You cannot condemn a candidate based on the number of corpses stashed in their closets.
Grand jury information has always been confidential.
So apparently you only believe in rights for people you approve?
That is hypocritical, and it means you don’t really believe in rights at all, just privilege for those you approve.
If no indictment was ever presented then it means that there was no basis for doing so.
This is just another example where you love dirt if your side can find it, like when you LOVED LOVED LOVED Brodkorb, but hate it when it applies to your side being dirty — the very definition of a double standard.
Clinton has no ‘corpses’ stashed in closets; the same cannot be said of your GOP nominee for president. While not discoverable under law, those taxes of Trump’s sure look interesting. Also the details coming out of that lawsuit over the rape of a 13 year old girl by Trump and his pedophile buddy.
There was a meme that showed up a few days after Comey let her off the hook. It was his picture, and it said “She’s guilty as hell, but I don’t want to die suddenly and mysteriously”
And there was a cartoon out that showed them walking away from the press conference, and she said “Thank you, I have postponed your suicide.”
At some point, you would think these so-called conservative groups would be able to supply a definitive link to back up all their claims. Perhaps another thirty years and more fundraising will help.
Just crawl under the rock you have been under, eTASS. It is incomprehensible you would even ask for that. No, wait, I take it back – coming from you, it is very comprehensible. We get it, according to you, sHrillary speaks only truth, did no violate secrecy and compromise national security and endanger lives, her foundation was not involved in Play for Pay, etc etc ad nauseam. No wait, the only thing that is nauseating is your smug and Pollyannaish attitude.
Emery, given that the courts just told people they couldn’t see document prepared to prosecute Hilliary in the 1990s, and that the FBI has admitted granting immunity deals with no prosecutable evidence and with destruction of the evidence that exists, the ugly fact of the matter is that we’ve got plenty of evidence of cover-up, much of it prosecutable. The issue is that those covering things up have a great interest in Hilliary not recovering her memory of how her former boss worked.
At some point, you would think these so-called conservative groups would be able to supply a definitive link to back up all their claims.
What claims, Emery?
What makes them “so-called” conservative groups?
Because there are so few conservatives working as mainstream journalists, ou very rarely hear conservative viewpoints presented accurately.
Conservatives have always thought that Hillary was using her position as SoS to benefit the Clinton Global Initiative. The secret email nonsense confirmed this — yet, if you confine yourself to getting your news from the MSM, Republican interest in Hillary’s email practices is based on nothing at all. It’s a fishing expedition. Until Powell’s hacked emails dissing Hillary were made public, the MSM reported that Hillary had handled her email just like Powell & Rice.
Most people would be shocked and disgusted if they knew just how close the Democrats are to the ‘objective’ media. Many people in Democrat administrations have spouses or siblings that work in the “mainstream” media.
-Correspondent Claire Shipman of Good Morning America is married to Obama spokesdrone Jay Carney.
-The brother of the deputy of the Energy Department is the sister of the president of ABC news.
-Obama spokesdrone Ben Rhodes is the brother of the president of CBS.
-Susan Rice is married to an ABC news producer.
-ABC correspondent Matt Jaffe is married to Obama spokesdrone Kate Hogan.
Maybe you could post the definitive link! Incontrovertible…rock solid….not open to debate…etc
It would appear that your standard for “incontrovertible and rock solid”, is quite malleable.
Ahhh, a novel approach by eTASS – the ONLY link that is accurate is the one he approves of. The only thing that is true is the one his highness deems to be. eTASS has become a more reprehensible, self-deluded and obtuse than poop-and-run DG. That is a tall order indeed. Congratulations!
Beat that horse, beat it good.
(•_•)
<) )╯
/ \
Emery Incognito is looking for the “Hillary admits she totally did all the bad things ‘conservatives’ say she did” link. Would that stop him from “debating” it? No. He asks for the impossible.
You missed this part, Emery:
“This is politics, not a criminal or even a civil trial.”
The Clintons want you to believe that you need “Incontrovertible…rock solid….not open to debate” proof of their criminality before you can say that they are crooks who do not belong in any public office, anywhere.
This is not that case. They are asking you to put them in a position of trust.
Very interesting but ultimately of very little importance. This is the strangest election I have ever seen, and one where data backed truth has gone missing. People are believing what they want to believe based on their faith or lack of faith in these candidates.
DG,
Grand jury information has always been confidential.
That varies widely.
Lawyers? Discuss.
So apparently you only believe in rights for people you approve?
That just sounds pathetic, DG. It’s the oldest idiot leftyblog crutch in the business. Never do it again.
That is hypocritical, and it means you don’t really believe in rights at all, just privilege for those you approve.
Well, no.
It means I’m “joking” about the fact that people who transgress Hillary have a shorter life expectancy than people who rat out the Sinaloa cartel.
If no indictment was ever presented then it means that there was no basis for doing so.
Well, that’s one thing it could mean, anyway.
This is just another example where you love dirt if your side can find it, like when you LOVED LOVED LOVED Brodkorb, but hate it when it applies to your side being dirty — the very definition of a double standard.
Well, no. Not really.
By the way – I asked you to show some example of something I “LOVED LOVED LOVED” when Brodkorb said it but not otherwise? Got anything yet?
Or are you just making things up again?
Also the details coming out of that lawsuit over the rape of a 13 year old girl by Trump and his pedophile buddy.
As a general rule, DG, most of us have learned that if you say something is true, it is risibly false.
Your track record at reporting legal matters is in particular comically inept. Which is not to say you’re wrong in any given case, necessarily – merely that one would be a fool to bet against it.
Speaking of which – It’s been about six years since you (and your neighbor, the lawyer, who was a world-renowned expert on such matters but just had to remain anonymous) swore up and down that Salem Twin Cities was on the brink of getting auctioned off as part of a federal clawback lawsuit.
Got anything more on that?
Snopes has an article on the rape allegations. Filed originally in the wrong state with an address that hasn’t been occupied for years. Refiled in violation of state statutes of limitations in New York, just in time for campaign season. Can we say “blackmail by law”? I thought we could.
Contrast that with credible allegations against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, and others. Sorry, no comparison, DG.
Bubba, are you suggesting that our parasitical, leftist skank is peddling debunked twaddle?
Ridiculous!
“Grand jury information has always been confidential”
Remember the last time a Clinton was in the White House, and Sid Blumenthal had to testify, and he came out blustering that all of Ken Starr’s questions were about sex?
And then congress voted to make the transcripts public (they can do that)?
A trip down memory lane:
3. Sidney Blumenthal
Sidney Blumenthal, an Assistant to the President,(439) similarly testified that the President made statements to him denying the Lewinsky allegations shortly after the first media report.
Mr. Blumenthal stated that he spoke to Mrs. Clinton on the afternoon of January 21, 1998, and to the President early that evening. During those conversations, both the President and Mrs. Clinton offered an explanation for the President’s meetings with Ms. Lewinsky, and President Clinton offered an explanation for Ms. Lewinsky’s allegations of a sexual relationship.(440)
Testifying before the grand jury, Mr. Blumenthal related his discussion with President Clinton:
I said to the President, “What have you done wrong?” And he said, “Nothing. I haven’t done anything wrong.”
. . . And it was at that point that he gave his account of what had happened to me and he said that Monica — and it came very fast. He said, “Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me.” He rebuffed her. He said, “I’ve gone down that road before, I’ve caused pain for a lot of people and I’m not going to do that again.”
She threatened him. She said that she would tell people they’d had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn’t be the stalker any more.(441)
Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President appeared “upset” during this conversation.(442)
Finally, Mr. Blumenthal asked the President to explain alleged answering machine messages (a detail mentioned in press reports).
He said that he remembered calling her when Betty Currie’s brother died and that he left a message on her voice machine that Betty’s brother had died and he said she was close to Betty and had been very kind to Betty. And that’s what he recalled.(443)
According to Mr. Blumenthal, the President said that the call he made to Ms. Lewinsky relating to Betty’s brother was the “only one he could remember.”(444) That was false: The President and Ms. Lewinsky talked often on the phone, and the subject matter of the calls was memorable.
A grand juror asked Mr. Blumenthal whether the President had said that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky included any kind of sexual activity. Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President’s response was “the opposite. He told me that she came on to him and that he had told her he couldn’t have sexual relations with her and that she threatened him. That is what he told me.”(445)
Mr. Blumenthal testified that after the President relayed this information to him, he “certainly believed his story. It was a very heartfelt story, he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him.”(446) Mr. Blumenthal repeated to the grand jury the false statements that the President made to him.
Some folks might suggest that in teh Peevee, dog and Emery, SITD has attracted the least intelligent, bottom of the reprobate barrel leftist commentators; but that isn’t true.
The case can be made that they are at the lower intelligence, higher mental illness demographic but they are by no means far outside the Democrat mean.
Rather, it is worthy adversaries like angry clown that represent the fringe of the left; the reason is understandable.
It takes real talent to adhere to, and defend a political doctrine so wrong and still retain any cognative ability.
Re: Trump latest debacle
It’s interesting that Bush’s primary team had 100M and couldn’t come up with anything to sink Trump and all this time there was a close family member (first cousin?) who must have known there was audio. On the other hand it may not have made a bit of difference in the Republican primary.
IMO, Hillary would not have such an easy time against nearly any other Republican opponent.
Hillary Clinton, Sept. 22, 2016: “Why Aren’t I 50 Points Ahead?
Imagine how much tighter the race would be if the #nevertrumpers just kept their yaps shut? Hillary Clinton is an incompetent criminal in poor health, and there is no Democrat #neverhillary movement.
There is a reason the GOP is called the stupid party.
Well, this certainly makes Sunday night’s town hall a more interesting proposition. If it happens at all. Popcorn futures anyone?
You think sleazy, lying Bill back in the White House is better than sleazy, lying Trump? Here ya’ go:
Clinton’s three lies, according to Starr
. . .
Lawyers in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case defined “sexual relations” as engaging in or causing “contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person…”
But the president said,”If the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on him, then the contact is with — not with anything on that list — but with the lips of another person.”
. . .
The president seemed to deny kissing Lewinsky’s breasts or touching her breast or groin.
“So you didn’t do any of those three things with Monica Lewinsky?” Clinton was asked.
“You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined,” Clinton answered.
“Including, touching her breast, kissing her breast, or touching her genitalia?” prosecutors asked again.
“That’s correct,” Clinton said.
But Lewinsky testified that the president touched her sexually nine times.
. . .
Lie number three, Starr says, is implicit, not explicit: The question of when the affair began.
“When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong,” Clinton admitted in a prepared statement he read during his grand jury testimony.
But Lewinsky testified she first administered oral sex November 15, 1995 and again, two days later. Both encounters happened during the government shutdown, according to Lewinsky.
She said the president tugged at her intern credentials saying that could be “a problem.” She said only by their third encounter, on the last day of 1995, was she a full member of the White House staff.
Starr claims the president lied about the dates to cover up the fact that the affair began when Lewinsky was a 22-year-old intern.
Clinton’s lawyers call that allegation “frivolous” and said the discrepancy in dates is “an utterly immaterial statement.”
Every thing Trump has said for the past 30 years is gonna get airtime. There are dozens of Howard Stern tapes, outtakes from the Apprentice, etc, the next 30 days will be the death of a thousand cuts for Trump’s candidacy.
We saw the ceiling but now we get to see the floor.
“Every thing Trump has said for the past 30 years is gonna get airtime.”
In my 8:00PM, I have documented Bill Clinton lying, under oath, in a sexual harassment case.
If Hillary is elected, Bill will be calling the shots at the White House, just like he called the shots at the State Department when Hillary was SoS.
Win or lose, Trump’s candidacy has changed the US forever. He has eviscerated the modern Republican party.
He could end up eviscerating it, or he could end up reminding Republicans to check their ego at the door when they’re facing a popular jackass. He could also convince the GOP to finally take the concerns of the working class seriously.
Both would be very good things. I am personally praying in the meantime for repentance on the part of one or both major party candidates–as things stand now, we are stuck with an unrepentant sleaze either way we go, at least one of whom deserves hard jail time from a purely legal standpoint. Ugh.
Clinton got a hummer or two from a woman young enough to be his daughter, and whom he barely knew. Some call this an ‘affair’, which seems naive, to say the least.
The only reason the Lewinsky matter became public is because Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for making unwanted advances towards her in a hotel room. Bill Clinton is a sexual creep. Hillary stayed married to him, why? Sentimental reasons? Hillary is a person who is utterly devoid of sentimentality. Either she is completely dependent on him, or he has made her believe that she is completely dependent on him.
Keep both Bill and Hillary out of the White House. Vote Johnson, or Stein, if you can’t vote for Trump.
Unless you like Israel. Of the four most popular candidates, Trump is the most pro-Israel presidential candidate this year.
Yet the #nevertrumpers are convinced that he is a nazi . . .
F-s BG’s “reasoning”:
Bill Clinton is a pig and that disqualifies his wife.
Trump is a pig, and that does not disqualify him.
With the Clintons, you get two for one, Emery. They bragged about that.
Why do you think that it is okay to put Bill back in the White House if he is not elected president?
I think Clinton can handle the presidency all by her lonesome.
“I think Clinton can handle the presidency all by her lonesome.”
If Hillary were to divorce Bill, she would easily win the presidency. She would gain the independents, and basically anyone who is uneasy with the idea of Bill Clinton interviewing for White House interns. Or secretaries. I mean, what the Hell can Hillary do? Not hire any female under the age of 60? That would be illegal and it would be noticed. Review the many accusations against Bill Clinton. He is an out of control sexual predator.
I can think of a few reasons why Hillary doesn’t divorce Bill, none of them good. She might be psychologically dependent on him, or she might be afraid that, if they were divorced, they could be forced to testify against one another.
Yuck.
Vote Darrell Castle. That is what I am going to do.
You cannot condemn a candidate based on the number of corpses stashed in their closets.
Grand jury information has always been confidential.
So apparently you only believe in rights for people you approve?
That is hypocritical, and it means you don’t really believe in rights at all, just privilege for those you approve.
If no indictment was ever presented then it means that there was no basis for doing so.
This is just another example where you love dirt if your side can find it, like when you LOVED LOVED LOVED Brodkorb, but hate it when it applies to your side being dirty — the very definition of a double standard.
Clinton has no ‘corpses’ stashed in closets; the same cannot be said of your GOP nominee for president. While not discoverable under law, those taxes of Trump’s sure look interesting. Also the details coming out of that lawsuit over the rape of a 13 year old girl by Trump and his pedophile buddy.
There was a meme that showed up a few days after Comey let her off the hook. It was his picture, and it said “She’s guilty as hell, but I don’t want to die suddenly and mysteriously”
And there was a cartoon out that showed them walking away from the press conference, and she said “Thank you, I have postponed your suicide.”
At some point, you would think these so-called conservative groups would be able to supply a definitive link to back up all their claims. Perhaps another thirty years and more fundraising will help.
Just crawl under the rock you have been under, eTASS. It is incomprehensible you would even ask for that. No, wait, I take it back – coming from you, it is very comprehensible. We get it, according to you, sHrillary speaks only truth, did no violate secrecy and compromise national security and endanger lives, her foundation was not involved in Play for Pay, etc etc ad nauseam. No wait, the only thing that is nauseating is your smug and Pollyannaish attitude.
Emery, given that the courts just told people they couldn’t see document prepared to prosecute Hilliary in the 1990s, and that the FBI has admitted granting immunity deals with no prosecutable evidence and with destruction of the evidence that exists, the ugly fact of the matter is that we’ve got plenty of evidence of cover-up, much of it prosecutable. The issue is that those covering things up have a great interest in Hilliary not recovering her memory of how her former boss worked.
At some point, you would think these so-called conservative groups would be able to supply a definitive link to back up all their claims.
What claims, Emery?
What makes them “so-called” conservative groups?
Because there are so few conservatives working as mainstream journalists, ou very rarely hear conservative viewpoints presented accurately.
Conservatives have always thought that Hillary was using her position as SoS to benefit the Clinton Global Initiative. The secret email nonsense confirmed this — yet, if you confine yourself to getting your news from the MSM, Republican interest in Hillary’s email practices is based on nothing at all. It’s a fishing expedition. Until Powell’s hacked emails dissing Hillary were made public, the MSM reported that Hillary had handled her email just like Powell & Rice.
Most people would be shocked and disgusted if they knew just how close the Democrats are to the ‘objective’ media. Many people in Democrat administrations have spouses or siblings that work in the “mainstream” media.
-Correspondent Claire Shipman of Good Morning America is married to Obama spokesdrone Jay Carney.
-The brother of the deputy of the Energy Department is the sister of the president of ABC news.
-Obama spokesdrone Ben Rhodes is the brother of the president of CBS.
-Susan Rice is married to an ABC news producer.
-ABC correspondent Matt Jaffe is married to Obama spokesdrone Kate Hogan.
Maybe you could post the definitive link! Incontrovertible…rock solid….not open to debate…etc
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/recs.html
This is politics, not a criminal or even a civil trial.
It would appear that your standard for “incontrovertible and rock solid”, is quite malleable.
Ahhh, a novel approach by eTASS – the ONLY link that is accurate is the one he approves of. The only thing that is true is the one his highness deems to be. eTASS has become a more reprehensible, self-deluded and obtuse than poop-and-run DG. That is a tall order indeed. Congratulations!
Beat that horse, beat it good.
(•_•)
<) )╯
/ \
Emery Incognito is looking for the “Hillary admits she totally did all the bad things ‘conservatives’ say she did” link. Would that stop him from “debating” it? No. He asks for the impossible.
You missed this part, Emery:
“This is politics, not a criminal or even a civil trial.”
The Clintons want you to believe that you need “Incontrovertible…rock solid….not open to debate” proof of their criminality before you can say that they are crooks who do not belong in any public office, anywhere.
This is not that case. They are asking you to put them in a position of trust.
Very interesting but ultimately of very little importance. This is the strangest election I have ever seen, and one where data backed truth has gone missing. People are believing what they want to believe based on their faith or lack of faith in these candidates.
DG,
Grand jury information has always been confidential.
That varies widely.
Lawyers? Discuss.
So apparently you only believe in rights for people you approve?
That just sounds pathetic, DG. It’s the oldest idiot leftyblog crutch in the business. Never do it again.
That is hypocritical, and it means you don’t really believe in rights at all, just privilege for those you approve.
Well, no.
It means I’m “joking” about the fact that people who transgress Hillary have a shorter life expectancy than people who rat out the Sinaloa cartel.
If no indictment was ever presented then it means that there was no basis for doing so.
Well, that’s one thing it could mean, anyway.
This is just another example where you love dirt if your side can find it, like when you LOVED LOVED LOVED Brodkorb, but hate it when it applies to your side being dirty — the very definition of a double standard.
Well, no. Not really.
By the way – I asked you to show some example of something I “LOVED LOVED LOVED” when Brodkorb said it but not otherwise? Got anything yet?
Or are you just making things up again?
Also the details coming out of that lawsuit over the rape of a 13 year old girl by Trump and his pedophile buddy.
As a general rule, DG, most of us have learned that if you say something is true, it is risibly false.
Your track record at reporting legal matters is in particular comically inept. Which is not to say you’re wrong in any given case, necessarily – merely that one would be a fool to bet against it.
Speaking of which – It’s been about six years since you (and your neighbor, the lawyer, who was a world-renowned expert on such matters but just had to remain anonymous) swore up and down that Salem Twin Cities was on the brink of getting auctioned off as part of a federal clawback lawsuit.
Got anything more on that?
Snopes has an article on the rape allegations. Filed originally in the wrong state with an address that hasn’t been occupied for years. Refiled in violation of state statutes of limitations in New York, just in time for campaign season. Can we say “blackmail by law”? I thought we could.
http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/
Contrast that with credible allegations against Bill Clinton by Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, and others. Sorry, no comparison, DG.
Bubba, are you suggesting that our parasitical, leftist skank is peddling debunked twaddle?
Ridiculous!
“Grand jury information has always been confidential”
Remember the last time a Clinton was in the White House, and Sid Blumenthal had to testify, and he came out blustering that all of Ken Starr’s questions were about sex?
And then congress voted to make the transcripts public (they can do that)?
A trip down memory lane:
3. Sidney Blumenthal
Sidney Blumenthal, an Assistant to the President,(439) similarly testified that the President made statements to him denying the Lewinsky allegations shortly after the first media report.
Mr. Blumenthal stated that he spoke to Mrs. Clinton on the afternoon of January 21, 1998, and to the President early that evening. During those conversations, both the President and Mrs. Clinton offered an explanation for the President’s meetings with Ms. Lewinsky, and President Clinton offered an explanation for Ms. Lewinsky’s allegations of a sexual relationship.(440)
Testifying before the grand jury, Mr. Blumenthal related his discussion with President Clinton:
I said to the President, “What have you done wrong?” And he said, “Nothing. I haven’t done anything wrong.”
. . . And it was at that point that he gave his account of what had happened to me and he said that Monica — and it came very fast. He said, “Monica Lewinsky came at me and made a sexual demand on me.” He rebuffed her. He said, “I’ve gone down that road before, I’ve caused pain for a lot of people and I’m not going to do that again.”
She threatened him. She said that she would tell people they’d had an affair, that she was known as the stalker among her peers, and that she hated it and if she had an affair or said she had an affair then she wouldn’t be the stalker any more.(441)
Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President appeared “upset” during this conversation.(442)
Finally, Mr. Blumenthal asked the President to explain alleged answering machine messages (a detail mentioned in press reports).
He said that he remembered calling her when Betty Currie’s brother died and that he left a message on her voice machine that Betty’s brother had died and he said she was close to Betty and had been very kind to Betty. And that’s what he recalled.(443)
According to Mr. Blumenthal, the President said that the call he made to Ms. Lewinsky relating to Betty’s brother was the “only one he could remember.”(444) That was false: The President and Ms. Lewinsky talked often on the phone, and the subject matter of the calls was memorable.
A grand juror asked Mr. Blumenthal whether the President had said that his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky included any kind of sexual activity. Mr. Blumenthal testified that the President’s response was “the opposite. He told me that she came on to him and that he had told her he couldn’t have sexual relations with her and that she threatened him. That is what he told me.”(445)
Mr. Blumenthal testified that after the President relayed this information to him, he “certainly believed his story. It was a very heartfelt story, he was pouring out his heart, and I believed him.”(446) Mr. Blumenthal repeated to the grand jury the false statements that the President made to him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/7groundsx.htm
Some folks might suggest that in teh Peevee, dog and Emery, SITD has attracted the least intelligent, bottom of the reprobate barrel leftist commentators; but that isn’t true.
The case can be made that they are at the lower intelligence, higher mental illness demographic but they are by no means far outside the Democrat mean.
Rather, it is worthy adversaries like angry clown that represent the fringe of the left; the reason is understandable.
It takes real talent to adhere to, and defend a political doctrine so wrong and still retain any cognative ability.
Re: Trump latest debacle
It’s interesting that Bush’s primary team had 100M and couldn’t come up with anything to sink Trump and all this time there was a close family member (first cousin?) who must have known there was audio. On the other hand it may not have made a bit of difference in the Republican primary.
IMO, Hillary would not have such an easy time against nearly any other Republican opponent.
Hillary Clinton, Sept. 22, 2016: “Why Aren’t I 50 Points Ahead?
Imagine how much tighter the race would be if the #nevertrumpers just kept their yaps shut? Hillary Clinton is an incompetent criminal in poor health, and there is no Democrat #neverhillary movement.
There is a reason the GOP is called the stupid party.
Well, this certainly makes Sunday night’s town hall a more interesting proposition. If it happens at all. Popcorn futures anyone?
You think sleazy, lying Bill back in the White House is better than sleazy, lying Trump? Here ya’ go:
Clinton’s three lies, according to Starr
. . .
Lawyers in the Paula Jones sexual harrassment case defined “sexual relations” as engaging in or causing “contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person…”
But the president said,”If the deponent is the person who has oral sex performed on him, then the contact is with — not with anything on that list — but with the lips of another person.”
. . .
The president seemed to deny kissing Lewinsky’s breasts or touching her breast or groin.
“So you didn’t do any of those three things with Monica Lewinsky?” Clinton was asked.
“You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations, as I understood this term to be defined,” Clinton answered.
“Including, touching her breast, kissing her breast, or touching her genitalia?” prosecutors asked again.
“That’s correct,” Clinton said.
But Lewinsky testified that the president touched her sexually nine times.
. . .
Lie number three, Starr says, is implicit, not explicit: The question of when the affair began.
“When I was alone with Ms. Lewinsky on certain occasions in early 1996 and once in early 1997, I engaged in conduct that was wrong,” Clinton admitted in a prepared statement he read during his grand jury testimony.
But Lewinsky testified she first administered oral sex November 15, 1995 and again, two days later. Both encounters happened during the government shutdown, according to Lewinsky.
She said the president tugged at her intern credentials saying that could be “a problem.” She said only by their third encounter, on the last day of 1995, was she a full member of the White House staff.
Starr claims the president lied about the dates to cover up the fact that the affair began when Lewinsky was a 22-year-old intern.
Clinton’s lawyers call that allegation “frivolous” and said the discrepancy in dates is “an utterly immaterial statement.”
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/09/21/lies.jackson/
Every thing Trump has said for the past 30 years is gonna get airtime. There are dozens of Howard Stern tapes, outtakes from the Apprentice, etc, the next 30 days will be the death of a thousand cuts for Trump’s candidacy.
We saw the ceiling but now we get to see the floor.
“Every thing Trump has said for the past 30 years is gonna get airtime.”
In my 8:00PM, I have documented Bill Clinton lying, under oath, in a sexual harassment case.
If Hillary is elected, Bill will be calling the shots at the White House, just like he called the shots at the State Department when Hillary was SoS.
Win or lose, Trump’s candidacy has changed the US forever. He has eviscerated the modern Republican party.
He could end up eviscerating it, or he could end up reminding Republicans to check their ego at the door when they’re facing a popular jackass. He could also convince the GOP to finally take the concerns of the working class seriously.
Both would be very good things. I am personally praying in the meantime for repentance on the part of one or both major party candidates–as things stand now, we are stuck with an unrepentant sleaze either way we go, at least one of whom deserves hard jail time from a purely legal standpoint. Ugh.
Clinton got a hummer or two from a woman young enough to be his daughter, and whom he barely knew. Some call this an ‘affair’, which seems naive, to say the least.
The only reason the Lewinsky matter became public is because Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones for making unwanted advances towards her in a hotel room. Bill Clinton is a sexual creep. Hillary stayed married to him, why? Sentimental reasons? Hillary is a person who is utterly devoid of sentimentality. Either she is completely dependent on him, or he has made her believe that she is completely dependent on him.
Keep both Bill and Hillary out of the White House. Vote Johnson, or Stein, if you can’t vote for Trump.
Unless you like Israel. Of the four most popular candidates, Trump is the most pro-Israel presidential candidate this year.
Yet the #nevertrumpers are convinced that he is a nazi . . .
F-s BG’s “reasoning”:
Bill Clinton is a pig and that disqualifies his wife.
Trump is a pig, and that does not disqualify him.
With the Clintons, you get two for one, Emery. They bragged about that.
Why do you think that it is okay to put Bill back in the White House if he is not elected president?
I think Clinton can handle the presidency all by her lonesome.
“I think Clinton can handle the presidency all by her lonesome.”
If Hillary were to divorce Bill, she would easily win the presidency. She would gain the independents, and basically anyone who is uneasy with the idea of Bill Clinton interviewing for White House interns. Or secretaries. I mean, what the Hell can Hillary do? Not hire any female under the age of 60? That would be illegal and it would be noticed. Review the many accusations against Bill Clinton. He is an out of control sexual predator.
I can think of a few reasons why Hillary doesn’t divorce Bill, none of them good. She might be psychologically dependent on him, or she might be afraid that, if they were divorced, they could be forced to testify against one another.
Yuck.
Vote Darrell Castle. That is what I am going to do.