Reply With QuoteDid she punch herself in the face to make her lip bruised and swollen, so her story would be more credible to witnesses who arrived shortly afterwards?Originally Posted by cyril evans awaydays
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Not really. The allegations against Bill Clinton look as compelling as some of the accusations against Roy Moore and Trump. It is possible to believe that these men of power all abused their position without tying yourself in ever greater contortions dependent upon who is being accused.The Clinton appreciation society are out in full force today
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/6/1072258...ita-broaddrick
Did she punch herself in the face to make her lip bruised and swollen, so her story would be more credible to witnesses who arrived shortly afterwards?
It's like you are on a mission to prove my point!
You said the evidence against all three was equally compelling. The evidence against Moore and Trump was hearsay, so surely that means any physical evidence must have been self-inflicted?
Do yourself a favour, just take the spade out of your hands!
Obviously logic is not your strongest point, let's hope you can do a bit better when next distraction conversation pops up
PS The OIG report is coming out soon, so expect plenty of distractions to be put forward by the MSM
It's best to only call someone a rapist if it's been proven in a court of law.
I will pass on your advice ..
https://www.amazon.com/Youd-Better-P.../dp/1979834245
Still on that fence?
Lots of money, could that be a possible motive?
Or a ploy to get sued in court, but the accusation went unchallenged
For someone self-certifying as a high priest of logic your exposed flank management doesn't get any better with practice!Or a ploy to get sued in court, but the accusation went unchallenged
https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news...orward-7916242
It was a well-known fact that you never took on the Clintons during thier days of power, but out of all the politicised sexual abuse cases Broaddrick's is the strongest, so why are you lot against her and all for Stormy? I:m sure it hasn't:t escaped your attention that the case was consensual (if what is alledged took place).
Stormy is not a sexual abuse case as you know rather an attempt to cover up an embarrassing story of infidelity prior to the election and continued lies and contradictions as facts emerged after it.
You are tying yourself in knots trying to justify a contradictory position. Feel free to carry on it's entertaining.
Just looking at the bigger picture
Democrats' and media's Trump-Russia collusion narrative falls apart
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...lusion-narrat/
I'm not against Broaddrick. I'm trying to help you see your hypocrisy. If a woman wrote a book saying Trump raped her but refused to go to court, experience strongly suggests you'd be completely on the other side of the argument.
Unfortunately, you're so determined to be clever and contrary that you don't see how badly you're owning yourself, particularly at the moment. It's great to watch.
To be honest there are too many political games going on at the moment. Anybody who shows up two weeks before an election is a bit suspect in my opinion, and it seems a better idea to revert to original event for a better understanding of what happened (if there is a historical backstory). Broaddrick's certainly has a case that existed outside of political campaigns, while others just show up during the political season with historical accusations, that were previously unknown. I think you get the picture.I'm not against Broaddrick. I'm trying to help you see your hypocrisy. If a woman wrote a book saying Trump raped her but refused to go to court, experience strongly suggests you'd be completely on the other side of the argument.
Unfortunately, you're so determined to be clever and contrary that you don't see how badly you're owning yourself, particularly at the moment. It's great to watch.
House GOP sets three FBI interviews in Clinton probe
"House Republicans are preparing to conduct the first interviews in more than four months in their investigation into the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.
A joint investigation run by the Judiciary and the Oversight and Government Reform committees has set three witness interviews for June, including testimony from Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division, and Michael Steinbach, the former head of the FBI’s national security division.
Multiple congressional sources confirmed Priestap’s interview. Steinbach confirmed to The Hill that he would be appearing.
The third witness is John Giacalone, who preceded Steinbach as the bureau's top national security official and oversaw the first seven months of the Clinton probe, according to multiple congressional sources."
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-clinton-probe
House Republicans.......
The 4 month gap is more important. Why 4 months? What were they doing?
Why 4 months?
Maybe they were busy testifying in front of a grand jury, which would have taken precedence? Don't forget the OIG has been working with a federal prosecuter (Huber). Something must have happened that put the house investigations on pause, as Nunes was quite eager to get to the bottom of this matter.
Actually these guys would be the three star witnesses if they have turned against Comey and McCabe, etc..
What's your take on Sessions recusal WB ?
Those who follow QAnon have ben told to trust Sessions numerous times, Thump has had a pop again today but are we seeing a bit of role play between them?, Q has also posed the "what makes a good actor on occasions"
js.jpg
Posting Permissions
