaps you would be interested in what the Washington Post says about Clinton.

A guide to the allegations of Bill Clinton’s womanizing

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.

The law that Clinton signed calls sex between the boss and an employee sexual harassment.

Name the law and the part in it you think pertains to Clinton/Lewinski....

Title IV violent crime control and law enforcement act 1994

I find nothing in there that pertains to Clinton/Lewinski
Text of H.R. 3355 (103rd): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us