Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

personreal

Wonder Why Mueller Hasn't Approached Assange?

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Scout said:

You have provided names - and that is all.  David Schippers was NOT a Democrat when he decided to go after Clinton.  Nor was he one when he wrote a book about it. 

 

ALL of those women have received income because they claimed to be victims of Clinton AFTER decades of never saying anything.  The Presidency brings out the stories, eh?

 

Clinton's stories are innuendo.  Trump's are actually supported by evidence.  It is a sad day when rumor is given the weight of affidavits and legal documentation.

Hey Mr. Homeless man, have you seen Scout?  I heard he came running this way.

 

 

Free Laughing emoticon (Laughing Emoticons)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cedarswamp said:

 

You don't seem dumb enough to believe that.:D

 

Decades of research backs me up on it.  You will probably do better in the market than you do when you learn things like that.  It is VERY common knowledge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Democrats have been better for the stock market

Since 1945, the average annual gain under a Democratic president is 9.7%. Under a Republican president, it's only been 6.7%, according to Sam Stovall, chief equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Scout said:

You have provided names - and that is all.

 

I said there were dozens of accusations ... and I've now proven that.

 

And I provided more than just names, as anyone reading the above can see.

 

37 minutes ago, Scout said:

David Schippers was NOT a Democrat when he decided to go after Clinton. 

 

LIAR.  

 

He was still a Democrat when the House Managers asked him to investigate Clinton during the Impeachment.  

 

He said so.

 

USA Today said so.

 

A bunch of mainstream sources said so.

 

Even CNN said it.

 

In fact, he'd voted for Clinton TWICE ... including 1996 only years before the impeachment.

 

And he had no known bias against Clinton when he agreed to work for the House Managers.

 

He came to Washington as a highly respected lawyer.

 

If you think you can prove otherwise ... go ahead.   

 

I predict {crickets} will be your response.

 

37 minutes ago, Scout said:

Nor was he one when he wrote a book about it. 

 

Nor was he a republican then, either.

 

The title and contents of the book should tell you that, Scout.

 

37 minutes ago, Scout said:

ALL of those women have received income because they claimed to be victims of Clinton AFTER decades of never saying anything.


LIAR.   

 

I dare you to prove that "all" ... or even some ... of those women received income from their claims of abuse.

 

You're a LIAR and you're just making things up now out of desperation to defend a serial rapist.

 

37 minutes ago, Scout said:

Clinton's stories are innuendo.  Trump's are actually supported by evidence.

 

Again you LIE.  

 

There is far more evidence in the accusations against the Clintons (including the rape and assault accusations) than against Trump.

 

In fact, before the election idiots like you were claiming that Trump was going down over the alleged rape of a 13 year old.

 

What happened, Scout?

 

Would you like to discuss that case and the "so-called" evidence you folks claimed existed?

 

I bet you don't.

 

:P

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand by my statements.  Why is it important to you that I believe Clinton is a rapist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Scout said:

I stand by my statements.

 

You challenged me to back up my assertion about Clinton being accused of rape, assault and harassment by dozens of women.

 

In fact, you HOUNDED me to do so, Scout.

 

So I did.

 

Now you've made several claims, yourself.

 

And you now say you stand by them.

 

Ok.

 

You say that David Schippers was not a Democrat when he agreed to work for the House Managers.   PROVE IT.   Let's see your proof.

 

You say that "ALL of those women have received income because they claimed to be victims of Clinton."  PROVE IT.   Let's see your proof.

 

You say that there's more evidence against Trump than Clinton.  PROVE IT.   In fact, I've posted a whole thread (https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/ ) containing a mountain of evidence against Clinton (backed up by source after source after source).  And NONE OF IT has been disproven by any of you leftists at LF.   You folks have just run from it ... just like you're running from the allegations of rape here.  So go ahead, big mouth.   Prove that there's more against Trump than that.  

 

Or be hounded.   ;)

 

13 minutes ago, Scout said:

Why is it important to you that I believe Clinton is a rapist?

 

I don't give a damn about what you *believe*.  

 

I just don't like you LYING TO OTHERS about what really happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet David Schipper didn't get paid for his book too, eh?  ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Scout said:

I bet David Schipper didn't get paid for his book too, eh?  ^_^

 

Now you're trying to move the goal posts.  

 

You said "ALL THOSE WOMEN".  

 

Quit running and back up what you claimed.  

 

Or slink away like the liar I think you are, Scout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The backdrop for these rumors was that just prior to his graduation from Georgetown University, Bill Clinton won a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship to study at University College, Oxford, for two years and headed off to England for the 1968-69 academic term — but he returned to the United States before finishing out the full two-year course of study.

In October 1992, during Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, a British news report included interviews with a number of Clinton’s Oxford classmates. The article described Clinton’s truncated study trajectory at Oxford as one that was disrupted by the Vietnam-era draft, not by penalties for misbehavior. Had Clinton left Oxford under dubious circumstances, reporting on such a scoop just prior to the presidential election of 1992 would have been irresistible for the British (and American) press. But Clinton’s classmates made absolutely no mention of his departing abruptly or in disgrace:

Clinton never completed his degree. In part this was due to his worry about the draft. According to one contemporary, he thought his first year would be his last and so there was little point in doing the work for a two-year degree; in his second year it was too late to start. This was not seen to matter. Many American Rhodes scholars treated their time at Oxford as a version of the Grand Tour. They had their degree and planned to go to law school when they returned to the US; Oxford was an interesting interlude.

Clinton’s non-completion of the scholar program at Oxford was public knowledge more than 20 years prior to the origination of rumors that he had been expelled from that university for sexual misconduct. And as documented in a separate article on this site, Clinton’s efforts to avoid the military draft (ostensibly by joining the ROTC at the University of Arkansas) were the likely reason behind the timing of his movements between the U.S. and England.

Nonetheless, by June 2004 the Eileen Wellstone rape allegation had appeared in the Washington Times, published in an article that lacked an author, a citation, or any other information supporting the claim. 

 

One down....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:

 

Now you're trying to move the goal posts.  

 

You said "ALL THOSE WOMEN".  

 

Quit running and back up what you claimed.  

 

Or slink away like the liar I think you are, Scout.

 

You are the one trying to claim those women didn't profit off going after Clinton.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But again, I despise the guy on the basis of the behaviors I am confident he has participated in.  My opinion doesn't change whether he raped them or not. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has ever met Ellen Wellstone, one of those on your list.  She doesn't appear to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

 

You challenged me to back up my assertion about Clinton being accused of rape, assault and harassment by dozens of women.

 

In fact, you HOUNDED me to do so, Scout.

 

So I did.

 

Now you've made several claims, yourself.

 

And you now say you stand by them.

 

Ok.

 

You say that David Schippers was not a Democrat when he agreed to work for the House Managers.   PROVE IT.   Let's see your proof.

 

You say that "ALL of those women have received income because they claimed to be victims of Clinton."  PROVE IT.   Let's see your proof.

 

You say that there's more evidence against Trump than Clinton.  PROVE IT.   In fact, I've posted a whole thread (https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/ ) containing a mountain of evidence against Clinton (backed up by source after source after source).  And NONE OF IT has been disproven by any of you leftists at LF.   You folks have just run from it ... just like you're running from the allegations of rape here.  So go ahead, big mouth.   Prove that there's more against Trump than that.  

 

Or be hounded.   ;)

 

 

I don't give a damn about what you *believe*.  

 

I just don't like you LYING TO OTHERS about what really happened.

 

Schipper's definitely jumped ship.  You are right that he was once a Democrat.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course the judge dismissed Jones's case at one point as having no merit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we know Broaddrick signed an affidavit admitting Clinton had not assaulted her. 

 

So, two down.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, harryramar said:

ummm ya think that because Assange is holed up in a socialist country's embassy in London hiding from rape charges , that may be why Mueller can't access him?

didn't you think of that or maybe you didn't know he was hiding in an embassy?

 

 

 

Actually, Assange has never 'faced rape charges', and even the investigation to question to him is officially ended.

The only reason he's in the embassy is the US threat against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, personreal said:

You seem defensive.

you seem like a tap dancer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Scout said:

And we know Broaddrick signed an affidavit admitting Clinton had not assaulted her. 

 

So, two down.....

Post your source for that claim...but you won't and there's a reason you won't.  :)

 

 

In the mean time others can read this...

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430081/she-threatened-me-juanita-broaddrick-hillarys-role-covering-bill-clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, maineman said:

you seem like a tap dancer.

Please stop stalking me....I told you NO!  You can not suck my cock.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scout said:

The backdrop for these rumors was that just prior to his graduation from Georgetown University, Bill Clinton won a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship to study at University College, Oxford, for two years and headed off to England for the 1968-69 academic term — but he returned to the United States before finishing out the full two-year course of study.

In October 1992, during Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, a British news report included interviews with a number of Clinton’s Oxford classmates. The article described Clinton’s truncated study trajectory at Oxford as one that was disrupted by the Vietnam-era draft, not by penalties for misbehavior. Had Clinton left Oxford under dubious circumstances, reporting on such a scoop just prior to the presidential election of 1992 would have been irresistible for the British (and American) press. But Clinton’s classmates made absolutely no mention of his departing abruptly or in disgrace:

Clinton never completed his degree. In part this was due to his worry about the draft. According to one contemporary, he thought his first year would be his last and so there was little point in doing the work for a two-year degree; in his second year it was too late to start. This was not seen to matter. Many American Rhodes scholars treated their time at Oxford as a version of the Grand Tour. They had their degree and planned to go to law school when they returned to the US; Oxford was an interesting interlude.

Clinton’s non-completion of the scholar program at Oxford was public knowledge more than 20 years prior to the origination of rumors that he had been expelled from that university for sexual misconduct. And as documented in a separate article on this site, Clinton’s efforts to avoid the military draft (ostensibly by joining the ROTC at the University of Arkansas) were the likely reason behind the timing of his movements between the U.S. and England.

Nonetheless, by June 2004 the Eileen Wellstone rape allegation had appeared in the Washington Times, published in an article that lacked an author, a citation, or any other information supporting the claim. 

 

More obfuscation.   The Washington Times wasn't the original source of this accusation.  That article ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-121742-7463r/ ) merely listed some of the many allegations already out against Bill.  The Washington Times failing to provide sources does not disprove the Wellstone allegation.  If you want to do that, Scout, you’re going to have to deal with the book Unlimited Access by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich and the article on Wellstone that appeared in Capital Hill Blue.  

 

As for Clinton's absence from Oxford being due to his efforts to avoid the draft, his letter to Colonel Holmes disproves that.   In that letter, written in December of 1969 when he was still at Oxford, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html , he explained his PAST efforts to get a deferment, why he joined the ROTC, and then why he’d reneged on the agreement he apparently made regarding that.    In the letter, he said "Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC".  And the letter was written AFTER he’d returned to England for his second year of his Rhodes scholarship.   His draft dodging/ROTC issues were already resolved by that time.   Yet, he didn’t complete that scholarship, leaving us with the question … WHY?  The letter proves that his leaving Oxford in January 1970, shortly thereafter, didn’t have ANYTHING to do with dodging the draft, no matter what your Clinton excusing source (SNOPES) claimed.   And it was apparently after that letter was written that Wellstone made her accusation to the school.   Of course, you could offer something to prove that Clinton completed his course of study at Oxford.   But you won’t, since Clinton never did.  In fact, source after mainstream source states that Clinton never completed his degree.   You could also offer proof that there was no rape allegation filed by Wellstone.   But you won’t.    Oxford never denied that a report was filed about a rape, even though they could easily have done so … and, in fact, had every reason to do so since they are proud to say that Clinton attended their school.    Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You claiming the Times should get a pass on citing sources:  THAT dawg don't hunt here.

 

You got caught telling a bogus story.  YOu are Republican, so I expect it.  Don't worry about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scout said:

You are the one trying to claim those women didn't profit off going after Clinton.....

 

YOU made the claim they did.   NOW PROVE IT.   Don't try and weasel out of that claim.  PROVE IT ... or we'll just know you are making things up as you go along.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scout said:

You claiming the Times should get a pass on citing sources:  THAT dawg don't hunt here.

Where does your girlfriend hunt?      LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scout said:

 

Schipper's definitely jumped ship.  You are right that he was once a Democrat.  

 

PROVE IT.    And yes, I am right that he was a LIFE LONG Democrat who was still one when he joined the Impeachment effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BeAChooser said:

 

YOU made the claim they did.   NOW PROVE IT.   Don't try and weasel out of that claim.  PROVE IT ... or we'll just know you are making things up as you go along.

 

 

When you prove your accusations, I will feel obliged to return the favor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...