Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOLMoron....by definition, Juanita Broaddrick is a liar. She even called herself a liar. After testifying under oath that Clinton didn’t rape her, she went on TV to say he did. Both stories cannot be true.Right. All of Bill's accusers were liars. Sounds like you're channeling Hillary and the rest of the Democrats now. The party of women's rights, my ass.Numbnuts...Remove your head from the sand please:
Juanita Broaddrick
In a 1999 episode of Dateline NBC, former Bill Clinton volunteer Juanita Broaddrick alleged that, in the late 1970s, Clinton raped her in her hotel room. According to Broaddrick, she agreed to meet with Clinton for coffee in the lobby of her hotel, but Clinton asked if they could go to her room to avoid a crowd of reporters; she agreed. Once Clinton had isolated her in her hotel room, Broaddrick states that he raped her. Broaddrick stated Clinton injured her lip by biting it during the assault.[5][6] In 1999, Clinton denied Broaddrick's allegations through his lawyer.
Supporters of Clinton have questioned her account by noting that, when Broaddrick testified about her alleged encounter with Clinton under oath, she denied having been raped by him. In her NBC interview alleging rape, Broaddrick stated that she had only denied being raped under oath to protect her privacy. Supporters of Clinton have also noted that she continued to support him, and appear at public events on his behalf, weeks after the alleged rape, and that Broaddrick stated that she couldn't remember the day or month the alleged incident occurred.[7] Broaddrick has stated in 1978 that she revealed the alleged assault to five intimates, and that they advised her not to cause trouble for herself by going public.
Paula Jones
According to Paula Jones' account, on May 8, 1991, she was escorted to Clinton's hotel room in Little Rock, Arkansas,[8] where he propositioned and exposed himself to her. She claimed she kept quiet about the incident until 1994, when a David Brock story in the American Spectator magazine printed an account. In 1994, Jones filed a federal lawsuit against Clinton, alleging sexual harassment. In the discovery stage of the suit, Jones's lawyers had the opportunity to question Clinton under oath about his sexual history; in the course of this testimony, Clinton denied having had a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, a denial that (once his affair with Lewinsky was exposed) would lead to his impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.[9]
Several witnesses disputed Jones's account, including her sister and brother-in-law. These witnesses contended that she had described her encounter with Clinton as "happy" and "gentle". In addition, Jones had claimed to friends that Clinton had a particular deformity on his penis, a claim that was revealed to be false by investigators.[1]
In April 1998, the case was dismissed by Republican Judge Susan Webber Wright as lacking legal merit.[10] But Jones appealed Webber Wright's ruling, and her suit gained traction following Clinton's admission to having an affair with Monica Lewinsky in August 1998.[11] (This admission indicated that Clinton may have lied under oath when he testified, in the Jones case, that he had never had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky.)
On appeal, in the midst of his trial for impeachment based on his testimony in the Jones case, Clinton was faced with the prospect of having to go under oath again and testify more about his sexual history. Instead, Clinton agreed to an out-of-court settlement, paying Jones and her lawyers $850,000 to drop the suit; the vast majority of this money was used to pay Jones's legal fees.[12] Clinton's lawyer said that the president made the settlement only so he could end the lawsuit for good and move on with his life.[13]
Kathleen Willey
In 1998, Kathleen Willey alleged Clinton groped her without consent in the White House Oval Office in 1993.[14] Kenneth Starr granted her immunity for her testimony in his separate inquiry.[15][16]
Linda Tripp, the Clinton Administration staffer who secretly taped her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky in order to expose the latter's affair with the President, testified under oath that Willey's sexual contact with President Clinton in 1993 was consensual, that Willey had been flirting with the President, and that Willey was happy and excited following her 1993 encounter with Clinton.[2] Six other friends of Willey confirmed Tripp's account in sworn testimony, stating that Willey had sought a sexual relationship with the President.[3] Ken Starr, who had deposed Willey in the course of investigating the sexual history of President Clinton, determined that she had lied under oath repeatedly to his investigators. Starr and his team therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence to pursue her allegations further.
In 2007 Willey published a book about her experiences with the Clintons.[17]
Gloria Steinem and Joy Behar controversies
In a 1998 op-ed for the New York Times, feminist icon Gloria Steinem said of Willey and Jones, "Mr. Clinton seems to have made a clumsy sexual pass, then accepted rejection.”[18] Generally dismissive of other women who came forward with tales of Bill Clinton, her piece exemplified a certain kind of reflexive feminist defense of Clinton.[18] It received some criticism when it was published.[19] But then with the passage of time, as evidenced in 2017 by the words of The Atlantic, Steinem's essay had become "notorious" in that "It slut-shamed, victim-blamed, and age-shamed; it urged compassion for and gratitude to the man the women accused."[20]
Two decades after most of the events in question, on the U.S. television program The View, co-host Joy Behar referred to Bill Clinton's accusers as "tramps". Behar apologized for the sexual slur shortly afterwards.[21][22][23][24]
Juanita Broaddrick — swore under oath, facing the penalty of perjury had she lied, that Clinton didn’t rape her and stories circulating that he had raped were nothing but rumors.
Paula Jones — took her evidence to court where her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.
Kathleen Wiley — made unsubstantiated claims Clinton groped that she could never prove.
But since you believe women with nothing but accusations, I guess this means you believe the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual abuse, is that right?
Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOLMoron....by definition, Juanita Broaddrick is a liar. She even called herself a liar. After testifying under oath that Clinton didn’t rape her, she went on TV to say he did. Both stories cannot be true.Right. All of Bill's accusers were liars. Sounds like you're channeling Hillary and the rest of the Democrats now. The party of women's rights, my ass.Numbnuts...
Juanita Broaddrick — swore under oath, facing the penalty of perjury had she lied, that Clinton didn’t rape her and stories circulating that he had raped were nothing but rumors.
Paula Jones — took her evidence to court where her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.
Kathleen Wiley — made unsubstantiated claims Clinton groped that she could never prove.
But since you believe women with nothing but accusations, I guess this means you believe the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual abuse, is that right?
The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOLMoron....by definition, Juanita Broaddrick is a liar. She even called herself a liar. After testifying under oath that Clinton didn’t rape her, she went on TV to say he did. Both stories cannot be true.Right. All of Bill's accusers were liars. Sounds like you're channeling Hillary and the rest of the Democrats now. The party of women's rights, my ass.
But since you believe women with nothing but accusations, I guess this means you believe the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual abuse, is that right?
And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
LOLInteresting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOLMoron....by definition, Juanita Broaddrick is a liar. She even called herself a liar. After testifying under oath that Clinton didn’t rape her, she went on TV to say he did. Both stories cannot be true.Right. All of Bill's accusers were liars. Sounds like you're channeling Hillary and the rest of the Democrats now. The party of women's rights, my ass.Numbnuts...
Juanita Broaddrick — swore under oath, facing the penalty of perjury had she lied, that Clinton didn’t rape her and stories circulating that he had raped were nothing but rumors.
Paula Jones — took her evidence to court where her case was thrown out due to lack of merit.
Kathleen Wiley — made unsubstantiated claims Clinton groped that she could never prove.
But since you believe women with nothing but accusations, I guess this means you believe the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual abuse, is that right?
But it’s not innocent until proven guilty for Clinton, am I right?The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOLMoron....by definition, Juanita Broaddrick is a liar. She even called herself a liar. After testifying under oath that Clinton didn’t rape her, she went on TV to say he did. Both stories cannot be true.
But since you believe women with nothing but accusations, I guess this means you believe the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual abuse, is that right?
And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
The Moore accuser came forward 40 years later, the guy ran for office several times over decades including for judgeship, and non of this stuff was mentioned until some WAPO journalist landed in the middle of the election and offered substantial Democrat donor financed rewards to anybody who came forward with negative shit on Moore. Meanwhile, accusations and charges of assault and rape with SOLID EVIDENCE followed Clinton at every stage of his political career from the time he was governor and on.LOLInteresting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOLMoron....by definition, Juanita Broaddrick is a liar. She even called herself a liar. After testifying under oath that Clinton didn’t rape her, she went on TV to say he did. Both stories cannot be true.Right. All of Bill's accusers were liars. Sounds like you're channeling Hillary and the rest of the Democrats now. The party of women's rights, my ass.
But since you believe women with nothing but accusations, I guess this means you believe the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual abuse, is that right?
So I was right. You do believe the Clinton accusers but not the Moore accusers even though they offered no additional proof. It’s all about partisan politics for you.
There’s no solid evidence against Clinton. And the only woman to try her case in a courtroom was thrown out due to lack of merit.The Moore accuser came forward 40 years later, the guy ran for office several times over decades including for judgeship, and non of this stuff was mentioned until some WAPO journalist landed in the middle of the election and offered substantial Democrat donor financed rewards to anybody who came forward with negative shit on Moore. Meanwhile, accusations and charges of assault and rape with SOLID EVIDENCE followed Clinton at every stage of his political career from the time he was governor and on.LOLInteresting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOLMoron....by definition, Juanita Broaddrick is a liar. She even called herself a liar. After testifying under oath that Clinton didn’t rape her, she went on TV to say he did. Both stories cannot be true.
But since you believe women with nothing but accusations, I guess this means you believe the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual abuse, is that right?
So I was right. You do believe the Clinton accusers but not the Moore accusers even though they offered no additional proof. It’s all about partisan politics for you.
The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOLMoron....by definition, Juanita Broaddrick is a liar. She even called herself a liar. After testifying under oath that Clinton didn’t rape her, she went on TV to say he did. Both stories cannot be true.
But since you believe women with nothing but accusations, I guess this means you believe the women who accused Roy Moore of sexual abuse, is that right?
And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
Clinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.Yeah, they're all liars, except of course the Clintons and the rest of the Democratic goon squad. When did you get possessed by Hillary's spirit? LOL
And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
Clinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.
And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
Comey said his "staff" did not recommend charges. Now we find out that his "staff" were corrupt and in crooked Hillary's back pocket. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. But like I said, stay tuned and to see what's going to come out, the shit Clinton, Obama, the Dems and some Obama era intelligence and FBI leaders did is going to make Watergate look like a cakewalk.Clinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!
And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
The FBI director said that there was no grounds for charges. You're quite literally ignoring Comey and making up your own narrative.
Just like you did with the 'signature was forged' nonsense. If even you are going to ignore you, surely you'll understand why we don't give two shits for what you're typing.
LOLClinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!Well either you believe they’re all liars or you believe they’re all telling the truth; since they’re all simply making uncorroborated claims. I bet you think only the Moore accusers are lying but not the Clinton accusers because for you, it’s all about partisan politics.
And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
You didn't hear Comey lay the case out for Hillary's guilt and then backtrack and say nobody would press charges? You're aware that Comey had a note exonerating her before even interviewing her? Corruption at it's finest!LOLClinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.Interesting how you get stuck on unsubstantiated accusations from 40 years ago ginned up by predatory Leftwing "journalists" who advertised rewards for negative stories (with forged signatures) like flies to shit, and yet all the women that came forward and filed charges on Bill Clinton are "liars". Ya gotta love it!
And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
You said, “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s a legal theory. Hillary never had due process yet you proclaim her guilty.
So what you really mean is “innocent until proven guilty for everyone except the Clintons.”
An investigator laying out his case is not due process. Was OJ guilty based on nothing but the investigators’ [bungled] case?You didn't hear Comey lay the case out for Hillary's guilt and then backtrack and say nobody would press charges? You're aware that Comey had a note exonerating her before even interviewing her? Corruption at it's finest!LOLClinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
You said, “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s a legal theory. Hillary never had due process yet you proclaim her guilty.
So what you really mean is “innocent until proven guilty for everyone except the Clintons.”
He made the case for her being guilty and then backtracked. The entire FBI community (except for his corrupted staff) were devastated.An investigator laying out his case is not due process. Was OJ guilty based on nothing but the investigators’ [bungled] case?You didn't hear Comey lay the case out for Hillary's guilt and then backtrack and say nobody would press charges? You're aware that Comey had a note exonerating her before even interviewing her? Corruption at it's finest!LOLClinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
You said, “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s a legal theory. Hillary never had due process yet you proclaim her guilty.
So what you really mean is “innocent until proven guilty for everyone except the Clintons.”
Comey said his "staff" did not recommend charges. Now we find out that his "staff" were corrupt and in crooked Hillary's back pocket. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. But like I said, stay tuned and to see what's going to come out, the shit Clinton, Obama, the Dems and some Obama era intelligence and FBI leaders did is going to make Watergate look like a cakewalk.Clinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.And who says the signature was forged?
There's a reason that Moore wouldn't make his denials while being deposed. And a reason why the women accusing are trying to get his testimony under oath.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
The FBI director said that there was no grounds for charges. You're quite literally ignoring Comey and making up your own narrative.
Just like you did with the 'signature was forged' nonsense. If even you are going to ignore you, surely you'll understand why we don't give two shits for what you're typing.
He made the case for her being guilty and then backtracked. The entire FBI community (except for his corrupted staff) were devastated.An investigator laying out his case is not due process. Was OJ guilty based on nothing but the investigators’ [bungled] case?You didn't hear Comey lay the case out for Hillary's guilt and then backtrack and say nobody would press charges? You're aware that Comey had a note exonerating her before even interviewing her? Corruption at it's finest!LOLClinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
You said, “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s a legal theory. Hillary never had due process yet you proclaim her guilty.
So what you really mean is “innocent until proven guilty for everyone except the Clintons.”
Yes, his corrupted advisors told him so. Now we find out that they were Clintonistas, and apparently to a large extent so was Comey.Comey said his "staff" did not recommend charges. Now we find out that his "staff" were corrupt and in crooked Hillary's back pocket. The whole thing stinks to high heaven. But like I said, stay tuned and to see what's going to come out, the shit Clinton, Obama, the Dems and some Obama era intelligence and FBI leaders did is going to make Watergate look like a cakewalk.Clinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!The accuser added her own shit which means she's a fraud, and Moore denied that he even signed it. I thought it was innocent till proven guilty.
All that Dems have proven is that they're great at conducting witch hunts based on hoaxes.
You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
The FBI director said that there was no grounds for charges. You're quite literally ignoring Comey and making up your own narrative.
Just like you did with the 'signature was forged' nonsense. If even you are going to ignore you, surely you'll understand why we don't give two shits for what you're typing.
No, he said 'Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case'. The exact opposite of the fantasy narrative you made up for him.
Roudy, you have to realize that the lies you tell yourself (ie, the 'signature was forged') may go unchallenged in the right wing echo chamber you're used to. But here we know the difference between your fantasy ramblings and what actually happened.
The photo of Moore's so called "signature" that was paraded in front of the fake news media was a fraud, she added the xxxx's and his position. That is a fact. At best all they had was Moore's signature, which is meaningless and doesn't add up to anything, especially if she's coming out forty fucking years later.He made the case for her being guilty and then backtracked. The entire FBI community (except for his corrupted staff) were devastated.An investigator laying out his case is not due process. Was OJ guilty based on nothing but the investigators’ [bungled] case?You didn't hear Comey lay the case out for Hillary's guilt and then backtrack and say nobody would press charges? You're aware that Comey had a note exonerating her before even interviewing her? Corruption at it's finest!LOLClinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!
You said, “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s a legal theory. Hillary never had due process yet you proclaim her guilty.
So what you really mean is “innocent until proven guilty for everyone except the Clintons.”
He explicitly said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. Destroying your entire argument.
But tell us again about how the 'signature was forged' and your commitment to 'innocence until proven guilty' while chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up'!
We can all use a good giggle.
You do understand the, “until proven guilty,” part of, “innocent until proven guilty,” pertains to being found guilty in a court of law, don’t you? It’s not, “innocent until an investigator says so.” It’s not, “innocent until some partisan moron named roudy in an Internet forum says guilty.”He made the case for her being guilty and then backtracked. The entire FBI community (except for his corrupted staff) were devastated.An investigator laying out his case is not due process. Was OJ guilty based on nothing but the investigators’ [bungled] case?You didn't hear Comey lay the case out for Hillary's guilt and then backtrack and say nobody would press charges? You're aware that Comey had a note exonerating her before even interviewing her? Corruption at it's finest!LOLClinton was clearly guilty, the FBI director said she was, but her cronies in the FBI covered for her and even scratched out "negligent" with "careless" as if it makes a difference. Hillary's top secret govt. emails were found on the lap top of convicted pervert Weiner. It doesn't get more negligent and guilty than that!You claimed the signature is forced. Now you're shifting your claim to some nebulous definition of fraud.
Who says the signature was forged?
Laughing...and aren't your ilk the one's chanting 'Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!' So much for 'innocent until proven guilty. We have two women who confirm that is Moore's signature. And Moore refusing to deny it under oath in a deposition.
You said, “innocent until proven guilty.” That’s a legal theory. Hillary never had due process yet you proclaim her guilty.
So what you really mean is “innocent until proven guilty for everyone except the Clintons.”
