Let's get one thing straight about Roy Moore

[easyt65]

Four women went on the record with the Washington Post. It might not be credible evidence to you but in court we call that evidence. They made statements including their names. Evidence.

I can see why you ignorant people believe what you believe. You have no idea what you are talking about.

No, 4 women coming forward does not equate to 'evidence'. That equates to 'accusers'. 'Accusers' have to have 'evidence'.

Democrats had 'accusers' coming out of the woodwork against Caine...and after he quit the race because the smear tactic was hurting he and his wife, all the 'accusers' disappeared, all the outrage and demand for 'justice' against Caine suddenly disappeared.

'Tactic'.

 

[easyt65]

Four women went on the record with the Washington Post. It might not be credible evidence to you but in court we call that evidence. They made statements including their names. Evidence.

So no evidence...no link. Got it. Next.

 

[jillian]

no one is afraid... we're disgusted by the loons who think sexual predators are fine and dandy.

No one thinks sexual predators are "fine and dandy" unless they happen to be sitting Democrat presidents getting BJs in the Oval Office.

What I keep seeing are Liberal Democraps who think accusations 38 years after the fact constitute absolute proven guilt of a crime.... just because they think so.

getting a BJ from a 21 year old adult isn't criminal nor is it being a sexual predator

damn you're stupid

*edit* i'll also point out, you sub literate twit, that monica Lewinsky never ever complained about it. it was her so-called friend, linda tripp.... what a disgusting thing to do to a young woman.... make her the center of that. create a situation where all anyone remembers about her is she gave a blow job to the president.

vile deplorables.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Four women went on the record with the Washington Post. It might not be credible evidence to you but in court we call that evidence. They made statements including their names. Evidence.

I can see why you ignorant people believe what you believe. You have no idea what you are talking about.

No, 4 women coming forward does not equate to 'evidence'. That equates to 'accusers'. 'Accusers' have to have 'evidence'.

Democrats had 'accusers' coming out of the woodwork against Caine...and after he quit the race because the smear tactic was hurting he and his wife, all the 'accusers' disappeared, all the outrage and demand for 'justice' against Caine suddenly disappeared.

'Tactic'.

You don’t know what “evidence” means. Accusers and evidence are two different things. Sorry you are just wrong here. Nothing personal.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Again...sounds a lot like 'Herman Cain'ing to me. Until there is evidence to prove what the Democrats claim, that's all it is.

Hey, it worked on Hermain Cain. This tactic has a proven track record.

"lock her up" ring a bell? Of course hypocrites won't so acknowledge.

There is evidence Hillary broke the law.

Agree. There is evidence Judge Moore broke the law too. In the latter case the people will be the judge. In the former it is the Special Counsel who I hope is looking into ALL potential crimes including hers.

You agree HRC broke the law? Well, which law and what evidence do you have?

 

[easyt65]

Accusers and evidence are two different things.

Yes, I just proved that. It is you who had them confused.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Again...sounds a lot like 'Herman Cain'ing to me. Until there is evidence to prove what the Democrats claim, that's all it is.

Hey, it worked on Hermain Cain. This tactic has a proven track record.

"lock her up" ring a bell? Of course hypocrites won't so acknowledge.

There is evidence Hillary broke the law.

Agree. There is evidence Judge Moore broke the law too. In the latter case the people will be the judge. In the former it is the Special Counsel who I hope is looking into ALL potential crimes including hers.

You agree HRC broke the law? Well, which law and what evidence do you have?

I agree that there is evidence she broke the law. Just as there is evidence that Judge Moore broke the law. Whether the evidence is sufficiently persuasive to cause negative results for either is not my job. The evidence against Judge Moore appears credible to me. In Hillary’s case although I believe there is evidence I can’t use it to make a prima facie cas against her on anything. That’s Mueller’s job.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Accusers and evidence are two different things.

Yes, I just proved that. It is you who had them confused.

Right. Again no offense intended but you really don’t understand what you are talking about here.

 

[Faun]

There is evidence Hillary broke the law.

According to cretins like you, not the law.

No, dear.

The FBI has thousands of official e-mails and documents they recovered from Hillary's server she never turned in, as per required by the FOIA and the Federal Records Act. Only ignorant / partisan liberals like yourself continue to argue these are not crimes perpetrated by Hillary.

FBI Director Comey himself declared Hillary was extremely negligent'. Last week I posted the exact law, with links, explaining how that is a CRIME. Comey changed his words because he even realized he had just pointed out Hillary had broken the law.

Hillary was proven to have given her maid, someone who had no security clearance, access to classified, asking her to print it out for her. That is a crime.

Destroying classified documents and devices not according to the specific law that governs it is a crime.

The FACT that Hillary ... and others .. broke numerous laws has been presented to delusional / denial nutters like you over and over .Continuing to do so on your part does not make it any less criminal now as when you tried doing so months ago. It just makes you look insanely partisan, overwhelmed by hate, or just nuts.

The problem is not that there is no evidence sufficient enough to convict Hillary, it is that nutters like you are SO partisan that even Hillary's conviction, if it were to happen, would not be proof enough for you that she broke the law.

calling another man, “dear” is creepy and gay. I’d appreciate it if you would please keep your homoerotic fantasies with me to yourself.

That aside, Hillary was never proven guilty of any crime. Your delusions to the contrary are yours to deal with. And sans a criminal conviction, chanting, “lock her up,” as you did, is completely ignoring her presumption of innocence.

And of course, being the abject hypocrite you are, you demand presumption of innocence for Moore.

 

[easyt65]

I agree that there is evidence she broke the law. Just as there is evidence that Judge Moore broke the law.

I have repeatedly posted the evidence and numerous links proving Hillary broke the law...I am just waiting for you to post any proving Moore broke the law.

 

[jillian]

There is evidence Hillary broke the law.

According to cretins like you, not the law.

No, dear.

The FBI has thousands of official e-mails and documents they recovered from Hillary's server she never turned in, as per required by the FOIA and the Federal Records Act. Only ignorant / partisan liberals like yourself continue to argue these are not crimes perpetrated by Hillary.

FBI Director Comey himself declared Hillary was extremely negligent'. Last week I posted the exact law, with links, explaining how that is a CRIME. Comey changed his words because he even realized he had just pointed out Hillary had broken the law.

Hillary was proven to have given her maid, someone who had no security clearance, access to classified, asking her to print it out for her. That is a crime.

Destroying classified documents and devices not according to the specific law that governs it is a crime.

The FACT that Hillary ... and others .. broke numerous laws has been presented to delusional / denial nutters like you over and over .Continuing to do so on your part does not make it any less criminal now as when you tried doing so months ago. It just makes you look insanely partisan, overwhelmed by hate, or just nuts.

The problem is not that there is no evidence sufficient enough to convict Hillary, it is that nutters like you are SO partisan that even Hillary's conviction, if it were to happen, would not be proof enough for you that she broke the law.[/QUOTE]
calling another man, “dear” is creepy and gay. I’d appreciate it if you would please keep your homoerotic fantasies with me to yourself.

That aside, Hillary was never proven guilty of any crime. Your delusions to the contrary are yours to deal with. And sans a criminal conviction, chanting, “lock her up,” as you did, is completely ignoring her presumption of innocence.

And of course, being the abject hypocrite you are, you demand presumption of innocence for Moore.[/QUOTE]

just to interject yet again, they investigated Hillary Clinton repeatedly, for years. They got nothing. If they could have, they would have.

 

[g5000]

Four women went on the record with the Washington Post. It might not be credible evidence to you but in court we call that evidence. They made statements including their names. Evidence.

I can see why you ignorant people believe what you believe. You have no idea what you are talking about.

No, 4 women coming forward does not equate to 'evidence'. That equates to 'accusers'. 'Accusers' have to have 'evidence'.

Democrats had 'accusers' coming out of the woodwork against Caine...and after he quit the race because the smear tactic was hurting he and his wife, all the 'accusers' disappeared, all the outrage and demand for 'justice' against Caine suddenly disappeared.

'Tactic'.

I'm not going to forget you defended a child molester.

 

[easyt65]

Accusers and evidence are two different things.

Yes, I just proved that. It is you who had them confused.

Right. Again no offense intended but you really don’t understand what you are talking about here.

Let me 'school' you again....

You claimed that 4 women who come forward and accuse Moore of criminal sexual misconduct are 'evidence'.

No, again, they are 'accusers'. If taken to trial, these ACCUSERS and their lawyers would have to provide EVIDENCE supporting their claim that Moore was guilty of that criminal sexual misconduct: photos, recordings, DNA samples, etc...EVIDENCE.

Snowflakes continue to ACCUSE Trump of non-existent Russian Collusion. That makes you / them an 'ACCUSER'. What you / they still do not have it EVIDENCE.

Class is out - you are dismissed.

 

[easyt65]

There is evidence Hillary broke the law.

According to cretins like you, not the law.

No, dear.

The FBI has thousands of official e-mails and documents they recovered from Hillary's server she never turned in, as per required by the FOIA and the Federal Records Act. Only ignorant / partisan liberals like yourself continue to argue these are not crimes perpetrated by Hillary.

FBI Director Comey himself declared Hillary was extremely negligent'. Last week I posted the exact law, with links, explaining how that is a CRIME. Comey changed his words because he even realized he had just pointed out Hillary had broken the law.

Hillary was proven to have given her maid, someone who had no security clearance, access to classified, asking her to print it out for her. That is a crime.

Destroying classified documents and devices not according to the specific law that governs it is a crime.

The FACT that Hillary ... and others .. broke numerous laws has been presented to delusional / denial nutters like you over and over .Continuing to do so on your part does not make it any less criminal now as when you tried doing so months ago. It just makes you look insanely partisan, overwhelmed by hate, or just nuts.

The problem is not that there is no evidence sufficient enough to convict Hillary, it is that nutters like you are SO partisan that even Hillary's conviction, if it were to happen, would not be proof enough for you that she broke the law.

calling another man, “dear” is creepy and gay. I’d appreciate it if you would please keep your homoerotic fantasies with me to yourself.

That aside, Hillary was never proven guilty of any crime. Your delusions to the contrary are yours to deal with. And sans a criminal conviction, chanting, “lock her up,” as you did, is completely ignoring her presumption of innocence.

And of course, being the abject hypocrite you are, you demand presumption of innocence for Moore.[/QUOTE]

just to interject yet again, they investigated Hillary Clinton repeatedly, for years. They got nothing. If they could have, they would have.[/QUOTE]
No, dear. It was proven that the Obama administration PROTECTED Hillary. The evidence clearly shows Hillary violated laws.

Your infantile argument changes nothing, no matter how much you cling to it or continue to bring it up.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Accusers and evidence are two different things.

Yes, I just proved that. It is you who had them confused.

Right. Again no offense intended but you really don’t understand what you are talking about here.

Let me 'school' you again....

You claimed that 4 women who come forward and accuse Moore of criminal sexual misconduct are 'evidence'.

No, again, they are 'accusers'. If taken to trial, these ACCUSERS and their lawyers would have to provide EVIDENCE supporting their claim that Moore was guilty of that criminal sexual misconduct: photos, recordings, DNA samples, etc...EVIDENCE.

Snowflakes continue to ACCUSE Trump of non-existent Russian Collusion. That makes you / them an 'ACCUSER'. What you / they still do not have it EVIDENCE.

Class is out - you are dismissed.

Again, no offense intended, but arguing with a non lawyer about what constitutes “evidence” is a zero sum game for me. You are Not correct about what evidence is. The four women’s stories are evidence. Any lawyer would tell you that. Your politics do not get to change 300 years of common law.

 

[easyt65]

Again, no offense intended, but arguing with a non lawyer about what constitutes “evidence” is a zero sum game for me.

You are obviously not a lawyer because you do not know the difference between an 'accuser' and 'evidence'.

Having a discussion with someone smarter than you is a 'zero sum gain' for you, as has been proven.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Again, no offense intended, but arguing with a non lawyer about what constitutes “evidence” is a zero sum game for me.

You are obviously not a lawyer because you do not know the difference between an 'accuser' and 'evidence'.

Having a discussion with someone smarter than you is a 'zero sum gain' for you, as has been proven.

You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but you can’t change the definition of “evidence.” I’ve been a lawyer for almost four decades and I admit I still have a lot to learn. But this isn’t one of them.

 

[Faun]

Again, no offense intended, but arguing with a non lawyer about what constitutes “evidence” is a zero sum game for me.

You are obviously not a lawyer because you do not know the difference between an 'accuser' and 'evidence'.

Having a discussion with someone smarter than you is a 'zero sum gain' for you, as has been proven.

Moore’s accusers are witnesses.

 

[easyt65]

... you can’t change the definition of “evidence.”

I don't have to. 4 women coming forward and accusing someone of a crime is not 'evidence', as you claimed. They are 'accusers' who have to provide 'evidence' that a crime was committed.

You aren't Bill Clinton, and we aren't arguing the definition of the word 'is'. You lose. Next.....

 

[easyt65]

Again, no offense intended, but arguing with a non lawyer about what constitutes “evidence” is a zero sum game for me.

You are obviously not a lawyer because you do not know the difference between an 'accuser' and 'evidence'.

Having a discussion with someone smarter than you is a 'zero sum gain' for you, as has been proven.

Moore’s accusers are witnesses.

Yes, not evidence. The credibility of the witnesses is established in part by EVIDENCE / FACTS. One's CLAIM is neither 'Evidence' or 'fact' until proven BY / WITH EVIDENCE.