People getting fired

[jc456]

For what they do on their own time, things that are in no way job related. Does anyone have a problem with that?...

Yes.

1. If the activity is a crime

2. If the activity would be construed by a reasonable person to be morally objectionable

3. If the activity is a breach of organizational policy and the Fired Person previously agreed - explicitly or implicitly - to abide by such policy and willfully failed to do so

Then there should not be hush funds in congress. Why is there ?

 

[jc456]

Trump has "doubled down" on defending Porter; sending out a Tweet defending "due process" since he believes a woman's accusation can ruin lives! The man is so touched in the head; but no more so than the people who are still supporting him!

Ya, when did the abuse take place, and why wrent the police called? These woman are nothing but opportunist. Political hit nothing more.

Gotcha. His spouses keep getting in bar fights then taking pictures and saying it was him. Dose dastwardly wabbits.

The photos and multiple accusers actually is a pretty good indication the guy's a wife beater. Be real

You don’t get shit stupid. If he flat decked those bitches I don’t care. Especially when you have the Kennedy Klan who can rape and kill woman and get called heros for it. Point is, even if these bimbos did get a tune up from a chief Trumpkin, it has no Bering on anything. If it was not reported to the police why is a security clearance even an issue? You need to be less of a sheep.

"If he flat decked those bitches i don't care"...says it all, doesn't it?

He's no different than you if you switch his R for your D.

Kathleen Wiley: He didn't harass me, he assaulted me

Bodecea: I don't care if he flat decked the bitch. Note I didn't use quote marks, I'm not saying those were your exact words. But it's your exact position

We know he’s a hypocrite

 

[kaz]

Oh...that makes it all right then

Oh....having no conviction makes it alright then.

Depends. If it went to trial and was declared innocent or thrown out for lack of evidence then yes that is how our system works.

Never even filed, not enough evidence that a crime occurred to bother.

divorce is an ugly business. Ex's often harbor rage and hatred that comes close to the rage and hatred you Communists have toward Trump, a level of insanity induced by feelings of betrayal.

If you have an ex, they probably say some pretty ugly things about you as well.

Typically they say things like you were mentally cruel. They don't produce pictures of you with a black eye and say you beat them supported by another ex-spouse who says you did the same to her.

Also, they typically want money and if they make you unemployable, that's hard to get. If they have children that's also a strong thing to do to their father.

Sure, one accusation I could write off. But two and photos, that's hard to ignore

When I was young and poor, we had a washer that would have the clutch jam. I kept the back off of it so that I could reach the clutch lever to break it free. My ex knew how to do this as well. One night she hit the high voltage box while reaching in and it threw her back, she caught her arm on the sheet metal case and had a severe cut, like 4 layers of stitches over a 6 inch laceration. Obviously paramedics were called via 911.

Years later when we were divorcing, she threatened to use photographs of her arm as proof I had attacked her with a knife. Now my ex is dumb as a rock, and didn't grasp that the paramedics keep records. BUT a photograph of an injury is evidence of absolutely nothing.

I don't know anything about the Porter situation, nor do I much care. I DO care about due process and the direct assault on Western justice that is going on. Guilt or innocence is now a matter of party affiliation and gender, rather than evidence and fact.

Fair enough. If it was one person alone, I'd be a lot more willing to write it off despite the photo. Two is harder to ignore. And I do not believe it's very common to accuse spouses of actual physical assault much less getting two to do it to one guy.

And again, all I'm arguing is it's enough to get him out of his job in the White House. If he married two psychos who'd make that accusation, that says something about his judgment anyway

 

[jc456]

Is the paying of hush money not an admission of guilt?

No. Not at all. There are other reasons like time and litigation costs.

yeah, I get that. But the facts are that some of Clinton's victims were paid to be silent. The others are still speaking out.

Clinton's victims? Didn't you mean alleged victims?

no, actual victims, the ones who were sitting in the front row at the debate. Or, are you calling all of them liars? I thought you libs wanted all female victims of male abuse to be heard.

No, they said they should all be believed, no questions , typical hypocrite go figure

A leftist says if it’s alleged, it is true. And then except if it’s Bill

 

[OldLady]

Don't change the subject. Your stance here has been we should take no action on allegations/information about wrongdoing until there is a guilty verdict by the courts. The accusation itself is not the argument you've made.
The two women have made serious accusations that have not returned a guilty verdict. You believe Broderick but not Willoughby. Why?

You believe Anita Hill but not Clarence Thomas. Why? She had zero evidence, no witnesses and no other accusers.

Could it be the D after her name and the R after his? By Jove, I believe it could ...

I think it actually might have more to do with being a woman than a Dem. I'm not a Dem.

Why do you people insist on that lame lie?

It just happens that the Democrats are right on every issue. But you're not one of them, you just happen through independent research and self reflection to come to the conclusion they are right every time.

I'm having the same discussion with Moonglow who every time I ask why he's a "Republican" blasts the Republicans. You're a hoot.

Oh, and it just happens through independent research and self reflection the Democrat is always the better candidate, LOL

You some sort of creepy stalker keeping track of my stance on every issue here? No? Then don't keep pushing lies as if you know what you're talking about. I come down on the liberal side of things a lot. Ask any of the real Democrats around here if I'm always with them, though.

Wow, isn't she full of herself. No, just every debate I see you in you're arguing down the line with the Democrats.

So tell me, what Democrats don't you like and what issues are the Democrats wrong about?

You're the one making accusations. You tell me. Back up your horseshit.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I agree. I don't know enough to convict him in court, but he certainly looks guilty with multiple accusers telling the same stories and the photos. He certainly already has enough evidence against him it should have cost him his job, and fortunately did.

Here's the difference, if we flip parties, you will flip positions and I won't. Slick had many accusers telling the same story, and you couldn't have cared less. And you didn't care when his ho kept leading the publicity lynching.

Kathleen Wiley was even a long time Clinton supporter and Democrat activist and you yawned. This isn't a standard for you. It is for me.

Let's review. Is Coyote for:

Leftist women? Check
Conservative women? Nope
Leftist men? Check
Conservative men? Nope

Hmm, you see what you actually are there?

Coyote: Here is the difference. Clinton’s accusers had their day in court. If there was a photo of one with a beaten face a police report? That rather changes things.

- You're probably not actually reading the discussion because you seldom do, but I'm anti-Porter and said do. BTW, he hasn't actually had a "day in court," your new standard justifying switching sides based on party
- Juanita Broadderick didn't have a day in court either

Coyote: Was Clinton a womanizer? Yes.
Coyote: Did he harass women? I think so.

- Exactly. Coyote's standard. Is multiple accusers telling the same story proof? Democrat - no. Republican - yes. Even when one of the accusers to the Democrat was a long time supporter and activist
- You also are alibiing the the media for hounding Democrat accusers of Republicans and ignoring the reverse
- I looked at Porter and said photos and multiple accusers, the guy's guilty enough to get fired.
- You look at multiple accusers of a Democrat and say "I think so"

Coyote: Did he rape? Not according to the court.
Coyote: Did he beat women? No evidence of it.

- Rape is worse than beating women. And you made that up, the court never said Slick didn't do it. It never went to court. On harassing women though, he paid almost a million for what he did

Coyote: How about the women accusing Trump?

- Well, I didn't vote for Trump for two reasons. First that he's anti-free trade. Second that he's a pig to women. Again, does kaz have a standard? Yes. Coyote? no, not at all.

As for the more extreme accusations though, unfortunately since we know that Democrats paid Democrats to lie, we'll never really know what's true and what was paid for by Democrats. I still find the accusations disturbing though.

If you actually cared about women, you'd be hysterically angry that Democrats paid women to lie. There is nothing more anti-woman than that. This country is growing deaf to the endless fake accusations of sexual harassment and racism. And that's bad because you're protecting the people out there who are actually guilty

I think Trump and Clinton are the same in regards to women. They are pigs. But pigs aren’t necessarily criminals. That is what what the courts determine.

In regards to Broaddrick there were significant problems with her accounts, recants etc....that makes it a bit hard to take as gospel truth.

Btw you realize the Republicans paid the Clinton accusers court costs don’t you. Does that mean they were paid to lie?

I think you are as biased to the R as you say I am to the D.

Ps if you actually read what I have written on these things you would realize I have a lot of concern for a lack of due process going on in this newfound zero tolerance.

Gotcha, this is why you're such a joke. I'm saying I believe Porter is guilty, I'm glad he got fired and I hope he gets the same back.

You're saying Slick is "probably" guilty of harassment.

What a useless douche

And you said Trumps accusers were lying....hmmmmm

Paying Trumps accusers $750,000.00 dollars doesn't impact credibility...?? Especially when they were investigated and found the accusations were lies. The republican party paid for legal counsel for verified crimes while democrats out right paid them and gave them legal counsel for deceptions...

Funny how now even today, after 16 months, the Trump accusers have NO VERIFIABLE accusations...

Just like the Russia collusion lies, nothing to see and nothing found...

 

[kaz]

Oh...that makes it all right then

Okay, coyote assaulted my wife. Stabbed her in the arm and stole her wallet. I have proof here,


View attachment 176060


Evidance is right there. Say I sent that to your local law enforcers? Say I sent it to your boss because I knew you worked at a job where it could really be an issue. Item though it’s utter bullshit, you would likelget stuffed in a hole or fired to avoid the hassle. All on some bull shit . So if the guy did it, fine, what was the disposing of the case? Were there criminal charges brought?

So you think that's equivalent to a picture of Porter's wife with a black eye? Seriously? If it were only here that's one thing, but his other ex-wife is saying the same thing.

Wife beaters are sick degenerates who deserve to have someone bigger and stronger beat the shit out of them. They don't belong in White House jobs for either party.

Coyote's with me 50% there. Depends on the party for her

If. Dem showed up with the same level of compelling evidence I would agree. But if it boils down to he said/she said...who is believed?

Please, you don't believe a pattern of accusations against a Democrat including a long time Democrat activist.

But the answer to your question is two things:

1) Is there a pattern or is it a single accusation. You're not convinced by a pattern against Clinton past "probably" but you totally believe a single accuser against Clarence Thomas with zero witnesses and zero other accusers.

2) What context do you mean? I would not put Clinton in jail for Juanita Broadderick, but he had a history of sexual assault accusations and he lied under oath about it as well as using the power of the Presidency to cover it up. I would not put Porter in jail without more evidence, but there's plenty to fire him had he not quit

There was a pattern to Trumps accusers yet you said they were lying. Yet you don’t say Clinton’s were lying?

There is a similar pattern in both Clinton and Trump. There is a more strongly supported pattern to Porter in terms of police reports, restraining order and photos.

Again, I did not say Trump's accusers were lying, I said they were paid, which undermines their credibility. How stupid are you? What don't you understand about that?

I also said I didn't vote for Trump for two reasons, one of which is he's a pig. I have two daughters. Regardless of the accusers, he was clearly a pig to women. That wouldn't bother you if it were a Democrat, it never did. All you can come up with is Chappaquiddick and that Clinton "probably" harassed women

 

[OldLady]

Not according to you. What hush money? We're not talking about Stormy Daniels here. lol

Jenifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, all were paid to settle and keep quiet. They could not bribe Juanita Broderick to keep quiet and she is still speaking out about how Clinton raped her and Hillary tried to destroy her life.

and you lib women just keep worshiping the Clintons, WTF is wrong with you?

What is the difference between Juanita Broderick's accusations and Jennifer Willoughby's?
None, except the man involved. You're not fooling anyone.

rape vs a punch in the eye? you see those as equal?

Don't change the subject. Your stance here has been we should take no action on allegations/information about wrongdoing until there is a guilty verdict by the courts. The accusation itself is not the argument you've made.
The two women have made serious accusations that have not returned a guilty verdict. You believe Broderick but not Willoughby. Why?

I believe both of them, but you only believe one. see how that works?

You, too, are trying to change the subject. A lot easier to argue about the old Clinton allegations than to deal with a real live concern that is laying dead at Trump's front door.
Nice deflection but I'm not playing.

 

[jc456]

Oh....having no conviction makes it alright then.

Depends. If it went to trial and was declared innocent or thrown out for lack of evidence then yes that is how our system works.

Never even filed, not enough evidence that a crime occurred to bother.

divorce is an ugly business. Ex's often harbor rage and hatred that comes close to the rage and hatred you Communists have toward Trump, a level of insanity induced by feelings of betrayal.

If you have an ex, they probably say some pretty ugly things about you as well.

Typically they say things like you were mentally cruel. They don't produce pictures of you with a black eye and say you beat them supported by another ex-spouse who says you did the same to her.

Also, they typically want money and if they make you unemployable, that's hard to get. If they have children that's also a strong thing to do to their father.

Sure, one accusation I could write off. But two and photos, that's hard to ignore

When I was young and poor, we had a washer that would have the clutch jam. I kept the back off of it so that I could reach the clutch lever to break it free. My ex knew how to do this as well. One night she hit the high voltage box while reaching in and it threw her back, she caught her arm on the sheet metal case and had a severe cut, like 4 layers of stitches over a 6 inch laceration. Obviously paramedics were called via 911.

Years later when we were divorcing, she threatened to use photographs of her arm as proof I had attacked her with a knife. Now my ex is dumb as a rock, and didn't grasp that the paramedics keep records. BUT a photograph of an injury is evidence of absolutely nothing.

I don't know anything about the Porter situation, nor do I much care. I DO care about due process and the direct assault on Western justice that is going on. Guilt or innocence is now a matter of party affiliation and gender, rather than evidence and fact.

Fair enough. If it was one person alone, I'd be a lot more willing to write it off despite the photo. Two is harder to ignore. And I do not believe it's very common to accuse spouses of actual physical assault much less getting two to do it to one guy.

And again, all I'm arguing is it's enough to get him out of his job in the White House. If he married two psychos who'd make that accusation, that says something about his judgment anyway

Except one wife didn’t bring her claim public until the press talked to her. Having arguments with a spouse is normal. We wouldn’t have 50% divorces if it weren’t. What a bunch of sick mther fkrs for pointing fingers.

 

[kaz]

Coyote: Here is the difference. Clinton’s accusers had their day in court. If there was a photo of one with a beaten face a police report? That rather changes things.

- You're probably not actually reading the discussion because you seldom do, but I'm anti-Porter and said do. BTW, he hasn't actually had a "day in court," your new standard justifying switching sides based on party
- Juanita Broadderick didn't have a day in court either

Coyote: Was Clinton a womanizer? Yes.
Coyote: Did he harass women? I think so.

- Exactly. Coyote's standard. Is multiple accusers telling the same story proof? Democrat - no. Republican - yes. Even when one of the accusers to the Democrat was a long time supporter and activist
- You also are alibiing the the media for hounding Democrat accusers of Republicans and ignoring the reverse
- I looked at Porter and said photos and multiple accusers, the guy's guilty enough to get fired.
- You look at multiple accusers of a Democrat and say "I think so"

Coyote: Did he rape? Not according to the court.
Coyote: Did he beat women? No evidence of it.

- Rape is worse than beating women. And you made that up, the court never said Slick didn't do it. It never went to court. On harassing women though, he paid almost a million for what he did

Coyote: How about the women accusing Trump?

- Well, I didn't vote for Trump for two reasons. First that he's anti-free trade. Second that he's a pig to women. Again, does kaz have a standard? Yes. Coyote? no, not at all.

As for the more extreme accusations though, unfortunately since we know that Democrats paid Democrats to lie, we'll never really know what's true and what was paid for by Democrats. I still find the accusations disturbing though.

If you actually cared about women, you'd be hysterically angry that Democrats paid women to lie. There is nothing more anti-woman than that. This country is growing deaf to the endless fake accusations of sexual harassment and racism. And that's bad because you're protecting the people out there who are actually guilty

I think Trump and Clinton are the same in regards to women. They are pigs. But pigs aren’t necessarily criminals. That is what what the courts determine.

In regards to Broaddrick there were significant problems with her accounts, recants etc....that makes it a bit hard to take as gospel truth.

Btw you realize the Republicans paid the Clinton accusers court costs don’t you. Does that mean they were paid to lie?

I think you are as biased to the R as you say I am to the D.

Ps if you actually read what I have written on these things you would realize I have a lot of concern for a lack of due process going on in this newfound zero tolerance.

Gotcha, this is why you're such a joke. I'm saying I believe Porter is guilty, I'm glad he got fired and I hope he gets the same back.

You're saying Slick is "probably" guilty of harassment.

What a useless douche

And you said Trumps accusers were lying....hmmmmm

Paying Trumps accusers $750,000.00 dollars doesn't impact credibility...?? Especially when they were investigated and found the accusations were lies. The republican party paid for legal counsel for verified crimes while democrats out right paid them and gave them legal counsel for deceptions...

Funny how now even today, after 16 months, the Trump accusers have NO VERIFIABLE accusations...

Just like the Russia collusion lies, nothing to see and nothing found...

If Republicans paid Clinton accusers to make accusations, she'd suddenly get it

 

[jc456]

Go look up the kook mother blaming her two year old childs father for sodomizing their daughter. Dr. Phil gave her air time Fking sick woman I believe no accuser without evidence. The black eye could have been due to many things. Fk, he took the photo. Hmmmm

 

[kaz]

Coyote: Here is the difference. Clinton’s accusers had their day in court. If there was a photo of one with a beaten face a police report? That rather changes things.

- You're probably not actually reading the discussion because you seldom do, but I'm anti-Porter and said do. BTW, he hasn't actually had a "day in court," your new standard justifying switching sides based on party
- Juanita Broadderick didn't have a day in court either

Coyote: Was Clinton a womanizer? Yes.
Coyote: Did he harass women? I think so.

- Exactly. Coyote's standard. Is multiple accusers telling the same story proof? Democrat - no. Republican - yes. Even when one of the accusers to the Democrat was a long time supporter and activist
- You also are alibiing the the media for hounding Democrat accusers of Republicans and ignoring the reverse
- I looked at Porter and said photos and multiple accusers, the guy's guilty enough to get fired.
- You look at multiple accusers of a Democrat and say "I think so"

Coyote: Did he rape? Not according to the court.
Coyote: Did he beat women? No evidence of it.

- Rape is worse than beating women. And you made that up, the court never said Slick didn't do it. It never went to court. On harassing women though, he paid almost a million for what he did

Coyote: How about the women accusing Trump?

- Well, I didn't vote for Trump for two reasons. First that he's anti-free trade. Second that he's a pig to women. Again, does kaz have a standard? Yes. Coyote? no, not at all.

As for the more extreme accusations though, unfortunately since we know that Democrats paid Democrats to lie, we'll never really know what's true and what was paid for by Democrats. I still find the accusations disturbing though.

If you actually cared about women, you'd be hysterically angry that Democrats paid women to lie. There is nothing more anti-woman than that. This country is growing deaf to the endless fake accusations of sexual harassment and racism. And that's bad because you're protecting the people out there who are actually guilty

I think Trump and Clinton are the same in regards to women. They are pigs. But pigs aren’t necessarily criminals. That is what what the courts determine.

In regards to Broaddrick there were significant problems with her accounts, recants etc....that makes it a bit hard to take as gospel truth.

Btw you realize the Republicans paid the Clinton accusers court costs don’t you. Does that mean they were paid to lie?

I think you are as biased to the R as you say I am to the D.

Ps if you actually read what I have written on these things you would realize I have a lot of concern for a lack of due process going on in this newfound zero tolerance.

Gotcha, this is why you're such a joke. I'm saying I believe Porter is guilty, I'm glad he got fired and I hope he gets the same back.

You're saying Slick is "probably" guilty of harassment.

What a useless douche

And you said Trumps accusers were lying....hmmmmm

Liar, I never said they were lying.

I said Democrats were paying people to lie, so we'll never really know. That is indisputable. I also said that the accusations still bother me.

Paying for Paula Jones's case since she was suing for money is partially alike. Though she had to win the case to get anything from it while Trump's accusers were paid just for making the accusation

You said they were paid to lie. Same thing dude. Stop trying to weasel out of it

Liar, I said they were paid to make accusations.

Someone making an accusation who has other reasons to not be truthful is not proof they are lying. I get that and you don't because I'm just smarter than you.

It does however kill their credibility since we don't know if they are lying because it happened or lying for the money. You really aren't very bright. Too many concussions from your head hitting the head board earning a living? I hope you're hot or you're not going to eat well

 

[Tilly]

Why are people pluralising - ie - photoS, restraining orderS etc?
As far as I’m aware there is a single photo, a single temporary restraining order which was not renewed and nothing after that.

A photo of someone with a black eye doesn’t prove who/what caused the black eye. Also, Porter claims he took that photo, and the wife admitted he did. Maybe we’ll get to hear why.

A police report is a report of the allegations made, it is not proof of the allegations, it is not proof of how the injury occurred and making a report of the allegations is what the police routinely have to do.

I also keep reading how easy it is to get a temporary restraining order, as who wants to take the chance of refusing one?
Maybe someone can clarify this. Also they seem to be awarded on the allegations made without the alleged ‘abuser’ even being asked any questions - the person may be able to prove they couldn’t have committed the offence but isn’t even given the opportunity to do so. Now I understand why it is this way, but it doesn’t PROVE guilt.

I believe someone ? Letterman had a restraining order awarded by a judge to a nutty woman Letterman had never even met. They’ve also been issued against people who are in prison.

Like everyone else here, I don’t KNOW if whatshisface is guilty, but I am absolutely stunned at the number of people who are so happy to completely dispense with due process. SMH

 

[jc456]

Jenifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, all were paid to settle and keep quiet. They could not bribe Juanita Broderick to keep quiet and she is still speaking out about how Clinton raped her and Hillary tried to destroy her life.

and you lib women just keep worshiping the Clintons, WTF is wrong with you?

What is the difference between Juanita Broderick's accusations and Jennifer Willoughby's?
None, except the man involved. You're not fooling anyone.

rape vs a punch in the eye? you see those as equal?

Don't change the subject. Your stance here has been we should take no action on allegations/information about wrongdoing until there is a guilty verdict by the courts. The accusation itself is not the argument you've made.
The two women have made serious accusations that have not returned a guilty verdict. You believe Broderick but not Willoughby. Why?

I believe both of them, but you only believe one. see how that works?

You, too, are trying to change the subject. A lot easier to argue about the old Clinton allegations than to deal with a real live concern that is laying dead at Trump's front door.
Nice deflection but I'm not playing.

Then why be a hypocrite?

 

[kaz]

Ya, when did the abuse take place, and why wrent the police called? These woman are nothing but opportunist. Political hit nothing more.

Gotcha. His spouses keep getting in bar fights then taking pictures and saying it was him. Dose dastwardly wabbits.

The photos and multiple accusers actually is a pretty good indication the guy's a wife beater. Be real

You don’t get shit stupid. If he flat decked those bitches I don’t care. Especially when you have the Kennedy Klan who can rape and kill woman and get called heros for it. Point is, even if these bimbos did get a tune up from a chief Trumpkin, it has no Bering on anything. If it was not reported to the police why is a security clearance even an issue? You need to be less of a sheep.

Oh...that makes it all right then

Okay, coyote assaulted my wife. Stabbed her in the arm and stole her wallet. I have proof here,


View attachment 176060


Evidance is right there. Say I sent that to your local law enforcers? Say I sent it to your boss because I knew you worked at a job where it could really be an issue. Item though it’s utter bullshit, you would likelget stuffed in a hole or fired to avoid the hassle. All on some bull shit . So if the guy did it, fine, what was the disposing of the case? Were there criminal charges brought?

You HAVE filed a police report on a person named "Coyote", right?

Wow, there's something you never asked for from a Trump accuser. Or Thomas. Or Cain ...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why are people pluralising - ie - photoS, restraining orderS etc?
As far as I’m aware there is a single photo, a single temporary restraining order which was not renewed and nothing after that.

A photo of someone with a black eye doesn’t prove who/what caused the black eye. Also, Porter claims he took that photo, and the wife admitted he did. Maybe we’ll get to hear why.

A police report is a report of the allegations made, it is not proof of the allegations, it is not proof of how the injury occurred and making a report of the allegations is what the police routinely have to do.

I also keep reading how easy it is to get a temporary restraining order, as who wants to take the chance of refusing one?
Maybe someone can clarify this. Also they seem to be awarded on the allegations made without the alleged ‘abuser’ even being asked any questions - the person may be able to prove they couldn’t have committed the offence but isn’t even given the opportunity to do so. Now I understand why it is this way, but it doesn’t PROVE guilt.

I believe someone ? Letterman had a restraining order awarded by a judge to a nutty woman Letterman had never even met. They’ve also been issued against people who are in prison.

Like everyone else here, I don’t KNOW if whatshisface is guilty, but I am absolutely stunned at the number of people who are so happy to completely dispense with due process. SMH

Had Kelly placed both on administrative leave pending review this would be a non-issue. If the entrenched bureaucrats moved the Security Clearance process along, like it should have been and not obstructed, these people would not still have "temporary clearances" and this would have been resolved long ago.

This whole thing is a contrived nothing burger... The meetoo movement is very destructive to all things.. Due Process and being innocent until proven guilty are just one more Constitutional right the left is destroying...

 

[kaz]

Oh....having no conviction makes it alright then.

Depends. If it went to trial and was declared innocent or thrown out for lack of evidence then yes that is how our system works.

Just FYI, there is no "innocent" verdict in courts. There is a "not guilty" verdict. But all that means is you were not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't prove you were actually innocent

True. But we take it as innocent.

If by "we" you mean Democrats who aren't convicted, then that's true.

When a Republican is tried as usual you suddenly grasp it.

Actually, no one who knows anything about the law believes not guilty verdict = innocent verdict. Just Democrats talking about Democrats.

Did you know OJ was successfully sued for millions of dollars after he was declared innocent (sic)? How did that happen? Isn't it Unconstitutional? They found him innocent (sic)!

Our justice system isn’t perfect but it is far better then most and certainly better then the court of public opinion. What are going to do?

Right now a lot of people including Porter have been convicted in the court of public opinion.

All I said is that not guilty does not equal innocent as you ignorantly claimed. Nowhere does that say I disagree with that.

And Porter is not being defended by the media like if he were a Democrat. And you wouldn't care about his beating up his wives either. You're a Democrat. Being a woman is down the list

 

[kaz]

You believe Anita Hill but not Clarence Thomas. Why? She had zero evidence, no witnesses and no other accusers.

Could it be the D after her name and the R after his? By Jove, I believe it could ...

I think it actually might have more to do with being a woman than a Dem. I'm not a Dem.

Why do you people insist on that lame lie?

It just happens that the Democrats are right on every issue. But you're not one of them, you just happen through independent research and self reflection to come to the conclusion they are right every time.

I'm having the same discussion with Moonglow who every time I ask why he's a "Republican" blasts the Republicans. You're a hoot.

Oh, and it just happens through independent research and self reflection the Democrat is always the better candidate, LOL

You some sort of creepy stalker keeping track of my stance on every issue here? No? Then don't keep pushing lies as if you know what you're talking about. I come down on the liberal side of things a lot. Ask any of the real Democrats around here if I'm always with them, though.

Wow, isn't she full of herself. No, just every debate I see you in you're arguing down the line with the Democrats.

So tell me, what Democrats don't you like and what issues are the Democrats wrong about?

You're the one making accusations. You tell me. Back up your horseshit.

I already said, every discussion I see you in you're 100% aligned with the Democrat talking points.

It's hilarious for Democrat moonbats like you and Moonglow that while claiming you're not Democrats, the question what you disagree with absolutely stumps you.

I'd have no trouble at all saying how I'm not a Democrat, a Republican or even a Libertarian even though I'm libertarian and often vote for them.

But OldLady. How am I not a Democrat? Shit, I don't know. How would I know that? LOL

 

[kaz]

Coyote: Here is the difference. Clinton’s accusers had their day in court. If there was a photo of one with a beaten face a police report? That rather changes things.

- You're probably not actually reading the discussion because you seldom do, but I'm anti-Porter and said do. BTW, he hasn't actually had a "day in court," your new standard justifying switching sides based on party
- Juanita Broadderick didn't have a day in court either

Coyote: Was Clinton a womanizer? Yes.
Coyote: Did he harass women? I think so.

- Exactly. Coyote's standard. Is multiple accusers telling the same story proof? Democrat - no. Republican - yes. Even when one of the accusers to the Democrat was a long time supporter and activist
- You also are alibiing the the media for hounding Democrat accusers of Republicans and ignoring the reverse
- I looked at Porter and said photos and multiple accusers, the guy's guilty enough to get fired.
- You look at multiple accusers of a Democrat and say "I think so"

Coyote: Did he rape? Not according to the court.
Coyote: Did he beat women? No evidence of it.

- Rape is worse than beating women. And you made that up, the court never said Slick didn't do it. It never went to court. On harassing women though, he paid almost a million for what he did

Coyote: How about the women accusing Trump?

- Well, I didn't vote for Trump for two reasons. First that he's anti-free trade. Second that he's a pig to women. Again, does kaz have a standard? Yes. Coyote? no, not at all.

As for the more extreme accusations though, unfortunately since we know that Democrats paid Democrats to lie, we'll never really know what's true and what was paid for by Democrats. I still find the accusations disturbing though.

If you actually cared about women, you'd be hysterically angry that Democrats paid women to lie. There is nothing more anti-woman than that. This country is growing deaf to the endless fake accusations of sexual harassment and racism. And that's bad because you're protecting the people out there who are actually guilty

I think Trump and Clinton are the same in regards to women. They are pigs. But pigs aren’t necessarily criminals. That is what what the courts determine.

In regards to Broaddrick there were significant problems with her accounts, recants etc....that makes it a bit hard to take as gospel truth.

Btw you realize the Republicans paid the Clinton accusers court costs don’t you. Does that mean they were paid to lie?

I think you are as biased to the R as you say I am to the D.

Ps if you actually read what I have written on these things you would realize I have a lot of concern for a lack of due process going on in this newfound zero tolerance.

Gotcha, this is why you're such a joke. I'm saying I believe Porter is guilty, I'm glad he got fired and I hope he gets the same back.

You're saying Slick is "probably" guilty of harassment.

What a useless douche

And you said Trumps accusers were lying....hmmmmm

Paying Trumps accusers $750,000.00 dollars doesn't impact credibility...?? Especially when they were investigated and found the accusations were lies. The republican party paid for legal counsel for verified crimes while democrats out right paid them and gave them legal counsel for deceptions...

Funny how now even today, after 16 months, the Trump accusers have NO VERIFIABLE accusations...

Just like the Russia collusion lies, nothing to see and nothing found...

It's hilarious. Coyote says pointing out they got paid is calling them liars. It's OK for Democrats to pay them, but it's not OK to say that they got paid.

And I called her a Democrat hack. Nailed it ...

If Republicans paid people to lie about Obama, what are the chances do you suppose that Coyote would be here defending the people who got paid to make the accusations against Democrats? She's unbelievable. Literally ...

 

[kaz]

Depends. If it went to trial and was declared innocent or thrown out for lack of evidence then yes that is how our system works.

Never even filed, not enough evidence that a crime occurred to bother.

divorce is an ugly business. Ex's often harbor rage and hatred that comes close to the rage and hatred you Communists have toward Trump, a level of insanity induced by feelings of betrayal.

If you have an ex, they probably say some pretty ugly things about you as well.

Typically they say things like you were mentally cruel. They don't produce pictures of you with a black eye and say you beat them supported by another ex-spouse who says you did the same to her.

Also, they typically want money and if they make you unemployable, that's hard to get. If they have children that's also a strong thing to do to their father.

Sure, one accusation I could write off. But two and photos, that's hard to ignore

When I was young and poor, we had a washer that would have the clutch jam. I kept the back off of it so that I could reach the clutch lever to break it free. My ex knew how to do this as well. One night she hit the high voltage box while reaching in and it threw her back, she caught her arm on the sheet metal case and had a severe cut, like 4 layers of stitches over a 6 inch laceration. Obviously paramedics were called via 911.

Years later when we were divorcing, she threatened to use photographs of her arm as proof I had attacked her with a knife. Now my ex is dumb as a rock, and didn't grasp that the paramedics keep records. BUT a photograph of an injury is evidence of absolutely nothing.

I don't know anything about the Porter situation, nor do I much care. I DO care about due process and the direct assault on Western justice that is going on. Guilt or innocence is now a matter of party affiliation and gender, rather than evidence and fact.

Fair enough. If it was one person alone, I'd be a lot more willing to write it off despite the photo. Two is harder to ignore. And I do not believe it's very common to accuse spouses of actual physical assault much less getting two to do it to one guy.

And again, all I'm arguing is it's enough to get him out of his job in the White House. If he married two psychos who'd make that accusation, that says something about his judgment anyway

Except one wife didn’t bring her claim public until the press talked to her. Having arguments with a spouse is normal. We wouldn’t have 50% divorces if it weren’t. What a bunch of sick mther fkrs for pointing fingers.

She didn't say they were "having arguments," she said he hit her