• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WikiLeaks: Clinton campaign collected data to discredit Bill Clinton accuser

Gaugingcatenate said:
Ok, how about backing off from the disingenuous misstatement of what you know I, in fact, did say, rogue.

By the simple fact that you got it right the first time... one has to wonder, why did you then change the phrasing? I said, and you quoted me:

"Besides that, the article confirms that she allowed a false claim to be put forward by her paid psychologist making up a story about the young girl fantasizing about seeking out older adult males and making false allegations about being attacked.".

Confirm = establish the truth or correctness of (something previously believed, suspected, or feared to be the case).

I did not say it will confirm for you, I said it confirms. I had already read the WP article and so the snopes article confirmed to me that the affidavit alluding to the fact Clinton, or team Clinton on this case, made the assertion that the young 12 fantasized about older men and had made accusations of attacks on her body. This an unfounded, from what I can determine, claim. And if she, or her team, made it up out of whole cloth, which it seems she did, this was beyond unnecessary, is in fact an egregious step for any lawyer to take, much less for a woman lawyer purporting to be concerned with the rights and protections of females in general.

It might certainly have been a method used in the 70s... but it is based upon a lie, it had no foundation in truth or fact and so could not be "expected to be done". If based on no facts, no reason to use such an ugly tactic in this particular case against a 12 year old girl. An upstanding lawyer simply would not do such a thing. Even if you have cases of generally respected lawyers doing so, it would only serve to inform me that they do not deserve to be respected. Sorry, one cannot, or rather should not, state things one knows are false just to get your client a lenient sentence.

As to snopes and what it did and did not do, I was, in my post to another enabler of men taking advantage of women and so no friend to women, only saying it may have somewhat cleared up the matter of her laughing at the case vs laughing at the girl in the case, but it does not show that Hillary as anything but a lawyer winning at any cost and in not in any particular manner doing what was right and proper, doing anything to make sure that the innocent females were not at least minimally protected and respected... this was more to help Hillary than to stand up for what is right and good, female, male or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Except it didn't confirm that since there was nothing false there. It may have been unethical or wrong to do, but you can't show that the statement is false.

You really have no clue on how the law works. A good lawyer tries to provide the best case for their client regardless of their feelings. Being a lawyer is not easy, many can't do it because in order to be good at defending people, you are going to have to compromise your ethics.

And no she didn't laugh at the case or the girl, but rather some few aspects of the case. There is a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
Again, I'm not going to rehash every debate we've had over the course of the past year as well as to enumerate every single horrible thing he's ever done. We've heard it all. In 2020 do what you can do support a sane Republican candidate and Clinton will probably lose if she decides to run again.
Click to expand...
Dude, she loses this time. Its win win, she loses or she wins and the secession movements win. Nobody sane, Republican or otherwise, will want to stick around for what is essentially a failed, like the first two, Obama third term.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Dude, she loses this time. Its win win, she loses or she wins and the secession movements win. Nobody sane, Republican or otherwise, will want to stick around for what is essentially a failed, like the first two, Obama third term.
Click to expand...

It's funny that you think any secession movement stands a chance. Any evidence of a growing, effective secession movement? At all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Except it didn't confirm that since there was nothing false there. It may have been unethical or wrong to do, but you can't show that the statement is false.

You really have no clue on how the law works. A good lawyer tries to provide the best case for their client regardless of their feelings. Being a lawyer is not easy, many can't do it because in order to be good at defending people, you are going to have to compromise your ethics.

And no she didn't laugh at the case or the girl, but rather some few aspects of the case. There is a difference.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In the absence of the presence of ANY truth, one is at fault for advancing such a statement. You cannot convict on wild hypothetical, you also cannot aquit in such a manner. To put them out there is unethical and, in the case of a 41 year old man raping a 12 year old girl, beyond the pale.

I couldn't give a rat's ass how hard or easy being a lawyer is, making up fake and demonstrably false **** simply is not allowed. You pretend to know a lot about the law. But when you speak of it you show no real knowledge or appreciation of the reality of the law. Or, I might as well add, many other areas which you debate with zeal but possess little actual understanding.

Are you familiar with what is known as a code of professional conduct? Many occupations have them, attorneys do as well.

With the law a lawyer, as an officer of the court, is bound by these standards. Do you know what it requires with regards to making knowingly false statements of fact or presenting false evidence to the court? Or even to fail to correct a false statement of material fact previously made? There ARE such professional obligations, whether you know it, like it, or not, and I am sure they come with sanctions if you do not meet the obligation.

Hillary should have been sanctioned in this instance.

Be that as it may, it appears that Hillary took the same cavalier attitude that she did with this young girl and applied it to all the women her husband assaulted over the years and year and years. She does not care about women, she cares about Hillary and whats good for Hillary. And you are defending this trash and all the ill she has done to women and womankind... and thus indirectly to men and mankind. We have mothers we have wives, we have daughters and granddaughters. You don't care, she is for abortion, she is for gay marriage, she has a D behind her name.

What a farce.

As to your last statement, it is proof you would not make a very good lawyer, you cannot even hold your own in simple debate. "...no she didn't laugh at the case or the girl, but rather some few aspects of the case" huh? Don't know if you know or can quite grasp the concept of it, but laughing at aspects of the case are a subset oflaughing at the case.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Dude, she loses this time. Its win win, she loses or she wins and the secession movements win. Nobody sane, Republican or otherwise, will want to stick around for what is essentially a failed, like the first two, Obama third term.
Click to expand...
In that case, there's quite a few insane people out there, because I know there are plenty who think Obama has done alot of good things.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
In the absence of the presence of ANY truth, one is at fault for advancing such a statement. You cannot convict on wild hypothetical, you also cannot aquit in such a manner. To put them out there is unethical and, in the case of a 41 year old man raping a 12 year old girl, beyond the pale.

I couldn't give a rat's ass how hard or easy being a lawyer is, making up fake and demonstrably false **** simply is not allowed. You pretend to know a lot about the law. But when you speak of it you show no real knowledge or appreciation of the reality of the law. Or, I might as well add, many other areas which you debate with zeal but possess little actual understanding.

Are you familiar with what is known as a code of professional conduct? Many occupations have them, attorneys do as well.

With the law a lawyer, as an officer of the court, is bound by these standards. Do you know what it requires with regards to making knowingly false statements of fact or presenting false evidence to the court? Or even to fail to correct a false statement of material fact previously made? There ARE such professional obligations, whether you know it, like it, or not, and I am sure they come with sanctions if you do not meet the obligation.

Hillary should have been sanctioned in this instance.

Be that as it may, it appears that Hillary took the same cavalier attitude that she did with this young girl and applied it to all the women her husband assaulted over the years and year and years. She does not care about women, she cares about Hillary and whats good for Hillary. And you are defending this trash and all the ill she has done to women and womankind... and thus indirectly to men and mankind. We have wives, we have daughters and granddaughters. You don't care, she is for abortion, she is for gay marriage, she has a D behind her name.

What a farce.

As to your last statement, it is proof you would not make a very good lawyer, you cannot even hold your own in simple debate. "...no she didn't laugh at the case or the girl, but rather some few aspects of the case" huh? Don't know if you know or can quite grasp the concept of it, but laughing at aspects of the case are a subset oflaughing at the case.
Click to expand...

Except you can't prove those statements were false. They could have been but you don't have proof, not legally, that they were false statements.

And your contemot isn't a concern to me. You are beating this issue to death because you don't like HRC. You don't care about that little girls case, because then you would have noticed that the victim says she holds no bad feelings toward Clinton, that she understood she was just doing her job.

As for the laughing at aspects of the case being a subset of laughing at the case as a whole, you are wrong. That is you trying to frame the narrative to appear as if Clinton was laughing about the rape of a child.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Dude, she loses this time. Its win win, she loses or she wins and the secession movements win. Nobody sane, Republican or otherwise, will want to stick around for what is essentially a failed, like the first two, Obama third term.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Figures. Terrorize the rape victim. Good move.
Click to expand...

Omg how dare they get a defense together against continuing, already dismissed rape accusations that were investigated before by a man who was trying to find anything he could, and still got dismissed as likely being consensual sex.
 
roguenuke said:
Omg how dare they get a defense together against continuing, already dismissed rape accusations that were investigated before by a man who was trying to find anything he could, and still got dismissed as likely being consensual sex.
Click to expand...

Whatever.
 
roguenuke said:
It's funny that you think any secession movement stands a chance. Any evidence of a growing, effective secession movement? At all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Why don't we go back to how plausible gay marriage was just a few short years past, eh? but...

True, there is hardly anybody that is unhappy with the current system.

Well, I will try to name one, then.... The folks caught up in the conservative crack down by the IRS, all the folks affected by the racialist prejudice expressed in the current Justice Dept, all the people sick and tired of movements like the racist BLM, all the folks out west who have a bone to pick with another BLM, all the folks fed up with political correctness, all the folks living on the borders and border states being inundated by illegals our Feds don't want those states to "handle" in the absence of the Feds handling it, all those against the forced social engineering going against cultural norms as well as biological norms, all those who understand and feel the second class status of their Christian beliefs, all those who stand for capitalism as opposed to confiscation by tax in spreading the wealth, all those opposed to the taking of millions of lives of the unborn, all those who fear the coming choices of the new face a Hillary would give to the Supreme Court on issues such as guns and marriage and transgendering and oh, god who knows what other chaos they will saddle us with [more like jam down our throats], all those lied to about keeping their doctor, lied to about keeping their health insurance plan, all those with skyrocketing premiums, deductibles and copays so high that they only have health insurance in name only, all those opposed to the countless invasions of our privacy, all those that are embarrassed by a president and his party that would denigrate our country around the world stepping back from our leadership role giving aid and comfort to our sworn enemies, alienating our allies, creating a world full of fear of who steps up into the vacuum we keep creating, coal mining families dependent upon this for their continued livelihood, fossil fuel energy companies tired of footing the bills, exploring, digging, refining and making less out of each gallon than greedy power hungry government, all the folks affected by the overabundance of rules and regs put out by the EPA and other regulatory agencies making it harder and harder for American companies, that employ, imagine this, Americans, to compete worldwide, to make a profit to stay in business to continue to employ those Americans, patriotic folk who believe in what this country has done, what we have stood for, fought for and died for...

So you are probably right, not anybody, nary a single one, everybody is simply just too satisfied with the status quo, no discontent whatsoever out there to cultivate... everything is just going swimmingly it appears. Hmmm, perhaps go grab a couple of deck chairs on the top deck , eh? This Titanic is one solid ship I would say, I'll get the alcoholic beverages now that the sun has set... wow, did you feel that sudden jolt? Seems like we have come to a dead stop in the water. I can't see anything its so dark, hope we didn't hit an iceberg or anything...oh, wow...now I can see everything... the sky has lit up like daylight... wow, good lord there's a Zeppelin up there, too close, headed right for us, all lit up...can you make out the name on the side?

Hindenburg you say?


Nah, couldn't be, couldn't happen, not here.
 
roguenuke said:
Except you can't prove those statements were false. They could have been but you don't have proof, not legally, that they were false statements.

And your contemot isn't a concern to me. You are beating this issue to death because you don't like HRC. You don't care about that little girls case, because then you would have noticed that the victim says she holds no bad feelings toward Clinton, that she understood she was just doing her job.

As for the laughing at aspects of the case being a subset of laughing at the case as a whole, you are wrong. That is you trying to frame the narrative to appear as if Clinton was laughing about the rape of a child.
Click to expand...
I can prove those statements false far and above your ability to prove them true. 1. The former rape victim says she never made the statement 2. The WP fact check said Hillary put forth but could not back up the assertions 3. No psychological exam was ever performed so where would this information have ever come from?

Face it, Hillary lied in a court of law, or had others lie for her. Lying in court seems to be something that runs in the family.

The fact of the matter is that anybody, attorney or otherwise, that would/could/did put this level of crap up against a 12 year old victim... certainly does not have women's protections and women's issues at heart. Defend it all you want, we out here making decisions about who to vote for are not in a court of law, this is the court of public opinion and Hillary is guilty as hell.

Have no idea what contemot is. I am only proving that Hillary is not even as useful as common dung... she just isn't, and far more harmful. I divide people into two basic camps, those with good hearts and those without... Hillary is placed in the latter category. This after much reading/watching of the person, study and debate with defenders of this rather unsavory character/ I truthfully cannot find a redeeming feature of the "lady". Closest I can come is that she is not a complete idiot, just enough knowledge to be truly dangerous, though.

Shut your fecal mouthed trap, lady, truthfully. DO NOT EVER DEIGN TO TELL ME WHAT I DO AND DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHEN YOU HAVEN'T A F***ING CLUE... ABOUT MUCH OF ANYTHING.

Got it? Rhetorical question, please refrain from responding to this post or to me again. You are irritatingly intelligence free, I have grown to loathe your lack of knowledge on any topic we engage, your countless defenses of the indefensible, your lies and willing ignorance, your insolent attitude. You bring little to nothing to bear, I learn nothing from you... its a waste for me and to attempt to educate the ineducable is the height of squandered opportunity in a target rich world.

I tire of how little reflection and how with so little thought you put so many of your words together... but do continue your ignorance, you wear it so fittingly.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Why don't we go back to how plausible gay marriage was just a few short years past, eh? but...

True, there is hardly anybody that is unhappy with the current system.

Well, I will try to name one, then.... The folks caught up in the conservative crack down by the IRS, all the folks affected by the racialist prejudice expressed in the current Justice Dept, all the people sick and tired of movements like the racist BLM, all the folks out west who have a bone to pick with another BLM, all the folks fed up with political correctness, all the folks living on the borders and border states being inundated by illegals our Feds don't want those states to "handle" in the absence of the Feds handling it, all those against the forced social engineering going against cultural norms as well as biological norms, all those who understand and feel the second class status of their Christian beliefs, all those who stand for capitalism as opposed to confiscation by tax in spreading the wealth, all those opposed to the taking of millions of lives of the unborn, all those who fear the coming choices of the new face a Hillary would give to the Supreme Court on issues such as guns and marriage and transgendering and oh, god who knows what other chaos they will saddle us with [more like jam down our throats], all those lied to about keeping their doctor, lied to about keeping their health insurance plan, all those with skyrocketing premiums, deductibles and copays so high that they only have health insurance in name only, all those opposed to the countless invasions of our privacy, all those that are embarrassed by a president and his party that would denigrate our country around the world stepping back from our leadership role giving aid and comfort to our sworn enemies, alienating our allies, creating a world full of fear of who steps up into the vacuum we keep creating, coal mining families dependent upon this for their continued livelihood, fossil fuel energy companies tired of footing the bills, exploring, digging, refining and making less out of each gallon than greedy power hungry government, all the folks affected by the overabundance of rules and regs put out by the EPA and other regulatory agencies making it harder and harder for American companies, that employ, imagine this, Americans, to compete worldwide, to make a profit to stay in business to continue to employ those Americans, patriotic folk who believe in what this country has done, what we have stood for, fought for and died for...

So you are probably right, not anybody, nary a single one, everybody is simply just too satisfied with the status quo, no discontent whatsoever out there to cultivate... everything is just going swimmingly it appears. Hmmm, perhaps go grab a couple of deck chairs on the top deck , eh? This Titanic is one solid ship I would say, I'll get the alcoholic beverages now that the sun has set... wow, did you feel that sudden jolt? Seems like we have come to a dead stop in the water. I can't see anything its so dark, hope we didn't hit an iceberg or anything...oh, wow...now I can see everything... the sky has lit up like daylight... wow, good lord there's a Zeppelin up there, too close, headed right for us, all lit up...can you make out the name on the side?

Hindenburg you say?


Nah, couldn't be, couldn't happen, not here.
Click to expand...

You mean when I was saying it was very likely to happen in the near future?

And there has been talk of secession from some since the Civil War ended. I had classmates who touted "the south will rise again". It was nonsense then too.

Plus none of those who would want to secede would be able to agree on things. You almost certainly have several competing philosophies within those who may have said they wouldn't mind a secession, especially in 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cardinal said:
I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm....It is in plain English. It should not be that hard to understand. But, maybe English is your second language?

Lets go step by step, then, and see if you can follow.

There are two main presidential candidates, do you know which one would be referenced by the "she" in my post? From there, do you know what the phrase " she loses this time" would mean? [Hint: has to do with the election ].

Do you have an understanding of what a win-win situation is? Means either way you go is a winner.

Then there is a sentence that goes on to describe those two ways. If she loses [that would be to the other major candidate, the guy one, you know?] its a winner. If she wins the election the secession movements [ going to have to have you look secession up as I am not explaining that concept to you ] will start gaining momentum in full force with the understanding that nobody in their right mind [sane] can or will accept what is in its most basic form [essentially] a third Obama term [ the incompetent and agenda drive current president the last 8 years]. Especially with an ability to appoint [recommend for the job] more left leaning [meaning folks who have bad ideas for America and Americans ] Justices [ judges ] on the Supreme Court [ the highest court and final court to which there is no other appeal ].

Okay, my days as a teacher are over. When I was being paid I had to make an attempt at educating the ineducable. Now I simply do not have to bother. If you still do not understand [ as well as any future inability to do so ], I would suggest locating an educated adult to assist.

Good luck with all that.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Hmmmm....It is in plain English. It should not be that hard to understand. But, maybe English is your second language?
Click to expand...

That is correct. My first language is the language of love.

Lets go step by step, then, and see if you can follow.
Click to expand...

[cracks knuckles]. Alright, let's do this.

There are two main presidential candidates, do you know which one would be referenced by the "she" in my post?
Click to expand...

Iiiiiiiii'm going to go with..............Clinton.

From there, do you know what the phrase " she loses this time" would mean? [Hint: has to do with the election ].
Click to expand...

Well you can't possibly mean that she loses the election.

Do you have an understanding of what a win-win situation is? Means either way you go is a winner.
Click to expand...

That part you're going to need to reword.

Then there is a sentence that goes on to describe those two ways. If she loses [that would be to the other major candidate, the guy one, you know?]
Click to expand...

Okay, so if I understand you correctly, she's going to lose to the guy who's 7.5 points behind on RCP and is missing the 61 electoral votes needed to win the election. Okay, next:

its a winner.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.

If she wins the election the secession movements [ going to have to have you look secession up as I am not explaining that concept to you ] will start gaining momentum in full force with the understanding that nobody in their right mind [sane] can or will accept what is in its most basic form [essentially] a third Obama term [ the incompetent and agenda drive current president the last 8 years].
Click to expand...

Your fantasies are adorable.

Especially with an ability to appoint [recommend for the job] more left leaning [meaning folks who have bad ideas for America and Americans ] Justices [ judges ] on the Supreme Court [ the highest court and final court to which there is no other appeal ].

Okay, my days as a teacher are over. When I was being paid I had to make an attempt at educating the ineducable. Now I simply do not have to bother. If you still do not understand [ as well as any future inability to do so ], I would suggest locating an educated adult to assist.

Good luck with all that.
Click to expand...
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066432586 said:
Then what was that $850,000 payoff all about?
Click to expand...

Paula Jones lawsuit had already been dismissed. The Clintons had nothing to worry about. But she was ready to re-litigate unless the Clintons would pay her off. So they paid her 850,000, only 200000 went to her and the rest paid her lawyer bill.

 
Cardinal said:
That is correct. My first language is the language of love.



[cracks knuckles]. Alright, let's do this.



Iiiiiiiii'm going to go with..............Clinton.



Well you can't possibly mean that she loses the election.



That part you're going to need to reword.



Okay, so if I understand you correctly, she's going to lose to the guy who's 7.5 points behind on RCP and is missing the 61 electoral votes needed to win the election. Okay, next:



Uh huh.



Your fantasies are adorable.
Click to expand...
From what I can determine, with my instruction you understood most, apparently not quite all. Look up win-win or ask an educated adult as suggested earlier.

You get way off track when you use the less than scientific manner of guessing election results commonly known as BS for the faint hearted. Oops, I mean polling. The only poll that is accurate is the one at election time, the rest is an up and down roller coaster ride of aggregate guessing and attempts at media influence that the stupid regularly follow. reference the polling on Brexit, Bernie Sanders upset of Hillary in Michigan, the Scottish referendum in 2014... The considered gold standard Gallup doesn't even do the presidential elections anymore, smart move.

I would say, if its just a heightened guess you so desperately seek, why not stick with reading tea leaves or chicken entrails? Aggregate those, much cheaper,similarly scientific and probably just about as accurate. :lamo:lamo:lamo

As to the businessman and anti establishment candidate being a winner, I see you don't understand real world experience over government housing occupier and public sector flunky, not to mention her innate crookedness, corruption and undeniable criminality... this on the heels of the failed community organizer you folks thrust upon us. Government worker, are ya?

Didn't really get the last parts I see. Not my problem.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
From what I can determine, with my instruction you understood most, apparently not quite all. Look up win-win or ask an educated adult as suggested earlier.

You get way off track when you use the less than scientific manner of guessing election results commonly known as BS for the faint hearted. Oops, I mean polling. The only poll that is accurate is the one at election time, the rest is an up and down roller coaster ride of aggregate guessing and attempts at media influence that the stupid regularly follow. reference the polling on Brexit, Bernie Sanders upset of Hillary in Michigan, the Scottish referendum in 2014... The considered gold standard Gallup doesn't even do the presidential elections anymore, smart move.

I would say, if its just a heightened guess you so desperately seek, why not stick with reading tea leaves or chicken entrails? Aggregate those, much cheaper,similarly scientific and probably just about as accurate. :lamo:lamo:lamo

As to the businessman and anti establishment candidate being a winner, I see you don't understand real world experience over government housing occupier and public sector flunky, not to mention her innate crookedness, corruption and undeniable criminality... this on the heels of the failed community organizer you folks thrust upon us. Government worker, are ya?

Didn't really get the last parts I see. Not my problem.
Click to expand...

Wait, you were being serious when you wanted me to respond to your claims of being an educator?
 
roughdraft274 said:
Paula Jones lawsuit had already been dismissed. The Clintons had nothing to worry about. But she was ready to re-litigate unless the Clintons would pay her off. So they paid her 850,000, only 200000 went to her and the rest paid her lawyer bill.

Click to expand...
Only $200K? :lamo

The Clintons paid off to put this behind them in the quietest manner possible, also not risk an adverse judgement in a sexual harassment suit. Lawyers are expensive, but two hundred thousand smackers for a regular person, that would include me, is nothing to sniff at.

And while I appreciate Nap's assessment, I don't agree that Bill was not doing these types of things on a regular basis, with and without consent and Hillary knowing this did stand by him, enabling him as he continued to harass, molest and probably rape.

When relatively powerless women go up against the powerful man, and nobody can deny the presidency and the Clinton machine is not vast and powerful with plenty of very unscrupulous folks involved, that is just plain intimidation.

This Jones case shows just how the cards are stacked against women on this topic and all the more goes towards Hillary being a culprit in doing what she did.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Only $200K? :lamo

The Clintons paid off to put this behind them in the quietest manner possible, also not risk an adverse judgement in a sexual harassment suit. Lawyers are expensive, but two hundred thousand smackers for a regular person, that would include me, is nothing to sniff at.

And while I appreciate Nap's assessment, I don't agree that Bill was not doing these types of things on a regular basis, with and without consent and Hillary knowing this did stand by him, enabling him as he continued to harass, molest and probably rape.

When relatively powerless women go up against the powerful man, and nobody can deny the presidency and the Clinton machine is not vast and powerful with plenty of very unscrupulous folks involved, that is just plain intimidation.

This Jones case shows just how the cards are stacked against women on this topic and all the more goes towards Hillary being a culprit in doing what she did.
Click to expand...

I'll agree that anytime stuff comes up like this it's messy. Accusations that something happened long ago, little to no evidence, accusations are withdrawn, only to be re-accused years later etc. etc.

The difference is that I leave it where the evidence stops, that we have a big mess that no one can make any real valid inference on, and you go to conspiracy theories based on what you want to be true.

And yes, 200,000 is alot, but when it's less than a 1/3 of the lawyers fees it puts it in to perspective. And when you consider that the lawsuit was already found to be without merit and that other people offered to foot the bill to make her go away, it's painfully obvious that anyone, guilty or not, would have said "fine, if you want to, giver her some money so I don't spend the rest of my presidency going through court cases that will just be dismissed at the end of the day."
 
Fenton said:
One of those '' accusers " was paid a 850k dollar out of court settlement. For what ? Consensual sex ?
Click to expand...

She was paid that after she lost the court case so that she wouldn't bring it up again and so Bill wouldn't have to spend the rest of his presidency in court for a trial that would just waste time. And on top of that it was paid with funds raised by Clinton friends.

Here's a good explanation by one of the most fringe conservative Clinton-hating people out there:
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'll agree that anytime stuff comes up like this it's messy. Accusations that something happened long ago, little to no evidence, accusations are withdrawn, only to be re-accused years later etc. etc.

The difference is that I leave it where the evidence stops, that we have a big mess that no one can make any real valid inference on, and you go to conspiracy theories based on what you want to be true.

And yes, 200,000 is alot, but when it's less than a 1/3 of the lawyers fees it puts it in to perspective. And when you consider that the lawsuit was already found to be without merit and that other people offered to foot the bill to make her go away, it's painfully obvious that anyone, guilty or not, would have said "fine, if you want to, giver her some money so I don't spend the rest of my presidency going through court cases that will just be dismissed at the end of the day."
Click to expand...
Appreciate the civility of the conversation, more should go this way.

Yes, it is difficult to make heads or tails of the mess. But Bill has a history of being a serial adulterer, he tried to hide that as well. There WAS a pattern established in the trial. Bill did twice get caught perjuring himself in this same trial, he was also caught, found guilty of trying to get Monica to lie, which is suborning perjury and obstruction of justice. With those he was disbarred and impeached.

If there were no merit there sure was no reason to go to such lengths to cover up all that he had done. You pick up clues as to guilt or innocence as best you can, where you can find them, which all goes towards an assessment of character.

Willey and Broaddrick profit none through this... if it weren't true why would they painfully allow themselves to be included in an ongoing saga, why not just fade into the background... unless it is principled, unless they feel he and she must be stopped?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom