Hillary Clinton MUST Apologize to Trump!

[Pogo]

There was Megyn Kelly too.

It's snot easy to pick one's favourite from the long litany of Rumpian apologetics, but I might have to go with this one:

That's OK. I'll go with Trump proposals to protect America from the ISIS Pipeline, its Nuclear attack MO, Bip warfare MO, chemical attacks MO, and the general ongoing Mexican imperialism pillaging of America. Jusy though I might remind youof this ein case they slipped your mind.

You mean you'll go with the Rump proposals to protect America from the Constitution of the United States, is what you mean.

And more than that, to protect America from any chance of Donald T. Rump not being the center of attention 24/7.

Gullible's Travels.....

 

[Pogo]

He's trying to parse what I described as "video" into "a video", as in a recorded medium, apparently willing to appear completely ignorant that the visual component of what television transmits IS "video" -- whether anyone records it and keeps it in the archive, or not.

Obviously on that day everything recordable was being recorded anyway and is still archived as well, so that seals the deal, but you cannot by definition see something on television without "video" involved, period.

All of this is a puerile attempt to flail away my point of comparison in post 2. He can't do it so he resorts to the "play stupid" game.

Speaking of Post 2, yeah let's talk about good old Post # 2.

"Obviously", Pogo ? Yeah ? So if it's so "obvious" then you should have no trouble showing positive proof right here, that a video was made of Trump claims about Muslims in North Jersey cheering 9-11, right ? Right Pogo ? Right ? Right ? So if that's the case, how come we are 3 days into this discussion, with me asking for you to present that video, and you have FAILED to do so ?

HOW does television transmit its IMAGES ------ if it's not using VIDEO?

HOW does it do that??

Perhaps there are little tiny cave men in there, chiseling out images in stone and holding it up to the screen.

Perhaps they have little Leonardo da Vinci clones, hurriedly painting all those images and putting them up so fast that we can't see it happening.

Perhaps it's the ghost of Walt Disney, having perfected the art of cartooning to the degree that it looks like a real picture.

You tell me, Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

He's trying to parse what I described as "video" into "a video", as in a recorded medium, apparently willing to appear completely ignorant that the visual component of what television transmits IS "video" -- whether anyone records it and keeps it in the archive, or not.

Obviously on that day everything recordable was being recorded anyway and is still archived as well, so that seals the deal, but you cannot by definition see something on television without "video" involved, period.

All of this is a puerile attempt to flail away my point of comparison in post 2. He can't do it so he resorts to the "play stupid" game.

Speaking of Post 2, yeah let's talk about good old Post # 2.

"Obviously", Pogo ? Yeah ? So if it's so "obvious" then you should have no trouble showing positive proof right here, that a video was made of Trump claims about Muslims in North Jersey cheering 9-11, right ? Right Pogo ? Right ? Right ? So if that's the case, how come we are 3 days into this discussion, with me asking for you to present that video, and you have FAILED to do so ?

It is impossible to "present" a non-video that has never existed.
We'll be right back with more on this after this word ---

The onus is on the ass-erter. Rump is the asserter, and you're the Rumpbot who believes him. Therefore the burden of proof of the positive is on ---- your side. It's not my job -- or anyone else's --- to prove a negative.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps you hadn't heard.

“There was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her… wherever.” (here, and a million other places)

Followed by:

​

Then of course there's the phsical appearance comments on .... Carly Fiorina... Arianna Huffington... Rosie O'Donnell....

Then there's ...
>> Referring to Trump's bankruptcy rumours, New York Times journalist Gail Collins called Trump a "financially embattled thousandaire" in print.

In reponse, Trump allegedly sent Collins a copy of her column, with her face circled and the words "Face of a dog!" written over it << (here)

Then there was...

​

Not to mention having the hots for his own daughter....

Mind you, this is only the sexism department. Not even going into the xenophobia, the mocking of the handicapped, the blanket statements, the religious bigotry, or the contempt for the Constitution in general.

Now if a petulant child-man can't handle a pointed question from a TV talking head, from a friendly source no less ---- how the hell is he going to handle foreign affairs -- where they play for real?

None of this jibbersih compares to the ISIS PIPELINE and the Mexican imperialism.

(Two more) "Things that Do Not Exist!".

What'd I win?

 

[320 Years of History]

Respectfully, I realize I could have Googled and found something about the matter, but I don't want to take a pick. I want to read the one you read to ensure we both have the same information in that regard.

I posted one of them in #128. Here it is again.
Exclusive: ‘Hillary Clinton Took Me Through Hell,’ Rape Victim Says

Having read the article to which you provided the link, I have determined that the central question is one not of what Mrs. Clinton did or said, but rather one of ethics. I don't have a problem with Mrs. Clinton's efforts to effect the best possible outcome she could, ideally a not guilty verdict, for her client.

In the process of examining the ethical dilemma associated with the (not new) matter of how lawyers can bring themselves to defend folks like the accused rapist Mrs. Clinton did, I came across the following information that you may find useful in developing a more comprehensive understanding and view of the matter and considerations involved.

• Examining the Personal–Professional Distinction: Ethics Codes and the Difficulty of Drawing a Boundary
  
• Rethinking Legal Ethics
• When the Lawyer Knows the Client is Guilty: Client Confessions in Legal Ethics, Popular Culture and Literature

I realize the plaintiff claims that Mrs. Clinton lied in order to obtain the results she sought on behalf of her client, but one must realize that the accusation is also that Mrs. Clinton lied to the court. Were that in fact true, or believed by the court, or Arkansas' Attorney General, or the plaintiff's attorney(s), to be plausibly true, and investigation would have ensued, and Mrs. Clinton could have been disbarred for doing so. Indeed, perjury is a possible outcome. None of those things happened; she was not only not disbarred, and not charged with perjury, but also not censured, or anything else, aside from having to endure the accusations that have of late surfaced, in connection with that trial.

I also happen to think the plaintiff in that case is today being used as a pawn in the effort to smear Mrs. Clinton's reputation. I think that in part because of what was presented in the article you referenced.

[T]he victim now claims she was misquoted. She didn’t even know Clinton was the lawyer who defended her attacker until Thrush showed her Clinton’s book and she had no other information about what had happened behind closed doors in that courtroom when Thrush approached her, she said. Thrush declined to comment.

After [the plaintiff in the rape case] was released from prison in 2008, [she] read more about Clinton’s involvement in her case, but she never planned to confront Clinton about it.
​

The article you referenced states that:

[A]fter hearing the newly revealed tapes of Clinton boasting about the case, the victim said she couldn’t hold her tongue any longer and wanted to tell her side of the story to the public.

“When I heard that tape I was pretty upset, I went back to the room and was talking to my two cousins and I cried a little bit. I ain’t gonna lie, some of this has got me pretty down,” she said. “But I thought to myself, ‘I’m going to stand up to her. I’m going to stand up for what I’ve got to stand up for, you know?”
​

Well, I listened to the tape. Mrs. Clinton hardly sounds boastful. In fact it seems pretty clear to me that what she was laughing about was the perfunctory handling the forensics team exercised with a critical piece of evidence in a rape trial. I think the humor expressed in Mrs. Clinton's chuckles is not of the jocular sort, but rather of the bittersweet variety. Mrs. Clinton's other remarks in the interview do not at all suggest she gloated with glee over the outcome. In total, it appears that Mrs. Clinton realized the opportunity before her and, on behalf of her client, availed herself of it.

That's a lengthy post and I won't try to go line by line responding but Clinton provided no evidence that the victim had a history of either fantasizing about older men or accusing men of attacking her body. She stated it was brought to her attention or something like that, yet she didn't provide any witnesses to back it up. If that was a lie, how would you prove it was, especially if you're 12 years old? .

As far as her defending someone she admittedly knew was guilty, it's not illegal for her to do that but there are more ethical attorneys who won't submit a not guilty plea but will instead try to make a deal for leniency.
You can excuse Hillary based on legal technicalities but the fact still remains that she put the victim on trial and accused her of inviting the crime or lying about it when she knew her client was guilty. It may be legal but it is unethical and I think you know that.

Red:
Since the case never got to the point of a jury hearing arguments from both sides -- the defendant pled guilty to "unlawful fondling of a child under the age of 14" -- neither the prosecutor nor Mrs. Clinton, the defense attorney of record, were required to produce any evidence -- physical, anecdotal, witness testimony, etc. -- that the statements in the affidavits were true. There was not a jury trial, so when exactly was either attorney or named party in the case going to provide "whatever" to "back up" the averments in the affidavits?

Mrs. Clinton's remarks as summarized in the article you cited were:

"I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”
​

The specific statements Mrs. Clinton made are found on an affidavit included among the court documents pertaining to the case of State of Arkansas v. Thomas Alfred Taylor. If you look at those documents, you'll also find the prosecutor also submitted an affidavit of the same basic nature -- that is, personal attestations of what the affiant believes to be true. The article to which you pointed me contains the link to those documents.


Note:
(In my earlier remarks, I used the term "plaintiff" with reference to the person who was raped. Having not cited the case name, I will from this point forward refer to her as the victim or alleged victim.)

Blue:
Before offering a response to your blue-highlighted remarks, I must ask you a question. Do you agree that all defendants are entitled to the best defence available, and if so, of what should this consist? Should a defense attorney for a rapist work less diligently to obtain an acquittal than should a defence attorney of another alleged criminal who is accused of a non-rape crime?

It is standard defence practice in any criminal trial to try to point up inconsistencies in a witness's evidence. All the barristers would routinely do this. In rape cases such inconsistencies are highlighted to suggest that the complainant may have lied on the issue of consent. Comparisons were routinely made between what the complainant said by way of recent complaint and what she said subsequently to others when describing what had happened to her.

The strategies and tactics used by defense attorneys in rape cases undoubtedly raise ethical issues. The ethics of advocacy has been the subject of academic analysis, some of which I provided in the last post I made in this conversation between you and me. I earlier suggested you read them because I thought doing so would help you obtain a fuller understanding of the ethical dilemma associated with defending people whom an attorney believes/knows to be guilty. Remember, the defendant is the one who claims to be either guilty or not guilty, not the defendant's attorney.

Defence and prosecution counsel do not devise utterly new forensic methods for every trial. They, like professionals, rely on standard tactics and approached for achieving their respective objectives. Rape cases are, I suspect, no exception. Why this boilerplate, as it were, approach to legal representation? I don't specifically know, but I do know that methodologies that have a track record of working to some extent will get used routinely, and I suspect without exception when one isn't well heeled as was, say, O.J. Simpson, or when a "deep pockets, white knight" hasn't seen fit to champion one's cause. It may be that constraints of time and money operate to encourage a system in which events are reconstructed into a limited range of stories (for example, victim as foolish young woman, 'tart', or exponent of 'alternative' lifestyle, who either consented or who has only herself to blame for what happened to her) rather than fresh approaches being taken.

In a criminal trial, the defendant is pitched against the state. He stands to lose his liberty and perhaps his reputation, his family, and his friends. Imprisonment is likely to involve considerable hardship, which might also include subjection to violence and sexual assault. In these circumstances, it is incumbent upon the advocate to do his utmost to see that the client's defence is presented as strongly as possible.

Under the role of law, a person has to be proved guilty of the offence with which he is charged. He must be proved, in exact accordance with the rules of evidence and procedure, to come within the four comers of that offence and proof must be beyond reasonable doubt. By the very nature of the role of law, advocates are daily placed in situations in which they are defending to the hilt persons whom they know are, at the very least, a menace and often a positive danger to the community. In so doing, they are, paradoxically, defending the interests of the community by upholding the role of law.

So, despite what it may seem like, I don't at all accept or ascribe to the idea you've presented that says a defense attorney who, to the fullest of his/her ability, makes every possible effort to obtain an acquittal, no matter the allegation(s), is acting unethically by doing so. Indeed, I see such attorney's failing to "give it their all" as a greater wrong than one victim's reputation being sullied by any of the tactics (tactics that don't rise to the level of deliberate attempts to mislead the court) a defense attorney may employ. It's a matter of the importance of one person's character, be they a minor or not, versus setting a precedent for the diminishment of the role of law in our society, something that goes well beyond affecting just one person.

Other:
Ethical dilemmas similar to the one at hand are not unique to attorneys.

• Imagine that the only emergency room (ER) surgeon at a given point in time witnessed a gunman in the ER shoot one or several of his colleagues in the ER before being shot by one of the security guards. What is the surgeon to do? Mend the shooter's wounds? Let him bleed out or die of something related to having been shot?
• Imagine a priest who hears a penitent's confession to one or more louche and criminal, deeds. Although the confession happens in an "old school" confessional, the priest recognizes the sinner's voice and knows quite well who it is. As the penitent's confessor, the priest cannot violate the sanctity of the confessional. What is the cleric to do? The most he can do is encourage the individual to turn themselves in.

For a while there I thought maybe I had found a liberal that didn't put politics above what's right and what's wrong. My mistake. Thanks for setting me straight.

That's what you have to say about a topic that isn't at all about politics, but rather is about how attorneys must manage what is clearly a an unpleasant set of realities? I would have exactly the same opinion no matter who the attorney was in the Taylor case.

The case of Taylor presented the defense attorney with an ethical dilemma, one for which there is no right or wrong answer. Regardless of how they opt to handle the matter -- by applying either strong or weak adversarialism -- there is a rational, legal and ethical basis for attorneys to choose either approach, as well as there being plenty of precedent for attorneys to apply either approach. I always favor the strong adversarialist approach when an attorney argues a case, provided the attorney doesn't cross the line and commit perjury, and I favor it no matter the political persuasion of the attorney, no matter the crime the defense attorney's client is accused of committing.

(Did you even bother to read the Asimow paper I referenced that discusses the two approaches? If you didn't, I strongly encourage you, or anyone else for that matter, to do so. It goes directly to the heart of the ethical matter at hand, which is why I linked to it, and it provides a framework for analyzing such matters.)

Does my unyielding belief that the strong adversarialist approach be the one attorneys take mean that sometimes, if the attorney is convincing enough, that jury's will acquit folks who in fact committed heinous crimes? Yes, it does. For example, I think O.J. Simpson killed Nicole Brown, but the jury did not. I didn't sit through all those days of testimony as they did, so perhaps they know of elements that I do not. Regardless, they found him not guilty, and that was the goal that Mr. Simpson engaged his team of attorneys to obtain.

• Should Mr. Simpson's attorney's not have tried so hard to get him acquitted?
• Was Mr. Taylor deserving of any less vigorous defense than was Mr. Simpson?
• Do you honestly think that Shapiro, Bailey, et al didn't encourage Mr. Simpson to accept a plea deal rather than plead not guilty?
• Does Mrs. Clinton's success in getting Mr. Taylor to plead guilty to something was not more satisfactory outcome than would have been taking the case before a jury and actually having to prove the claims in the affidavit? (Remember, as shown in the court documents, Mr. Taylor's initial plea and preference was to plead not guilty.)

You really have some nerve accusing me of playing politics with this matter. Moreover, the folks who have made political what is an ethical dilemma many attorneys face, one for which there is no pat solution, is the height of sleazy. What is righteous about hunting down a woman who was abused as a child and dragging her back through that episode, all for the express purpose of attempting to smear a candidate for elected office? To do that to a woman who, furthermore, isn't among the brightest bulbs in the candelabra, and who thus will likely not only feel the pain of having to relive that time of her life, but also not even realize she's just a pawn. (She obviously, from your article's reporting, eventually got convicted of something and was released from prison in 2008.) After all, she's convicted criminal. I bid you to find the positive generalizations conservatives make about convicted criminals. Hope you like snipe hunts....

I haven't yet discussed Mrs. Clinton's role in Taylor in terms of politics. You and other readers will notice that I also refrained from citing or using any politically-focused reference material (other than the article you indicated) to guide my opinion on the matter.

From the get go, I stated that the matter is an ethical one, not a political one. Everything I've had to say about the matter has focused on her actions as an attorney, not as a politician. In my opinion, the matter of Taylor only became political when "whoever it was" dug it up from the dusty shelves of Arkansas court records. The ethical aspect of the case was there from the beginning and have nothing to do with whether Mrs. Clinton seeks elected office.

 

[320 Years of History]

He smacked you down and that's the best you can muster?

How sad.

<smh>

YOU brought this up. Now you're running away from it. What a pussy you are when confronted with facts. Why don't you at least try to address 320 Years of History's points?

Red:
TY for the supportive remark. I thought essentially the same thing when I read S.J.'s reply to comments that I spent a fair sum of effort considering and a matter that, out of respect, I went out of my way not to present in political terms.

I also appreciate that you read my series of posts on the matter. I know that I tend to provide pretty comprehensive arguments and refer most often only to scholarly materials that provide a framework for analysis rather than popular sources that tell one how to view a matter. Taking that approach makes my posts long, and I know a lot of folks probably therefore skip them.

Blue:
As much as I appreciate the supportive remarks, and I truly do. Tossing insults such as the one in the blue text is neither necessary nor desired by me. It's not that I disagree with the sentiment you expressed, but using that sort of vulgarity and casting aspersions of that nature is something to which I don't want to be party, directly or obliquely.

I don't care to be insulted that way; insults in general aren't what I use to make my points. I also don't cotton to the folks with whom I discuss things being treated that way. Most importantly and most sadly, for I though the ethical matter an interesting one to consider, that remark brings to an end my participation in the discussion as I indicated in post #131 that it would.

 

[jc456]

When's Rump going to apologize to the population of North Jersey for that video that doesn't exist?






Exactly.

he did? prove it.

 

[Pogo]

When's Rump going to apologize to the population of North Jersey for that video that doesn't exist?






Exactly.

he did, prove it.

He did huh?


...... Link?

 

[jc456]

Trump and his supporters need to put down the stones – they live in a very big glass house.

what stones are being thrown?

 

[jc456]

When's Rump going to apologize to the population of North Jersey for that video that doesn't exist?






Exactly.

he did, prove it.

He did huh?


...... Link?

he said there was a video? He did? prove it.

 

[Pogo]

When's Rump going to apologize to the population of North Jersey for that video that doesn't exist?

Exactly.

he did, prove it.

He did huh?

...... Link?

he said there was a video? He did? prove it.

Uh no --- you just said he apologized. Where is that?

For that matter, where's any link to Rump ever apologizing for anything, ever?

 

[jc456]

When's Rump going to apologize to the population of North Jersey for that video that doesn't exist?

Exactly.

he did, prove it.

He did huh?

...... Link?

he said there was a video? He did? prove it.

Uh no --- you just said he apologized. Where is that?

For that matter, where's any link to Rump ever apologizing for anything, ever?

I forgot the question mark, go look at the post again.

 

[S.J.]

When's Rump going to apologize to the population of North Jersey for that video that doesn't exist?

Exactly.

he did, prove it.

He did huh?

...... Link?

he said there was a video? He did? prove it.

Uh no --- you just said he apologized. Where is that?

For that matter, where's any link to Rump ever apologizing for anything, ever?

I forgot the question mark, go look at the post again.

Uh oh, you forgot a question mark. You're in for it now, that's just the opening she was looking for.

 

[Pogo]

When's Rump going to apologize to the population of North Jersey for that video that doesn't exist?

Exactly.

he did, prove it.

He did huh?

...... Link?

he said there was a video? He did? prove it.

Uh no --- you just said he apologized. Where is that?

For that matter, where's any link to Rump ever apologizing for anything, ever?

I forgot the question mark, go look at the post again.

OK so now you've changed the question. That's fine.
I didn't say he said there was "a" video. I said he said he saw it on television. And television transmits...... video. Therefore what he "saw" if he saw it, had to be in the form of.... video. That means the abstract ("some quantity of video"), not the concrete (a video recording), although if the abstract actually DID exist, then the concrete should as well. Yet no one anywhere can document either one. No record of the broadcast, no record of the story --- nothing. Zero. Bupkis. Squat.

The crucial phrase there is "if he saw it". That seeing appears to have been completely made-up crap. Unless somehow by the magic of elves, any record of this elusive video transmission, right up there with Brian Williams' and Hillary Clinton's taking enemy fire -- has strangely disappeared from all broadcast records everywhere. Even though this event and everything around it, commonly described as the most documented event in history, scrupulously recorded everything in any way related.

Yet somehow "thousands and thousands" of New Jerseyans were captured on video cheering, and no one else in the world knows a damn thing about it. We can all go to YouTube right now and watch a plane hitting in slow motion, or people jumping out of the building, yet we can't find this mythical Jersey City video of "thousands and thousands".

Uh --- yyyyyeah, that's the ticket.

I understand Rump also went fishing that day in the East River and bagged a 160 ton whale....

 

[jc456]

he did, prove it.

He did huh?

...... Link?

he said there was a video? He did? prove it.

Uh no --- you just said he apologized. Where is that?

For that matter, where's any link to Rump ever apologizing for anything, ever?

I forgot the question mark, go look at the post again.

OK so now you've changed the question. That's fine.
I didn't say he said there was "a" video. I said he said he saw it on television. And television transmits...... video. Therefore what he "saw" if he saw it, had to be in the form of.... video. That means the abstract, not the concrete, although if the abstract actually DID exist, then the concrete should as well. Yet no one anywhere can document either one.

The crucial phrase there is "if he saw it". That seeing appears to have been completely made-up crap. Unless somehow by the magic of elves, any record of this elusive video transmission, right up there with Brian Williams' and Hillary Clinton's taking enemy fire -- has strangely disappeared from all broadcast records everywhere.

he did not say that either/ He said he saw it from his building. perhaps you should listen to exactly what he said before you post it. he also stated he heard, and if you look at you tube, you will find where people will confirm his story, even on the Howard Stern show. go for it go look for it. oh wait, here it is.

 

[edthecynic]

he did not say that either/ He said he saw it from his building. perhaps you should listen to exactly what he said before you post it.

You first!

Donald Trump Blames TV For Lack Of Video Showing NJ Muslims Celebrating World Trade Center Collapse

In the exchange, Trump told Todd: “I have a very good memory, Chuck. I’ll tell you, I have a very good memory. I saw it somewhere on television many years ago, and I never forgot it — and it was on television, too.”

 

[protectionist]

(emphasis added) but if you can't defend your claims, I understand.

Don't downplay me. I said it. I say it. And will say it again in weeks to come. Past, present, future.

 

[protectionist]

Why go there where you flat out refuse to back up this claim of yours....?

WHY GO THERE ? Because that's where the TOPIC is, not your obvious DEFLECTION away from it to try to hide from the topic.
You think you can write this debate as fiction ? I don't refuse to back up anything. I said Hillary was FIRED, And I say it again. So ? I don't remember ever changing that.

Now how about this >>
Oh GIVE US A BRRREAK!!! What a joke to be obsessing over one guy in Hillary Clinton’s long dirty laundry list of misdeeds, that carries over 40 years. Yammering about this one incident of hers, is like devoting pages of posting to Charles Manson having possessed pot. Have the posters in this thread forgotten (Or never saw the post # 51 further back in the thread) ? Here it is again for your convenience >>

And don't forget > the TOPIC is about Hillary lying about a video of Trump, having been given to ISIS, and her long history of deceit. So stay on topic, or get out of the thread. Deflecting away from the topic won't save you here.

UPDATED LINKS to HILLARY CLINTON’S (and Bill’s) LIES!

Let’s Be Friends

White House says Clinton did not heed e-mail policy

Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions

Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors

Hillary Clinton fired from Judiciary Committee Investigating Watergate

Many Clinton charity donors also got State Department awards under Hillary

Despite Hillary Clinton promise, charity did not disclose donors

For Clinton’s, speech income shows how their wealth is intertwined with charity

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

The Disastrous Clinton Post-Presidency

Do Hillary’s Fair-Pay Talking Points Apply to Her Own Family?

Clinton Foundation Quietly Revises Mexican Billionaire’s Donation

The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails

Senate committee seeks email facts from Clinton’s tech company

Hilliary Servers Kept in Bathroom Closet of Loft Apartment

Hillary Clinton’s Computer Company Wasn’t Cleared for Classified Material

The Time Hillary Clinton Networked from a Funeral

 

[protectionist]

You first! Donald Trump Blames TV For Lack Of Video Showing NJ Muslims Celebrating World Trade Center Collapse

In the exchange, Trump told Todd: “I have a very good memory, Chuck. I’ll tell you, I have a very good memory. I saw it somewhere on television many years ago, and I never forgot it — and it was on television, too.”

What do you have to say about what Sibel Edmonds saw ?

Not Only Did American Muslims Cheer 9-11, But They Did It In the FBI | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Pogo]

he did not say that either/ He said he saw it from his building. perhaps you should listen to exactly what he said before you post it.

You first!

Donald Trump Blames TV For Lack Of Video Showing NJ Muslims Celebrating World Trade Center Collapse

In the exchange, Trump told Todd: “I have a very good memory, Chuck. I’ll tell you, I have a very good memory. I saw it somewhere on television many years ago, and I never forgot it — and it was on television, too.”

Not only did he see it "somewhere on television" but it was "on television" too!

What a guy. Brian Williams copped to making shit up, Rump can't do it.