• 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

DiAnna said:
Oh, you mean people like Donald Trump, who started the last debate by parading Clinton accusers in front of the press?
Click to expand...

And what's wrong with that? Its just a reminder to the low information voters Bill will be back in the WH if Hillary is elected.

DiAnna said:
You're right, that some some hypocrisy on Trump's part, since his accuser body count now more than triples Bill's!
Click to expand...

So you believe Trump's accusers but not Bill's. How partisan of you.

Who made 26 trips on the "Lolita Express?"

Body counts refer to the Clinton's: Seth Rich, Joe Montano, Shawn Lucas, et al.
 
tres borrachos said:
Fox News forked over $20 million to Gretchen Carlson after she said Trump team staffer Roger Ailes sexually harassed her. Sometimes women who are sexually harassed or abused are willing to take the money to avoid a court case. And as you said, sometimes an out of court settlement ends up costing far less in the end.
Click to expand...

Only a fool would believe that's why Bill Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones for the entire amount she asked for.
 
tres borrachos said:
Fox News forked over $20 million to Gretchen Carlson after she said Trump team staffer Roger Ailes sexually harassed her. Sometimes women who are sexually harassed or abused are willing to take the money to avoid a court case. And as you said, sometimes an out of court settlement ends up costing far less in the end.
Click to expand...

$20 million dollars for harassment? :wow:
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
So you think Paula Jones was a one off... he ONLY did it just that once, only to Paula Jones?

Yeah, right.

And how many times does it have to be explained to you for you to actually get it about why this includes Hillary? You don't want to get it, and in that way you are just like Hillary, protecting a sexual harasser, molester, a rapist, allowing him to continue doing this to others. But perhaps you are even worse as you are also protecting an enabler who allowed him to keep hurting women. That's not someone truly on the side of women. Sexual abuser, enabler or enabler or the enabler.

You know when you see that rubber hit the road how somebody will/did act in a real life situation. With Hillary you can almost hear the screech of tires off in the wrong direction, favoring the bad guy over innocence, just how does one justify putting that into the most respected office of the land?

So...Here from another thread where I posted explaining to you: http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-...ion/266969-limbaugh-destroys-michelle-12.html

"If Trump actually molested women, and I don't count kissing as molestation, wanted or not, then he is nearly as bad as Bill. Bill is not running for president but Hill is, the so called protector of women attempting to cover for her sexual molester/sexual harassing husband, allowing this serial abuser to keep abusing other, innocent women? Over 30 years, no telling how many women left as flotsam and jetsam in his dirty wake?

Totally blows the whole lid off of Hillary being on the side of women, protecting women. Add her disgraceful conduct in the courtroom, and after, with a 12 year old victim of a 41 year old rapist? Just plain disgusting. Who would want to put into the highest office in the world someone with such a warped sense of justice?"



Also, you keep bringing up the affidavits but conveniently leave out telling her actual story... or the fact that she has never profited in it in any way. I see you are no longer linking wiki...yes it is damning in what her hotel roommate, that returned to the room that day, related. From the wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick


"Broaddrick shared the hotel room with her friend and employee Norma Rogers. Rogers attended a conference seminar that morning, and says she returned to their room to find Broaddrick on the bed “in a state of shock,” her pantyhose torn in the crotch and her lip swollen as though she had been hit.[6] Rogers says Broaddrick told her Clinton had "forced himself on her."[6] Rogers helped Broaddrick ice her lip, and then the women left Little Rock. Rogers said that Broaddrick was very upset on the way home and blamed herself for letting Clinton in the room.[3] Broaddrick says she did not tell her husband, Gary Hickey, about the incident, and told him she accidentally injured her lip. He told NBC he did not remember the injury or her explanation.[3][7] David Broaddrick, however, has said he noticed her injured lip, and she told him that Clinton had raped her when he asked about it.[3] Three other friends confirmed that Broaddrick had told them about the incident at the time: Susan Lewis, Louis Ma, and Jean Darden, Norma Rogers’ sister.[3] Broaddrick did not recall the date of the alleged incident, but said it was spring of 1978 and that she had stayed in the Camelot Hotel. Records show Broaddrick attended a nursing home meeting at the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock on April 25, 1978.[3][7] The Clinton White House would not respond to requests for Clinton's official schedule for the date,[8] but news reports suggest that he was in Little Rock that day, with no official commitments in the morning."

Why would Broaddick tear a hole in the crotch of her own pantyhose, punch herself then wait years and years to tell nobody else. What is the motive or logic there? You know as well as I, he did it. If it were Trump and this clear, you would be all over it. If it were Trump and this clear and this bad, I would say he is as bad as Bill. But Hillary saying she is for women and defending this rapist so he can go on harassing and molesting, maybe raping?

Bad ju ju that.
Click to expand...

Too bad even Ken Starr with all his investigators assigned to him as Special Prosecutor couldn't find one iota of evidence to support either Broaddrick or Kathleen Willey, and considered indicting them both when he discovered both had asked other people to lie for them.

The poor 12 year old rape victim allegations have been total debunked. Hillary Clinton Freed Child Rapist : snopes.com

So, bye-bye. I don't debate willful ignorance.
 
haymarket said:
It must be driving the right crazy that these Wikileaks releases don't amount to much in the eyes of the voting public.
Click to expand...

The reason the Wiki leaks aren't making a significant dent is they're not achieving a rational goal, which is to convince voters that the problems associated with Clinton (real or imagined, connected or disconnected) are worse than the fact that Trump is a psychopath and will bring chaos to the country.
 
DiAnna said:
Too bad even Ken Starr with all his investigators assigned to him as Special Prosecutor couldn't find one iota of evidence to support either Broaddrick or Kathleen Willey, and considered indicting them both when he discovered both had asked other people to lie for them.

The poor 12 year old rape victim allegations have been total debunked. Hillary Clinton Freed Child Rapist : snopes.com

So, bye-bye. I don't debate willful ignorance.
Click to expand...
Wow, you will believe anything they tell you. Is that willingly unconscious that you accept they are lying to us... or is it that you are consciously willing? One or the other.

Sly. Snopes doesnt quite do it.

First, they set about disproving the wrong thing. Then they lost all credibility with this lame statement, "As for the claim that Hillary Clinton "knew the defendant was guilty," she couldn't possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred."

Good lord, there are all sorts of ways she could have possibly have known. Maybe her client told her he was guilty. There could have been an extremely credible witness or witnesses, there could have been video of the incident, the rapist could have told his wife and his wife told Hillary... all sorts of ways she could possibly have known he was guilty.

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. This was helping commit another unnecessary travesty on an already brutalized young female... not what a true advocate of women would do. She didn't just look the other way, she promoted this.

All verified by Snopes. So hat tip to you for sourcing and validating my assertion.

So. they just lead you and you follow? Again? Do you by chance have a metal ring in your nose that they attach to when leading you around like they do? Shouldn't want your nose to get all rubbed raw.

That would be the tip-off to everyone that you are being led. Or maybe you wouldn't even notice it, speaking of willful ignorance.

We no longer need to debate, you already lost.
 
Cardinal said:
The reason the Wiki leaks aren't making a significant dent is they're not achieving a rational goal, which is to convince voters that the problems associated with Clinton (real or imagined, connected or disconnected) are worse than the fact that Trump is a psychopath and will bring chaos to the country.
Click to expand...
The Wiki leaks problems of Clinton have proven true. Your assertion that Trump is a psychopath are borne out by what proof? You got nothing AND you know it...

So, knowing that, how is it one becomes one of those who will go ahead to senselessly and imprudently vote for her... yet are not ignorant of the facts? The implication is revealing something we already know.
 
Cardinal said:
The reason the Wiki leaks aren't making a significant dent is they're not achieving a rational goal, which is to convince voters that the problems associated with Clinton (real or imagined, connected or disconnected) are worse than the fact that Trump is a psychopath and will bring chaos to the country.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you. I further think its just far too much inside baseball trivia that simply does not grab people to make them care.
 
DiAnna said:
Probably what Paula Jones wanted to drop her lawsuit. Paula Jones had the best case against unwanted sexual advances, because she apparently had witnesses who could corroborate parts of her story. As far as I can see, of all the women who came out of the woodwork, two were consensual partners, two were investigated by Ken Starr who found evidence they had both asked others to lie for them, and one, Paula Jones, had a believable and corroborated story.

Bill Clinton was a disgusting horndog, a serial adulterer and a terrible husband. So is Donald Trump. Which one is currently running for president?
Click to expand...

Which one had a presidential candidate trying to destroy their accusers? Which one has a wife that was virtually complicit in these affairs by her later actions? Bill Clinton that's who's wife did that, and that's what this is all about. It ain't about Willie. It's about an lying, unscrupulous bitch who's desire for money and power outweighs her moral principles and has done so all her life.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Wow, you will believe anything they tell you. Is that willingly unconscious that you accept they are lying to us... or is it that you are consciously willing? One or the other.

Sly. Snopes doesnt quite do it.

First, they set about disproving the wrong thing. Then they lost all credibility with this lame statement, "As for the claim that Hillary Clinton "knew the defendant was guilty," she couldn't possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred."

Good lord, there are all sorts of ways she could have possibly have known. Maybe her client told her he was guilty. There could have been an extremely credible witness or witnesses, there could have been video of the incident, the rapist could have told his wife and his wife told Hillary... all sorts of ways she could possibly have known he was guilty.

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. This was helping commit another unnecessary travesty on an already brutalized young female... not what a true advocate of women would do. She didn't just look the other way, she promoted this.

All verified by Snopes. So hat tip to you for sourcing and validating my assertion.

So. they just lead you and you follow? Again? Do you by chance have a metal ring in your nose that they attach to when leading you around like they do? Shouldn't want your nose to get all rubbed raw.

That would be the tip-off to everyone that you are being led. Or maybe you wouldn't even notice it, speaking of willful ignorance.

We no longer need to debate, you already lost.
Click to expand...

Where does it confirm she allowed a "false claim" to be put forward by a psychologist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
roguenuke said:
Where does it confirm she allowed a "false claim" to be put forward by a psychologist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Did you read the article?

"That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences."

That is made up, there is no corroboration of either of these anywhere. The now adult victim totally denies that she made any claims of being attacked other than the rape itself.

As detailed in the Washington Post fact check article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...athy-shelton-rape-case/?wpisrc=nl_fact&wpmm=1

"As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

Clinton offered no source for the claims.

When Glenn Thrush, then a reporter for Newsday, showed the affidavit to Shelton in 2007, he wrote that she was visibly stunned. “It kind of shocks me – it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”

But Shelton told Thrush at the time that she bore no ill will toward Clinton. “I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”

The WP differs from the Snopes in that Snopes says somebody other than Clinton, an expert in child psychology put forth the claims of fantasizing and attacks to her body. WP, however, says it was Hillary that made the statements...

Seems strange if she had not gone through the psych exam yet, how would a psychologist be aware of any fantasies and claims of attacks?

Snopes makes no mention of the Newday interview, but then it was almost totally focused on the laughing claim.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Did you read the article?

"That affidavit doesn't show, as claimed, that Hillary Clinton asserted the defendant "made up the rape story because [she] enjoyed fantasizing about men"; rather, it shows that other people, including an expert in child psychology, had said that the complainant was "emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences."

That is made up, there is no corroboration of either of these anywhere. The now adult victim totally denies that she made any claims of being attacked other than the rape itself.

As detailed in the Washington Post fact check article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...athy-shelton-rape-case/?wpisrc=nl_fact&wpmm=1

"As part of her handling of the case, Clinton filed an affidavit July 28, 1975, requesting that the girl go through a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing,” Clinton said. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

Clinton offered no source for the claims.

When Glenn Thrush, then a reporter for Newsday, showed the affidavit to Shelton in 2007, he wrote that she was visibly stunned. “It kind of shocks me – it’s not true,” she said. “I never said anybody attacked my body before, never in my life.”

But Shelton told Thrush at the time that she bore no ill will toward Clinton. “I have to understand that she was representing Taylor,” she said. “I’m sure Hillary was just doing her job.”

The WP differs from the Snopes in that Snopes says somebody other than Clinton, an expert in child psychology put forth the claims of fantasizing and attacks to her body. WP, however, says it was Hillary that made the statements...

Seems strange if she had not gone through the psych exam yet, how would a psychologist be aware of any fantasies and claims of attacks?

Snopes makes no mention of the Newday interview, but then it was almost totally focused on the laughing claim.
Click to expand...

You said the snopes article itself said it was a false claim, that it was in the article, not a different article and story and other information about the case.

Also the claim itself about an expert in psychology saying that young girls tend to fantasize or seek out older men. Some girls do. Not saying this one or that these facts should be used in a case, only that this is a common practice in such cases, or at least was in the 70s to defend a client accused of rape. It would have been expected to be done or could potentially be used as a reason to get the defending lawyer in trouble or used in an appeal. and the affidavit states that Clinton said she was informed, meaning the information came from someone else, likely the "expert in child psychology".

The claim it was proving wrong was the laughing claim so there was no reason to discuss anything beyond refuting the claims made about her laughing about a child being raped, which was not true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Probably what Paula Jones wanted to drop her lawsuit. Paula Jones had the best case against unwanted sexual advances, because she apparently had witnesses who could corroborate parts of her story. As far as I can see, of all the women who came out of the woodwork, two were consensual partners, two were investigated by Ken Starr who found evidence they had both asked others to lie for them, and one, Paula Jones, had a believable and corroborated story.

Bill Clinton was a disgusting horndog, a serial adulterer and a terrible husband. So is Donald Trump. Which one is currently running for president?
Click to expand...

Not really. I think something went on in that hotel room, (I've said before, I think Bill is a horndog) but she came out of that room giggling like a schoolgirl. This was attested to. Not the mark of someone who had been so accosted.

She also gave the trooper at the door her phone number, told him to give it to Bill, and asked about Bill now being "her boyfriend."

Again, not the mark of someone who was sexually harassed.

Her case was thrown out as being "Without Merit" by the judge and would never have survived appeal.

Clinton paid "get out of my hair money" -- and the country was getting sick of being pulled through this mud. The one thing Jones / her lawyers had insisted on was an apology. They got none, and no admittance of guilt.

Jones came out and filed suit two days before the statute of limitations ran out - and said it was due to a single reference to a woman named "Paula" in the rumor mongering American Spectator. Not even a last name was mentioned.

She came out, she said, to "protect her honor."

Ha! About ten minutes after the case was thrown out --

She showed herself to the world -- spreading her legs and letting everyone see her all her fleshy bits.

clinton-paula-jones-penthouse-cover.jpg
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066436190 said:
Only a fool would believe that's why Bill Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones for the entire amount she asked for.
Click to expand...

Of course. I'm a fool, right?

I'm not a fool. That's why I'm not voting for Trump.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
The Wiki leaks problems of Clinton have proven true. Your assertion that Trump is a psychopath are borne out by what proof? You got nothing AND you know it...

So, knowing that, how is it one becomes one of those who will go ahead to senselessly and imprudently vote for her... yet are not ignorant of the facts? The implication is revealing something we already know.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to redebate the revelations and events of the last year. We've all been keeping abreast of the news and know who and what Trump is, and everything that I've seen thus far in the Wikileaks don't even come close to the horror show that Trump will subject us to if he should be President. After taking into account everything we now know about Clinton, the #1 priority remains making sure Trump doesn't become President.

I think that what Clinton has done should be revisited when she goes up against a normal candidate in 2020.
 
DiAnna said:
Probably what Paula Jones wanted to drop her lawsuit. Paula Jones had the best case against unwanted sexual advances, because she apparently had witnesses who could corroborate parts of her story. As far as I can see, of all the women who came out of the woodwork, two were consensual partners, two were investigated by Ken Starr who found evidence they had both asked others to lie for them, and one, Paula Jones, had a believable and corroborated story.

Bill Clinton was a disgusting horndog, a serial adulterer and a terrible husband. So is Donald Trump. Which one is currently running for president?
Click to expand...

Winner winner chicken dinner!
 
roguenuke said:
You said the snopes article itself said it was a false claim, that it was in the article, not a different article and story and other information about the case.

Also the claim itself about an expert in psychology saying that young girls tend to fantasize or seek out older men. Some girls do. Not saying this one or that these facts should be used in a case, only that this is a common practice in such cases, or at least was in the 70s to defend a client accused of rape. It would have been expected to be done or could potentially be used as a reason to get the defending lawyer in trouble or used in an appeal. and the affidavit states that Clinton said she was informed, meaning the information came from someone else, likely the "expert in child psychology".

The claim it was proving wrong was the laughing claim so there was no reason to discuss anything beyond refuting the claims made about her laughing about a child being raped, which was not true.


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

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.
 
Cardinal said:
I'm not going to redebate the revelations and events of the last year. We've all been keeping abreast of the news and know who and what Trump is, and everything that I've seen thus far in the Wikileaks don't even come close to the horror show that Trump will subject us to if he should be President. After taking into account everything we now know about Clinton, the #1 priority remains making sure Trump doesn't become President.

I think that what Clinton has done should be revisited when she goes up against a normal candidate in 2020.
Click to expand...
That is just a huge pile of B***S*** and you cannot help but know it. \

What Hillary has already done, what she no doubt, based on a history of demonstrated misdeeds, missteps, incompetent, corruption and criminality even exclusive of what Bill has also done and they have done together, makes your bogus speculation about what Trump may do in the future pale by any measure of comparison.

Yours, as well as all who follow Hillary, is simply an overly partisan position defending the indefensible. Had you any shame you would be ashamed. Having a conscience, much less a brain, seems not a prerequisite to being a liberal or democrat... in fact it seems to be anathema and a liability to the true adherents.
 
Paperview said:
Not really. I think something went on in that hotel room, (I've said before, I think Bill is a horndog) but she came out of that room giggling like a schoolgirl. This was attested to. Not the mark of someone who had been so accosted.

She also gave the trooper at the door her phone number, told him to give it to Bill, and asked about Bill now being "her boyfriend."

Again, not the mark of someone who was sexually harassed.

Her case was thrown out as being "Without Merit" by the judge and would never have survived appeal.

Clinton paid "get out of my hair money" -- and the country was getting sick of being pulled through this mud. The one thing Jones / her lawyers had insisted on was an apology. They got none, and no admittance of guilt.

Jones came out and filed suit two days before the statute of limitations ran out - and said it was due to a single reference to a woman named "Paula" in the rumor mongering American Spectator. Not even a last name was mentioned.

She came out, she said, to "protect her honor."

Ha! About ten minutes after the case was thrown out --

She showed herself to the world -- spreading her legs and letting everyone see her all her fleshy bits.

clinton-paula-jones-penthouse-cover.jpg
Click to expand...

All true! However, she had a witness in the trooper who put her in a hotel room with Clinton, and heard Paula remark about the sexual nature of their liaison. That alone was worth the money to make her go away. Too bad there wasn't "and stay away" clause in the settlement, lol!

Yeah, if it had gone to court and the trooper had testified it would have gone badly for her. The Clintons probably wish they'd bitten the bullet at the time, admitted he had sex outside of his marriage, and gotten on with running the country. If they'd gone that way, women wouldn't have crawled out of the woodwork looking for their own payoff, the fact that he's a horndog would have been public from the get-go, he might not have felt the need to lie under oath and get himself impeached.

Hindsight... 20/20.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
That is just a huge pile of B***S*** and you cannot help but know it. \

What Hillary has already done, what she no doubt, based on a history of demonstrated misdeeds, missteps, incompetent, corruption and criminality even exclusive of what Bill has also done and they have done together, makes your bogus speculation about what Trump may do in the future pale by any measure of comparison.

Yours, as well as all who follow Hillary, is simply an overly partisan position defending the indefensible. Had you any shame you would be ashamed. Having a conscience, much less a brain, seems not a prerequisite to being a liberal or democrat... in fact it seems to be anathema and a liability to the true adherents.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom