Like I said, you're a real bottom-feeder. Disgusting.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Look at what has happened to the other women that have had to put up with Clinton's unwanted sexual advances. I think she felt helpless and thought long and hard about going up against the top law enforcement politician in the state. Each time Hillary started in on Trump about women, Trump brought up Bill and she shut up. They had to get something figured out. Took them a while to get this crap going about raping a thirteen year old girl. Trump hits back and much harder, something the Clinton's aren't used to. As I said, it's not holding water. Nobody is paying attention to it. It's not getting any traction. It's obviously a Clinton attempt to counter Trump. From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 8:16 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The Plot Thickens ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Broderick was dealing with the then Attorney General of Arkansas, William Jefferson Clinton, the person she accused of raping her in her own hotel room. Actually Broaddrick wasn't "dealing with him." But she could have had him charged with rape if she wanted to. She had witnesses of the aftermath, a bloodied, bruised, and swollen upper lip which she claims he bit in order to keep her from screaming during the attack. She screams with her lips? it would be nice if both took a polygraph, although Hillary says she has lost her confidence in them. You did notice the date of the affidavit regarding Trump and alleged rape of thirteen year old girl, June 18 2016? Does that sound suspicious to you? Not particularly, no. The first time Hillary attacked Trump on women, Trump slammed her back with Bill's exploits and warned her *never go there* and she backed off. This happened a couple of times as I recall. Um, so she *didn't* back off, she came back and did it again. The idea of Trump "warning" Hillary about anything is laughable. Of course there is a lot of talk about Clinton with under aged girls in the Bahamas at wild parties, I believe with Mark Rich. There's always been a lot of talk about the Clintons. The question is, how much of it is true? Look at how badly you screwed up on the ludicrous story about Hillary's defense of the accused rapist. The Clinton's had to *inoculate* themselves from their past and possible future, by accusing Trump of something worse first, Oh, jeez, Mike, can you be any more ridiculous? What have they accused him of besides misogyny? And it's not as if his misogyny wasn't already obvious. Hillary's just calling attention to it. Besides which, if he believes Bill Clinton is a rapist and "one of the worst abusers of women" in U.S. history, why did he invite Bill and Hillary to his wedding and pose for a photo with them (with Bill's arm around his new wife's waist)? so Hillary may continue with what she originally was going to say in respects to Trump and women. She will if and when she thinks it's called for. So far, it's not holding any water. It sounds like something the Clinton's would do. What would it look like if it were "holding water"? (What does that even mean?) From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 3:26 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The Plot Thickens Of course. Just wanted to know who you thought the accuser was. Broaddrick's accusation is hardly straightforward. After untold oodles of investigation, it still hasn't been confirmed; it remains he said-she said. She never had charges brought against Clinton, and she denied the rape rumors in an affidavit to Paula Jones's lawyers, although she later "told all" to NBC and the Wall Street Journal editorial page. So we still don't know if her story is true. In any case, my original point was that your claim that the suit against Trump makes him "doubly qualified to be president by Democratic standards" is just extraordinarily meanspirited nonsense. No Democratic president has ever even been accused of raping a 13-year-old girl. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : How many rapes? Juanita Brodrick Hmmm,. sound familiar? From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The Plot Thickens ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : How many does it take? How many does it take to what?? And, again, how many was it? Below you refer to "the rape victim," so I gather there was only one who accused him of rape. Who was it? As for the woman accusing Trump, listen to what she has to say and let her have her day in court. At least she'll have one. I'm guessing she won't. Trump is too powerful. I just hope she doesn't meet wih a mysterious fatal "accident." More likely, he'll arrange for her to be paid off to withdraw the suit and keep silent. Clinton's victims had to deal with the powerful politicians. The rape victim had to deal with the attorney general of Arkansas, her rapist. From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 2, 2016 9:11 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The Plot Thickens ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : The women's stories that accused him is good enough for me. There are way too many. How many have accused him of rape? And those that have made such charges, didn't exactly give him his reputation. I think it was Hillary that said every woman should be believes when they make that charge. Except when it involves her or her interests. So we should believe the woman who is suing Trump for raping her when she was 13 years old, right? It's one thing to believe every woman *when they make the charge*. It's quite another to continue to believe them when it turns out the evidence for the charge is flimsy or nonexistent. That story has been out for months and I had already checked SNOPES. They don't exactly deny it, although they seriously massage it to make it not sound so bad. Translation: They present the facts, which show that it's the nonfacts parroted by right-wingers like you that make it sound so bad. Did you listen to her taped interview? Yeah, she laughed when she said the guy passed a polygraph. Made her lose all confidence in them she said. Which questions and answers was she referring to, specifically? Nowhere did she laugh about the outcome of the case. Got the guy a reduced sentence because some evidence had been mishandled. Did you actually read the Snopes page? The girl and her mother pressured the prosecutor for a plea deal to avoid the girl having to testify at trial (understandably). The prosecutor reduced the charge, and the judge then reduced the sentence. She had to do it though... as a favor. A *favor* she said in the tape. Sounds like one of those sniper stories. Snopes quotes the *prosecutor* as confirming that she didn't want to take the case when the judge appointed her and tried hard to get out of it. But she got stuck with it. Right-wingers like you don't believe in due process (unless they or their interests are on trial, of course). You don't think the lawyer for the accused has an ethical obligation to do his or her best for the client. You think he or she should flout judicial ethics and allow the accused to be convicted and punished without making the best possible case. If you did believe in due process, there would be no way for you to smear Hillary with her involvement in this case. From: "authfriend@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 9:16 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] The Plot Thickens ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <mdixon.6569@...> wrote : Clinton raped older women and molested them. And the proof is...? Hillary also defended, successfully, a rapist of an eleven or twelve year old girl, that she knew was guilty... and laughed about it. You're a real bottom-feeder, aren't you? You just don't care what the facts are. It's more important to get your smears in than to tell the truth: FALSE: Hillary Clinton Freed Child Rapist, Laughed About It http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/ http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/
