On Wed, 26 Sep 2018 14:21:40 -0400, Tekkie®
wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 22:01:11 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Sep 2018 10:25:38 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 9/25/2018 9:37 AM, Unquestionably Confused wrote:



No, why don't YOU get it straight? It doesn't make any real difference
if the intent is to prosecute for a crime that MAY have occurred or
whether it's to show a person's past transgressions with the hope of
ruining their career.

If you wish to do either you do so with proof.* Not with innuendo and
hearsay such as we see going on in this instance.* It such were the
case, there would likely not be a single soul in either the House or
Senate who would be fit to serve on the basis of stink alone.

Proof is not needed in the Court of Public Opinion, just a good story.
We now have to believe everything women say too. No matter the outcome,
there will always be a dark shadow.
Which is why he should DEMAND an FBI investigation to clear his name
if he is CERTAIN he's innocent.

Investigate what? The girl can't even remember where this happened or
when. What do you expect them to find? Hair, fibers, DNA? There don't
seem to be any witnesses who remember anything. In 48 hours this will
be over in all likelihood and you folks can find another windmill to
tilt.

I hope so but the Dems really seem to have some crafty people that outsmart
the Pubs every turn. The Dems will do ANYTHING to retain power.
ANd the Repiublicans won't (and aren't)??????