Make bullshit accusations, walk them back when called on it, and change the subject when criticized.
Typical.
I’d love to know what’s “outrageous” about my accusations. Does Clinton have a history of sexual misconduct? Yes. Does Clinton have a history of associating with sleazy characters? Yes. This is hardly outrageous, it’s what he does.
You said the flight logs state he was with underage sex workers. This is bullshit, and you walked it back. Pathetic and typical.
It’s the same case. You’re lawyering of every issue doesn’t exactly make you look good either. You are not Bill Clinton. The fact that the article says “young women” and “teenage sex slaves” instead of “underage girls” does not actually exonerate Clinton. Yet you try to act as if it does. Typical.
More deflection bullshit. You said it was a fact he was with underage sex workers. This is an entirely bullshit factual assertion.
The flight logs say he was on the plane 11 times. A witness says he was with underage sex workers. Or “young” or “teenagers” if you prefer(the witness probably did not know the exact ages of those with Clinton).
Your statement is completely false. What I said was:
So you admit you made shit up about the flight logs, and are going by a single assertion that doesn’t say anything about underage girls, and reporting this as a fact, and you still think that’s reasonable?
Post #254. No one cares that he was on a plane. You linked the flight logs to underage girls, which was total bullshit. You have nothing here and it’s pathetic.
You said it’s a fact he was with underage girls. Pathetic bullshit lie.
Ah, more lawyering of words. I said we have a witness, as well as flight logs, in post #254. I did not say they say the exact same thing. The flight logs place Clinton on Epstein’s plane, the witness places Clinton with the young girls. The only part I walked back is that in fact they may or may not have been underage. The witness probably doesn’t know, and I suspect neither did Clinton. If he even cared. Like I said, it looks bad.
You don’t have to like it, you just have to accept that it’s going to be a thing. Fox is going to be holding that story for when it will do the most good, and once Fox covers it everyone else has to as well.
There will be plenty of bullshit fake, evidence free “scandals”, like this one. That you repeat it, complete with embellishment (of the only important part, of course - that the girls were underage) that you immediately walk back, reflects very poorly on you.
Some combination of extreme laziness and wishful thinking. Either way, pathetic. Wouldn’t you like to do better?
Here’s another account from Virginia Roberts that says that Clinton was actually offered two underage girls, but didn’t take the bait:
She also alleges that Clinton knew about Epstein’s pedophilia:
More gleeful spreading of bullshit, no-evidence fake scandals. Have you no shame?
A witness can be unreliable, but no evidence? We know he had a close association with Epstein, we know he was on Epstein’s plane, we know he went on that plane to Epstein’s island to party. In that context, a witness saying Clinton was in her presence and also in the presence of other young girls is pretty credible. At least in my opinion. Your mileage may vary, but it’s hardly outrageous or evidence-free or made up.
Of course, just his associating with numerous felons is always going to hound him, but this one is particularly awful. Definitely tops the Marc Rich situation, which BTW will also be coming up again. We never did get a chance to hold the Clintons accountable for that one, but we’ll have a chance in 2016. And that one does involve Hillary. It’s also not the only controversial last day pardon we might want to ask her about. How can we be sure she won’t pardon her criminal friends on her last day in office? But that’s another thread.
But then again, maybe all Clinton bad behavior should be in this thread, or else we’d have to create a whole forum for it. The pardons, the sexual misconduct, the campaign finance ethics issues, the getting extremely wealthy off supposed charity work, plus their foundation’s really poor(by intention?) bookkeeping. Just so much stuff to cover. Thank God for Donald Trump, which will keep the really juicy stuff out of the media until the general election campaign starts.
So you’ve moved from “underage” to not so (and that’s the only part that would make this a scandal at all), and now you’ve moved from “fact” to maybe-there’s-evidence.
Folks, if you’ve ever wanted to know why nothing sticks to Bill, this is why - because his opponents can’t help themselves but make up shit and embellish.
And you’re following the standard “muddy the waters” playbook of a professional Clinton apologist. You’re pretty much just making stuff up now.
But really, the most eye popping part of your post is that it’s not a scandal if Clinton wasn’t with underage girls? Seriously? If that’s true it just shows how low your expectations have become when it comes to Clinton. Clinton hung out with a dirty old man who liked to have numerous young girls with him to party with, and that didn’t seem problematic at all to him. So at least we agree that this is who Bill Clinton is. And the extremity of his view of the proper role of women(as fuck bunnies) hasn’t really been adequately covered yet by the media.
Yes, statutory rape / child molestation is a real scandal. “maybe hung out with a guy a few times who tries to live like Leonardo di Caprio” is not.
After walking back your own bullshit embellishments and made up shit like it’s a “fact” that Bill was around underage sex workers, it’s even more pathetic that you accuse me of making stuff up.
I like you, adaher. But you do this so many times. Why? Why can’t you just take some good advice from a fellow Doper who likes you and wants to have good, fact-based discussions with you, and just put the effort into your posts so that you weren’t constantly having to walk shit back? Can’t you just admit that sometimes you’re a lazy poster who doesn’t check your own assertions?
Did hang out extensively with a guy and his girls and didn’t say a word. Now sure, if we’re talking about Chris Rock or something, no big deal. For someone who wants to be First Man, it’s a pretty big deal. I’d hope we hold them to higher standards. But alas, I realize we don’t, or at least Democrats don’t. They see politicians as lowest common denominator without admitting they are lowest common denominator.