To be MeToo or not MeToo

Right because not a single one of the accusations against Trump were suspiciously timed. Same goes with Kavanaugh or any of the other republicans that have been accused in the last 4 years. Totally not suspicious at all that the accusations tend to always pop up in the middle of some sort of election or backlash to election results.

Biden is only running for president.

They just came out about it again when he was running for POTUS because they thought the voters should know what kind of person he is.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12%3famp

So how is this timing not suspicious too?

I’m not even defending Biden I’m just saying your logic is flawed as f**k. Or your a huge hypocrite.

I never said it wasn't. We aren't talking about how Biden is for sure guilty and Trump isn't, we're talking about the double standard people like YOU display. You believe one set of suspiciously timed accusations like they are gospel but when it's your candidate that's been accused suddenly you're all for due process and mimicking the same arguments we've been making for four years. You know, those arguments that you've constantly belittled us for?

I say ALL accusers should come forward and be heard. All accusers of Trump and Biden.

Even if he wanted to he'd have every GOP member blocking the door. Trump testifying about anything is the last thing they want. Look at his press conferences. Lawyers would trigger his dumb ass in like two minutes and he'd be yelling "you can't handle the truth!"

Meanwhile he sees nothing wrong with Biden's actual quid pro quo in Ukraine because he believes the lawyer looking into Berisma was 'doing nothing' so Biden HAD to have him removed.

Alexander Shokin was a corrupt, do-nothing prosecutor. Everyone in the Obama Administration wanted him gone, Biden just delivered the message.

Actual footage of the proper use of foreign aid as a bargaining chip

Foreign aid as a bargaining chip for a foreign country to open up an investigation on a political rival’s son? Nah

I know this shit is a tad more complex than Watergate (breaking and entering, wiretapping) but it’s really not *that* difficult

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

I admit my errors. Politifact just debunked me on the Trump-Ivanka kiss thing.

Are you willing to admit that FactCheck might debunk your thinking on what transpired in Ukraine?

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Read it, engage with it, and stop parroting your talking points for a sec

Or are you just a troll who swallows the Trumpist narrative and has no interest in the truth?

Have you ever seen any evidence whatsoever that Shokin was corrupt? Lefty pukes seem to think that he was corrupt because he didn't investigate the corrupt company that the vp's son worked for. Nothing to see here folks!!!

It wasn't just the Obama Administration as a whole that wanted Shokin gone. It was the E.U., the IMF, folks within the prosecutor's own office: everyone.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Just an excerpt but I encourage you to read the whole thing:

In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.”

In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.

Gee, corrupt organisations wanted him gone? No way!

So what changed after this switch? Did Berisma get hammered and Ukrainian corruption get crushed?

"Corrupt organizations"

All of them? Gee, you are rolling with an awfully expansive definition of a corrupt organization.

Does it include the Trump Administration by chance?

Bahahahahahahahahaha

After all is said and done, with all the scrutiny on Trump, we may find that Trump's administration might be the least corrupt administration we've seen in awhile. Especially if you think, as you probably do, that Obama had a scandal free presidency.

But of course someone like you would figure asking a foreign leader for something you never got is more corrupt than Fast and Furious, IRSgate, actually SPYING on your political rival and his team and using Russian 'intel' to open a baseless investigation into the president, drone striking your own citizens without trial, invading a country under false pretenses, all of Clinton's personal scandals, Iran Contra etc etc

Awww sheeeeeeit. All one has to do is run for office and whatever you did before is null and void. How convenient!

Quid pro quo. Biden did it and received benefit. Trump did not. Imagine believing Biden wanted change because the prosecutor WASN'T investigating his son's company. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA how naive. Berisma's lawyers also apologized to Shokin.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ron-johnson-claims-burisma-linked-firm-apologized-to-ukrainian-gov-for-misinformation-campaign-against-top-prosecutor-shokin/

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

Everyone in the Obama administration? Now I know he was a decent person doing good work!

Nothing scandalous about sending the IRS after your political opponents! I'm actually surprised Trump hasn't used anything other than twitter to go after his detractors. F**king Brennan and Comey should both be in jail for perjury at the very least. I'm not impressed how he hasn't done anything about his supporters being muzzled on social media and on campus. That won't help him come election.

If by "certainty and resolve" you mean poor acting, sure. And I'd like to see you defend yourself from false accusations of that scale in front of the US Congress without getting emotional at all.

I run circles around you every single day on ImgFlip G

Now

As I explained above: if I were guilty of something like that, I’d just withdraw, rather than take the whine and cry about it and hope folks pity me approach

In life you choose your battles

One of us is cracking

Lmao nope, are you afraid I will? I don't typically pollute it with such nonsense

But I just might

Who the hell says "G"?

Our white southern rapping lawyer, Vanilla Square. Cringe as he be spittin' factz!

Had that happened, he'd say he was guilty because he was unemotional and cold.

Okay, I will entertain your ridiculous hypo

If I were ever up for SCOTUS and I'd sexually assaulted someone and they came forward to testify about it, then I’d withdraw my nomination myself before it ever came to that

I wouldn’t risk damaging the credibility of the Court or the Senate just to benefit myself

In this instance, brazening it out turned out to be in the best interests of his career, because the GOP are spineless hacks

But no, had K. withdrawn, he could have still sat on the Court of Appeals, and he still would have have been able to coach his kids

Make America Feel Shame Again

Kavanaugh did what anyone not guilty of an accusation would do. But I can see you gutlessly folding. Sorry lefty political mudslinging didn't work out for you.

I've actually defended folks accused of gender discrimination and sexual misconduct

If I thought my witness was going to act this way on the witness stand, I would settle the damn case

It's just not what you want the jury to see

Good enough for the GOP Senate and the FOX News crowd though: Glenn Beck should be up for the next vacancy

Are you back to pretending you're a lawyer again?

Yeah: In a confirmation hearing, the sole purpose is to decide if the person nominated is fit for the office. Period.

That's a much lower standard than "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "preponderance of the evidence." It's a political judgment. Senators can vote yes, or no, for any reason or no reason at all.

By that standard, Kavanaugh wasn't fit for dogcatcher.

Y'all are really flailing now

The way you are attempting to characterize his actions is just pathetic. He didn't act differently than any one else falsely accused of a crime for political reasons. Maybe your council would be for him to be absolutely without emotion but that's just your opinion on how to sway judge or jury. One day you may see what it's like for your family to be impacted by such slimey tactics.

Talking to these guys about accountability from the president is like talking to a child about mortgages and taxes, they just don't get it and have a mouthful of crayons

"AND THEY LET YOU" (emphasis added) <---that is called CONSENT."

*Only* if you believe what Trump said.

Riddle me this: Does he ever selectively remember situations or spin things in his favor? And at this point, his exonerating explanation has been contradicted by 20+ accusers.

A "he-said, she-said" situation! Really, multiple shes. So: How do we sort this out? There is only one way, through eyewitness testimony and assessment of credibility.

My offer stands to bring all of Trump's 20+ accusers and all of Biden's accusers (1), and get all of them -- and both Trump and Biden as well -- to testify before the Senate so we can sort this out.

Don't wanna do that?

Then you're the one who doesn't care about the truth.

"Innocent until proven guilty"

A feel-good slogan and a cop-out. All cases start somewhere, typically with an accusation. Our justice system is the best in the world, probably: but it isn't perfect and at times doesn't deliver justice.

Riddle me this: Who killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman? Do you accept the jury's verdict in the OJ trial, or do you think it was flawed? Why or why not?

Bottom-line is we need under-oath testimony from Trump's accusers and Trump himself to arrive at a final informed judgment.

Until then? 20+ accusers is what it is. Add that to the pussy-grabbing comments and the porn star payoffs, and he's under a cloud of suspicion.

If everyone on Imgflip gets together and accuses you of murder, I guess you'll be a murderer.

And let's not forget about The Who said she was 13 years old when Trump raped her and sued him along with Jeffrey Epstein back in 2016. Why do you think Repubes are trying so hard to push the ridiculous idea that Hillary suicided Epstein?

https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

This case was dropped. Do more reading.

That's all you have to say?

Challenge accepted bro

http://thememoryhole2.org/blog/doe-v-trump

Paragraph 7 of the Complaint:

7. Plaintiff was subject to acts of **pe, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and threats of death and/or serious bodily injury by the Defendants that took place at several parties during the summer months of 1994. The parties were held by Defendant Epstein at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Epstein at 9 E. 71st St. in Manhattan. During this period, Plaintiff was a minor of age 13 and was legally incapable under New York law of consenting to sexual intercourse and the other sexual contacts detailed herein. NY Penal L § 130.05(3)(a).

Paragraph 9:

9. Plaintiff was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of parties, with other similarly situated minor females, held at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Jeffrey Epstein. At least four of the parties were attended by Defendant Trump. Exhs. A and B. On information and belief, by this time in 1994, Defendant Trump had known Defendant Epstein for seven years (New York, 10/28/02, “’I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,’' Trump booms from a speakerphone. ‘He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life.’”), and knew that Plaintiff was then just 13 years old. Exhs. A and B.

Now...

Bear in mind, it took 100+ accusations against Weinstein and several years of litigation before he was finally found guilty for any of what he did (just a few weeks ago), and even then on only 3 counts.

Prosecuting these kinds of cases to the finish is hard, and there are all sorts of reasons plaintiffs drop cases that don't equal exoneration.

But somehow, most people get through life without being sued in federal court on the allegation of raping 13 year olds.

Trump isn't one of them.

Y'all b hatin'

Game. Set. Match. C**t. Muscle.

The woman who accused Donald Trump of raping her at age 13 has dropped her civil suit against the GOP presidential nominee.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/04/donald-trump-teen-rape-accuser-drops-suit

You either didn't read or are being willfully ignorant again.

I ain't saying Trump is guilty.

I'm saying he was sued in federal court for raping a 13-year-old.

Read my reply if you care to find out why that is still significant.

Nothing about the allegation is significant except for the fact the case was dismissed in California and later dropped by the plaintiff.

As explained to your ignorant ass, we live in a country where the legal system operates under the assumption of innocent until proven guilty.

Lastly, you have no desire to convict those of merely being accused of rape, as we can see from the declining to say Joe Biden is guilty of assault and therefore unfit for office. You only care when a republican is accused.

Biden wasn't my pick. That said, we will have two choices in November: one candidate who's been accused 20+ times (and admitted on tape that he grabs pussies, and paid off pornstars during an election campaign, and has been sued in federal court for raping a 13-year-old) and the other who's been accused once.

None of those claims have been fully litigated, to my knowledge, and they won't be by November, if ever.

I've suggested bringing every accuser of Biden and Trump, and both Biden and Trump, before the Senate and getting them all under oath to testify so we can sort this out. No one has taken me up on that offer.

With imperfect information, based on the above I have to conclude it's more likely Trump engaged in sexual misconduct than Biden.

How can YOU offer to trial all accusers? I have zero problem with all accusers having a chance to make their cases but they should be fined or jailed for lying about it. See how many would make a case with those conditions.

Once again we see you're not concerned with the allegations. That's why you play the game of "well Trump has more".

This is like trying to say "piece of shit A, is less a piece of shit than piece of shit B".

First, you look quite stupid doing this. And secondly, it forfeits your credibility on the issue because you don't actually care about the accusation.

What you don't see here is you are the only one changing your position. Your position and the other liberal morons, was to "believe all women", it wasn't "believe all women if there are more than x number of women". But all of the sudden when the Democrat is accused, you magically are no longer concerned with all women.

Yep, he thinks Kavanaugh wasn't fit for SCOTUS yet he has zero problem with Biden being president and voting for him. And that's after Ford's laughable testimony where even her friends wouldn't back her up on her lies.

One more time

Biden wasn’t my guy. But now it’s Biden vs. Trump. One of them will be President after the next election.

Trump has been accused 20+ times, Biden once.

I want every single accuser to testify under oath, and Trump and Biden as well, so we can sort out their credibility

Still no conservative here has taken me up on that offer.

And that doesn’t happen and we’re forced to vote with imperfect information, then it’s simple math. Trump is more likely to be guilty.

And there actually people who file publicity stunt cases to grab headlines in an election year.

Gee, you're really incapable of grasping this aren't you.

Imagine, if you can, being in the position of a person who's been molested or raped.

Ask yourself whether you'd have the stomach to rush off to tell the police or some lawyer about what you'd just gone through, or if you'd turn somewhere else for comfort first. Or perhaps just try to deny, downplay, or mentally bury the whole experience. Perhaps for a long, long time.

Particularly if this happened to you at the ripe old age of 13.

Those same feelings can resurface even in the middle of a civil (or criminal) suit as one contemplates sitting for a deposition or going in front of a jury, which would of course involve reliving the whole experience in front of strangers, with the very real possibility of being disbelieved, or worse.

Here's a bit more reading if you care.

https://www.csbsju.edu/chp/sexual-assault-survivors-guide#ToReportorNotReport

To Report or Not Report

Sexual assaults are rarely reported. In fact, sexual assault remains the most drastically underreported crime in the U.S. In college, fewer than 5% of completed or attempted rapes are reported to the police. Reporting rates are low for a variety of reasons. A survivor may be uncertain whether what happened was actually sexual assault. Sexual assaults that are committed by acquaintances are often trivialized as “not so bad” because it does not fit the common social understanding of sexual assault. Survivors may think they won’t be believed or may even be blamed by police, courts, and friends. Many victims/survivors find an immediate coping strategy in indulging in the denial that the assault ever occurred in the first place. Without the acknowledgement of the sexual assault, they find temporary relief from their experiences. However, this relief will not last, and will most likely affect their healing in the future. Also, if the assailant was an intimate partner or close friend, victims/survivors may feel torn between their personal violation from the experience and their love for the assailant. They do not want to get their loved one in trouble. Especially in these cases, victims/survivors may feel that they are to blame for the assault, and therefore do not feel validated or entitled to making a report.

F**k your retardation level today is at Mt. Everest levels.

She clearly felt compelled enough to file multiple lawsuits in two states. She obviously wasn't frightened to do that.

The result is what? She ultimately dropped the case.

Once again, apply your standard to Joe Biden if not, shut the f**k up.

https://imgflip.com/i/3u7ryx

Begone, paid troll.

Doing God's work, fren.

Man at least try to stay on topic this time

You got one whole accuser against Biden! Work with that!

To any impartial observer looking at this from the outside, quantities matter

Simple math is why.

FBI statistics suggest only 2-10% of reported sexual assaults are false. That’s not all that many, but it’s enough to not automatically “believe all women.”

Now

If you have a choice between someone who’s been accused once, and someone who’s been accused 20+ times (and has actually bragged about engaging in said conduct)

Then knowing nothing else about the facts of their cases:

Who’s more likely to be guilty, G?

It appears you won't be convinced by any criticism of Trump until he is literally a convict behind bars

Well, sitting presidents can't be indicted so I guess we're done here

More meaningless distinctions without a difference

I've been criticizing Trump this entire time, of course

And the criticism of Trump up for consideration today is that Trump has been accused by 20+ different women of sexual misconduct, in apparent conformity with the statements about women he offered during his hot-mic moment

Mind blown yet?

When they all crawled back under their rocks after their tactics failed, like the Kavanaugh w**res.

Bottom line is the dnc owned lugenpresse didn't ignore the Trump accusers, like the hypocrites they are.

Oh, you don't want to mention how Trump on that 'hot mic' said the gold diggers LET YOU?

I'll leave you to your dv'ed status, shill.

Plus the fact Ford was caught lying multiple times. Was a democrat operative etc. I don't know about how valid this claim is but it certainly illuminates the hypocrisy of the believe all wamen crowd but we could see that coming a mile away.

Or in being on your third marriage

After cheating on wives in the past

Or in paying off said pornstars to conceal bad press in the middle of an election

Or in joking about grabbing women by the pussy

Or in being accused of sexual misconduct by 20+ women in a pattern that appears to confirm said admission of pussy-grabbing

Hmmmm... I dunno man, that train of thought started out okay but kind of went off the rails somewhere

And yet: all I have done is state plainly the beliefs that Trump supporters must hold in order to continue to support him

So now I’ll just sit back and await the flood of upvotes this comment is about to receive

...
...
...

Oh yeah and also you don’t know what admissible evidence is: Trump’s hot-mic moment is what’s known as a “statement against interest” and could also simply be admitted as a statement of the party-opponent

Unless Trump wants to claim Billy Bush was his lawyer and they were chatting about case and therefore attorney-client privilege applies: “Private conversations” have no legal meaning

He could also claim Billy Bush was his spouse and claim spousal privilege, that would be fun

But as the spouse, the privilege would then be Billy Bush’s own choice to assert or waive

Ooh, this is a fun area of law:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.business2community.com/brandviews/avvo/trump-tape-long-history-secret-recordings-01680577/amp

California is a “two-party state”: the consent of both parties is required for a recording to be *lawful.* But! In certain circumstances, courts admit evidence that wasn’t lawfully obtained.

Mind blown yet?

In this case:

Trump said it, he admitted it, he even (rarest of rarieties for Trump) apologized for it: there’s no doubt whatsoever as to the authenticity of the tape.

And if you ever got Trump under oath, and he didn't perjure himself, he would admit to saying what he said.

So, in the totally novel circumstances of a President caught on a hot mic admitting to doing something multiple women have accused him of, where he’s already admitted and apologized for what he said: I am happy to argue against that inevitable Motion to Suppress, G.

But let’s back up for a sec.

Americans looking at this are not trying to throw Trump in jail, or even win a civil judgment against him. We’re just tying to determine his fitness to be President of the United States.

And to that end, all of this is more than sufficient to convict him 1000x over in the court of public opinion.

“The court of public opinion!!!!?!?!?!!” You’ll shriek, no doubt.

Yeah. That’s called politics.

And in a free society, you don’t win elections by locking your opponent up.

You win by showing they’re an asshole.

We’re = Americans

If you’re not assessing Trump’s fitness to be President, then feel free to exclude yourself from that “we”

He's referring to the DNC claiming covid-19 is anything more than a normal flu season event. Which we know now that it is.

I'd just like to say all the accusers against Trump have been proven wrong in courts of law. Many of then were paid by the DNC to make the accusations.
Biden's accuser is a democrat with no ties to Trump or GOP.

I have not heard of a single court case aside from the woman accusing Trump and Epstein of raping her at 13 who dropped the charges after receiving death threats. Even Ivana, his own ex-wife said he raped her when they were married.

How do we know the one accusing Biden wasn't paid? She initially only claimed he made her uncomfortable back when she worked there and he was VP. It wasn't until last month she came out with the sexual assault allegation.

Have any of the claims against Trump actually been litigated in court? Do you know?

Certainly need evidence of a bombshell claim like "paid by the DNC." An actual legitimate source if you can

Cetaceans needed

"Have any of the claims against Trump actually been litigated in court? Do you know?"

Multiple cases were brought in CIVIL COURT. One was thrown out for lack of merit.

Interesting, they were filed in CIVIL COURT, and not CRIMINAL COURT.

Dear Idiot,

Look it up yourself. One case was dismissed. The other woman dropped the charges after the election.

You refusing to look it up doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Its readily available information. There was no settlement made in either case.

Ceteacean still needed

I will just assume you are telling the truth: whatever happened in those cases, it’s still not exonerating

Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove a case of sexual assault, in either civil or criminal court? No, I don’t think you do

But go ahead, join all your friends whining about Biden who’s never been sued once for this shit

You sure know how to drive a pun into the ground.

Trying to find your text in this downvoted mess of a stream. You should feel lucky that they got rid of the comment timer.

"A well-known women’s rights lawyer sought to arrange compensation from donors and tabloid media outlets for women who made or considered making sexual misconduct allegations against Donald Trump during the final months of the 2016 presidential race, according to documents and interviews."

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-lawyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers

LOL...oh so the attorney raising money FOR ACCUSERS says it wasn't to pressure women...are you really this stupid?

She can't pressure SOMEONE she doesn't know...its kinda impossible. How do you pressure anyone with out knowing who to pressure? LOL

Now f**k off back to idiotville. The town needs their biggest idiot.

"Bloom then arranged for a donor to make a larger contribution to help Harth pay off the mortgage on her Queens apartment in New York City. The amount was under $30,000, according to a source directly familiar with Harth’s situation. Public records show Harth’s mortgage was recorded as extinguished on Dec. 19, 2016."

Magical

Yes, I do know allegations against Trump went to civil court. I can research. Feel free to try it.

Here you are, doing it again...you just can't help yourself...you have a disorder

It's a real transcript G

I can't help spitting facts

Once again, you can't help yourself...the facts are he didn't call the virus a hoax...yesterday you admitted it, today you are back repeating a lie you admitted was a lie yesterday...you have a disorder.

This is what he actually said.

I repeat it because it is the truth, and you still haven't gotten it yet.

Pay attention: I am not claiming he called the virus *itself* a hoax. He's not that delusional

I am offering the Feb. 28 transcript as evidence of obviously flawed leadership: that is all

history...it sucks

And you backtrack AGAIN..."It's unclear whether "this" referred to the virus itself"

NO IT IS NOT UNCLEAR...You simply saying its unclear means nothing. Its only unclear to you.

Don't worry. You will flip flog again on the issue with in the next few hours.

Trump never called the virus a hoax. This is beyond debate. Just. Stop. Embarrassing. Yourself.

Obviously you were not right..you said he was talking about coronavirus or both the virus and the faux outrage....he was never discussing the virus, which directly opposes your previous assertion.

"And or" means "either or both of two stated possibilities."

Possibility one = calling the virus a hoax

Possibility two = calling the outrage a hoax

So, it was not option one and it was not both of the stated two possibilities.

You were WRONG!

When his followers are too brain-dead to read into his subtext and believe the whole pandemic is a hoax.

He has a reputation to upkeep.

His leadership is flawed because of a transcript, that you failed to read properly for a month and yeah...