Wrath of Dagon

There's no way he can have exculpatory evidence though. That's the nature of historical accusations- they may be true or they may be false, but they're near impossible to prove false. Proving that you, say, weren't on a particular flight 30 days ago is a whole lot easier than proving you weren't on a flight 30 years ago, and any witnesses are almost certain to have forgotten. At that point it's just he said/ she said. And while there's an outside chance you might get proof for one accusation you aren't going to get it for multiple ones. I'm just repeating what the campaign has claimed. And they wouldn't have to discredit them all, just a couple to cast doubt on all the rest. Not that I'm expecting them to. Edit: And this is what they meant: http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/ Don't know if that guy is really credible, but her particular story did seem a little dubious to me from the beginning.

May be Bruce gets it now, but Obola still doesn't: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/14/obama-change-wild-west-media/

So the presidential candidate can be replaced if he withdraws: http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/20431 Perhaps they can convince Trump if he fails to present the exculpatory evidence his campaign claims to have.

Trump, Hilzilla, and her husband are all horrible examples for children, that's not the issue. Forget a president we can be proud of, I'd settle for one who's not a criminal.

Doesn't matter, they can simply rule that states can do whatever they want because second amendment is a collective right, not an individual one, which is the liberal judicial position.

Oh no.. they say she's got to go. Go go Hilzilla. Wooo ooo hoo ooo. I can do this all day! You guys wont believe this but I think I have just had an epiphany around how most of you Americans feel about free speech I was about to say that Breitbart should be closed because it is so divisive and basically encourages bigotry, I was then going to say i have no problem with reasonable right wing websites but they need to take some responsibility for what they say But then I thought, if you close down Breitbart now what is next? Who decides what is acceptable ? So you cannot close anything down...am I right about understanding the US idea of free speech in this case? Congratulations Bruce, you're starting to get it. May be you'll become a conservative in a year or two. Edit: Btw, GD, there's plenty of second amendment cases already heading to the Supreme Court, Hilzilla's court will have plenty of chance to throw out the whole thing in any one of them: https://www.thetrace.org/2016/03/important-gun-rights-questions-supreme-court-might-answer/ Edit2: Speaking of doom: http://www.hoover.org/research/americas-civilizational-paralysis

Don't buy the bull that the illegal immigrant population hasn't grown in over a decade. With all the legal immigration quotas maxed out and at least half a million people overstaying their visas last year, how can that be?

Hilzilla and her fellow globalist Ryan (or Pelosi, since Republicans voters may stay home this time), are going to legalize 30 million illegals, assuring that Democrats will never again be out of power. Not that they need it anymore, because of all the US citizen children of illegals and also legal immigrants, and illegals themselves breaking the law by voting. The open borders she wants with a bunch of third world Latin American countries assures we're heading toward third world status ourselves. Add to that a Supreme Court which won't enforce any law or protect anyone's rights, unless you're in a designated victim group, and the future looks very bleak to me. Look at any Democrat run entity, Illinois, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore to see what's in store for the country. In other news, Hilzilla's campaign already threatening to shut down Breitbart: http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hillary-campaign-vows-to-destroy-opposition-website/

WOD can I ask you something, would you say you feel depressed about the state of this election or more irritated? Pence would be a much better choice, I was watching him in the Kain debate and as much as I like Kain I have to admit Pence simply had more composure and insights than him. He is a much more balanced and reasonable person than Trump Depressed is about right. I've thought we're doomed for quite some time, and now I'm almost certain. Pence didn't run in the primary, and if he did he'd still be the establishment candidate, thus would likely lose. That's what I meant when I said a corrupt system produces corrupt results.

A corrupt system can only produce a corrupt result.

Not a person of the law, but lying to the people isn't illegal. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-post-publishes-fact-check-on-rape-victims-story/article/2604360 As I understand it, Clinton gave this affidavit of information provided to her as part of a motion for the court to require a psychiatric evaluation be done for the girl. Which, obviously, would be something you'd want to have happen if you'd been told things that might put into question the truthfulness of the accuser's story. As to it not "being allowed" in court, as near as I can tell, the defendant took a plea deal with the prosecution before the request ever got considered by the judge (at least the documents that are being used pro- and con- this issue online don't seem to have a ruling from the judge one way or the other on the motion that I, non-lawyer, can tell). Again nothing I've seen here seems out of step with the idea of trying to give the client the best defense possible Well, OK, assuming she was actually told this by a credible person and didn't just make it up.

@amentep It wasn't allowed in court, it was part of an affidavit Hilzilla submitted without proof: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-post-publishes-fact-check-on-rape-victims-story/article/2604360

volo are you going to constantly make this inaccurate and scurrilous accusation and never produce any links to support your view? Do you not ever feel you should try to support these types of comments? Dude, you were given the links to the whole story like two weeks ago. This is why Gary Johnson stopped smoking pot. To be fair, the links provided didn't say she laughed at the rape victim; she laughed when remembering a scenario where she lost faith in lie-detector tests (which, lets face it, are unreliable) as part of her job (which she didn't take on under her own judgement but as court appointed council for the defense) to provide the most complete defense to her client she could do within her power. I understand the appeal to emotion that "OMGZ, Hillz defended a rapist! And then laughed (years later)!" gives. I understand that Hillary may have even felt her client was guilty - but as a lawyer her client was entitled to the best defense she could offer. That's the way the US Judicial process is supposed to be. She's not obligated to character assassinate the child victim though.

I wonder if it's possible for Trump to withdraw and be replaced by Pence. Not that he'd ever do it. If the accusations are true he shouldn't be president. Of course Hilzilla shouldn't be either, and if she's elected this kind of stuff will continue: http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/12/criminal-aliens-sexually-assault-70000-american-women-paul-ryan-mad-trump/

FBI agents and DOJ prosecutors wanted Hilzilla indicted: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html Edit: Thugs who beat the boy in Alabama arrested: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/12/four-men-arrested-in-attack-on-alabama-teen-who-said-blue-lives-matter.html

Because anyone who tries to deny the queen's right to the throne is a traitor.

Has he outlined the vetting? I am hoping it involves questions cross referenced and an eyeball camera. He's going to ask them questions about their various believes. Cross checked against their facebook posts I guess.

The Clintons are Robin Hoods in reverse, steal from the poorest of the poor and give to the rich, themselves, but Trump is rude! http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/haiti-factory-big-money-state-department-clintons-meet/story?id=42729714

No, it made you laugh because it's completely accurate.

I wouldn't say "party-ending", they were in the same situation as recently as Obola's first election, but hey, may be they'll get replaced by something else.

Not that I expect Trump to win, but the polls right now factor in the tape revelation, but not the last debate.

Heh, I was about to post that. 2017 is a good time to start a new game.

Yes, she's lucky that way. Unlike TV hosts, Secret Service agents aren't allowed to tape people they're protecting.

Yes, Hilzilla always takes the high road: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/10/if_you_think_donald_trumps_comments_are_vulgar_check_out_hillarys_potty_mouth.html And that's to people who protect her with their lives!