cancel2 2022
Canceled
Leslie Millwee???
They call Bill Clinton a rapist with less...
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Leslie Millwee???
Which time? She was lying one time or the other, right? Logically speaking, that has to be true. I think she was lying with her for-profit gossiping, and telling the truth with her solemn sworn testimony. Do I conclude correctly that you make the opposite assumption?
The top post says right-wingers call Clinton a rapist based on less evidence than we have against Kavanaugh. That's correct, isn't it? With Clinton, we have a charge that he raped a woman, but the woman he's supposed to have raped has sworn under oath that it never happened. With Kavanaugh, we have a charge that he was involved in gang rape. We also have charges of an attempted rape, by a much more credible witness, as well as a third charge of sexual assault.
Last edited:
This isn't hard to understand. Imagine a slightly different scenario. Imagine that Ford was selling a book about how Kavanaugh tried to rape her. But imagine that when she was under oath, facing pains of perjury, she had sworn that there was no truth to the allegation and that she had no knowledge of any sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh.
If that were the case, I wouldn't believe Ford's claim about the attempted rape. Would you?
Can't answer the most basic question without babbling like a dumbshit. Why do you think she is lying if you think Ford is telling the truth?
Imagine a slightly different scenario SQUAWK!
Imagine a slightly different scenario SQUAWK!
Imagine a slightly different scenario SQUAWK!
Imagine a slightly different scenario SQUAWK!
http://thememoryhole2.org/s/1-Complaint-and-related-docs.pdf
http://thememoryhole2.org/s/4-1-Jane-Doe-Declaration.pdf
http://thememoryhole2.org/s/4-2-Tiffany-Doe-Declaration.pdf
http://thememoryhole2.org/s/4-3-Joan-Doe-Declaration.pdf
That's an affidavit from the alleged victim, an affidavit from an alleged witness, and an affidavit from a third woman confirming that these allegations long predate Trump's political career.
Stop babbling like a dumbfuck and answer the question: It is a simple question that doesn't need five paragraphs of bullshit. Was she lying? Yes or No?
She was lying one time or the other, right? SQUAWK!
She was lying one time or the other, right? SQUAWK!
She was lying one time or the other, right? SQUAWK!
She was lying one time or the other, right? SQUAWK!
No it isn't correct. You have to be a brain dead dumbass to even make such a moronic argument.
Who later recanted that testimony and explained why. Why do you ignore the FACTS in this case yet pretend there are facts when there aren't any in the Ford case? Because you're a dishonest low IQ partisan hack?
No we don't you lying dumbfuck; we have a mentally deranged person that doesn't even put him in the room she claims these UNCORROBORATED events occurred.
Why is Juanita Broaddrick not believable but not the idiot who made these idiotic claims?
No you don't. There is NO credibility with someone making claims that were never filed and aren't corroborated even by people they claim were in the room you willful idiot.
Why is Juanita Broaddrick not believable but yet you want us to believe the idiot who made these moronic claims?
Another lie; there have been no charges in the case of Kavanaugh. There have been charges in the cases against BillyBob.
Why is Juanita Broaddrick not believable yet we are told we have to believe Ford?
Millwee says that 38 years ago Clinton inappropriately groped her in an editing room at a TV station. As far as I'm aware, she has never made these allegations under oath, never withstood cross-examination, never took a polygraph, nor provided any evidence that she told anyone at any point prior to when she fed it to the right-wing press a couple weeks before the 2016 election. So, is there reason to believe her, other than the usual desire to give women the benefit of the doubt in these matters?
The contrast with Ford is stark. Ford made the allegations under oath, withstood cross-examination, took a polygraph, and provided ample evidence that she'd told multiple people about it before Kavanaugh's nomination was ever made.
More laughable unsubstantiated bile; you seem to love wallowing in shit don't you snowflake.
The complainant, identified as “Katie Johnson,” still hasn’t spoken publicly, and the reality TV producer pushing the allegations has been accused in the past of making outlandish claims. Today, Johnson’s attorney announced he was filing to dismiss the suit, but said a new complaint will be filed, and “an additional witness” will be identified.
“Katie Johnson” is the pseudonym the complainant used in a California lawsuit, which was dismissed. She refiled the case in New York under the name Jane Doe. All of Jezebel’s efforts to reach her—both through her attorney, Thomas Meagher, and through a man calling himself “Al Taylor,” a former reality TV producer—have been unsuccessful.
More truth than the lies above:
The Guardian found compelling evidence that Taylor is actually Norm Lubow, a former Jerry Springer producer. The Guardian’s Jon Swaine found that former Springer guests accused Lubow of “staging their fights and encouraging them to fabricate wild stories,” as well as a 1995 New York Post story that says Lubow posed as a drug dealer who said he’d sold drugs to OJ Simpson.
So then Millwee is a liar? Women who come forward and make allegations of sexual misconduct are not to be believed?
Did you really struggle to understand my answer? Weird.
It's simple: Ford's been consistent in her claim that Kavanaugh tried to rape her, including when she was under oath. I believe her testimony. Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton didn't try to rape her. I believe her testimony, too.
Man....all these women are not to be believed then?
Kathleen Willey says that President Clinton groped her without her consent in the oval office in 1993. Eileen Wellstone says that Clinton sexually assaulted her outside of a pub in 1969. Sandra Allen James says that she was invited up to Clinton’s hotel room during a fundraiser, and Clinton forcibly put his hand up her dress. Christy Zercher, a flight attendant, alleges that Clinton grabbed her inappropriately and exposed himself to her on a plane. And two unnamed college students from Yale and the University of Arkansas respectively have said that Clinton assaulted them.
Did you really think that was an answer? Weird and stupid.
Yet her testimony didn't even meet the criteria of he said she said. It was uncorroborated by the people she claims were witnesses.
She recanted; was she lying? Is she not to be believed now? After all, you women libbers are telling us that we HAD to believe FORD and take her allegations seriously.
Are all these women lying too?
Kathleen Willey says that President Clinton groped her without her consent in the oval office in 1993. Eileen Wellstone says that Clinton sexually assaulted her outside of a pub in 1969. Sandra Allen James says that she was invited up to Clinton’s hotel room during a fundraiser, and Clinton forcibly put his hand up her dress. Christy Zercher, a flight attendant, alleges that Clinton grabbed her inappropriately and exposed himself to her on a plane. And two unnamed college students from Yale and the University of Arkansas respectively have said that Clinton assaulted them.
I provided a simple answer. Which part did you struggle to understand?
Reread.
She later contradicted her testimony and made an excuse about why she supposedly lied under oath. You want to regard her later hearsay as correct, which requires believing she's a perjurer. I see no reason to think her later hearsay is correct.
As you're well aware, I don't.
It is logical IMPOSSIBLE to believe Broaddrick. She lied about what happened one time or another. You want to believe she lied under oath when she had nothing to gain and plenty to lose from lying. I want to believe she lied when she wasn't under oath, when she was selling her story for money and had no legal risk from lying. Which is the more reasonable assumption?
Who's BillyBob?
Juanita Broaddrick logically has to have lied about the event. It's just a question of which time she was lying. So she cannot be treated as believable. There's no evidence Ford has ever lied about the event.
More laughable unsubstantiated bile; you seem to love wallowing in shit don't you snowflake.
The complainant, identified as “Katie Johnson,” still hasn’t spoken publicly, and the reality TV producer pushing the allegations has been accused in the past of making outlandish claims. Today, Johnson’s attorney announced he was filing to dismiss the suit, but said a new complaint will be filed, and “an additional witness” will be identified.
“Katie Johnson” is the pseudonym the complainant used in a California lawsuit, which was dismissed. She refiled the case in New York under the name Jane Doe. All of Jezebel’s efforts to reach her—both through her attorney, Thomas Meagher, and through a man calling himself “Al Taylor,” a former reality TV producer—have been unsuccessful.
More truth than the lies above:
The Guardian found compelling evidence that Taylor is actually Norm Lubow, a former Jerry Springer producer. The Guardian’s Jon Swaine found that former Springer guests accused Lubow of “staging their fights and encouraging them to fabricate wild stories,” as well as a 1995 New York Post story that says Lubow posed as a drug dealer who said he’d sold drugs to OJ Simpson.
You didn't know about these charges before, did you? Well, now you do. You're welcome. I'm happy to continue acting as your tutor. Now, are you aware that these two women aren't the only one to have sworn under oath that Trump is a rapist? Did you know that his own wife provided sworn testimony that he raped her?
So then women are NOT to be believed when they come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct. TY
What do you think? I have no basis for thinking she's lying or telling the truth, the same as was the case with Ford a couple weeks ago. If Millwee wants to put herself on the line with sworn testimony, facing cross-examination and professional attempts to find holes in her story, then we'll be in a better position to know if she's credible. That's the process that led to decent people believing Ford.
Ford lied about her event as well. Ford went beyond merely lying; she couldn't remember where the place was; what year it took place; waited 35 years to make the claim; couldn't remember what day it tool place; couldn't remember how she got to the place; couldn't remember how she got home......and everyone she named was there said they weren't there.
Yet you believe here and not Juanita Broaddrick. So women are NOT to be believed when they bring claims of sexual misconduct right?
It's so funny when you think you're pretending to be stupid.
How so? You are telling us that women are to be taken serious when they make such allegations. Yet you believe Ford and she was OBVIOUSLY lying.
Then Ford is not to be believed either. She lied. Yet you cannot provide any truth that Juanita Broaddrick was lying.
Yes she did; she swore under oath and named four people who have clearly stated, including her best friend, that they were never there. Are all these people lying?