Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Everybody in the USA who is on top of the Trump issues understands he brags all the time.You are changing the timing to imply that permission was granted first, which is contrary to the transcript (and video) of what was said. FPOTUS#45 bragged about kissing and grabbing BEFORE obtaining permission.
WW
Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.
Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.
Trump: Oh, it looks good.
Bush: Come on shorty.
I am curious why you believe the SCOTUS who agreed with the Trump lawyer as you admit but do not agree with the lawyers for Trump?If I hate the woman and like Trump, I'd still go by the strength of the evidence NOT an opinion of that woman.
Yesterday I was in an OP talking about the oral arguments in the ballot removal case. I listened to them and came away with the feeling SCOTUS (not Trump's lawyers) had valid reasons to reject the arguments for removal. My feelings towards Trump didn't factor in. I listened with an open mind and decided for myself what position was the most convincing.
This is how I look at this case. Caroll provided contemporaneous witnesses, 2 women willing to testify to sexual assault by Trump independent from this case. Meaning five people had to perjure themselves to vindicate Trump, only one receiving compensation. Other witnesses who could speak to how it was possible sexual assault in a public place occurred. Witnesses who could speak to her state of mind to not step forward sooner. An expert witness. Plus, a tape that can easily be construed as a confession of this kinds of behavior. A deposition that speaks towards his ambiguous feelings towards sexual assault, and a demonstrable lie he told when he said she "wasn't his type."
Trump gave nothing, besides denials without being subjected to cross-examination.
In my view that's more than enough to determine guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. In fact, if someone steps forward with this within the statute of limitations It's enough to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Can you articulate a reason not dependent on personal incredulity to reject my reasoning?
Please do not stop using Semantics. It is the way one talks to Americans.Semantics.
If you want to play honest, you should answer the bolded question. Otherwise, what you are doing is deflecting by posing a red herring.That is my kind of argument. I appreciate you talking that way.
Let's play honest here. I think the above by you is very honest.
This is a similar case only about Biden. In her case she told her story much more recently. She fled to Russia to be safe.
Is he also guilty?
Tara Reade, pictured in April 2019, accused Joe Biden of sexually harassing and assaulting her in 1993. A former staffer who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault has defected to Moscow, telling state media that she felt “safe” in Russia and would seek citizenship there.May 31, 2023
Woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her ... - CNN
amp.cnn.com
She did as did Carroll. She told women. I won't be shocked if she also told men since you and I are men and we know her story.If you want to play honest, you should answer the bolded question. Otherwise, what you are doing is deflecting by posing a red herring.
So, I'll answer this question but if you can't bring yourself to actually engage my premise we are done.
I don't know what happened with Tara Reade. This is what I do know.
-She changed the nature of her complaint when Biden started running.
-There was no trial. So no cross.
-She renounced her citizenship in favor of the Russian nationality where she now resides. And called a Convicted Russian agent "a friend." Biden accuser Tara Reade bolts US for Russia, saying she fears for her safety
A complicated life and conflicting accounts muddle efforts to understand Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden
As Tara Reade was leaving her job at Joe Biden's Senate office in 1993, she told a close colleague that she believed she was being let go for an unfair reason -- that she was being terminated because of a medical issue she had been dealing with.
None of these things are dispositive. But I'll find it hard to judge Biden guilty by a preponderance of the evidence.
The lawyers for Trump relied on the argument that a president is not an "officer", unconvincing.I am curious why you believe the SCOTUS who agreed with the Trump lawyer as you admit but do not agree with the lawyers for Trump?
I have already predicted what you would find about Reade.If you want to play honest, you should answer the bolded question. Otherwise, what you are doing is deflecting by posing a red herring.
So, I'll answer this question but if you can't bring yourself to actually engage my premise we are done.
I don't know what happened with Tara Reade. This is what I do know.
-She changed the nature of her complaint when Biden started running.
-There was no trial. So no cross.
-She renounced her citizenship in favor of the Russian nationality where she now resides. And called a Convicted Russian agent "a friend." Biden accuser Tara Reade bolts US for Russia, saying she fears for her safety
A complicated life and conflicting accounts muddle efforts to understand Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden
As Tara Reade was leaving her job at Joe Biden's Senate office in 1993, she told a close colleague that she believed she was being let go for an unfair reason -- that she was being terminated because of a medical issue she had been dealing with.
None of these things are dispositive. But I'll find it hard to judge Biden guilty by a preponderance of the evidence.
She should have gone to trial. Carrol didn't change her story. Carrol isn't friends with a Russian agent.She did as did Carroll. She told women. I won't be shocked if she also told men since you and I are men and we know her story.
I have replied to your posit a number of times. What I did did not do for you is to think what you asked is unique and in fact I agreed with you it happens in all court cases. So as my law professor told us all the time it is a matter for the court to decide.
I notice how fast you changed how you think when I brought up Reade. She you are not friendly to as you are to the woman who took 30 years to tell her story in court.
Reade seems as if she should have also taken Biden to court and let truth win out. Do you agree?
Everybody in the USA who is on top of the Trump issues understands he brags all the time.
What did he brag about as to what Mexico would do?
How many times has he claimed he did the greatest? Pick his topics.
Trump said he is a star. And as a star they let him do it. I believe many men have been in situations where the woman was almost begging them for sex.
I heard some of the arguments and am not about to act as if heard all of them. Thanks for telling us your story. Thanks for the bits and pieces of the summary.The lawyers for Trump relied on the argument that a president is not an "officer", unconvincing.
I found the argument that Trump didn't "engage" in an insurrection unconvincing.
The Supreme Court focused in on the notion that giving the states the power to remove a president from the ballot was not historically the intention of section 3. It wasn't the intention to expand the power of the states in elections federally but rather to limit them. They also fixated on the notion that it would create an unworkable situation for them, because they would be forced to instead of interpreting the Constitution, the would be forced to judge the merits of States removing people running for presidents. These are compelling arguments in my view.
The lawyers for Trump relied on the argument that a president is not an "officer", unconvincing.
I found the argument that Trump didn't "engage" in an insurrection unconvincing.
The Supreme Court focused in on the notion that giving the states the power to remove a president from the ballot was not historically the intention of section 3. It wasn't the intention to expand the power of the states in elections federally but rather to limit them. They also fixated on the notion that it would create an unworkable situation for them, because they would be forced to instead of interpreting the Constitution, the would be forced to judge the merits of States removing people running for presidents. These are compelling arguments in my view.
"Get away with it" was the phrase.Irrelevant to the as it was originally presented. That he asks permission and then grabs pussy.
That wasn't what he said.
WW
I did notice that. But I'm fine with choosing practicality over a strict interpretation of the text.Notice there was only ONE question in the 2 hours of questioning that when to the engaged in insurrection question?
I thought it was pretty telling.
WW
Carroll herself explained that women think so many times that women will not be believed when it comes to rape. Biden clearly has not faced trial as has Trump. Biden needs to face trial.She should have gone to trial. Carrol didn't change her story. Carrol isn't friends with a Russian agent.
Nor did you reply to the bolded question. Or replied to my posit. At least not by anything but personal incredulity.
As I said. I'm quitting this game. No point to it.
Asks you want to discuss?Irrelevant to the as it was originally presented. That he asks permission and then grabs pussy.
That wasn't what he said.
WW
What did it tell? I had not heard it all from the start and when the lawyer talking for Trump made a short statement and then Roberts said submitted, it caught me by surprise.Notice there was only ONE question in the 2 hours of questioning that when to the engaged in insurrection question?
I thought it was pretty telling.
WW
What does that mean in all law cases?I did notice that. But I'm fine with choosing practicality over a strict interpretation of the text.
What did it tell? I had not heard it all from the start and when the lawyer talking for Trump made a short statement and then Roberts said submitted, it caught me by surprise.
I just heard him two times. Can you post his actual words?"Get away with it" was the phrase.
That has not cleared up to me. Why would they rule it was an insurrection? I am trying to recall much of what was said and do not recall a case made it was an insurrection!!! Can yo quote that case for us here?Told me they are looking to not have to rule that FPOTUS#45 engaged in or didn't engage in insurrection.
Instead of looking at the merit of what he did, they are looking for a procedural punt.
WW
