You mean the one alleged victim. Who had to change her story when phone records showed the night she was supposedly drugged unconscious by Cosby she was chatting away to her friends. She moved the date by months.

What evidence?

It takes convincing evidence to secure a conviction. Which was sorely lacking here.

Can you honestly say the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That is what the system demands.

I'm sure I'll catch the usual shit and abuse I take most days on here but this really should have been a straight not guilty. That does not mean "innocent". This case alone was lacking in convincing evidence and no sensible person should ever have concluded the charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. …

Rocky is my all time top pick in cinema. It's absolutely perfect.

So you're refusing to source your outrageous claim? Just so we're clear.

"You have to provide reliable sources."

Remember, that he DELIBERATELY released phony info to affect the election.

She withdrew from active involvement in politics after her wonderful loss, now she is returning. You seem to have real trouble just admitting you misread in the first place, what lengths you will go to simply to avoid admitting an error on your part.

No, she didn't lie, she asked him to. It wasn't a "matter" and was an investigation.

A fuck ton of people are saying it should be banned. And I think most black people sound like dicks when they say it too. The racial restriction on the use of the word remains stupid.

No, see, now you're being deficient. "To Clinton's benefit" removes motive from the equation and simply states the direct result of her action.

You pointed out three times that she's not returning to politics because she isn't running for office. Are you mentally retarded or something?

Intervened in a FBI investigation to Clinton's direct benefit. Would that make you happier?

You don't have to run for office to be involved in politics. This is your mistake, not mine.

Oh right, sorry. Can't think of any offhand. I'm sure I could with more time but it's entirely beside the point. Words shouldn't be banned because they make the person saying them sound like a dick. That's not how language or society should ever work.

You said "Loretta Lynch instructed him to lie about the Clinton investigation in a manner that reflected the lies Hillary's campaign were telling" which is a complete falsehood.

I would prefer you just say what you mean because I really don't have a fucking clue what you're getting at.

It's an observation of what she did. How the hell else would you characterise her action?