I ain’t saying it for sure happened, but most folks make it through life without being sued for raping 13-year-olds.

"1. Conservatives never seem to remember to apply the “innocent until proven guilty” presumption to the Clintons, Bidens, Obamas, or anyone else they routinely (and sloppily) accuse of illegal conduct."

That's some top notch projection coming from the idiot who literally said yesterday that Kavanaugh was unfit for office over unfounded allegations.

Or the same group of people who accused Trump of colluding with Russia, laundering money for Russians, being peed on by strippers, and God knows other nonsense baseless accusations.

Conservatives have said from the beginning, show us the evidence. Liberals on the other hand forego evidence and demand everyone must believe all women...that is until, a woman accuses a liberal Democrat, then their position magically changes.

Further you can file a lawsuit against any person for any reason in civil court.

And of course it goes without saying "dont tell Kyyylee" but the court case which she/man has referred to has been thrown out long ago and if I recall it was the second court the plaintiff tried filing. In both occurrence it was viewed without merit.

I see he/she has told some of this below. Just not the without merit aspect.

“Show us the evidence”

I agree!

Sworn testimony is evidence. Often, the only kind of evidence that exists in sexual assault cases.

So let’s get Trump, Biden, and all their respective accusers (20+ in Trump’s case, 1 in Biden’s) under oath and in front of the Senate so they can all testify and we can sort out who is most credible.

Who’s with me?

That’s exactly what happened in Kavanaugh’s case: Blasey-Ford testified with certainty and clarity, while Kavanaugh whined, cried, and pitied himself on national TV. I was neutral up until then, and made up my mind there.

You don’t have to believe her, and I know a lot of you don’t (although her allegations of what happened in that upstairs bedroom with a couple drunk highschool boys were damn plausible), but at least we had evidence to judge.

Personally, I don’t think Kavanaugh’s alleged conduct as a high schooler 30+ years ago was enough to disqualify him, but his whining, crying, and (in my opinion) lying about it? Disqualifying on its own.

Now:

Trump has 20+ more accusers than Kavanaugh to contend with. We know what Trump’s already admitted to (“grab them by the pussy”) and how he acts in general. If it ever reached the point of sworn testimony in these claims, I have no doubt Trump would have a meltdown and perjure himself 6 ways to Sunday.

You know it, I know it. And it’s why the GOP Senate wrote the rules so Trump would never have to testify in impeachment.

Ah yes, Impeachment! That was 3 long months ago, but Pepperidge Farms remembers.

And Trump’s tax returns we still haven’t seen.

It all forms the same picture of a law-breaking, obstructionist President, and a GOP that enables him every step of the way.

Once again, we see the display of ignorance and moving goalpost. The number of accusers is irrelevant.

"Sworn testimony is evidence"...no, its not. That's why we have laws around this thing called perjury. You probably have never heard of it. Sworn testimony, is just that, testimony. It is not evidence. But I understand your confusion, being that you were a supposed lawyer and all.

"although her allegations of what happened in that upstairs bedroom with a couple drunk highschool boys were damn plausible"

So plausible in fact that not a single person she listed as a witness could back her claim. She couldn't even remember the location, or date of the alleged incident. Her own father doubts her "plausible claim".

"You know it, I know it. And it’s why the GOP Senate wrote the rules so Trump would never have to testify in impeachment."

That is the Senate's prerogative. They set the rules for Impeachment Trial, just like the House sets the rules for the Investigation, and how they wouldn't let certain questions be asked. So please stop embarrassing yourself.

"And Trump’s tax returns we still haven’t seen." --- And there is NO LAW that say's he has to show them.

"It all forms the same picture of a law-breaking, obstructionist President, and a GOP that enables him every step of the way."

Nope. Not at all. What it shows is, you can't list the laws he broke, or how he obstructed anything by using the legal rights granted to the Executive Branch.

It just shows you are an idiot, who should have stuck to allegedly running the social media campaign for a nobody d-list signer.

Sworn testimony is evidence, period. The entire point of putting witnesses under oath is to make their statements admissible as evidence and therefore able to be considered by a jury.

Go ahead and try to cite me any source that says sworn testimony isn’t evidence. I’ll wait.

The fact you’d make such a glaring error proves you’re pulling stuff out of your ass.

Anyway

The rest of your arguments boil down to an attempt to justify the Trump Administration’s holistic obstruction of congressional subpoenas.

The GOP-controlled Senate was indeed allowed to set the rules, and they chose to call a grand total of zero witnesses. Hilariously, not even Hunter or Joe Biden. Perhaps because the adults in the room knew Giuliani & Co.’s attempts to kick up dust on them were bullshit.

Indeed, the Constitution does not mandate that the President testify in impeachment, or indeed even show his face on the Senate floor at his own impeachment trial.

Perhaps the Founders simply didn’t think it necessary to include such an obvious provision.

Anyway, since that’s the position you’ve taken, I’ll look forward to the next time the GOP wants to impeach a Democratic President for literally anything, and see how you folks kick and scream at the ridiculous precedent you’ve established when the shoe is on the other foot.

This joke of an impeachment trial has empowered the Executive Branch like nothing else in recent memory.

Finally, Kylie is gorgeous, talented, and one of the most internationally successful pop stars ever. America’s failure to recognize that is not my problem.

"Sworn testimony is evidence, period. The entire point of putting witnesses under oath is to make their statements admissible as evidence and therefore able to be considered by a jury."

It is not automatically deemed the TRUTH, nor does it prove anything. Its merely statements made under Oath!

For instance Bill Clinton was charged with perjury because he made STATEMENTS UNDER OATH that were not true.

Its quite clear, testimony is testimony and evidence is used to substantiate testimony. Otherwise its merely one word of one person against the word of another person. For instance, I say under oath you assaulted me. I have no evidence to substantiate my allegation. You say under oath, I did not assault you. Do you get it now?

"The rest of your arguments boil down to an attempt to justify the Trump Administration’s holistic obstruction of congressional subpoenas."

Holistic obstruction of congressional subpoenas? What? The Trump Administration sought LEGAL remediation. This is not "obstruction", its their legal right. They asked for the courts to decide the issue, which is the purpose of the judicial branch, to mediate disputes between the Executive and Legislative Branches.

"The GOP-controlled Senate was indeed allowed to set the rules, and they chose to call a grand total of zero witnesses."

Again, that is the prerogative of the Senate. Nothing about it is illegal or unconstitutional.

"Indeed, the Constitution does not mandate that the President testify in impeachment, or indeed even show his face on the Senate floor at his own impeachment trial."

HAHAHA...so you here are in all your soy-boy glory, admitting that Trump didn't act outside the bounds of the constitution. Awesome. But don't worry. I am sure you will flip flop on this issue as well.

"Finally, Kylie is gorgeous, talented, and one of the most internationally successful pop stars ever."

Like everything else in this crap basket of a response, is just your subjective analysis. But at least you're on a topic that is more your speed and outside the realm of constitutional law.

Nice job taking out the trash. Make sure to wash your hands.

Lol, at least you have apparently conceded sworn testimony is evidence.

Better, but still flawed.

In U.S. v. Nixon (1974), SCOTUS unanimously ruled that Nixon could not claim executive privilege over the Watergate tapes and had to turn them over. He resigned shortly thereafter. This is the best precedent we have for something like this.

When it came to the subpoenas, the Trump Administration had no leg to stand on opposing them. They went to the courts anyway in a tactic to stall out the clock and it worked.

Democrats chose not to battle it out in the courts, which would have taken months and dragged into election season. Which would have resulted in predictable cries of seeking to steal the 2020 election by other means.

Perhaps Dems should have done so anyway, but that’s Monday-morning quarterbacking. The holistic Executive Privilege claims are spurious and the Trump Administration should know that.

Don’t answer congressional subpoenas? Won’t put your witnesses on the stand? That’s obstruction, and Congress has the power under the Constitution to determine that, with or without the judicial branch’s help.

The GOP Senate is now on record being okay with that obstruction.

No leg to stand on? Except for the Obama administration and Eric Holder refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas related to their investigation involving the Fast and Furious gun running program.

Secondly you are comparing subpoenas to compel a person in the employ of the Executive Branch to appear before Congress with subpoenas for MATERIAL.

" Democrats chose not to battle it out in the courts, which would have taken months and dragged into election season. Which would have resulted in predictable cries of seeking to steal the 2020 election by other means."

Oh look folks, along with managing social media accounts, Kyliefan is also a fortune teller. And you know that's why Democrats chose not to go to court? They told you this? Probably not. Instead, Democrats chose to cut crimes out of whole cloth that don't exist.

"Don’t answer congressional subpoenas? Won’t put your witnesses on the stand?"

Wrong. That's why we have the separation of Powers. So one branch is not beholden to another, and in this case it is the purpose of the Judicial branch to mediate the dispute.

Now, please go back to working for Kylie, we know the DNC does not pay you for this Idiocy.

The usual caveats to this stuff apply: “Innocent until proven guilty,” etc., and I note the suit was voluntarily dropped by the Jane Doe plaintiff.

And yet: Damn.

I repost this for two main reasons:

1. Conservatives never seem to remember to apply the “innocent until proven guilty” presumption to the Clintons, Bidens, Obamas, or anyone else they routinely (and sloppily) accuse of illegal conduct.

2. Plaintiffs withdraw suits for all sorts of reasons that don’t equal exoneration for the defendant. Up to and including being intimidated to drop the suit, mafioso-style, which is in fact an allegation in the Complaint.

I posted the link where you can access the all the pleadings in the case, and highlighted a couple of the key paragraphs from the Complaint, here:

imgflip.com/i/3wnmq2#com4422111

TwoWayMirror has also analyzed the suit a bit over here: imgflip.com/i/3wrgfj

Sexual misconduct claims by their nature are rarely conclusively proven or disproven.

But... big if true. Big if true.

Dropped by plaintiff, plaintiff was told without merit.