The fault thing is a 'republican' comeback, I dont engage in it. I just stated the facts, they can be interpreted however one wishes.

Both parties were consenting ADULTS, age difference is irrelevant. Lying on TV about a consensual affair while one is still MARRIED is not surprising or a crime.

I have not 'defended' him at all. I have been cheated on. I have said his affair was wrong and also noted the havoc affairs have on a MARRIAGE, but not usually to one's job performance or standing.

The question is not about his impact on his family, the question was about the similarity to the INVESTIGATION of his behaviors to the INVESTIGATION into Kavanaugh. And once again, I am not a blind follower of any party or person. My opinions are MY OWN, and not based in party or race.

If it seems differently, maybe it is because in these threads the TOPICS are mainly bashing Democrats or liberals, and I am participating in such threads. If threads bashing republicans and conservatives were as plentiful, or even close to as frequent, I would 'defend' some of those as well.

Trump Is Going to Hit the ‘Violent Democrats’ Button Hard—and It’ll Work

In Part,

"But of course they’re not going to incite any violence at all. The only person in American politics, Democrat or Republican, who incites violence is Trump—encouraging people at his rallies to beat up protesters, suggesting that “Second Amendment people” might have a solution for Hillary Clinton. So he’s doing here what every fascistically minded leader in history has done—he’s accusing his opponents of what he does himself so that when violence erupts, he can say “Aha! See? "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-is-going-to-hit-the-violent-democrats-button-hardand-itll-work

Why Does the Far Right Hold a Near-Monopoly on Political Violence?

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-the-far-right-hold-a-near-monopoly-on-political-violence/

Donald Trump warns of ‘violence’ if Republicans lose midterms


http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/28/donald-trump-midterms-private-meeting-church-antifa

This is another one of those non-sense things that Trump says that his followers fall all over.

If the left wins, why would they want to be violent? If the left wins, it will be the right that turns violent. The left will have no reason.

So far most of the violent "talk" I hear comes from Trump. Most of it is to incite his followers to violence. The left has been kinda quiet. With the exception of Maxine Waters. But even she has quieted down. Trump, still going.

Trump’s words show that yes, he has encouraged violence

"In February 2016, during his campaign for president, Trump told a crowd in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, “So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. Just knock the hell … I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.” The video shows, Trump is not smiling or chuckling as if this was intended as a joke.

On several other occasions, Trump invoked violence without necessarily inciting it. (Hat tips to the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake and Mashable for collecting a number of these in one place.)

• November 2015. At a rally in Alabama, Trump said about a protester, “Get him the hell out of here, will you, please? Get him out of here. Throw him out!” The following day, calling into Fox News, Trump responded to a question about allegations that the protester had been “roughed up.” The protester, Trump said, had been “so obnoxious and so loud … maybe he should have been roughed up. Maybe he should have been roughed up. Because it was totally disgusting what he was doing.”

http://www.ajc.com/news/national-govt--politics/trump-words-show-that-yes-has-encouraged-violence/7sIekwrBayVArwRRmZf6HI/

Did Donald Trump Encourage Violence at His Rallies?

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-incitement-violence/

"A viral cartoon accurately reproduces statements made by Donald Trump on the presidential campaign trail".

A solution to Hillary wanting to take away our guns is to take away her security. Let her live an ordinary life as a woman who has to defend herself. Let her drive to work down a long dark highway at night with a chance of having a flat tire. That doesn't suggest violence.

Democrats like to cause conflict with any thing Trump tries to do for the Country. They don't care if it is something for the good of this Country.

Hillary was very Cooked and deceitful, and they wanted her President.

Enough said !

I started voting in 1976.

The Clinton impeachment seems to have been the beginning of the Democratic anger. It has grown stronger and stronger up to this point.

Hillary doesn't know much about securing...anything.

Just ask the people at the embassy in Benghazi

Hilary has also not asked that peoples guns be 'taken away'

I would gamble those who are protecting her were pretty extensively vetted and TRAINED for those weapons, which is not something she has ever come out against, RESPONSIBLE use and ownership is the issue. It is not an issue of having guns or not having guns, regardless how many times others try to pretend it is.

Hmmm.. yes, I am sure she is well protected... no reason for her to worry about her safety.

Who's job was it protected the people in the Benghazi embassy. You know..the place where people who reported to her... died

But we can all rest knowing she is well protected...

hmm, so from the violent democrats, to Hilary wanting to take guns away, to who is responsible for Benghazi? Can we pick a topic?

I dont know who was 'responsible' for the attack in Benghazi besides the attackers, nor do I know whose 'job' the protection was. The ball may have been dropped or it may have been business as usual, nothing but partisan theories to really depend upon.

I am glad people are protected, regardless of status. I am glad that no one is trying to 'take peoples guns away' and that people are trying to make sure the regulations for gun ownership are regulations that aim to keep people safer, whether they own guns or not.

what the ***k are you talking about. He was investigated and not one iota of evidence , and absolutely no corroboration from anyone including her friends. ... You totally missed the point I was making. Emmett Till was hung because the majority ( or mob) believed the woman. Isn't that the popular belief by democrat women. So according to you any old rich man that is accused of assault by a democrat woman is guilty automatic. This is why democrats shouldn't be in charge of anything.

Dems have become the free entertainment.


Years ago, it took a bit of effort to cause a spectacular
tard meltdown.

Now?
Well now, they're putting on the tard meltdown show
for free.

Kavanaugh did not lose his life over an accusation. The accusation triggered an investigation with no consequence beyond that.

My logic says that when people SCOTUS nominees, charges against them should be investigated. I said nowhere that there should be an assumption of guilt. There is, with any CHARGE against anyone for anything, those who make an assumption of guilt, what matters is how the SYSTEM works to address it.

Not one Democrat has ever tried or wanted to take peoples guns away. That's just some more of that far right made up as you go drivel. Really, just another lie.

Will Hillary Clinton Take Away Our Guns?

"We talked to a constitutional law professor about how far a new Democratic president's gun-control policies could go—and whether they would be effective in reducing violent deaths".

http://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vdqbz8/will-hillary-clinton-take-away-our-guns

If anyone wants to take guns away, it's your golden boy. He would even like taking your right of due process away.

Trump says take guns first and worry about 'due process second' in White House gun meeting

"WASHINGTON — President Trump said Wednesday he favors taking guns away from people who might commit violence before going through legal due process in the courts, one of many startling comments he made in a rambling White House meeting designed to hash out school safety legislation with a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

"I like taking guns away early," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second."

Trump also said some of his fellow Republicans were "petrified" of the NRA, called on lawmakers to produce a “comprehensive” gun bill, and squelched prospects for a GOP-backed concealed carry proposal as part of a broader gun package".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/28/trump-says-take-guns-first-and-worry-due-process-second-white-house-gun-meeting/381145002/

If you want to see violence, let Hillary try to run for president again.
Elizabeth Warren will start loading her rifle - but WAIT - does it have a scope and silencer? she shakes when she gets mad and tries to make a point. Then, Maxine Waters will apply for a permit, because after all, the problem is racial, so she needs gun protection. In the meantime, Nancy Pelosi will get another private taxpayer paid flight "home to see the grandkids" forgetting that California is over-run with illegals and one MIGHT kidnap her. (he'd drop her when he sees all her wrinkles) and move on to a grandchild -- Of course, Pelosi would have no choice but to say "take the kid - illegals have rights too". with all that happening, the SOCIALIST Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, steps forward and says she has Hillary's the blessing to run for president.

Now, we know the Republicans cannot fight against this, so stock up on water and reading material and be ready to eat dry bread crumbs.
Venzuela is upon us.

I bet there will be consequences now that he is on the supreme court.....

Now you Don't know......
You Don't remember Benghazi?.. did you sleep thru the hearings?
selective memory?
Hillary Clinton was responsible for the security . She was sent over 200 e mails begging her for more protection prior to the attack. She ignored those requests. She could have sent in help to fight off the attack once it started. She had the resources . Including Jet fighters which were at the ready. As we're commando's... just sitting there waiting for the o.K. to go in.. begging to go in. she didn't
Americans that depended on her..we're abandoned. The Americans in that compound were not trained fighters, they were office workers..some were killed. It was only because some American commando hero's disobeyed orders and went to there defense that more did not die.
Everyone who survived that attack resigned because they were abandoned by Clinton

Business as usual you say?. ..

Who else would she serve up on a platter as "expendable"

What she did was despicable..but all of a sudden you Don"t "know" ..you know most every detail of every republican issue but you draw a blank with Benghazi

Now that is hard to believe

What makes matters worse is that she still hasn't been charged with inciting a riot, violence or even conspiracy.

President needs to tell city police to arrest all who is protesting against the decision of Kavanaugh. Protesters are getting more violent as time goes on because Leftist cannot derail Tramps plans to help this Country in a positive way.

Democrats are delicious with vindictive ideas.

No, not really. I do remember. I remember she took responsibility and I know, like the belief that she stalled sending people in, there is alot of misinformation being repeated by her haters. I know there is a STATE DEPARTMENT and a DEFENSE DEPARTMENT, and that OBama had immediately ordered the DEFENSE DEPARTMENT to do all it could, which puts a pretty large onus of responsibility on THEM, not Hilary. I also know that the claim of a 'stand down' order is WIDELY disputed, and that people love to point fingers of blame instead of acknowledging who is responsible for what COLLECTIVELY.


from Ambassador Stevens own sister:

It is clear, in hindsight, that the facility was not sufficiently protected by the State Department and the Defense Department. But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted.

I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/chris-stevenss-family-dont-blame-hillary-clinton-for-benghazi?utm_content=bufferd52c6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The US Department of State functions as the diplomatic wing of the federal government, handling matters of foreign affairs with other nations and international bodies. The State Department's primary job is to promote American foreign policy throughout the world.


The Department of Defense is responsible for providing the military forces needed to deter war and protect the security of our country. The major elements of these forces are the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force, consisting of about 1.7 million men and women on active duty.


SO IN SHORT, it was a 13 hour ordeal that involved many people and alot of spontaneous organization, it is easy after for any of those people to pass the buck of blame away from themselves. There was not enough security. If we can say it is CONGRESS 'fault' for not having a budget to adequately defend ALL THE EMBASSIES AROUND THE WORLD, or even to address ALL REQUESTS at ALL THOSE EMBASSIES, if we can say it is the defense department and state department 'fault' for trying to avoid greater casualties going in guns blazing instead of with approval from Libyan officals and contact with friendly forces so they didnt end up attacking each other .... is pointless politicizing of a tragedy. Clinton did not have dictator authority to make it happen the way backseat drivers think it should have happened.