Trump cries when called out for attacking women

[Faun]

So? The Clinton's will make sure everyone knows she swore under oath it didn't happen.

That's not going to be very convincing:

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[9] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[11] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[11] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[9]

Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[9] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[12] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[4]After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[10]​

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

And Juanita in 1999.

And rational people are going to believe she was raped when she swore under oath she wasn't, because....?

Or maybe her attending a fundraiser for Clinton not long after will convince them?

Oh, I know, it's Juanita recently adding "new details" to an incident she claimed occurred almost 4 decades ago that will convince them.

There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine, bub. She's taking a big risk going public with the truth.

hiLIARy, on the other hand, refuses to talk to the IG about her email server. You can choose who you think is more credible, but I believe Juanita.

Huh? What risk is she taking?

 

[boedicca]

That'll go over really well with the millennials who think Every Women Should Be Believed.

Who says they won't believe her when she swore under oath that Clinton didn't rape her?

Think whatever gives you comfort. Juanita told several people about the rape back when it happened, and has spoken out about it. She didn't want to be dragged into the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski fracas when Bubbah was President...and for good reason. She knew how the Clintons attacked women's reputations.

And facing the penalty of perjury, swore it never happened. And if she's so afraid of the Clinton's, why has she recanted her recant? Sounds like you're full of shit.

Your logic chopping has extended beyond the absurd. She's credible when she doesn't want to testify, for reasons that are obvious to anyone else, but she isn't credible when she does accuse Bill of rape. She would commit perjury, but Bill, the president of the United States, committed perjury before the entire country.

Why would anyone swallow your ridiculous excuses?

Whether or not she wanted to testify -- she did. And she swore Clinton never raped her. And if she committed such blatant perjury, why was she never charged?

She didn't want to get involved in the Paula Jones lawsuits, for very good reasons. She has since recanted and come forward with the true story about the rape and hiLIARy's subsequent threat towards her.

 

[Faun]

Yeah....name some.....how about the one bill clinton went to the Island with...without his Secret Service detail...how about that one...moron.

Trump is going to make sure everyone knows that Bill raped Juanita. Finally, a bit of karmic justice for The Big Creep.

So? The Clinton's will make sure everyone knows she swore under oath it didn't happen.

That's not going to be very convincing:

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[9] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[11] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[11] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[9]

Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[9] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[12] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[4]After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[10]​

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

It appears that everyone but you understands why she wouldn't want to be the center of a media circus, especially when it comes to testifying against a couple of political thugs as powerful and ruthless as the Clintons.

Are you serious?

But she'll go on radio and TV and claim he raped her. Where's that fear you're imagining?

 

[Faun]

Who says they won't believe her when she swore under oath that Clinton didn't rape her?

Think whatever gives you comfort. Juanita told several people about the rape back when it happened, and has spoken out about it. She didn't want to be dragged into the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski fracas when Bubbah was President...and for good reason. She knew how the Clintons attacked women's reputations.

And facing the penalty of perjury, swore it never happened. And if she's so afraid of the Clinton's, why has she recanted her recant? Sounds like you're full of shit.

Your logic chopping has extended beyond the absurd. She's credible when she doesn't want to testify, for reasons that are obvious to anyone else, but she isn't credible when she does accuse Bill of rape. She would commit perjury, but Bill, the president of the United States, committed perjury before the entire country.

Why would anyone swallow your ridiculous excuses?

Whether or not she wanted to testify -- she did. And she swore Clinton never raped her. And if she committed such blatant perjury, why was she never charged?

She didn't want to get involved in the Paula Jones lawsuits, for very good reasons. She has since recanted and come forward with the true story about the rape and hiLIARy's subsequent threat towards her.

She's said she was raped and she said she wasn't raped. To conservative lunatics -- that makes her credible.

 

[bripat9643]

That'll go over really well with the millennials who think Every Women Should Be Believed.

Who says they won't believe her when she swore under oath that Clinton didn't rape her?

Think whatever gives you comfort. Juanita told several people about the rape back when it happened, and has spoken out about it. She didn't want to be dragged into the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski fracas when Bubbah was President...and for good reason. She knew how the Clintons attacked women's reputations.

And facing the penalty of perjury, swore it never happened. And if she's so afraid of the Clinton's, why has she recanted her recant? Sounds like you're full of shit.

Your logic chopping has extended beyond the absurd. She's credible when she doesn't want to testify, for reasons that are obvious to anyone else, but she isn't credible when she does accuse Bill of rape. She would commit perjury, but Bill, the president of the United States, committed perjury before the entire country.

Why would anyone swallow your ridiculous excuses?

Whether or not she wanted to testify -- she did. And she swore Clinton never raped her. And if she committed such blatant perjury, why was she never charged?

She was subpoenad, so she had no choice in the matter. She took the course of action that would limit her notoriety and the hostility of the Clintons. She was never charged with perjury because neither side wanted to charge her with perjury. The Clintons got the testimony they wanted, so they obviously had no motive to accuse her of perjury, and Paula Jones' lawyers simply had no desire to destroy her life. They got the result they wanted without doing so.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump is going to make sure everyone knows that Bill raped Juanita. Finally, a bit of karmic justice for The Big Creep.

So? The Clinton's will make sure everyone knows she swore under oath it didn't happen.

That's not going to be very convincing:

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[9] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[11] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[11] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[9]

Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[9] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[12] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[4]After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[10]​

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

It appears that everyone but you understands why she wouldn't want to be the center of a media circus, especially when it comes to testifying against a couple of political thugs as powerful and ruthless as the Clintons.

Are you serious?

But she'll go on radio and TV and claim he raped her. Where's that fear you're imagining?

People change their mind about things, douche bag.

 

[bripat9643]

That's not going to be very convincing:

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[9] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[11] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[11] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[9]

Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[9] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[12] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[4]After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[10]​

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

And Juanita in 1999.

And rational people are going to believe she was raped when she swore under oath she wasn't, because....?

Or maybe her attending a fundraiser for Clinton not long after will convince them?

Oh, I know, it's Juanita recently adding "new details" to an incident she claimed occurred almost 4 decades ago that will convince them.

There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine, bub. She's taking a big risk going public with the truth.

hiLIARy, on the other hand, refuses to talk to the IG about her email server. You can choose who you think is more credible, but I believe Juanita.

Huh? What risk is she taking?

The risk was already mentioned: There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine. Hillary's job while Clinton was in office was destroying anyone who told the truth about her husband.

 

[Faun]

Who says they won't believe her when she swore under oath that Clinton didn't rape her?

Think whatever gives you comfort. Juanita told several people about the rape back when it happened, and has spoken out about it. She didn't want to be dragged into the Paula Jones/Monica Lewinski fracas when Bubbah was President...and for good reason. She knew how the Clintons attacked women's reputations.

And facing the penalty of perjury, swore it never happened. And if she's so afraid of the Clinton's, why has she recanted her recant? Sounds like you're full of shit.

Your logic chopping has extended beyond the absurd. She's credible when she doesn't want to testify, for reasons that are obvious to anyone else, but she isn't credible when she does accuse Bill of rape. She would commit perjury, but Bill, the president of the United States, committed perjury before the entire country.

Why would anyone swallow your ridiculous excuses?

Whether or not she wanted to testify -- she did. And she swore Clinton never raped her. And if she committed such blatant perjury, why was she never charged?

She was subpoenad, so she had no choice in the matter. She took the course of action that would limit her notoriety and the hostility of the Clintons. She was never charged with perjury because neither side wanted to charge her with perjury. The Clintons got the testimony they wanted, so they obviously had no motive to accuse her of perjury, and Paula Jones' lawyers simply had no desire to destroy her life. They got the result they wanted without doing so.

Of course she had choices available to her. She could have easily said she didn't recall. And it wasn't up to the Clinton's to charge her with perjury. There was an independent counsel who was trying to nail Clinton on something. Why on Earth wouldn't he seek perjury charges against her when he needed her to testify Clinton raped her?

 

[Faun]

So? The Clinton's will make sure everyone knows she swore under oath it didn't happen.

That's not going to be very convincing:

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[9] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[11] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[11] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[9]

Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[9] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[12] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[4]After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[10]​

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

It appears that everyone but you understands why she wouldn't want to be the center of a media circus, especially when it comes to testifying against a couple of political thugs as powerful and ruthless as the Clintons.

Are you serious?

But she'll go on radio and TV and claim he raped her. Where's that fear you're imagining?

People change their mind about things, douche bag.

Then there's no fear, as you made up. She claimed he raped her before testifying ... no fear then. She's made that claim after testifying ... no fear then either. But according to conservative acolytes like you, the only time she lied out of fear is when she faced the penalty of perjury.

You have no clue to how fucking retarded you sound, do you? Then again, I'm inquiring to the moron who actually said groping a woman is raping her.

 

[Faun]

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

And Juanita in 1999.

And rational people are going to believe she was raped when she swore under oath she wasn't, because....?

Or maybe her attending a fundraiser for Clinton not long after will convince them?

Oh, I know, it's Juanita recently adding "new details" to an incident she claimed occurred almost 4 decades ago that will convince them.

There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine, bub. She's taking a big risk going public with the truth.

hiLIARy, on the other hand, refuses to talk to the IG about her email server. You can choose who you think is more credible, but I believe Juanita.

Huh? What risk is she taking?

The risk was already mentioned: There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine. Hillary's job while Clinton was in office was destroying anyone who told the truth about her husband.

Too bad the person you claim was raped by Clinton swore under oath it never happened, eh?

 

[bripat9643]

That's not going to be very convincing:

Juanita Broaddrick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia​

In the fall of 1997, Paula Jones’s private investigators tried to talk to Broaddrick at her home, also secretly taping the conversation.[9] Broaddrick refused to discuss the incident, saying “it was just a horrible horrible thing,” and that she “wouldn’t relive it for anything.”[11] The investigators told her she would likely be subpoenaed if she would not talk to them. Broaddrick said she would deny everything, saying “you can’t get to him, and I’m not going to ruin my good name to do it… there’s just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he’s just too vicious.”[11] Broaddrick was subpoenaed in the Jones suit soon after and submitted an affidavit denying that Clinton had made “any sexual advances”.[1][2] The recording of Broaddrick’s conversation with the investigators was leaked to the press, but Broaddrick continued to refuse to speak to reporters.[9]

Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[9] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[12] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[4]After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affidavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[10]​

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

It appears that everyone but you understands why she wouldn't want to be the center of a media circus, especially when it comes to testifying against a couple of political thugs as powerful and ruthless as the Clintons.

Are you serious?

But she'll go on radio and TV and claim he raped her. Where's that fear you're imagining?

People change their mind about things, douche bag.

Then there's no fear, as you made up. She claimed he raped her before testifying ... no fear then. She's made that claim after testifying ... no fear then either. But according to conservative acolytes like you, the only time she lied out of fear is when she faced the penalty of perjury.

You have no clue to how fucking retarded you sound, do you? Then again, I'm inquiring to the moron who actually said groping a woman is raping her.

Before the trial, She only told her friends and family, not the entire world, you fucking moron.

Your excuses for slick are getting increasingly desperate. You're down to attacking one detail of the testimony of one of the women out of 12 who accused him of sexually assaulting them.

And you think he's no worse than Trump?

Do you understand how you sound like a total fucking douche bag?

 

[bripat9643]

And Juanita in 1999.

And rational people are going to believe she was raped when she swore under oath she wasn't, because....?

Or maybe her attending a fundraiser for Clinton not long after will convince them?

Oh, I know, it's Juanita recently adding "new details" to an incident she claimed occurred almost 4 decades ago that will convince them.

There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine, bub. She's taking a big risk going public with the truth.

hiLIARy, on the other hand, refuses to talk to the IG about her email server. You can choose who you think is more credible, but I believe Juanita.

Huh? What risk is she taking?

The risk was already mentioned: There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine. Hillary's job while Clinton was in office was destroying anyone who told the truth about her husband.

Too bad the person you claim was raped by Clinton swore under oath it never happened, eh?

Too bad that excuse isn't going to save Hillary. She's done. Stick a fork in her.

 

[Faun]

And then in the face of a wikipedia link is Broaddrick's actual sworn testimony.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.​

It appears that everyone but you understands why she wouldn't want to be the center of a media circus, especially when it comes to testifying against a couple of political thugs as powerful and ruthless as the Clintons.

Are you serious?

But she'll go on radio and TV and claim he raped her. Where's that fear you're imagining?

People change their mind about things, douche bag.

Then there's no fear, as you made up. She claimed he raped her before testifying ... no fear then. She's made that claim after testifying ... no fear then either. But according to conservative acolytes like you, the only time she lied out of fear is when she faced the penalty of perjury.

You have no clue to how fucking retarded you sound, do you? Then again, I'm inquiring to the moron who actually said groping a woman is raping her.

Before the trial, She only told her friends and family, not the entire world, you fucking moron.

Your excuses for slick are getting increasingly desperate. You're down to attacking one detail of the testimony of one of the women out of 12 who accused him of sexually assaulting them.

And you think he's no worse than Trump?

Do you understand how you sound like a total fucking douche bag?

What you call "one detail" is in fact, her sworn testimony; which contradicts any claims of rape. This from the person who herself was cheating on her husband at the time. Real class character witness ya got there.

And if you think I care that a person who considers groping a woman or having consensual sex with them, "rape," thinks I'm a "total fucking douche bag" for pointing out Juanita's a proven liar, then you're even more rightarded than ever before. As difficult as that may be.

 

[Faun]

And rational people are going to believe she was raped when she swore under oath she wasn't, because....?

Or maybe her attending a fundraiser for Clinton not long after will convince them?

Oh, I know, it's Juanita recently adding "new details" to an incident she claimed occurred almost 4 decades ago that will convince them.

There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine, bub. She's taking a big risk going public with the truth.

hiLIARy, on the other hand, refuses to talk to the IG about her email server. You can choose who you think is more credible, but I believe Juanita.

Huh? What risk is she taking?

The risk was already mentioned: There is no upside for Juanita to make herself a victim of the Clinton Attack Machine. Hillary's job while Clinton was in office was destroying anyone who told the truth about her husband.

Too bad the person you claim was raped by Clinton swore under oath it never happened, eh?

Too bad that excuse isn't going to save Hillary. She's done. Stick a fork in her.

Bookmarked for future entertainment.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Even Stephen Hawking can't explain Trump's popularity
During an interview with ITV's Good Morning Britain, Hawking was asked to explain the popular phenomenon of the property tycoon, who against all odds became the Republican presidential candidate.


"I can't. He's a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator," Hawking said.

 

[Correll]

What's so funny about Trump being accused of rape? The accuser is just as credible as the woman who accused Bill Clinton of raping her.

No, she is not.

Divorce testimony is not credible.

Ivana has since recanted that accusation and described her relationship with Trump as "best of friends".

Of course she is as credible. Tabloid statements which are the polar opposite of sworn testimony are just as credible as divorce testimony. i.e., not very credibile at all.

In both cases, each woman claimed they were raped and each recanted their claim of rape. Neither claim is credible.

But my point stands ... more women have accused Trump of rape than have accused Bill Clinton of rape.

The two cases are completely different.


Ivana gave testimony during a divorce from a BILLIONAIRE.

If you can't imagine a motive to lie there, that is on you.

And recanted when the pressure was off, and she became friendly with Donald while raising their child.


Broaddrick told her story to her friends in private while injured and traumatized. FIVE people who supported her story.


She gave false testimony because she was terrified of the power of a President and his vicious wife.

She eventually had the truth dragged out of her, in the context of when her life was being destroyed despite her silence.

BIll and her are not friends today. Hillary and her are not friends today.

I understand you want to believe but the reality remains ... a person who recalls two completely different accounts of the same in incident is neither credibile nor believable.

You are choosing to believe both women when they had tremendous motive to lie, and choosing to disbelieve them when they did NOT.


I am doing the opposite.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

[

And you think he's no worse than Trump?

Trump has been accused of rape and of fraud in Court ...Hillary has a clean court record...bottom line...

 

[Faun]

What's so funny about Trump being accused of rape? The accuser is just as credible as the woman who accused Bill Clinton of raping her.

No, she is not.

Divorce testimony is not credible.

Ivana has since recanted that accusation and described her relationship with Trump as "best of friends".

Of course she is as credible. Tabloid statements which are the polar opposite of sworn testimony are just as credible as divorce testimony. i.e., not very credibile at all.

In both cases, each woman claimed they were raped and each recanted their claim of rape. Neither claim is credible.

But my point stands ... more women have accused Trump of rape than have accused Bill Clinton of rape.

The two cases are completely different.


Ivana gave testimony during a divorce from a BILLIONAIRE.

If you can't imagine a motive to lie there, that is on you.

And recanted when the pressure was off, and she became friendly with Donald while raising their child.


Broaddrick told her story to her friends in private while injured and traumatized. FIVE people who supported her story.


She gave false testimony because she was terrified of the power of a President and his vicious wife.

She eventually had the truth dragged out of her, in the context of when her life was being destroyed despite her silence.

BIll and her are not friends today. Hillary and her are not friends today.

I understand you want to believe but the reality remains ... a person who recalls two completely different accounts of the same in incident is neither credibile nor believable.

You are choosing to believe both women when they had tremendous motive to lie, and choosing to disbelieve them when they did NOT.


I am doing the opposite.

Sadly, your massive confusion persists. Please show the post I made where I ever said I believed Ivana Trump when she said she was raped. Failure to do so demonstrates the accuracy of my assessment that you are thoroughly & hopelessly confused.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

She didn't want to get involved in the Paula Jones lawsuits, for very good reasons. She has since recanted and come forward with the true story about the rape and hiLIARy's subsequent threat towards her.

There is no evidence of "subsequent threats" from Hillary...I believe that Brodderick did not want to go under oath and say Bill Clinton raped her because its not true and would have exposed her to perjury...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Here are some facts

No one has offered testimony in court that either Hillary or Bill Clinton raped anyone..

There are sworn depositions against Trump that he raped his ex wife...there are allegations also of under age sex involving Trump

There are sworn depositions alleging that Trump created and carried out Fraud thorough Trump University...that Fraud trial will come later this year however the documents related to the fraud will be released this week...they will be gone over with a "fine tooth comb"
Those are unassailable facts