President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

[Donny in his element]

Stormy also commented that Dumpf's bulbous pendulous mammaries outsized her own.

You've changed. In the old days, this kind of description would also include the words "Katy Perry."

 

[hondo]

There is corroborative evidence on Ford's side. Her conversations with her therapist, her conversations with friends, all of which took place before Kavenaugh was nominated. There's also an alleged witness, Mark Judge, who could be subpoenaed to testify under oath.

Conversations with her therapist and friends are not evidence the crime actually took place.
Also, Ms. Ford's lawyer apparently didn't want to give Paula Jones the same level of believe, without evidence.
"Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak," Katz said on CNN's "Talkback Live" in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones' claims against Clinton, according to a show transcript. "She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace."

 

[heyabbott]

But what are the safeguards for a man NOW who is falsely accused? Do we throw them under the bus to make up for the likes of Weinstein? What about a case like this where ms. Ford has no witnesses or forensic evidence? How can we really know she's telling the truth?

As long as the government is not depriving someone of life,liberty or property we can each make a judgment on our own. You may not be willing to say you believe her or him. But we can no longer say, outside of a courtroom, its a she-said-he-said situation and the tie goes to him. She's not alleging rape,she's not alleging he forced intercourses or felatio.Shes saying he was a bully and brutish in his attempt to have as much sex as possible. He did not rape her and she did not allege rape. Which makes her story more credible. His ability to deny it outright before he knew who the accuser was and when and where i exactly happened makes his denial hollow.

Personally, I think bringing up this behavior 36 years later aboutwha he did as a 17 year old bares little of his judicial temperament and knowledge for he job. If is an isolated case of a spoiled rich prep school boy, it sheds light on his character and I wouldn't particularly like him. But his denials withou knowing what he was denying and His steadfast refusal to have self reflection or view the situation in any objective fashion sheds light on his personal and professional ability to see issues, apolitically. He's establishment hard conservative. Which means he'll view a conservative's use of executive power as legitimate but will view a liberal's use of executive power as illgeimtate. He'll be in favor of using religion to limit and grant rights as long as he is personally invested in he religion, but if its a 'foreign religion' like Islam or the absence of religion, he will take the side of his personal political and religious beliefs. He's an entitled and insufferable preppy Catholicschool boy again. He's Hannity and O'Reilly with a law degree and an educational pedigree, he's pompous, strident, selfish and myopic. You can infer this from his reactions to Dr. Ford's allegations.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Conversations with her therapist and friends are not evidence the crime actually took place.
Also, Ms. Ford's lawyer apparently didn't want to give Paula Jones the same level of believe, without evidence.
"Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak," Katz said on CNN's "Talkback Live" in March 1998 in a discussion about Jones' claims against Clinton, according to a show transcript. "She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace."

It's not evidence the attack took place. It's evidence she SAID the attack took place long before Trump was President, let alone after Kavenaugh was nominated. These witnesses refute the idea Ford's accusation has political motivation. It doesn't
refute the possibility she's mistaken as to the identity of her attacker nor that she's just plain delusional. Judge is the only witness we know of who can speak to the incident itself. Since Kavenaugh's position is that it didn't happen, it's at least odd the Republicans don't want to call Judge as a witness.

 

[Neutral Corner]

Given Judge's paper trail, I don't find it odd at all.

 

[Neutral Corner]

Desperation much?

 

[franticscribe]

Given the excerpts I have seen from Judge's book about being a drunken lout in high school, I am not sure Republicans should push for his testimony because the Democrats will have a chance to question him, too, and he's provided them with a whole lot of fodder.

 

[heyabbott]

Desperation much?

 

[heyabbott]

Desperation much?

It's fair to say the republicans will criminalize blowjobs between consenting opposite sex adults

 

[HanSenSE]

Desperation much?

See also: Trucks, Tacos on every corner.

 

[Neutral Corner]

 

[HanSenSE]

Why do I think this will get under Trump's skin more than Daniels' talk about his size?

Daniels then continues to describe her interaction with the President, which is sure to get under his skin, writing, "it may have been the least impressive sex I'd ever had, but clearly, he didn't share that opinion."