He didn’t need to look forward. He could have looked back. He should have vetted his nominee better. He should have asked more than, “Have you seen Epstein lately?”
Do you apply the same “guilt by association” measure to sift for political positions on the Democrat side. Who among the Dem leadership asks, “Have you seen the racists Rev. Sharpton and Luis Farrakhan lately?”
I’ll apply the same, when the same occurs regardless of party. Dem leadership doesn’t speak for me, nor I for them.
If this was a one-off I’d say okay, fix it and move on, but this is just another in a long line of poor personnel choices that coincidentally turn out to be legally challenged.
Now why do you want to change the subject?
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that that’s accurate.
If it is it’s totally ■■■■■■■ nuts.
The laughing part is being mischaracterized also of course. That old lie just doesn’t want to die and it has its “believers”.
Hillary Clinton was the court appointed lawyer for a rapist who pled guilty, so she hard “got him off.” The accused ended up getting time served because the evidence in the case was highly convoluted. In an interview some 40 years later, Clinton chuckled when discussing how convoluted the evidence was… she did not laugh at the sentence or having “gotten him off”
1 Like
Thank you for being truthful about this subject!
1 Like
It is awful that the same false narratives crop up repeatedly in political discourse.
Double Jeopardy probably stopped BHO from doing anything at that point, yes?
That… and the economy was collapsing
It’s an old tactic though - just keep lying until it becomes truth to morons.
