Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

'Mother Jones' Attacks 'The Lid' For Post They Didn't Read

Mother Jones criticized the GOP's Raffi Williams for tweeting out a post on this site, While the MJ article was an interesting read, it was clear however the Mother Jones writer Tim Murphy  never visited the article on this site to read what he was bashing. The story on this site "Woman Suing Jeffrey Epstein For Sexual Slavery Claimed Bill Clinton Must Have Known," was about the possibility of former President Clinton possibly being deposed in the growing sex scandal which may involve Prince Andrew. But it was made clear that Clinton probably kept his fingers off the girls, instead spoke about his lousy track record in being deposed in civil suits without committing perjury.

Mr. Murphy's article was called, "Republicans Are Pushing a New Clinton Sex Scandal, Even if it's not yet a Clinton sex scandal." It begins:
 Conservatives think they've found new ammunition for their campaign against the Clintons—a new Clinton sex scandal. Or sort of.
On Monday, Raffi Williams, deputy press secretary for the Republican Party, tweeted, "Woman Suing Jeffrey Epstein For Sexual Slavery Claimed Bill Clinton Must Have Known" and linked to a post that in turn referred to a Daily Mail story from 2011.
Now think about that for a second.  Remember when the progressives slammed conservatives for bringing up Obama's buddies such as Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Al Sharpton calling it guilt by association? Well Mr. Murphy just did worse. Raffi Williams tweeted out a link to a post I wrote about Bill Clinton and perjury and because my post linked to a story in the Daily Mail which he thinks said Clinton screwed around....Murphy says Raffi was trying to create a new Clinton sex scandal. And amazingly my link didn't sit in a church for 20 years hearing hate sermons.

But there's more. Nowhere in my piece does it say Clinton had sex with the girls. In the introductory paragraph it says,  "Virginia Roberts who was underage at the time, said while she didn't know if Bill Clinton partook in the naked massages from young girls he had to know what was going on."

Later on I quote Ms. Roberts directly from the Daily Mail piece:
On one occasion, she adds, Epstein did invite two young brunettes to a dinner which he gave on his Caribbean island for Mr Clinton shortly after he left office. But, as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait.
‘Bill must have known about Jeffrey’s girls. There were three desks in the living area of the villa on the island.
They were covered with pictures of Jeffrey shaking hands with famous people and photos of naked girls, including one of me that Jeffrey had at all his houses, lying in a hammock.
In other words, not only did my post say Clinton probably didn't have sex with the underage girls but the article Murphy claims infected my article with charges of a Clinton sex scandal ALSO said the former president probably didn't touch the young women. Murphy's guilt by association was not guilty.  And he even admits it in his Mother Jones piece, using the same quote as I did above.

Murphy brings up a Smoking Gun article which:
 "resurfaced old court documents revealing that Epstein's phone book included telephone numbers and email addresses for Bill Clinton. ("Now that Prince Andrew has found himself ensnared in the sleazy sex slave story of wealthy degenerate Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Clinton can't be too far behind," the site declared.)"
He is correct that the Smoking Gun piece included that information. But the post here linked to a totally different part of the article which said the victims attorney's were considering calling Mr. Clinton, not because he slept with the girls but because he “might well be a source of relevant information” about Epstein’s activities."

So Mr. Murphy is accusing Raffi Williams of trying to create a new Clinton sex scandal because he read and tweeted out an article which said the former president probably did not have sex with young girls, which backed up its claim by linking to an article in the Daily Mail which said he probably didn't have sex with underage girls. It linked to a story that talked about Epstein having 25 different Clinton phone numbers but not that particular part of the story.  Are you getting all this? Yeah me neither.

The point of the supposed sex scandal linked article posted here, was made in these two paragraphs:
According to the Smoking Gun "as part of a civil suit filed against Epstein by several of his victims, lawyers for the women floated the possibility of subpoenaing Clinton since he “might well be a source of relevant information” about Epstein’s activities."

That would be interesting, as we know Bill Clinton has a little problem with honesty when he gives depositions for huge civil law suits. Last time he committed perjury which lead to him getting impeached and losing his law license.  
That's it!  I didn't even mention that Clinton committed perjury in a suit, where he was accused of sexually harassing Paula Jones by exposing his private parts.

If Mr. Murphy had read the entire post here instead of rushing to out conservatives at being obsessed with Bill Clinton sex life, he may have realized that at least the post I wrote and Raffi read was about Bill Clinton lying to a judge. 

And while I reminded my readers that the last time Clinton was deposed in a high profile civil suit he committed perjury, I did not mention he was probably the only president in American history that was disbarred because he committed perjury. To be honest I didn't skip that point because I didn't want it mentioned.  It was skipped because I had to drive my wife and kids to the airport and didn't have time to double-check its truthfulness. In fact nothing is published or submitted for publishing on this site TruthRevolt, or the Jewish Star without making there is the proper research to back up the facts. Part of that proper research is reading the articles being discussed.  It’s a tradition I would advise Mr. Murphy to take up also.


9 comments:

Jeff Dunetz said...

There's a current feminist outrage over Phyllis Schlafly saying women shouldn't go to college and if they do, it's their fault they're getting raped. Did she say that? Of course not. It's specialty of the left.

Jeff Dunetz said...

BOOM.... But he probably doesn't read the comments either...

Jeff Dunetz said...

I post on MJ most days.


The articles are all Democrat political narrative using whatever events real or imagined support today's effort to paint Republicans as Sauron's special agents of evil. Reading your work would not have changed the article one bit.


Truth isn't what they get paid for :-)

Jeff Dunetz said...

This kind of preemptive attack from a Marxist propaganda rag makes me think the left suspects Clinton of being more than an innocent bystander in the first place. Why jump to defend someone from accusations that haven't even been made yet?

Jeff Dunetz said...

Marxist? Buddy, you don't know Karl from Groucho so stop feigning political savvy.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Don't be too concerned, it's just Mother Jones, which is a bunch of crap.

Jeff Dunetz said...

"Shut up!" he explained

Jeff Dunetz said...

It's just a preemptive attack, Jeff.
You know how they work.
They already suspect the horn dog was involved in some way.
We all know he can't help himself.
He might, just might, not have got his hands dirty but, he knows what what was going on. ;-)

Jeff Dunetz said...

Projecter's gotta project.