Discussion:
Bill Clinton's son: no DNA test was done
(too old to reply)
A***@yahoo.com
2016-10-28 02:07:07 UTC
Permalink
No definitive DNA test

WND also reported last week evidence that no DNA test was conducted in 1999, as the media widely reported when Williams’ claim first surfaced.

Clinton defenders since 1999 have contended the tabloid Star Magazine conducted a “DNA showdown” proving Bill Clinton was not Williams’ father, citing Star Magazine editor Phil Bunton saying at the time, “There was no match, nothing even close.”

But in an interview, Bunton told WND that no blood sample was obtained from Clinton and Star Magazine never published a story documenting a laboratory test.

“I don’t remember ever seeing any laboratory test that was done on Clinton’s DNA,” Bunton told WND.

Bunton is now the owner of the Rivertown Magazine in Haverstraw, New York.

He affirmed to WND that the tabloid relied on the DNA evidence for Clinton published by independent counsel Kenneth Starr, extracted from the infamous Monica Lewinsky blue dress.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/clintons-black-son-demands-dna-sample/#T9ShGJUgOvPIKgOU.99
Robert Carnegie
2016-10-28 02:29:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No definitive DNA test
If WND tells the truth about anything it'll be a miracle.
A***@yahoo.com
2016-10-28 02:31:23 UTC
Permalink
7:29 PMRobert Carnegie
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No definitive DNA test
If WND tells the truth about anything it'll be a miracle.

WND didn't say it, the former editor of the Star said it.
Robert Carnegie
2016-10-28 03:28:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
7:29 PMRobert Carnegie
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No definitive DNA test
If WND tells the truth about anything it'll be a miracle.
WND didn't say it, the former editor of the Star said it.
WND alone wouldn't convince me that there is such a person.

<http://www.snopes.com/bill-clinton-illegitimate-son/>
carries more weight, but, in my opinion, leans
Conservative by calling it "unproven".

As for Phil Bunton, what he's saying now is that
he lied then. On the other hand, he was running
a damn tabloid. It's much less likely that he
spent the money on DNA paternity testing than
that he made up the result himself.

On the other other hand, this did pretty much
go away - until this stage in the campaign.

As for Slate, I haven't checked that article
for comments, and I'm not an expert on the
science, but, paternity and maternity testing is
a matter of finding points in common in the
DNA of the child and both parents. A large
number of data points that the claimed father
and the child both have and the mother doesn't,
supports a finding of paternity. And the more
points that are tested, the clearer the result.
But it seems to me that if they didn't do the
clearer (and presumably more expensive) test
possible with the available data, then it
wouldn't show a clear positive result, but
it could show a clear negative.

Presumably the kid had a biological father
and he may have looked like Bill Clinton...
but can the kid play saxophone?
Malcolm McMahon
2016-10-28 13:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by A***@yahoo.com
No definitive DNA test
WND also reported last week evidence that no DNA test was conducted in 1999, as the media widely reported when Williams’ claim first surfaced.
Which is to say, this is just another unsubstantiated rumour invented by the Clinton Scandal Factory.
Loading...