|
|
Post by vilepagan on Dec 26, 2019 4:00:10 GMT -8
Your version of events is interesting...
I notice you first state that Ms. Ford's accusations had zero witnesses to back up her story and then you claim without evidence that she was lying...how do you come to the conclusion she was lying?
You're right when you say the only difference is partisan judgement.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Dec 26, 2019 8:57:00 GMT -8
Believing the accusers of Bill Clinton while disbelieving the accusers of Brett Kavanaugh is a matter of personal preference and political persuasion (how's that for alliteration?) ... The above statement ignores reality & common sense. Clinton lied under oath about Monica Lewinsky & then admitted it only when there was evidence that he lied. He has impeached himself (pun intended) as far as being credible. There are multiple witnesses who back up the stories of the various accusers, people who have nothing to gain from their testimony. On the other hand, Kavanaugh's main accuser has 0 witnesses to back up her story, including those who she claims were there. His two other accusers were shown to be lying by independent sources. His situation was one where one person lied and the other two swore to it. There is no way those two situations can be said to be equal and the only difference is partisan judgement. When partisan politics is involved, aren't the opposing sides by definition considered unobjective? The reason I find Benghazi and DOJ abuses interesting is because they are supposed to be apolitical. When talking about the difference between fact and opinion, the emails directing Susan Rice to portray the attack as some spontaneous event over a video, should qualify as fact. Same with the stand down orders as they are now a matter of public record. The testimony of the original 3 in Benghazi was also not disputed to my recollection. Some maybe for the purpose of our discussions here, we can consider undisputed testimony as also "factual"? |
|
|
|
Post by coach on Dec 26, 2019 16:10:43 GMT -8
I think you’re dissecting the meaning of words too finely. I disagree. Devoutly religious people might think that believing and knowing are almost identical, but in the secular world they're not. Believing the accusers of Bill Clinton while disbelieving the accusers of Brett Kavanaugh is a matter of personal preference and political persuasion (how's that for alliteration?) In these matter of he said/she said, it's impossible to know if either group of accusers is telling the truth or not without having been there. Come on MDDad. You try to hard to try to be in the middle. I get it. I don't believe a woman like Juanita Broaderick would and describes the rape in detail. What would she gain in lying? Especially against Dixie Mafia and the Clinton crime family. What about Jennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey and more? She tried to confront Clinton, however he was Attorney General at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by coach on Dec 26, 2019 16:17:57 GMT -8
The above statement ignores reality & common sense. Clinton lied under oath about Monica Lewinsky & then admitted it only when there was evidence that he lied. He has impeached himself (pun intended) as far as being credible. There are multiple witnesses who back up the stories of the various accusers, people who have nothing to gain from their testimony. On the other hand, Kavanaugh's main accuser has 0 witnesses to back up her story, including those who she claims were there. His two other accusers were shown to be lying by independent sources. His situation was one where one person lied and the other two swore to it. There is no way those two situations can be said to be equal and the only difference is partisan judgement. When partisan politics is involved, aren't the opposing sides by definition considered unobjective? The reason I find Benghazi and DOJ abuses interesting is because they are supposed to be apolitical. When talking about the difference between fact and opinion, the emails directing Susan Rice to portray the attack as some spontaneous event over a video, should qualify as fact. Same with the stand down orders as they are now a matter of public record. The testimony of the original 3 in Benghazi was also not disputed to my recollection. Some maybe for the purpose of our discussions here, we can consider undisputed testimony as also "factual"? More and more documents are coming out proving hilLIARy and the rest of the liars in the Obama administration lied about Benghazi. I read the email proving it was all a lie and I hope the parents of the slain sues their asses. |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Dec 27, 2019 11:26:33 GMT -8
Your version of events is interesting... I notice you first state that Ms. Ford's accusations had zero witnesses to back up her story and then you claim without evidence that she was lying...how do you come to the conclusion she was lying? You're right when you say the only difference is partisan judgement. Fair enough, there is a possibility that she was not lying, that she was just wrong. In either case, she made a horrific accusation against a man that is not true. I never wrote that the only difference is partisan judgement, in fact I wrote the complete opposite of that. You misread and/or misunderstood my sentence, which was grammatically correct. Let me add emphasis to help convey the point for you " There is no way those two situations can be said to be equal and the only difference is partisan judgement. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Jan 11, 2020 4:07:58 GMT -8
There was a bit of news yesterday on the whole "server" question... Justice Dept. winds down Clinton-related inquiry once championed by Trump. It found nothing of consequence.A Justice Department inquiry launched more than two years ago to mollify conservatives clamoring for more investigations of Hillary Clinton has effectively ended with no tangible results, and current and former law enforcement officials said they never expected the effort to produce much of anything.
John Huber, the U.S. attorney in Utah, was tapped in November 2017 by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to look into concerns raised by President Trump and his allies in Congress that the FBI had not fully pursued cases of possible corruption at the Clinton Foundation and during Clinton’s time as secretary of state, when the U.S. government decided not to block the sale of a company called Uranium One.and: Conservative lawmakers, particularly then-Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), who was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and members of the Freedom Caucus, were initially encouraged by Huber’s assignment, seeing it as a sign that Clinton faced new legal jeopardy. Huber was a prosecutor with bipartisan credentials — having been named the U.S. attorney first by President Barack Obama before he was retained in the Trump administration.
But from the start, senior officials inside the Justice Department viewed Huber’s task as unlikely to lead to anything of significance beyond appeasing those angry lawmakers and the president.www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-dept-winds-down-Clinton-related-inquiry-once-championed-by-trump-it-found-nothing-of-consequence/ar-BBYNIRpAppeasing angry lawmakers and the president...an excellent use of taxpayer money wouldn't you say? |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 14, 2021 6:18:22 GMT -8
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 14, 2021 19:37:03 GMT -8
They never reminded me of being all that powerful.
How is Monica Lewinsky still alive?
|
|
billb
Senior Eminence Grise
Posts: 3,082
|
Post by billb on Jun 14, 2021 21:47:55 GMT -8
They never reminded me of being all that powerful. How is Monica Lewinsky still alive? Monica finally realized, just a couple years ago, that perhaps he was using his power to take advantage of her sexually. Finally. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 15, 2021 5:52:11 GMT -8
They never reminded me of being all that powerful. How is Monica Lewinsky still alive? Monica finally realized, just a couple years ago, that perhaps he was using his power to take advantage of her sexually. Finally. Maybe they viewed her as a victim, too. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 15, 2021 6:11:39 GMT -8
They never reminded me of being all that powerful. How is Monica Lewinsky still alive? I don't think this is a fair question, Bick. It is not possible to know how someone else thinks. IF the Clintons were responsible for all or part of these 50 deaths, there is no way to know, apart from their confession, why Monica Lewinsky, or Jennifer Flowers, or Jackie Bennett or even Ken Starr escaped unharmed (so far?) MAYBE they have damning evidence that will be released upon their death. Maybe one or more of the Clintons still have a soft spot in their heart for one of these. Maybe they feel offing some of these people would be too obvious... But we should acknowledge, some of those deaths are awfully strange circumstances. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Jun 15, 2021 6:39:50 GMT -8
Just seems as nefarious as they are being portrayed as a crime family syndicate, they'd have fitted the one person who embarrassed them the most with cement shoes, and sent some fish wrapped in a blue dress to Monica's family.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 15, 2021 7:44:27 GMT -8
Just seems as nefarious as they are being portrayed as a crime family syndicate, they'd have fitted the one person who embarrassed them the most with cement shoes, and sent some fish wrapped in a blue dress to Monica's family. Agreed... but (fortunately) we're not them. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Jun 15, 2021 7:46:14 GMT -8
Maybe one or more of the Clintons still have a soft spot in their heart for one of these. If all Bill had for Monica was a "soft" spot, he wouldn't have gotten into the trouble he did. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Jun 15, 2021 10:46:41 GMT -8
Maybe one or more of the Clintons still have a soft spot in their heart for one of these. If all Bill had for Monica was a "soft" spot, he wouldn't have gotten into the trouble he did. Well, yeah... that's probably right. |
|
