New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

Why would Hillary be the last choice if you care about the truth when Trump's lies have far more devastating consequences such as incriminating EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM IN JERSEY with an explicit fabricated story that was as blatant of a lie as possible. "THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE CELEBRATING 9/11 ON THE STREETS OF JERSEY CITY." - Naw, that's not a lie that seems to irk you I guess. Being explicitly racist and condemning thousands of Muslims who live in Jersey as enemies of America is more disgusting than anything Hilary has ever done and I' not even particularly fond of her.

 

Because Hillary was a representative of our country and lied to the American people to protect herself. IMO Hillary will always place her own needs above ANY other... this is not the type of person that should be in public service.

Trump is just a blowhard idiot that will spew whatever he thinks will get him in the news. FWIW it has worked pretty well for him.

 

This is so ****ing stupid. Trump LIKE HILLARY has an equal chance of being the leader of the free world. So when Trump is CAMPAIGNING TO BE PRESIDENT, states an explicit lie that incriminates pretty much EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM IN JERSEY(THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS) when he is CAMPAIGNING TO BE PRESIDENT how is he not representing the country or at least half of the country? He's trying to be president also if you haven't noticed. Why should I assume after being president Trump will cease to do these explicit racist lies such as incriminating large swaths of the American population with LIES? That is far more morally reprehensible than Hillary being grossly negligent and than lying about it because there was no ill intent on her part just gross negligence and lying to save her skin... not lying to **** on and incriminate thousands of innocent Americans.

 

Except this wasn't a blatant fabricated lie. There is actual proof of Muslims cheering across the world, including a mosque in New Jersey. Yes, he embellished, and yes, this type of rhetoric can be dangerous, but so is the white-washed response from the Obama administration. Fear of Islam goes both ways. Neither side understands Islam, that is clear to me. There is something unique about Islam in that there is an open avocation for war. The New Testament does not explicitly instruct people to kill kuffars (unbelievers). An open conversation about the very real possibility that disillusioned Muslims can/have/will get caught up in this ideology is necessary to combat it.

That being said, the Obama administration and Democrats in general constantly note that Islam is a religion of peace, and refuse to acknowledge the facts. An open, honest, and real conversation about Islam would clear this up for many. There is legitimacy in this fear because it's a war we've been fighting for literally 1400 years. It comes in waves. I can quote you a dozen violent calls for war in the Qur'an, and then I can give you two dozen peaceful surahs that totally contradict the violent narrative. It's like the Old Testament to the New Testament, but it's all in one book.

So yes, Trump embellished the claim that THOUSANDS in NEW JERSEY were cheering, but it's based on truth. There are videos to support the claim.

Hillary, on the other hand, straight up lied. She knew she wasn't supposed to have that private server without it being secured by the state department, that's why she didn't tell anyone about it. She knew she sent classified material. She knew she used more than one device. She knew that all the emails deleted weren't work emails (you don't confuse thousands of war emails with Chelsea's wedding emails). She knew that she sent classified materials to at least a dozen people without the clearance. And she lied. She continues to lie to this day because that's what she has done her whole life.

Trump has been a bombastic ******* his entire life, and he's staying the course. Just like Hillary and her lies.

 

Note that Hillary isn't my choice. I'm voting Johnson. However, if you have looked at Trump and Hillary and concluded that Hillary is the bigger liar, then I have some beautiful beachfront property for you, it even has a bridge on it.

Not tough at all. If you really align with the Libertarian party, it should be the simplest of choices.

 

Trump will always place his needs above ANY other, has lied dramatically more than Hillary, and has been accused of raping a 13 year old. The sad part is, you'll still vote for him.

Yes, he will lie, lie, and then lie some more and rubes like you will vote for him.

 

I definitely agree that he puts himself above everyone. He's not a Republican, he's an opportunist.

I've never heard ANYTHING about him being accused of raping a 13 year old girl. I am afraid to even google it at work, so please explain.

Definitely disagree that he has lied dramatically more than Hillary. He makes outrageous claims, based on some truth, but he embellishes. Hillary just straight up lies and doesn't even blink.

 

This is pretty much every candidate from either party.

 

I'll use my vote to whatever effect I feel is right for this country at the time. I don't know what that is right now but I would certainly vote libertarian if I thought that vote would make a difference.

As for you and your rube comment... your an A$$hat.

 

Haha, that's rather cynical. I don't think it's always true. I think you find truer/honest candidates in local and state races, but the Presidential races are for all the power and it definitely has to attract a certain kind of person.

Still, I don't think all Presidents on either side of the aisle have conformed their views simply to run for President. I definitely feel like Trump has done that. Everything he has said in regards to political beliefs has done a 180 in the last 10 years.

 

I'll vote Libertarian because they are the more principled choice, regardless of your perception of whether it makes a difference.

Perhaps, but if so, I am one that thinks for himself rather than simply voting for a party's nominee no matter how terrible that candidate might be.

 

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Spoiler

In late April 2016, rumors began to circulate online holding that Republican presidential Donald Trump had either been sued over, or arrested for, raping a teenaged girl. One of the earliest versions of the rumor was published on 2 May 2016 by the Winning Democrats web site, which reported that woman using the name Katie Johnson had named Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in a $100 million lawsuit, accusing them of having solicited sex acts from her at sex parties held at the Manhattan homes of Epstein and Trump back in 1994 (when Johnson was just 13 years old):

The first major scandal to hit the Trump campaign besides the typical “what a racist, such a sexist, yada yada yada,” came from a lawsuit stemming from the infamous sex parties held by billionaire and known pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The woman named in the suit is Katie Johnson, who says Trump took her virginity in 1994 when she was only 13 and being held by Epstein as a slave.

Johnson says in the complaint that Trump and Epstein threatened her and her family with bodily harm if she didn’t comply with all of their disgusting demands. The Trump campaign has been on this immediately, calling it absolute nonsense and not even remotely true or possible.

Many aggregated reports cited a 28 April 2016 article that described the circumstances under which the lawsuit had been filed:

Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is fighting what could be the biggest election season bombshell yet — explosive court claims that he raped a woman when she was a teen.

The woman — identified as Katie Johnson — filed documents in a California court on April 26, accusing Trump and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein of “sexual abuse under threat of harm” and “conspiracy to deprive civil rights,” RadarOnline.com has exclusively learned.

She filed the lawsuit herself — without legal representation — and is suing for $100 million.

A copy of the California lawsuit (filed on 26 April 2016) shared via the Scribd web site outlined the allegations, which included the accusation that Trump and Epstein had (over 20 years earlier) "sexually and physically" abused the then 13-year-old plaintiff and forced her "to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts" — including being “forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump’s erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm,” and being “forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe, age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump” — after luring her to a "series of underage sex parties" by promising her "money and a modeling career":

Donald_Trump_Lawsuit_
According to RadarOnline's initial reporting, the lawsuit filed in California on 26 April 2016 was dismissed over technical filing errors (the address listed in court documents was a foreclosed home that has been vacant since its owner died), with the plaintiff failing in her attempt to avoid incurring the cost of the litigation:

A judge recommended on April 29 that “Katie Johnson” should have to pay her own attorneys’ fees and court costs related to the $100 million lawsuit she brought against Trump and billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein over alleged sexual assault charges. Then on May 2, a U.S. District judge ordered the entire lawsuit thrown out.

“Johnson” had previously filed forms asking to be let off the hook for the costs of the lawsuit, claiming she had only $300 to her name ... such an allowance — known as in forma paupers — is only given in civil rights cases in California, and the judge ruled that she “failed to state a claim for relief” on a civil rights basis, even though she “utilized the form provided by the Central District of California for civil actions.”

“Even construing the ... pleading liberally, Plaintiff has not alleged any race-based or class-based animus against her, and consequently, her ... allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” the judge wrote ... the address listed on the paperwork leads to an abandoned property, and the phone number goes straight to voicemail.

For his part, Trump asserted that the charges were“not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated,” adding that “There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period."

On 20 June 2016, New York City-based blog Gothamist reported that the plaintiff had refiled a similar complaint in a New York State federal court:

A federal lawsuit filed in New York accuses Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump of repeatedly raping a 13-year-old girl more than 20 years ago, at several Upper East Side parties hosted by convicted sex offender and notorious billionaire investor Jeffrey Epstein.

The suit, first reported by the Real Deal, accuses Trump and Epstein of luring the anonymous plaintiff and other young women to four parties at Epstein's so-called Wexner Mansion at 9 East 71st Street. Epstein allegedly lured the plaintiff, identified in the suit only as Jane Doe, with promises of a modeling career and cash.

Another anonymous woman, identified in additional testimony as Tiffany Doe, corroborates Jane's allegations, testifying that she met Epstein at Port Authority, where he hired her to recruit other young girls for his parties. Trump had known Epstein for seven years in 1994 when he attended the parties at Wexner, according to the suit. He also allegedly knew that the plaintiff was 13 years old.

Jane Doe filed a similar suit in California in April, under the name Katie Johnson, also accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. That suit was dismissed on the grounds of improper paperwork — the address affiliated with her name was found to be abandoned. Today's suit confirms that the plaintiffs are one and the same.

The online outlet that first reported the second filing in New York explained that the lawsuit might be allowed to proceed even though the statute of limitations for bringing suit has expired, because (according to plaintiff's lawyer) the plaintiff lacked the "freedom of will to institute suit earlier in time" due to her having been threatened by Trump:

It should be noted that anyone can file a civil complaint in federal court. The statute of limitations in New York for civil rape cases is five years, but [the] complaint argues that the time limit should be waived, noting that the plaintiff was too frightened to report the abuse because Trump had threatened that if she did “her family would be physically harmed if not killed.”

“Both defendants let plaintiff know that each was a very wealthy, powerful man and indicated that they had the power, ability and means to carry out their threats,” the complaint claims.

A copy of the New York-based suit was also uploaded to Scribd, and in the second filing (which asked for no specific amount of monetary damages) the plaintiff was represented by Thomas Francis Meagher, a New Jersey patent lawyer who learned of her allegations via an article published on the GossipExtra web site advertising that she was "shopping for an attorney." In a statement attached to her filing, the plaintiff (aka "Jane Doe") asserted:

I traveled by bus to New York City in June 1994 in the hope of starting a modeling career. I went to several modeling agencies but was told that I needed to put together a modeling portfolio before I would be considered. I then went to the Port Authority in New York City to start to make my way back home. There I met a woman who introduced herself to me as Tiffany. She told me about the parties and said that, if I would join her at the parties, I would be introduced to people who could get me into the modeling profession. Tiffany also told me I would be paid for attending.

The parties were held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. Each of the parties had other minor females and a number of guests of Mr. Epstein, including Defendant Donald Trump at four of the parties I attended. I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew I was 13 years old.

Defendant Trump had sexual contact with me at four different parties in the summer of 1994. On the fourth and fnial sexual encounter with Defendant Trump, Defendant Trump tied me to a bed, exposed himself to me, and then proceeded to forcibly rape me. During the course of this savage sexual attack, I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop but he did not. Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted,

Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump's sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I wold be physically harmed if not killed.
The filing also included a statement from "Tiffany Doe" (i.e., the woman referenced in plaintiff's statement above who brought her to the parties) attesting that:

I personally witnessed four sexual encounters that the Plaintiff was forced to have with Mr. Trump during this period, including the fourth of these encounters where Mr. Trump forcibly raped her despite her pleas to stop.

I personally witnessed the one occasion where Mr. Trump forced the Plaintiff and a 12-year-old female named Maria [to] perform oral sex on Mr. Trump and witnessed his physical abuse of both minors when they finished the act.

It was my job to personally witness and supervise encounters between the underage girls that Mr. Epstein hired and his guests.
A video reportedly featuring "Katie Johnson" (her identity hidden through the use of facial pixillation, a long blonde wig, and an electronic voice distorter) appeared online, in which she graphically described giving Donald Trump a hand job and being raped by him:


There is little doubt that Donald Trump knows Jeffrey Epstein, as Trump acknowledged in a 2014 New York magazine profile of Epstein:

Epstein likes to tell people that he's a loner, a man who's never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Epstein has been named in multiple similar lawsuits over the last several years, served 13 months in jail, and is registered as a sex offender for life:

Billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has paid another accuser.

The 56-year-old money manager has quietly settled with Jane Doe 102, an unnamed woman who alleged in federal court in Florida that Epstein had induced her to "serve his every sexual whim" from the time she was 15 until she was 19. The woman also claimed Epstein had flown her around the world, paying her "to be sexually exploited by [his friends] ... including royalty, politicians, academicians [and] businessmen."

Epstein flatly denied those charges. But a source close to the financier confirms "the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties." The woman's lawyer, Robert Josefsberg, wouldn't say how much she's getting. Epstein had in the past offered accusers a minimum of $150,000.

Epstein has settled at least two other civil suits but still faces more than a dozen from women who claim he sexually abused them as minors at his Palm Beach mansion.
As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by "Katie Johnson," and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her.

 

Another lens by which to see the lies of Clinton and Trump. Clinton lies defensively to protect her political standing and career. Sometimes she is proactive about lying -- having a private server is a sort of proactive lie, a plan to deceive people in the future -- but it's still defensive in nature because her motivation is to prevent her perceived enemies from destroying her. Trump, by contrast, lies offensively. He has to lie defensively as well, to parry attacks on his record, his policies, his wealth, or whatever. But, the sorts of lies that have put him most in the news are ones where he actively goes after someone else in order to tear them down and advance (not just defend) himself. Like the 'thousands cheering' claim that defames American Muslims for his political gain.

I don't want either of these cons as president. They're both liars. They both prioritize personal power over national well-being. But, given the dilemma, which is the more dangerous: the person who lies to protect herself or the person who lies to promote himself?

 

First of all that isn't an 'embellishment' because the only reports of Muslims celebrating in Jersey was of ONE REPORT of FIVE suspicious looking individual on top of a rooftop in Jersey City and a ****ing HOWARD STERN CALLER. THAT IS ALL. Now to balloon that to THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS when only thousands of Muslims live in Jersey in the first place pretty much incriminates EVERY MUSLIM IN JERSEY so a Trump supporter who sees a Muslim in Jersey would assume that Muslim celebrated 9/11. DO you understand the consequences of that?

 

You expressed my sentiments better than I could:grin:

This is pretty much EXACTLY how I feel.

 

Actually, that's not true. There are multiple videos of people cheering, including inside a mosque. Not sure if all of these videos are from New Jersey, though.

And you're making quite wild assumptions. You're assuming that every Trump supporter is going to automatically assume every Muslim celebrated 9/11. I don't know how many Trump supporters you know, but I know quite a few. I don't know any that believe all Muslims supported 9/11 or even that most are fanatics. Pointing out that thousands (even if it was just a 100) of Muslims cheered 9/11 in New Jersey doesn't mean all Muslims cheered it. The fact is many Muslims DID cheer 9/11, both in the United States and world wide. Personally, I believe many of them were cheering against the US , rather than for the Islamic terrorists.

I understand the consequences of extremist rhetoric, I also understand the consequences of saying nothing.

 

Disgusting. I hope to God this doesn't have a shred of truth, not because I want to see Trump win, but because this is truly disgusting.

However, like most cases, I won't take their word at face value. I'm sure, if this case is truly advancing, more will come out.

 

As an ex-Muslim who knows a large portion of the Muslim community in two major metro areas of this country(Houston and Boston) I haven't met ONE Muslim American who celebrated 9/11. Show me the videos of AMERICAN MUSLIMS IN AMERICA celebrating 9/11. Maybe you could find onesies and twosies but I doubt you are going to find a video of AMERICAN MUSLIMS gathering in a 'large' protest celebrating 9/11. Go find it though.

 

Neither have I. But I know for a fact they exist. Do you not believe there are Muslims here that hate the US and support the fundamentalist narrative of groups like alQaeda or ISIS? If so, you're very disillusioned.

https://youtu.be/W5BtQgTGOI4

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ims-celebrated-9-11-shouted-Allahu-Akbar.html

These are just two reports, a simple google search will pull up many more articles and videos. Again, I'm not supporting his claim that THOUSANDS were cheering. That is the embellishment I am talking about. World wide, yes there were MANY thousands. There were thousands in Palestine alone. There were pockets of "modest celebration" in New Jersey as reported by police officers. So yes, it's based on fact.

 

Furthermore, we KNOW they exist because some of them have carried out attacks on our soil in the name of Islam and groups like ISIS.