Lauren Boebert alleged to have had 2 abortions, worked as an escort

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just the beginning of the drip,drip drip.

Wait til you see the videos.

Right - where have we heard that before… think think think…

Where have we heard over and over and over someone saying "fake news" only to have it turn out to be true? Donald Trump, that's where

Whooooosh… No, silly. Where have we heard wildly exaggerated rumors/outright lies, only to have them turn out to be fake news? From the idiot left, who worships at the altar of sleaze, innuendo, and hearsay.

It turns out that Donald Trump really was trying to overthrow the country, he really did sleep with a porn star after saying she reminded him of his daughter, he really did say on television he would date said daughter, he really did collude with Russia, he really did try to get Pence killed and evidently it bears reminding that the salacious Madison Cawthorn accusations… ended up being true.

YUP. All those things TRUE yet right wing media won't even touch them. They keep you in a bubble of blissfully censored delusion where the right wing is wonderful and there are zero scandals.

[Anonymous]

Every time a Republican denies something at this point, it usually turns out to be true. Trump has really ruined the Republican party.

[Anonymous]

This "rules for thee but not for me" is pretty consistent with her "abortions are ok for me but nobody else" stance.

[Anonymous]

Has she sued yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just the beginning of the drip,drip drip.

Wait til you see the videos.

Right - where have we heard that before… think think think…

Where have we heard over and over and over someone saying "fake news" only to have it turn out to be true? Donald Trump, that's where

Whooooosh… No, silly. Where have we heard wildly exaggerated rumors/outright lies, only to have them turn out to be fake news? From the idiot left, who worships at the altar of sleaze, innuendo, and hearsay.

It turns out that Donald Trump really was trying to overthrow the country, he really did sleep with a porn star after saying she reminded him of his daughter, he really did say on television he would date said daughter, he really did collude with Russia, he really did try to get Pence killed and evidently it bears reminding that the salacious Madison Cawthorn accusations… ended up being true.

Usually if the Republicans and Trump deny it, but then project onto "liberals" it's definitely true. Look at the examples above.

[Anonymous]

Snopes says this is unproven

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lauren-boebert-two-near-naked-men/

Now, I think she probably had two abortions and Trump has paid for a bakers dozen but that's also not proved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has she sued yet?

+1

Her alleged deeds are very on trend for Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Oh, someone elsewhere on the internet connected all the rumor dots together of the various allegations. I somehow didn’t connect the allegation of her “being a professional” with Cruz and then the abortions.

When is she going to sue? After this group’s Madison Cawthorn allegations turned out to be true, I’m curious to see where this all lands.

[Anonymous]

If she hasn't filed a lawsuit within the next 3-4 weeks, you can presume the contours of this story to be mostly true. Perhaps some details are wrong, but most of the timeline and outline will be true.

If it's not true, it will be a slam dunk payday for Boebert and her family so she has every incentive to get a lawsuit moving forward.

Tick tock, tick tock. Where's the lawsuit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she hasn't filed a lawsuit within the next 3-4 weeks, you can presume the contours of this story to be mostly true. Perhaps some details are wrong, but most of the timeline and outline will be true.

If it's not true, it will be a slam dunk payday for Boebert and her family so she has every incentive to get a lawsuit moving forward.

Tick tock, tick tock. Where's the lawsuit?

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that American Muckrackers PAC actually has substantial assets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she hasn't filed a lawsuit within the next 3-4 weeks, you can presume the contours of this story to be mostly true. Perhaps some details are wrong, but most of the timeline and outline will be true.

If it's not true, it will be a slam dunk payday for Boebert and her family so she has every incentive to get a lawsuit moving forward.

Tick tock, tick tock. Where's the lawsuit?

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that American Muckrackers PAC actually has substantial assets.

omg is that what they are saying on fox? you people! not two brain cells between you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she hasn't filed a lawsuit within the next 3-4 weeks, you can presume the contours of this story to be mostly true. Perhaps some details are wrong, but most of the timeline and outline will be true.

If it's not true, it will be a slam dunk payday for Boebert and her family so she has every incentive to get a lawsuit moving forward.

Tick tock, tick tock. Where's the lawsuit?

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that American Muckrackers PAC actually has substantial assets.

No, just assuming that if it's not true she would at least attempt to sue as she proclaimed. You know, to prove it's not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she hasn't filed a lawsuit within the next 3-4 weeks, you can presume the contours of this story to be mostly true. Perhaps some details are wrong, but most of the timeline and outline will be true.

If it's not true, it will be a slam dunk payday for Boebert and her family so she has every incentive to get a lawsuit moving forward.

Tick tock, tick tock. Where's the lawsuit?

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that American Muckrackers PAC actually has substantial assets.

No, just assuming that if it's not true she would at least attempt to sue as she proclaimed. You know, to prove it's not true.

Prove it's not true and get them to take down the materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she hasn't filed a lawsuit within the next 3-4 weeks, you can presume the contours of this story to be mostly true. Perhaps some details are wrong, but most of the timeline and outline will be true.

If it's not true, it will be a slam dunk payday for Boebert and her family so she has every incentive to get a lawsuit moving forward.

Tick tock, tick tock. Where's the lawsuit?

+1

How many other critters like her are running around pretending to represent constituents? What other little secrets are hiding? The orgies are apparently true; I wonder who has footage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she hasn't filed a lawsuit within the next 3-4 weeks, you can presume the contours of this story to be mostly true. Perhaps some details are wrong, but most of the timeline and outline will be true.

If it's not true, it will be a slam dunk payday for Boebert and her family so she has every incentive to get a lawsuit moving forward.

Tick tock, tick tock. Where's the lawsuit?

You seem to be laboring under the assumption that American Muckrackers PAC actually has substantial assets.

No, just assuming that if it's not true she would at least attempt to sue as she proclaimed. You know, to prove it's not true.

So, we should assume anything is a fact if someone doesn't sue?