Trump's 22 SHOTS at HILLARY

Hal 9000 · May 10, 2016

The funny thing is; Hillary didn't go after these women for having an affair with Bill, she went after them because they did or were going to go public about it.

betsy · May 10, 2016

Then he shouldn't have paid her, I guess? Why would he do that?

The issue is the woman you'd given as an example of this alleged assault!

She'd not only said good things about him, but she's publicly saying she'll vote for him! This is the man that's allegedly raped her!

Who truly knows why Trump had settled out of court (read the quote from the article I'd given you - he gave his reason)!

Bill Clinton had also settled out of court and paid Paula Jones $850,000 (after her case was dismissed for lack of evidence).

Now that's a good question: why pay an out-of-court settlement for a case that was dismissed?

Jones, who made national headlines for suing then-President Bill Clinton for sexual harassment in 1994, has emerged from obscurity to support Trump’s presidential bid, posting a selfie on Twitter after meeting the orange-hued mogul in her home state. Jones’s suit against Clinton was eventually dismissed for lack of evidence, but Clinton still agreed to pay her $850,000 in an out-of-court settlement in 1998.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bill-clinton-s-bimbos-flock-to-team-trump.html

20 years later, despite the "generosity" of Clinton, Jones isn't saying good things about Clinton, nor is she voting for Hillary!

Bill Clinton’s ‘Bimbos’ Flock to Team Trump

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bill-clinton-s-bimbos-flock-to-team-trump.html

Edited May 10, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · May 10, 2016

She'd not only said good things about him, but she's publicly saying she'll vote for him! This is the man that's allegedly raped her!

And paid her off (and not allegedly---actually).

betsy · May 10, 2016

And paid her off (and not allegedly---actually).

Not exactly.....the pay-off didn't seem to have anything to do with an actual sexual assault. Seems more like Trump was telling the truth. It had to do with the business with the woman's husband. At least, that's what I get from this article.

At the time, Trump vigorously denied the charges saying the suit “was a desperate attempt to get me to settle a case they can’t win.” But then, not even a month after filing the case, Harth withdrew it. The court record indicates it was “voluntarily dismissed” but “without prejudice,” meaning she could have re-filed the case. The timing is interesting because at around the same time the case was withdrawn, Trump reportedly agreed to settle with her husband’s company, The American Dream Enterprise, according to an obscure 1997 gossip article in the New York Daily News which appears to be the only mainstream media coverage of either suit.

LawNewz.com spoke briefly to Jill Harth in an interview last week. Harth wouldn’t’ discuss the settlement or much about either lawsuit.

When asked about the allegations, Harth told LawNewz that she was “under duress” and “pressured” to file the case. But when questioned about who applied that pressure, she wouldn’t say.

So were the sexual harassment allegations true? Harth says: “The allegations were twisted and embellished. Everything could be looked at in different way.”

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-inside-the-donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuit/

We're back to square one.

And the question you didn't answer: Why would she say good things about him, and support him in his candidacy?

Edited May 10, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · May 10, 2016

Not exactly.....the pay-off didn't seem to have anything to do with an actual sexual assault. Seems more like Trump was telling the truth. It had to do with the business with the woman's husband. At least, that's what I get from this article.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-inside-the-donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuit/

Unlike the author, you don't find the timing "interesting"?

betsy · May 11, 2016

Unlike the author, you don't find the timing "interesting"?

EXACTLY!

Read the reason.

Edited May 11, 2016 by betsy

Queenmandy85 · May 11, 2016

Betsy, you seem obsessed with sex. Morality has nothing to do with statecraft.

betsy · May 12, 2016

Betsy, you seem obsessed with sex. Morality has nothing to do with statecraft.

????

Your views about adultery or sex is irrelevant. We're talking about past scandals.

One of them involved Bill Clinton while he was in politics, and also while he was the President. That's a publicized fact.

The scandal involved sex - what can I say?

You should review the whole conversation about this. Your responses don't jell with the issue being discussed.

Also, you're not in Philosophy section. Just saying.

Edited May 12, 2016 by betsy

waldo · May 12, 2016

Your views about adultery or sex is irrelevant. We're talking about past scandals.

One of them involved Bill Clinton while he was in politics, and also while he was the President. That's a publicized fact.

oh my! More... yet more... of your '(Hillary) guilt by association'? Why are you further victimizing Hillary Clinton for the long past infidelities of her husband? That's far from holding and projecting Christian values - yes?

.

cybercoma · May 12, 2016

Because, waldo, if she can't satisfy her husband, then how will she satisfy AMERICA!? If she has no sense of duty at home, why would she have a sense of duty in the Oval Office?

You know who knows a lot about duty? Trump. Everything that comes out of his mouth is duty.

Edited May 12, 2016 by cybercoma

betsy · May 12, 2016

Uh-oh. Another potential landmine for Hillary.

New Documentary On Weiner and Huma Abedin May Have Cut Scenes To Protect Hillary
Distributors who saw the film before Sundance Selects and Showtime partnered to acquire it say the footage is explosive and potentially damaging to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (Abedin is Clinton’s closest adviser and a fixture on the campaign trail). Multiple parties who viewed early cuts of the documentary say Clinton’s team is seen trying to pressure Abedin to immediately cut ties with Weiner, fearing the scandal will hurt the secretary of state’s bid for the White House. (Abedin, who has become something of an obsession for the far right, remains married to Weiner and has a son with him.) The footage is said to offer the kind of rare window into the cutthroat machinations of a presidential campaign that is typically reserved for such fictitious shows as House of Cards.

The film’s premiere comes just days before the first Presidential primaries are due to begin and as candidate Clinton is facing a number of scandals related to Huma Abedin.

As Breitbart News reported in a detailed piece this week, Clinton-ally Media Matters for America struck back against a recent feature in Vanity Fair magazine about Abedin. The article confirmed claims that Huma Abedin has a direct association with Abdullah Omar Nasseef, who founded groups that the U.S. government says funded terrorists.

In yet another twist in the labyrinthine tale, sources say Kriegman and Steinberg turned down an aggressive offer from CNN because they were worried that network chief Jeff Zucker might water down the unflattering look at Team Clinton (CNN declined to confirm whether or not it made an offer on the film).

Whatever the final version includes or omits will stoke interest far beyond Park City.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/21/new-documentary-weiner-huma-abedin-may-cut-scenes-protect-hillary/

It's all about the timing, too.

Huma Abedin will become a "hottie" for Trump, I think.......not in the sense that dirty minds wanna think.

Edited May 12, 2016 by betsy

betsy · May 22, 2016

The SECOND AMMENDMENT will play big time as an attack on Hillary!

Hillary's coming for your guns!
Donald Trump debuted a new attack line against Hillary Clinton Saturday, telling a crowd in Lynden, Wash. that the former Secretary of State wants to "take your guns away."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-hillary-clinton-is-coming-for-your-guns/article/2590716

When you talk about security.....of course you have to talk about the right to bear arms!

This is not the time to disarm the population - this will resonate!

Edited May 22, 2016 by betsy

waldo · May 23, 2016

Uh-oh. Another potential landmine for Hillary.

Huma Abedin will become a "hottie" for Trump, I think.......not in the sense that dirty minds wanna think.

your breitbart reference no less... clearly an unbiased source! But again, we have you firmly looking to draw critical aim based on association. From attacking Hillary Clinton for the actions/deeds of her husband... to now... attacking Hillary Clinton for the actions/deeds of the husband of one of her aides. Oh my - attack by association, direct or peripheral... that's hardly the Christian way, is it?

.

waldo · May 23, 2016

The SECOND AMMENDMENT will play big time as an attack on Hillary!

When you talk about security.....of course you have to talk about the right to bear arms!

This is not the time to disarm the population - this will resonate!

as you've done several times already, you're perpetuating yet another Trump lie in falsely claiming "Clinton will do away with the U.S. 2nd amendment... that's hardly the Christian way, is it?

.

Shady · May 23, 2016

as you've done several times already, you're perpetuating yet another Trump lie in falsely claiming "Clinton will do away with the U.S. 2nd amendment... that's hardly the Christian way, is it?

.

It's not a lie at all. If one disagrees with the Heller decision, than one doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment at all. She says she completely disagrees with it.

waldo · May 23, 2016

It's not a lie at all. If one disagrees with the Heller decision, than one doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment at all. She says she completely disagrees with it.

try again... try harder!

Shady · May 23, 2016

try again... try harder!

She wants to overturn the Heller decision which is fundamentally about the right to own a gun. It's not about background checks, it's not about waiting times, it's not about gun shows, etc. it's about the right to own a gun. If somebody wants to overturn that decision, than its tantamount to overturning the second amendment. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the Heller decision first?

Shady · May 23, 2016

I'll put it to yiu this way. How would you characterize somebody that wanted to overturn Roe v Wade?

waldo · May 23, 2016

She wants to overturn the Heller decision which is fundamentally about the right to own a gun. It's not about background checks, it's not about waiting times, it's not about gun shows, etc. it's about the right to own a gun. If somebody wants to overturn that decision, than its tantamount to overturning the second amendment. Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with the Heller decision first?

I know I'm in tough in going up against such a U.S. wannabe as yourself... but... both those findings of Trump's claims as False and Distorts the Facts from POLITIFACT and FactCheck, respectively, don't accept/agree with your parroted NRA talking points about Hillary Clinton's statements concerning that case. Equally, Clinton's position is effectively no different than the one taken by GWBush and his administration... surely you're not (also) stating that GWBush wanted to abolish the U.S. 2nd amendment... that GWBush wanted to take away American's guns - surely! Say it ain't so, MLW member Shady, say it ain't so!

.

betsy · May 23, 2016

your breitbart reference no less... clearly an unbiased source! But again, we have you firmly looking to draw critical aim based on association. From attacking Hillary Clinton for the actions/deeds of her husband... to now... attacking Hillary Clinton for the actions/deeds of the husband of one of her aides. Oh my - attack by association, direct or peripheral... that's hardly the Christian way, is it?

.

Hey Waldo, you're really taking this personally don't you? It's like an attack on Hillary, is an attack on you.

It's clouding your perspective, boy.

That reference to Huma and the new doc - they talked about that on one of the tv political shows.....so I looked it up.

It's the Dems strategists that are bracing for the association between Huma, her hubby and Hillary. They anticipate the

association will hurt Hillary.

I didn't make up those attacks. They're going to be used - and Trump's already been using some of them!

Now, take a moment to glance up and digest the title of this thread.

Breathe. Exhale. Now, give yourself a little head shake.

Do you get why this thread is all about attacks on Hillary?

Edited May 23, 2016 by betsy

Shady · May 23, 2016

I know I'm in tough in going up against such a U.S. wannabe as yourself... but... both those findings of Trump's claims as False and Distorts the Facts from POLITIFACT and FactCheck, respectively, don't accept/agree with your parroted NRA talking points about Hillary Clinton's statements concerning that case. Equally, Clinton's position is effectively no different than the one taken by GWBush and his administration... surely you're not (also) stating that GWBush wanted to abolish the U.S. 2nd amendment... that GWBush wanted to take away American's guns - surely! Say it ain't so, MLW member Shady, say it ain't so!

.

How can her position be the same as Bush when she wants to overturn Heller?

GostHacked · May 23, 2016

How can her position be the same as Bush when she wants to overturn Heller?

Clinton is a lot like Bush. She is a pathological liar for one. Unapologetic about it too. But no matter who gets the POTUS chair, the decline of the USA will simply keep progressing simply because the political and voting system is broke, and Trump has no hope of fixing that even if he wanted to.

betsy · May 24, 2016

I know I'm in tough in going up against such a U.S. wannabe as yourself...

.

The way you respond to posts, seems like you got a bee in your bonnet. There's no need to throw slurs at posters.

We're talking politics, for crying out loud! Some of us are caught up in the excitement for this election.

We all know it'll be a very tough walk for Hillary..............it's mind boggling why you make this personal.

Anyway, you're missing the whole point. This thread is about any attacks that Trump could possibly use on Hillary.

You can scream it's lie all you want - but does your opinion as to whether it's a lie or not, count?

If you want to find out, you should contact Trump and voice your outrage at him.

If media are anxious and some are making that doc into an issue - you think Trump, won't?

Edited May 24, 2016 by betsy

GostHacked · May 24, 2016

If media are anxious and some are making that doc into an issue - you think Trump, won't?

This could backfire on Trump as he was a supporter of the Clinton family. Exposing Hillary could expose him as well.

waldo · May 24, 2016

Hey Waldo, you're really taking this personally don't you? It's like an attack on Hillary, is an attack on you. It's clouding your perspective, boy.

"the perspective I have" - you mean my reinforcing your penchant for perpetuating the fabrications and outright lies from Trump? You mean my continued highlighting your want/desire to attack someone, not for the deeds/actions they've personally done or are responsible for, but for direct/indirect associations to others and the deeds/actions of those others - you know, your/Trump's 'attack by association' routine! Is that the perspective you're speaking to?

.

I didn't make up those attacks. They're going to be used - and Trump's already been using some of them! Now, take a moment to glance up and digest the title of this thread. Breathe. Exhale. Now, give yourself a little head shake. Do you get why this thread is all about attacks on Hillary?

I appreciate you want to simply throw down your copy&paste gems as legitimate accounts and testaments to just how far the man-baby Trump is prepared to go in his tactics/statements/claims. I recognize you have extreme difficulty in having your wizardry challenged - I get that. What you declare this thread as is fine; your prerogative. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to control replies to your posts. I suggest you quit taking those replies so, as you say, "personal"... it's like you view those replies as an, as you say, "attack on you"... it's, as you say, "clouding your perspective", as you say, "girl"!

.