Donald Trump

New Trump Ad Attacks Hillary Clinton for Her Husband's Alleged Sex Crimes

"Here we go again" is right...

|

Donald Trump/Instagram

Crime bills and welfare and presidential penis, oh my… If you're looking forward to relitigating the 1990s in the court of public opinion, has America got an election for you!

Welfare reform was the great rehash of the weekend, with a fight between lefty blogger Matt Bruenig and Center for American Progress president Neera Tanden over Bill Clinton's welfare policies—and how much blame to place on Hillary Clinton, and by extension all of her supporters, for them—devolving into a heated, internecine battle between Sen. Bernie Sanders fans and Team Hillary. (If you should care to learn more—though I advise against it unless you're feeling a bit low on insufferable internet narcissists this week—Vox offers a pretty clear and concise summary of "Bruenighazi.")

Then, on Monday, Donald Trump released a campaign ad dredging up old accusations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton. The short, black-and-white ad opens with an image of the former president with a cigar in his mouth superimposed over an image of the White House as various female voices describe being assaulted. The most graphic description comes from a recording of Juanita Broaddrick, the former Arkansas nursing-home administrator who, in 1999, accused Clinton of raping her during his 1978 gubernatorial campaign. 

The ad—which Trump released on Instagram with the caption "Is Hillary really protecting women?"—features only one more image: a photo of Bill and Hillary Clinton together under the caption "Here we go again?" Broaddrick's testimony fades out as someone (presumably Hillary) lets out the loudest, most cackle-like laugh imaginable. The screen then flashes the word Trump above the message "Make America Great Again!" 

Subtle it is not. Effective? That probably depends on how you feel about (either or both of) the Clintons to begin with. But I think it's safe to see this short ad as a trailer for a longer line of attack coming soon.

Last Wednesday, Trump brought up the sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton during a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity. Earlier in the month, at a campaign stop in Washington, Trump said that Clinton was "married to a man who was the worst abuser of women in the history of politics." 

Advertisement

NEXT: How Trump Could Doom the World

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Her Husband’s Alleged Sex Crimes

    lol

    I thought Shikha’s “Trump will cause 3rd world genocide” would be the peak-retard of the day.

    1. I rate it the day’s peak retard. And to think I defend Shikha from time to time. But jesus she went off the rails on that one.

      1. I rate it the day’s peak retard.

        Hold on now, it’s barely past noon.

        1. That’s gonna be really hard to top, though. Shikha sets the bar high.

          1. Start operating at home with Google! it’s with the aid of a extensive margin the high-quality employment i’ve had. final Wednesday I were given a fresh out of the field new BMW because getting a check for $6474 this ? four weeks past. I began this 10-months lower back and right away was bringing domestic at any rate one hundred dollar each hour. I work thru this connection

            sincerely Faucet tap On This sort of Link

            ???? http://WWW.TodayWeb60.Com

    2. You leave Bubba alone. He got the NOW Official Stamp of Innocence.

      1. He’s in favor of abortion, so he’s allowed a couple of free rapes and a few free sexual assaults. For women’s health.

      2. They were all a bunch of lying sluts trying to tear a good man down. Or so I’m told.

        1. They’re poor so it’s ok.

          1. They should consider it an honor to be raped by such a respected and honorable member of the aristocracy.

            1. So Cosby isn’t in the aristocracy club, huh?

          2. As a wise man once said, if you drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, you can find someone to say anything.

            1. Carville really is a slimy fuck.

            2. And you could drag a $100 bill through a bucket of pig shit and still there would be government parasites demanding a share of it – if not the whole thing.

            3. That was a wise-ass, not a wise man. Please don’t get them confused.

              -jcr

    3. Look, all women victims deserve to believed with this one exception, OK?

      And besides, why can’t everyone just “Move On” already and shut up and make way for the long-awaited return of our Clintonian overlords.

      1. So, you expect people to adhere to the standards that you think are wrong because… something?

        1. Naw. We expect people to adhere to the standards they propose applying to everyone.

          1. Has ENB said that all women should be believed when they make rape accusations? Or that the accusations against Bill are definitely BS?

            1. Not that I remember, no.

      2. You’re right, they need to get back to important ‘Media Matters’ before someone freaks out and calls a ‘Code Pink’.

    4. I thought it was standard practice for journalists to use the word “alleged” when talking about someone who hasn’t been convicted in a court of law of the crime that they’re, well, alleged to have committed. Presumably to keep from being sued.

      But of course, acknowledging that runs counter to the “REASON = DEN OF PROGGIE FAGGITS PRETENDING 2 B LIBERTARIANZ!!111!!!!!!1!!!” narrative.

        1. I thought it was standard practice for journalists to use the word “alleged” when talking about someone who hasn’t been convicted in a court of law of the crime that they’re, well, alleged to have committed. Presumably to keep from being sued.

          That might fly, except that Elizabeth Nolan Brown is one of Reason’s leftist shitheads (along with with a couple of others like Robby Soave) who have decided that George Zimmerman and that Trump staffer are still guilty, even though both of them were completely acquitted by our legal system.

          1. Like when cops are acquitted, it means they never did anything wrong.

            1. Shut up, SnugglerFlea! Mikey’s got an axe to grind, and by god he’s gonna grind it! And by “axe” i mean micropenis.

              1. No need to project your boyfriend’s characteristics onto me.

        2. “Alleged” is acceptable in this case.

          Now, in the UVA rape case, I think the proper word wouldn’t be “alleged”, it would be “farcical”, or perhaps “disproven”.

      1. ^”STOP WHINING YOU MEWLING QUIM!”

      2. Loki, you now get 1/2 off your next brothel trip. Mention “ENB is dreamy” to get the discount.

        1. Awesome. I’ll be sure to tell your mom you said hi on my next trip, after I get my $1.00 $0.50 blowjob.

          1. She charges by the inch?

            1. Yeah, normally $0.10 per inch, but since I’ll be getting mine for half off next time, it’ll be $0.05 per inch.

              1. You misspelled “millimeter.”

      3. I thought it was standard practice for journalists to use the word “alleged” when talking about someone who hasn’t been convicted in a court of law of the crime that they’re, well, alleged to have committed. Presumably to keep from being sued.

        No, not to keep from being sued, but to prevent defense lawyers from claiming prejudicial treatment of their clients. Started way back when Nixon was in office, if I remember right – or perhaps it was one of his successors. Anyway he made the mistake of shooting his mouth off in public about some perp who was on trial for something or another, and the defendant’s lawyer claimed his client could no longer expect a fair trial. Ever since that time journalists and the media have used the word alleged when discussing alleged wrong-doers.

        1. Thanks for the history lesson, I always assumed it was to avoid lawsuits.

      4. I thought it was standard practice for journalists to use the word “alleged” when talking about someone who hasn’t been convicted in a court of law of the crime that they’re, well, alleged to have committed.

        Sure.

        throwing those “alleged’s” in this particular context, which attempts to suggest that “Re-litigating” these old details is somehow untoward, unseemly, or especially gross… or even anything other than 100% entirely to-be-expected… seems a bit “the lady doth-protest-too-much“.

        I’m pretty sure there are ways to reference Bill C’s extensive ‘women problems’ without rhetorically insisting the guy remains ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

        Given the extent to which writers for this mag will often pre-emptively declare their disapprobation/disgust/disavowal etc. of any percieved “Bad Guys” in any given culture-war context, this sudden and ostentatious concern with objective, legalistic propriety in this particular case…. just seems ridiculous.

        1. Yeah. Have you ever seen Reason put the “alleged” qualifier when talking about a cop? Reason presents the allegations as undisputed facts in every cop misconduct story.

        2. side note; and completely coincidental…

          a google for “protests too much” actually hit on an editorial about Bill, titled

          Clinton Doth Protest Too Much

          …speaking directly of the Clinton-habit of responding to ANY criticisms with overwhelming (reality-denying) assertions to the contrary, to the point where they basically sound like they’re fucking insane and they’re *daring you* to contradict them.

        3. I think making a big stink about using the term “alleged,” as is the usual practice when describing something someone’s been accused of but not proven guilty of, is kind of moronic. I certainly don’t agree with everything ENB or any other reason writer writes*, but this doesn’t seem like the kind of thing to get your panties in a bunch over.

          It certainly doesn’t come anywhere near “peak-retard of the day,” especially after Dalmia’s earlier gem.

          *I don’t expect to ever agree with everything someone writes – hell sometimes I don’t agree with everything I write myself after thinking about an issue some more.

          1. this doesn’t seem like the kind of thing to get your panties in a bunch over.

            They weren’t particularly bunched. Don’t confuse me with John.

            in fact, if anyone’s being particularly “uptight”, its the people applying legalisms to any discussion of the former-president’s widespread and well-documented infidelities. Which was precisely my point.

            I mean, jizzing on an intern in the oval office isn’t *technically* a crime, is it? Should I really have to say “Alleged” jizzing?

            Its being ridiculously too-generous which exposes a reticence to admit any fault. Hence the Hamlet reference.

            1. They weren’t particularly bunched.

              Fair enough.

              We’re probably not gonna agree 100%, but I’ll just add that Bill’s infidelities were a little more than just jizzing on Monica’s dress. He was also “alleged” to have raped Juanita Broaddrick, which was specifically featured in the ad, so I assumed that’s what was meant by “alleged sex crimes.” Not so much the Lewinsky thing since that, as you correctly point out, wasn’t a sex crime in the first place.

              But whatever, who cares. All I’ll add is: Fuck Donllary Clintrump and Hillold Trumpton both in their stupid asses with rusty chainsaws. There’s no good guys in any of this shit. I hope they all get Lou Gehrig’s disease, 4th stage pancreatic cancer, renal failure, and AIDS all at the same time.

              1. Bill’s infidelities were a little more than just jizzing on Monica’s dress.

                I know. Which is why my point about referencing his “alleged” anything is stupid. His bad-behavior with women extended far beyond explicitly-legal problems.

                The fact is that Hillary’s #1 asset is a guy who was impeached for lying about fingerbanging interns. And we’re supposed to be *surprised* when that’s pointed out by political rivals?

                (or even – gasp! – tut-tut it as “hitting below the belt” or something?)

                I don’t give a flying fuck about what anyone believes may-or-may-not have happened, or how “alleged” his rapes were. Bill has a legendary track record for getting away with shit that would have destroyed other people’s careers 100X over. he’s got so much baggage you can skip entirely past the “rape” problems and go straight to the virtual-child-molestation.

                Which exactly is why the soft-pedaling of claims about him is so laughable. Its reminiscent of Obama’s ‘epic-understatement’ phrase =

                I’m not going to sugarcoat this: Bill Clinton may not be the best person to chaperone Girl Scouts

      5. Bah….it’s just another form of bias and/or signaling.

        It is only standard practice when the journalist wishes to distance themselves from the statement, ie.
        “New Trump Ad Attacks Hillary Clinton for Her Husband’s Alleged Sex Crimes”

        When the journalist wishes to promote the statement, then it is worded in a more direct manner.
        “New Trump Ad Attacks Hillary Clinton for Her Husband’s Long History of Sex Crime Accusations”

        If the Journalist wishes to really promote the statement, ya get something like.
        “Effective Trump Ad Destroys Hillary over Predatory Bill’s Sexcapades”

    5. Why is it retarded? Have any of the allegations been proven in court?

      I’m not interested in defending the guy, and I wouldn’t expect Trump not to bring up the allegations. It seems more likely than not that he is at least a creep who has taken some liberties with women. But unless I am misunderstanding your comment, it doesn’t seem retarded to use the standard way of talking about someone accused but not convicted of something.

      1. I wouldn’t expect Trump not to bring up the allegations

        pretty much my point right there.

        anything else, see my comment just above here.

    6. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $62 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired for eight months but last month her pay was $14139 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Check This Out ????????????= Click this link =-=-======== http://www.elite36.com

    7. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

      This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  2. And the fact that Trump actually donated money to the Clintons means nothing. He’s a troll.

    1. Yeah, any time I hear Trump attacking Clinton all I can hear is ‘hahaha you stupid fucks!’

      So if Bill Clinton is a rapist, which is possible, I suppose that makes Trump a rape enabler who’s willing to overlook a little thing like abuse of women as long as it means he gains politically?

      Expect none of his supporters to have a problem with that, or to even acknowledge it. Trumps being genuine now, after all those times he wasn’t, and by the way he’s now retroactively genuine too because he isn’t Hillary so hahaha you stupid fucks.

      Is there an echo…?

      1. So if Bill Clinton is a rapist, which is possible, I suppose that makes Trump a rape enabler who’s willing to overlook a little thing like abuse of women as long as it means he gains politically?

        What are you saying here? That statement makes no sense. Why would Trump attacking Hillary for protecting Bill for being a rapist make Trump the rape enabler? I am being serious. That logic doesn’t follow at all. What are you trying to say?

    2. Trump donated money to Clinton because he was a businessman and paying for access is what you do as a business man. Beyond that, even if he did do it out of some sincere love for Bill, that doesn’t excuse Hillary’s behavior or make her claims to be the defender of women any less of a lie.

      You don’t understand the significance of the ad. The ad is not about how good or bad Trump is. The ad is about how bad Hillary is and how ridiculous her claims to be some great defender of women are. Maybe Trump has every bit as bad of an attitude towards women as Bill or Hillary. Trump, however, is not basing his campaign on being a great lover and defender of women. Hillary in contrast is. And that is why her defending of Bill and his and her treatment of women matters and matters a hell of a lot more than the fact that Trump may have once thought Bill was a great guy.

      1. Bill or Hillary.

        Given their ages, I just want to know which one gets to wear the strap-on these days. Oh, wait a second – no, I don’t either.

        1. Its Hillary and she doesn’t wear it with Bill. I believe Hillary’s tastes go to the more Semitic if you catch my drift.

          1. The Semetic has a wiener for a husband.

  3. And to think, Trump is just getting started on Hillary. I can’t wait to see where this goes when things start heating up.

    1. Trump shouldn’t go at her too hard until after the convention. Otherwise he’s likely to destroy her too soon and end up with a semi-competent opponent.

      1. Trump shouldn’t go at her too hard until after the convention.

        Thank you for the worst mental image ever.

        1. Yeah, don’t give SugarFree any more ideas. I still haven’t recovered from earlier today.

          1. Meat truck…

      2. UM, like who?

        Bernie? Biden? Gore?

        Is there even a 4th alternative?

        1. All less damaged goods than Hillary.

          1. Yes. The problem is not just that Hillary is damaged goods. The problem is that it would be impossible to unify the party if you pushed her aside, especially if you didn’t then nominate Bernie. You think the Bernie Bros are pissed right now, push Hillary out and put in someone who didn’t even run in the primaries and see how angry they are. If Biden had run from the beginning, he would no doubt be a stronger candidate than Hillary. But since he didn’t, giving him the nomination now and pushing aside Bernie would almost certainly doom his chances in the fall.

            1. The idea that there is no way to unite the democrats fills me with glee. I hope the faggot cookies tear their party apart before this election is over. Think Chicago in 1968, on steroids , with a does of gamma rays, while being bitten by a radioactive hippie.

      3. I don’t see the downside to driving Hillary into the ground now.
        If there was a competent alternative, they would be running.

  4. “Breunighazi” is hilarious.

    1. Matt Bruenig, a young attorney who’s much better known for his side career as a data-oriented left-wing writer

      And the laughs just keep on coming in the article itself.

      1. Seriously. The one article I saw where Matt included “numbers and a chart” were so spectacularly misconstrued in every dimension that it felt like a parody.

        I get that the Left likes the whole “Data Journalism” because it leaves their their economically-illiterate and entirely-innumerate readership with an impression of Authority…. but no one else is fooled for a second.

        1. The people who have $25,000 to give to Matt Brusnig should be taxed more. A lot more.

        2. And they also “Fucking Love Science!”

          1. Poor science. For centuries her nerdy admirers tastefully and gently took her virtue. Now she is daily ravaged by a Congress of Retarded Prog baboons who just “fucking love her”.

            1. I would like this on a t-shirt, please.

            2. John, I resent you insulting filthy baboons with that metaphor.

        3. Are you suggesting I can’t learn everything about income equality from one graph?

    2. Demos, a smaller and more left-wing think tank than CAP that is more specifically tied to the labor movement and less tied to the leadership of the Democratic Party but is still broadly in the same orbit
      Joan Walsh, a former editor at large at Salon now writing for the Nation

      I’m guessing old episodes of Party of Five or that movie where the teen vampire gets the girl are considerably more interesting than this.

    3. Matt Bruenig ?@MattBruenig
      It’s fun when the geriatrics who worked to starve my mother of cash assistance get going.

      Follow
      Neera Tanden ?@neeratanden
      @MattBruenig @joanwalsh having been on welfare myself, don’t need lectures on this topic from you. Thanks though.

      Jesus, so is it now Progressive Street Cred to brag about your time on Government Assistance?

      1. It’s their version of pulling yourself up by other people’s bootstraps.

        1. *standing in the back alone, clapping*

        2. pulling yourself up by other people’s bootstraps.

          Bravo.

          “Victimhood” is the principal virtue in their world.

          They expect it to have far more currency & credibility than anything so gauche as “personal achievement”.

        3. pulling yourself up by other people’s bootstraps

          I’m stealing that. Without attribution, just FYI.

      2. Matt Bruenig ?@MattBruenig
        It’s fun when the geriatrics who worked to starve my mother of cash assistance get going.

        Jesus, dude. Take care of your mom… ’cause if you don’t, Crusty will.

        1. Like he should get involved. That’s what we pay taxes for, duh.

  5. Maybe be feminist about everything or about nothing. This picking and choosing almost makes it seem like a total scam.

    1. Yeah, “almost”.

    2. Camille Paglia is a true feminist; creepette Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a Feminazi. There’s a huge difference.

  6. The Bruenighazi link is like watching starving rats eat each other

    1. I read maybe the first three or four paragraphs, saw how long the rest of the article was, and promptly lost all interest. How you guys can wade into that much derp willingly is beyond me.

      1. Well, I skim for the good bits mainly. like porn!

    2. What a retard fight. Just yelling and flailing about the stupidest shit ever.

      1. I’m actively involved with a charity that provides services to cognitively disabled adults.

        Your comparison of squabbling leftists with retards is an affront to retards everywhere. Most retards are pretty nice people in my experience, and they all have vastly more intellectual integrity than left-wing activists, who are invariably mean and intellectually dishonest.

  7. The characters in this election are so outlandish and ripe for attack ads I feel like we live in a fictional world. Are any of you real? Are you all Tulpa? Am I dreaming? I’m starting to wonder if that DMT trip ever ended…

    1. This election cycle definitely has a surreal quality about it.

    2. ” I’m starting to wonder if that DMT trip ever ended…”

      Elevator in the brain hotel….

    3. We’re real. You’re Tulpa. You are also imaginary. Just a broomstick. A wig, and some clever lighting tricks.

  8. next time the writers decide to pearl-clutch and piss all over the comments, remember =

    Amber A’Lee Frost ?@AmberALeeFrost

    This seems a good a time to point out that demands for civility are most often the ruling class demanding fealty

  9. C’mon H&R, be a bro4Hillary.

    1. Fuck, whoever made that website wants the Hilldawg to lose. They can’t meme their way out of a paper bag.

      1. I don’t think they even understand what a meme is.

      2. A lot of democrats hate her……

        http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com…..on-be.html

  10. Seriously – Bruenighazi article is 1000X more interesting (for the Schadenfreude ) than anything about “Trump & Bill Clinton”

    I mean… holy (@#**()@ mother of dragons…. it actually has lines like

    Walsh published an article attacking “the presumption of moral and ideological superiority”

    …. i mean…… WHAT *IS* SALON, if not one gigantic non-stop parade of moral & ideological superiority-posturing??? I missed where they ever so much as pretended to be engaged in any kind of *rational* exercise.

    1. Joan Walsh talks about race so much I am betting that even Jesse Jackson is like, “woman, damn, cool your jets.”

      she’s right up there with the worst people in history.

      1. “Joan Walsh talks about race so much…”

        Were any CARS involved?

  11. If Hillary wants to run on her gender, then she should have to answer for Bill’s crimes. It is really that simple. More than Bill’s crimes, it should never be forgotten that Hillary planned to use her media allies to smear Monica Lewinsky as a crazed lying stalker, even though she knew Lewinsky was telling the truth. Hillary of course also knew that Paula Jones and the various mistresses Bill kept were telling the truth. And that didn’t stop her from slandering them as liars. Hillary ought to have to answer for those crimes no matter what.

    1. absolutely

    2. More to the point:

      Team Clinton has been attacking Trump based on comments Trump has made in the past and citing this as “proof” that Trump is anti-female and sexist. Didn’t they realize that this would be Trump’s obvious come-back?

      1. “Didn’t they realize that this would be Trump’s obvious come-back?”

        Of course they did/ They also counted upon the ENBs of the ‘journalistic’ world to rush in with pieces just like this one.

    3. My wife hates Hillary. This is a big part of it.

  12. I think Elizabeth misconstrues calling out the left for its hypocrisy with relitigating this stuff. The point is not whether you believe Juanita Broaderick. The point is that the left either needs to believer her and declare Bill Clinton a rapist or they need to stop claiming that women never lie about rape and every accuser should be believed. I really don’t care which choice they make. But everyone with any interest in the truth ought to care that they make one and stop adopting the ridiculous position that rape allegations only matter if they are made against the right person.

    1. everyone with any interest in the truth

      I was told these people don’t exist in partisan politics.

    2. The point is that the left either needs to believer her and declare Bill Clinton a rapist or they need to stop claiming that women never lie about rape and every accuser should be believed.

      This kind of shit is why I could never be a leftists (that and not being a complete economic illiterate who navigates the world based purely on feelz). Too much hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and “principals over principles” for my taste. Not to mention the smug sense of moral superiority over anyone who dares disagree with their super “enlightened” worldview.

      1. I think that they are more than anything crude materialsts. They honestly are incapable of abstract thinking or understanding how an abstract principle could matter regardless of how it effects the real world. So if saying “every accuser is to be believed” results in a effect they don’t like, they throw the principle aside to be taken up again when the results better suit them. The idea that no one should be above the law, even if that means bad things in the short term, is something they just can’t understand.

      2. It would seem to be a complicated headache to keep track of all their conflicting hypocritical dogma.

    3. Nah, Brown is just a typical lefty media piece of crap who makes up her mind about innocence and guilt completely regardless of the facts, the same exact way all the rest of her Journolist ilk do.

      George Zimmerman is a racist cold-blooded murderer even though he was acquitted, that Trump guy assaulted that poor reporter even though he was cleared of that ridiculous, and all women who claim to be rape victims must be believed, with the sole exception of Bill Clinton’s accusers, etcetera etcetera.

      1. I seriously wonder if ENB has considered what her reaction would be if suddenly a bunch of 20 and 30 year old allegations against Trump appeared. Would she adopt the same attitude she is here?

        1. Of course she wouldn’t, but I doubt she even cares about how laughably transparent her dishonesty is.

          I just wish Weigel could use a little pull and get some of these turds jobs at the Post already.

          1. Elizabeth is very cute. So I can’t help but cut her more slack than I ever would some turd like Weigal or Shackelford. its not fair but who says life was fair?

            1. Neanderthal. 😉

              1. Everyone loves a pretty girl.

      2. To be fair, I don’t recall ENB ever saying “women never lie about rape”. She has gotten pretty squishy, if memory serves, on the whole “affirmative consent” thing, which is almost a variant of saying women never lie about rape, since it inverts the burden of proof, imposing it on the man rather than the woman and thus assumes the woman is telling the truth.

        But, leaving aside ENB’s consiistency, I don’t anyone can give the feminists pushing the whole rape culture thing a pass when they don’t throw Bill and Hillary overboard for their history of abusing and degrading women.

        1. ENB has not shown consistency. It is not a question of what she has said, it is a question of does she hold both parties to their own standards.

          And that’s a big old fail on her part.

    4. Yeah, that’s a fair point. I certainly won’t condemn any opponent of Hillary’s for bringing it up.

    5. I can’t stand Trump.

      But I’ve been waiting 20 fucking years for this to happen.

      I am so going to enjoy Trump crucifying Clinton & Clinton over their various misdeeds and the blindly-partisan hacks that helped to cover it up.

      1. This times a million. I’m certainly not a Trump fan, but if the election is going to be such a miserable experience, I’d at least like the entertainment of watching someone finally going hammer-and-blowtorch on the Clintons.

        1. And A silver lining to a Trump presidency might be a Clinton prosecution. He would certainly have the balls to send the reformed DOJ after her in force. And maybe find a way to prosecute Bubba for violating the civil rights of all those women. Plus investigate his visits to Epstein’s Pedo Island.

  13. RE: New Trump Ad Attacks Hillary Clinton for Her Husband’s Alleged Sex Crimes

    Was that the same “cigar” of Comrade Bill Monica Lewinsky was “smoking” a couple of decades ago?

    1. Dammit, Jay, this is a classy comment section and we don’t cotton to multiple entendre. Clean it up a little bit, man.

  14. that was one of those salonesque articles that’s essentially just a list of tweets. I have no words for how meta that is.

  15. Let’s not forget that, in a sworn deposition, Ivana maintained that Drumpf had raped her.

    1. Whataboutism

      and really – Drumpf? wtf

      1. And your point is?

        Drumpf: the original family name. You can look it up.

    2. Raped her? With what? His proposed divorce settlement?

      1. Use your imagination, or ask Ivana. It’s her deposition.

  16. Then, on Monday, Donald Trump released a campaign ad dredging up old accusations of sexual assault against Bill Clinton.

    Since Hillary has said she will put Bill in charge of the economy, she has made criminal allegations against him relevant.

    1. Free hookers will not improve the economy.

      1. No, but they might keep the masses complacent the way that bread and circuses did…

        -jcr

    2. It wouldn’t shock me if someone dredged up Hillary’s female rape victims too.

  17. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone who needs an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $14000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…
    I work through this link..
    This is what i do..——————— http://ace23.tk/

  18. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  19. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $62 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired for eight months but last month her pay was $14139 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Check This Out ????????????= Click this link =-=-======== http://www.elite36.com

  20. A wife may stand by or stay with a lying husband for a number of reasons but someone who believes a man is guilty of rape and sexual abuse and for years calls that person a friend is despicable. American politics may have reached a new low if that is possible.

    1. She knows he’s guilty and just doesn’t care. He can rape and kill all he wants and it wouldn’t matter as long as it doesn’t fuck up,her accumulation of power and money.

  21. Lemme guess: practicing birth control? To the GOP that’s a crime. Shooting dark people isn’t.

  22. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is what I do?????? http://www.realcash44.com

  23. up to I looked at the check of $4791 , I did not believe …that…my neighbour could actualie earning money in there spare time on their laptop. . there friend brother has been doing this for less than 7 months and resently cleard the morgage on their mini mansion and purchased a great Bugatti Veyron . you could look here ……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.