Disgusting: Clinton Snared In Pedophile Ring
Will having friends in high places exempt him from the rule of law?
Avatar of Kris Zane   Kris Zane — March 27, 2014
 

According to former child sex slave Virginia Roberts and a class action lawsuit against convicted billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, former President Bill Clinton was present during sex parties involving up to twenty underage girls at Epstein’s secluded island in the Caribbean. That flight records show Clinton was flown on numerous occasions to the island on Epstein’s private jet. Clinton had a close relationship with an employee of Epstein’s who compiled thousands of photos of nude young girls posed in lewd positions. And these photos were used as a catalog for Epstein to loan out his girls to powerful politicians and British royalty, including Bill Clinton.

According to the lawsuit:

Advertisement-content continues below

    …Clinton was friends with an unnamed woman who “kept images of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein… and photographed underage females in sɛҳuąƖly explicit poses.”

While Epstein was indicted and jailed for his pedophilia, Bill Clinton oddly has remained unscathed, more than likely by having friends in high places.

If Bill Clinton is in fact a pedophile, will the American people demand that he be put away for a very long time so that he can’t hurt any more children? Or will having friends in high places exempt him from the rule of law?

Time will tell.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/clinton-snared-pedophile-ring/#633wGwdso5BfH8sC.99

Next thing you know, people will be saying Francis is a Marxist! :shocked:

Are you having trouble with your cognitive dissonance?

 :applause:

If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.

It would be nice if the truth had anything to do with what is in the "news." Remember Juanita Broderick? She is the Clinton supporter who was violently sɛҳuąƖly assaulted by Bill Clinton. She had a black eye and other bruises, which she showed to her friends at the time. Because she was so credible, her Clinton experience was blacked out by the "news" media.

Quote from: JezusDeKoning

If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.

It would be nice if the truth had anything to do with what is in the "news." Remember Juanita Broderick? She is the Clinton supporter who was violently sɛҳuąƖly assaulted by Bill Clinton. She had a black eye and other bruises, which she showed to her friends at the time. Because she was so credible, her Clinton experience was blacked out by the "news" media.

Bill Clinton never touched Juanita B.  :detective:

Quote from: PereJoseph

I think it's strange that people consider pubescent girls to be "children" simply because they haven't achieved the legal age of majority.  Our Lady married St Joseph, who was perhaps in his thirties or late twenties, when she was fourteen.

Is there any evidence that these girls were prepubescent ?  Now that would worse by magnitude, not that adultery and orgies and sex slavery and fornication aren't evil themselves, of course.  But it seems rather sensational and melodramatic to call young women "children" simply because they haven't turned eighteen yet.

They still consider them children past the age of puberty because that's how the legal verbiage sees them. It's not always the most judicious idea and sometimes it will backfire (like in Connecticut), but laws are laws.

Yes.  What I am specifically criticising is that they use language and rhetoric that suggests that they can't tell the difference between a legal fiction and reality.  It smacks of positivism, as if the law makes something true or false, since it was agreed upon by the general public.  The absurdity is that, if the legal age of majority in the US could be changed to seventeen, suddenly all of the seventeen year olds become adults.  Then a man who commits sɛҳuąƖ sins with a seventeen year-old girl suddenly is no longer a pedophile, whereas the day before he was hated and judged for being so.

I don't understand why I would get the down-thumbs that I did.  Apparently there are many people who believe that an individual becomes an adult in fact the day of his eighteenth birthday, whereas he could have fathered a child for years before this date, or had a relationship with an eighteen or nineteen year-old young woman.  But he was a child.  Why ?  The law defines him as such.  But is it possible to judge outside the law, since laws change ? We all know that one becomes an adult as recognised by the law in the United States at age eighteen, but what I dispute is that the law reflects reality.

I'm not necessarily suggesting any policy changes, either.  But the fact is that a post-pubescent girl of seventeen years is not a child in anything but a legal sense, and a man who would commit sins with her would not be a paedophile or child molestor, otherwise the terms are robbed of any meaning.  Anybody who says otherwise needs a remedial biology lesson.

No matter what age.  Rape is rape.  It is a terrible crime and pure evil.

I think it's strange that people consider pubescent girls to be "children" simply because they haven't achieved the legal age of majority.  Our Lady married St Joseph, who was perhaps in his thirties or late twenties, when she was fourteen.

Is there any evidence that these girls were prepubescent ?  Now that would worse by magnitude, not that adultery and orgies and sex slavery and fornication aren't evil themselves, of course.  But it seems rather sensational and melodramatic to call young women "children" simply because they haven't turned eighteen yet.

And your point is?
Please tell me your point is not that what happened to this child sex slave is acceptable. And do you support lowering the legal age of consent? If so, you would be in company with NAMBLA and other pedophiles.