Hillary threatens sex abuse victims of her husband

[createdtoworship]

(topic-Should Clinton register at the FBI sex offender data base? 21 charges say so. Hillary threatens accusers. )

I think of Josh Duggar, a political activist of the conservative perspective.

Who was a molester, straight up.

He stepped down, and did the right thing. (no one should feel sorry for him, having to do this, he was a molester (albeit 10 years or more removed).

Left his position of influence. (respectively publicly admitting this, which is the first step to recovery)

Bill Clinton (who was involved in over 21 sex crime charges), never did this.

Not only did He AND his Wife never admit his faults. He never sought help that comes after confession. Who knows He could be the exact same guy as He was then. Which is scary to have a sex predator as a former president.

(classic case how the right and the left deal with sexual sin, one repents, while the other hides it in the dark closet)

Clinton kept trucking as if nothing happened and ridiculed those who spoke against him.

Several years later, emails surface about these 21 allegations, and Hillary starts threatening with verbal attacks the accusers.

Now we may say, "oh what a good wife."

or we can say...."she just want's to be president even at the cost of a cover up of her husbands sexual predator charges"

seeing we already know she is a compusive liar when pressured (benghazi), should we assume the cup is half full in this case, or perhaps half empty?

Now trump is not a great public speaker, in fact He is outright rude and totally insensitive. Somewhat sexist. I have read nearly all of his alleged sexist remarks. And they are uncalled for. But when you see trump, you know what you get. There is something to be said for that. Albeit you get imperfection. Hillary, you simply don't know. Because She lies. (now I personally like cruz, who is a good conservative....trump is better than hillary but that aint sayin much)

Here is why I think Hillary lies to cover her political power....(based on above, and also below)

I find it interesting hillary says "all sex assault victims have the right to be believed" yet not in the case of her Husband.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...st-defended-1970s-Bill-s-bimbo-eruptions.html

sources:
http://www.hypocritae.com/National/hillary-clinton-and-husband-accused-sexual-assault/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...silence-bill-clintons-sexual-assault-victims/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/06/hillary_has_a_woody_allen_problem_121479.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261340/hillary-clinton-shouts-down-rape-victim-daniel-greenfield

 

[The Cadet]

Bill Clinton (who was involved in over 21 sex crime charges),

Which one of your sources claims this? Do you have any original sources, like court documents?

 

[Fantine]

To my knowledge no charges have ever been brought against Clinton (and with Fox News around, if such an event occurred it would be cannon fodder for them for months).

I have no idea what the statute of limitations is, but unless there are charges and a conviction, anything else is just malicious gossip

 

[Armoured]

For heaven's sake, don't discuss policies, whatever you do! Smearing candidates, or when that fails, their families, is how you pick who to vote for!

 

[wing2000]

OP: Do you think it's ethical to accuse someone of sex crimes when that person has not been convicted of such crimes?

 

[bhsmte]

OP: Do you think it's ethical to accuse someone of sex crimes when that person has not been convicted of such crimes?

Excellent question.

 

[Goonie]

OP: Do you think it's ethical to accuse someone of sex crimes when that person has not been convicted of such crimes?

Or indeed even charged.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Should Clinton register at the FBI sex offender data base?

Do you think that registering as a sex offender is voluntary?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

hmmm...

I notice that a certain sub-set of the population always takes two different stances on this topic when discussing Bill Clinton vs. Herman Cain.

When it was Herman Cain...he was a 'monster'...when it's Bill Clinton it's "Well, that was never proven" or "What happens in his personal life is his own business"

For the record, my personal attitude is the latter...I don't care about a president's sexual exploits...the key difference being, I apply that standard consistently and don't engage in selective outrage about it.

 

[createdtoworship]

OP: Do you think it's ethical to accuse someone of sex crimes when that person has not been convicted of such crimes?

I didn't accuse. I merely said there were 21 charges. As indicated in numerous links in the OP. But did you read these? Name one fact off any of the links. (you probably can't).

so, I would turn the morality argument in your face.

because it's not moral to dismiss sex assault charges without even reading the info.

(I don't know about you, but I honor the victims, first)....then the accuser.

especially if they have been raped or other sexual assault.

and you should too.

 

[wing2000]

I didn't accuse. I merely said there were 21 charges. As indicated in numerous links in the OP. But did you read these? Name one fact off any of the links. (you probably can't).

so, I would turn the morality argument in your face.

because it's not moral to dismiss sex assault charges without even reading the info.

(I don't know about you, but I honor the victims, first)....then the accuser.

especially if they have been raped or other sexual assault.

and you should too.

Were any of those "21 charges" issued by an official prosecutor or policy agency?

 

[SepiaAndDust]

(I don't know about you, but I honor the victims, first)....then the accuser.

especially if they have been raped or other sexual assault.

and you should too.

Naw, see, they're not victims just because they claim to be.

Show me an actual charge from a prosecutor, and I'll take it seriously.

 

[A2SG]

hmmm...

I notice that a certain sub-set of the population always takes two different stances on this topic when discussing Bill Clinton vs. Herman Cain.

When it was Herman Cain...he was a 'monster'...when it's Bill Clinton it's "Well, that was never proven" or "What happens in his personal life is his own business"

For the record, my personal attitude is the latter...I don't care about a president's sexual exploits...the key difference being, I apply that standard consistently and don't engage in selective outrage about it.

What did Herman Cain allegedly do?

-- A2SG, don't recall hearing about any of Cain's "sexual exploits" at all....must not have been a big story.....

 

[A2SG]

I think of Josh Duggar, a political activist of the conservative perspective.

I'm curious...why bring up a child molester guilty of incest in a discussion about Bill Clinton? What do they have in common, exactly?

Are you trying to imply a connection between Clinton and a child molester guilty of incest?

I didn't accuse. I merely said there were 21 charges.

With not a single one documented anywhere.

As indicated in numerous links in the OP.

All of which are long on allegations, short on facts.

But did you read these? Name one fact off any of the links. (you probably can't).

How about this:
"Hard-hitting journalism from your completely un-biased (pinky swear!) reporters in Walkerville, VA."

That's your source.

so, I would turn the morality argument in your face.

because it's not moral to dismiss sex assault charges without even reading the info.

What info? Your "sources" only accuse, they offer no specifics on these "charges."

(I don't know about you, but I honor the victims, first)....then the accuser.

especially if they have been raped or other sexual assault.

and you should too.

Who isn't?

If you think either of the Clintons is guilty of something, by all means, charge them with the crime, and let the courts determine their guilt.

But rather than do that, you're just levying accusations without any evidence whatsoever. Who does that honor?

-- A2SG, there's a reason we have an actual justice system, rather than just a court of public opinion y'know....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What did Herman Cain allegedly do?

-- A2SG, don't recall hearing about any of Cain's "sexual exploits" at all....must not have been a big story.....

Democrats made a big deal about Herman's sexual infidelity when he was a business owner back in the day. Essentially, they tried to demonize him for the very thing they defend Clinton on.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't accuse. I merely said there were 21 charges. As indicated in numerous links in the OP. But did you read these? Name one fact off any of the links. (you probably can't).

so, I would turn the morality argument in your face.

because it's not moral to dismiss sex assault charges without even reading the info.

(I don't know about you, but I honor the victims, first)....then the accuser.

especially if they have been raped or other sexual assault.

and you should too.

Do you enjoy, being judge and jury?

 

[Desk trauma]

I didn't accuse. I merely said there were 21 charges.

In what jurisdiction were these charges filed?

 

[bhsmte]

In what jurisdiction were these charges filed?

In his own head?

 

[A2SG]

Democrats made a big deal about Herman's sexual infidelity when he was a business owner back in the day. Essentially, they tried to demonize him for the very thing they defend Clinton on.

They did? They must not have made too big a deal of it, I don't remember a thing about it. I also don't recall anyone defending Clinton's infidelity.

-- A2SG, though I do recall many saying it wasn't a big deal, compared to things like trading arms for hostages, invading other countries on false pretenses and stuff like that....

 

[createdtoworship]

Were any of those "21 charges" issued by an official prosecutor or policy agency?

well, if you would read the sources, then you would have the answer to that question, and it would not need to take up bytes of space on a forum.

so again, please read it.