"... it documented that Clinton opined to the court that they should have the complainant undergo a psychiatric exam because she [Clinton] had been "informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing about persons, claiming they had attacked her body," and she had been told by an expert in child psychology that "children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences."


Is that the beginning of her career in lying?

I know you don't live in any world similar to ours... but in your world, do you know what lawyers do?

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806588 wrote:read more: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

https://youtu.be/e2f13f2awK4

Here she is laughing and saying she took the case as a favor.

superman;1806606 wrote:https://youtu.be/e2f13f2awK4

Here she is laughing and saying she took the case as a favor.

That video was on the snopes page too. I take it you didn't watch it?

Taped conversations/speeches only matter to the media when it is a republican, like Mitt Romney, saying something off the cuff.


She is a corrupt, money-laundering, serial lying criminal. All that's left is whether she orders hit jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s

this is disturbing

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806607 wrote:That video was on the snopes page too. I take it you didn't watch it?

Yes I did. It provex Snopes wrong.

superman;1806615 wrote:Yes I did. It provex Snopes wrong.

How exactly? It confirmed what they posted that she has an incredulous laugh about our legal system. And I'm not sure why this is even a story. I mean we all know lawyers are pretty shitty human beings when it comes to representing defendants right? That's kinda their job.

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2016/08/09/clinton-body-count-or-leftwing-conspiracy-three-with-ties-to-dnc-mysteriously-die-n2203000


It is all coming full circle .......'90's to today.

And then of course we have the new batch of emails that she purposefully tried to hide which signal further corruption. I read an article the other day that said Comey may have let her slide on the email problem because he has moved on to investigate her public corruption; perhaps that is true.


[h=1]HILLARY FAVOR-TRADING? New emails suggest Clinton Foundation engaged State Dept. to help donors[/h]

• DID HILLARY OPEN RUSSIAN SPY DOOR? Watchdog claims Clinton initiative facilitated tech, military espionage
• VIDEO: Accusations of Clinton Foundation selling access to State Department
• VIDEO: Was the Clinton Foundation involved with State Department?
• VIDEO: Graphic novel puts 'Clinton Cash' into new perspective

I hear a bunch of emails have surfaced that show HC while SOS was selling access. Why isnt she in prison?

Spock;1806634 wrote:I hear a bunch of emails have surfaced that show HC while SOS was selling access. Why isnt she in prison?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch/index.html



FLASHBACK: LYNCH TRIES SHIELDING FOUNDATION DOCS...
NYT: Emails Renew Questions About Overlap...
GIULIANI: Should Be RICO Investigation...
Top Aide Alerted of Inquiry...
Mills Allowed Deal That Made Bill $500k...
STATE DEPT SHUTS DOWN QUESTIONS...



If it was a republican, or even some democrats, they would be in jail. But the press will never allow a Clinton or potentially the first female prez to go to jail. Absolutely incredible.

Spock;1806634 wrote:I hear a bunch of emails have surfaced that show HC while SOS was selling access. Why isnt she in prison?

Big if true.

sleeper;1806652 wrote:Big if true.

It will be swept under the rug.

Perfect time for this to come out....so many Repubs are lining up against Trump this might be the only window Hillary has to escape prosecution.

And then Obama will pardon her and all will be well.

gut;1806695 wrote:Perfect time for this to come out....so many Repubs are lining up against Trump this might be the only window Hillary has to escape prosecution.

And then Obama will pardon her and all will be well.

I don't see anybody really talking about it. It will be a non story.

like_that;1806697 wrote:I don't see anybody really talking about it. It will be a non story.

We all know that career politiians are corrupted but this is at a new level, I don't think the American citizen dem or rep can accepted. Plus this puts the community organizer in a real problem for his administration knowing about this.

Just a what if: this is that big event that turns the election into Hillary forced to step down, democrates deem no candidate, Obama declares non election for a period of (1year) and assigns a supreme judge, Hillary pardon and Elizabeth Warren ? Is the new democrate candidate... Trust me this election will not go without a huge event directed at one of the candidates....there is to much baggage attached to Hillary, Obama Administration and Democratic Party to let this election slip away...

jmog;1806256 wrote:You may want to look up the definition of ad hominem before you say I committed that logical fallacy. It is when one attacks the person not when one discredits a study or a source as biased.

Ad hominem would have been if I attacked Zwick not if I showed a study to show that the website was biased.

Read your first referring to me for a good example of what ad hominem really is.

If you want to say I used a logical fallacy you may want to try False Authority which is the same logical fallacy I was trying to pin on politifact. You would just try it on GM.

Speaking of ad hominem, you may need to retake a statistics course if you believe a sample of say 100 republicans vs 100 democrats would come out with pretty much all of the republicans lying more (which politifact has stated).

God dammit this is too funny. Yes Jmog attacking a sources credibility is a form of ad hominem. What is more enjoyable is how this response on your part is just another example of your hilarious ability to equivocate. Truly funny for me so thanks.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Rather than attack the substance of the politifact claim, you impugned politifacts motivations.

The rest of this comment just makes me Lol. And yes making fun of your derpiness is also ad hominem. GUILTY.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1806595 wrote:I know you don't live in any world similar to ours... but in your world, do you know what lawyers do?

The whole rape case from '75 is one of the few things I read about her that I don't blame her for. Anyone with an inkling of an idea of how the justice system works knows that she was appointed and would lose her license to be a lawyer if she didn't fully advocate for her client.

sleeper;1806652 wrote:Big if true.

If you don't believe it would be swept under the rug then you maybe more of a moron than your alter ego isadore .

BoatShoes;1806759 wrote:God dammit this is too funny. Yes Jmog attacking a sources credibility is a form of ad hominem. What is more enjoyable is how this response on your part is just another example of your hilarious ability to equivocate. Truly funny for me so thanks.



Rather than attack the substance of the politifact claim, you impugned politifacts motivations.

The rest of this comment just makes me Lol. And yes making fun of your derpiness is also ad hominem. GUILTY.

Did you actually read the definition you posted? I did not attack Zwick, which was the person making the argument.

I attacked his source/authority which in my opinion is more False Authority and is part of attacking the bias of the website is attacking their methodology which is attacking the substance.

Show where I attacked Zwick and you have an argument, if not then you do not.

jmog;1806767 wrote:Did you actually read the definition you posted? I did not attack Zwick, which was the person making the argument.

I attacked his source/authority which in my opinion is more False Authority and is part of attacking the bias of the website is attacking their methodology which is attacking the substance.

Show where I attacked Zwick and you have an argument, if not then you do not.

Don't worry about BS; he is probably taking heavy meds this morning after finding out that his patron saint Krugman disagrees with his idol Hillary on economic policy ------ the two-step he must be doing to reconcile that would make Fred Astaire blush.

Ok BS, here goes.

This is from Politifact.com. This graph shows their rankings from left to right on who tells the "truth" vs who tells "lies". I had a better graph that listed more candidates from earlier in the campaign to every exacerbate my point, but you will get the idea.


If you look at any set of POTUS elections since politifact started its "Truth-O-Meter" without fail the Rs are always lying more often than the Ds (with a couple random exceptions thrown in there).

Now, if Politifact has no bias at all, then their data, statistically would give a 99.9% confidence in stating that "Republicans lie much more often than democrats".


Now, another reasonable assumption that there are bad apples in both parties but a random sample of given Rs and given Ds, that their "truthfulness" should be evenly dispersed. Similarly whether it's nationality, race, etc, anyway you divide up a random sample of human beings the # of "liars" vs "truth tellers" should be randomly dispersed.

This is simple statistics, Caucasians don't lie anymore than African Americans, Christians don't lie anymore than Muslims, etc. If the sample size is large enough the amount of "truth telling" will be evenly dispersed.

So, either one believes politifact has zero biased and republicans and democrats are not really a normal sampling of human beings, or one believes the scientific/statistical reasoning that something is amiss at politifact with their "truth-o-meter" when it comes to Rs vs Ds.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/am-i-not-speaking-english-reporters-confront-state-dept-spox-over-clinton-foundation/

State Dept spokesperson avoids answering question about Clinton Foundation ----- reporter finally asks, "Am I not speaking English ......."

QuakerOats;1806822 wrote:http://www.mediaite.com/online/am-i-not-speaking-english-reporters-confront-state-dept-spox-over-clinton-foundation/

State Dept spokesperson avoids answering question about Clinton Foundation ----- reporter finally asks, "Am I not speaking English ......."

Wow... the press is getting fed up with it, too! I never thought I'd see the day...