Poor Hillary

[RobDownSouth]

So, you've proved the facts of the article to be false, eh? Show us.

He did nothing of the sort, you son of a whore.
He's taking issue with the conclusion, which is not supported by the facts.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

He did nothing of the sort, you son of a whore.
He's taking issue with the conclusion, which is not supported by the facts.

I see he quoted my post twice with two completely different attempts to form a cogent point, and failed both times.

Shades of DizzyBooby... It seems like the Alzheimer's progression is accelerating.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So tell us, ActionToyBoy, what was the conclusion of the article?

That's funny. I'm genuinely curious why you think I own action figures? Honestly, the last action figure I remember having was a "Steve Austin: Six Million Dollar Man" with a "bionic" eye, crystal radio backpack, and ratcheting lift arm circa 1975 or so when I was around 7 or 8 years old.

But to address your question Mr. 3rdChildhood, the linked article said nothing that Clinton did or is alleged to have done that could be considered illegal. To their credit, buried in the article is the fact that Clinton severed ties with him when he was found out.

The entire tenor of the article is to try to discredit Hillary Clinton because her husband associated with someone who, as it turned out later, was a criminal sex offender. Nothing in the article supports the premise, intent, or shows in any way that President Clinton knew anything about Mr. Epstein's illegal activities let alone participated in anything illegal.

All in all, it comes off as a political hit piece more concerned with spreading half-truths and misinformation (As the Daily Mail is wont to do, Daily) about President Clinton in order to paint his wife, who oddly enough isn't mentioned in relation to Mr. Epstein, in a bad light.

I can only imagine the paroxysms over at GOP wing-nut headquarters trying to find something.. anything... to discredit who they assume will be the next Democratic nominee.

Swing and a miss.

 

[Busybody]

hey maybe CUNT CLINTON shaved some cunts hair 60 yrs ago....and we can talk about that

 

[KingOrfeo]

No way is this story going to lose Hillary a single vote that might otherwise have gone to her. The only people who care about it are those who would sooner vote for a rotting dog carcass than a Democrat, less said of them the better.

 

[Busybody]

it should be noted

that JUST last week....CuntClintons team attacked Webb, ( a likely opponent) of using DIRTY words and REFRENCES in his books

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

It calls into question Hillary's judgement and fitness for office. Did the Bush and Obama administration collude to violate the law by keeping the disposition of the case unknown to the victims?

The bottom line to all of this is the potential conspiracy between the Bush and Obama administration to conceal the disposition of Epstein's case...a federal crime.

On what are you basing that speculation? There is nothing about that in the linked article. There is nothing that says the disposition of Epstein's case was in any way concealed.

Also, in case you hadn't noticed . . . the Daily Mail appears to be re-reporting a story from the National Enquirer. (See the third paragraph.) Neither is exactly a gold standard for journalistic credibility.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm familiar with the facts you aren't, get busy. You have homework to do. Note the date on the Mail article as well. Familiarize yourself with the lawsuit.

No. You've made a claim it's 100% up to you to provide the facts of the so called case complete with citation if asked. Sooner or later you're gonna have to learn how adults converse these things.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean Renaud]

Stfu, and do your homework.

Not a chance in the world. I have no reason to.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Stfu, and do your homework.

So we can assume from this that you have no proof of your claims. Oh, sorry, the claims of the Daily mail which you only happened to post here and defend vehemently.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm familiar with the facts you aren't, get busy. You have homework to do. Note the date on the Mail article as well. Familiarize yourself with the lawsuit.

No, no; you're the one trying to make a case here, the burden of proof and work falls on you.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Stfu, and do your homework.

Again, with this shitty canard whenever you got nuthin'.

Stop being such a goose-stepping gut-winded benighted jackwagon pussy and own up to your bullshit if you can't show the receipts.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

See post #32.