Before snowflakes jump on me about Trump grabbing pu$$y... ALL charges like this should be treated the SAME.

Shut up, you f**king retard. Stop crying that no one is taking you up on your bullshit hypothetical 'offer'.

You are not that stupid to believe that Biden has only one accuser are you?

One Adult now on record plus their are dozens of secret service members wives who can speak of his inappropriate actions at functions and parties including ones held at his home. I havent heard all their stories but i'm sure Joe and those uncontrolled hands and proboscis he calls a nose have created some kind of situation greater than just sniffing and touching. More will get the courage to speak up if you got what you are asking for.

And how are you going to bring the children to testify against Joe or rather to what he has done to them inappropriately in public and one can assume privately if he is so open about things in public?

We have plenty of video evidences of his unwanted maneuvers but we are yet to hear from all the ones not picked up on cameras. Of which it must be assumed that if the dozens caught on camera exist there must be many hundreds not documented.

I will take a grown man interacting with Adults to be a far more acceptable practice than a man who clearly has a thing for girls as young as 6 or 7. Whether any of the alegations regarding adult women are true for Trump or Biden has not been and probably never will be proven.
And you know neither of them would be in any rush to go under oath. Biden is possibly too guilty and even if Trump possibly were he isn't so stupid as to go under oath which would also be Joes stance.

So in your offer do you wish to include the childrens testimonies?
Because if you're interested in the truth of the matters then surely what Joe does to children is far and above more important than what he or Trump may have done to Adults whether consenting or not.

I'm highly suspicious of all this, but sure, bring anyone forward who wants to testify against Biden as long as you're willing to do the same for Trump

Recall that Trump is the only one who has actually been sued in federal court for raping a child.

It's always amazing to me the standard used by snowflakes when they're attacking someone they don't like, versus defending someone they do.

Now you know how we've felt for the past 3 years as the Trump-related scandals have piled and piled.

As for me, I literally proposed putting all accusers and both accuseds under oath. I can't think of a more even-handed solution. If you have a better one, let me know.

I don't need you to tell me how you snowflakes feel... as if I care.

So your solution is to put all accusers under oath. I assume we're not just talking about presidential candidates here, so what about the absolutely insane accusers who piled on during the Kavanaugh hearings? Should every one of those completely insane accusers be heard?

If you believe so, then gawd help us. If not, what is the standard for accusations to be considered valid?

You got lots of explaining to do. If your explanation about how to scale-up the Nordic model to work in a country the size of the US is any indication of what you'll come up with next, then don't even bother.

Yeah: if an accuser is insane, then put her under oath and expose her as the liar she is. Why not? Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I didn't buy that Avenatti client's story whatsoever to begin with, and she wouldn't have done any better in the hot seat.

Do that a few times, and the other lying women out there (if there are any) will slink away.

I already gave you an answer re: the Nordic model. Short version: We have all the expertise those countries do and we wouldn't have to re-invent the wheel. If anything they do doesn't work here for some reason then Canada (large, culturally similar neighboring country) is a good fallback option.

Covid-19, the CARES Act, and the other relief bills have shown that we can implement all sorts of things (paid family leave, expanded unemployment insurance, even "helicopter money") once considered liberal pipe-dreams in a hurry when our feet are to the fire.

So you mean your highly suspicious of cases bought forward on both sides?
I am, but like i said above of Both of these guys they have had accusations made which I dont know of the merits for most of them. And when it's politics it has to be said that elements of power use such accusation to silence and defame their critics.
Once you accept that this is happening then all cases must be looked at in the manner which the laws claim too, Innocent until proven guilty. And this is where we have a big complaint in the present accusation about Biden. It is being excused and Judged without merit by the Media in general when it isn't without merit and more substantial in detail than many cases we have been subjected to in the last years media circuses.
But in regard to the original questioning under oath, why not if you will hear all claims which meet evidentiary minimums in a manner that would be to the standard of the courts system. However, you know it will never happen. It fits in the category of "never talk with police""dont say a thing without representation present" and even when they have evidence dont say anything unless compelled too.

Whoa, you're saying I'm guilty of misdirection? Coming from the master, I'll take that as a supreme compliment!

I think we're going to find more Biden accusers. Where there's smoke, they're fire, hey?

As for Trump's accusers, do you really believe if there was ANYTHING there that the media could use against him, that they would hesitate for even one second to try to take him down? Lots of smoke there, but no fire.

If it were up to me, I'd take you up on what Syd correctly calls your bullshit hypothetical offer. But that's the beauty of hypothetical. The bullshit, well that's nothing special.

So Trump should go under oath but Biden shouldn't? Way to be consistent.

I'd have no problem with Trump under oath if he'd be treated fairly but as the dem's have demonstrated, they'd charge him with perjury for mixing up a date, even though they let Clinton get away with actually committing perjury when he said he never had sex with Monica. That's the result of partisan hackery. We've seen it even before Trump took office. You guys made your bed with your TDS hysteria. Now sleep in it.

Well yeah, since Trump was actually impeached, and has far more sexual assault claims outstanding against him, and is actually the President, he should be the first to go under oath

However, in a gesture of magnanimity I’ve offered you a deal to let you guys have Biden under oath as well so we can put all the conspiracies Giuliani cooked up about him to bed, and hash out this one new sexual assault allegation

Fairness & balance!

Charge him with perjury for mixing up a date? Yeeeeeaaaaaaah that would be the last of his worries

and btw, KF, Trump never ran on character... right? I'm sure you would admit that. But Biden? Yeah, he's trying to run on his character. Too bad his character includes stripping the accused of their rights on college campuses, and claiming to #BelieveAllWomen Well, at least until one of those women we should believe, accuses him.

I've been clear that these charges should be treated the same, meaning fairly, with the presumption of innocence. That applies in this case as well.

You see, KF, unlike Biden, I'm consistent. He's consistent right up until it's not convenient for him.

Have Democrats ever charged someone with perjury for mixing up a date?

If so, who?

Are you aware of who that is in my meme?

The crickets indicate no.

The crickets are going to be chirping, if KF has the stones to reply to what I'm about to post.

KF, any reconsideration in light of recent events? DOJ drops case against Flynn, after FBI notes released, with this notation:

"What is our goal? Truth/admission or to ... get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"

How anyone can defend the FBI under Comey and then McCabe, after seeing agents asking that question, is beyond me. Nice to know that the FBI goes into investigations, trying to trick people into perjuring themselves.

Yeah, sure, nobody is ever railroaded by TDS crazed anti-Trumpers: Comey, Mueller, the FBI, et al, right KF???

The DOJ has become a partisan cesspool under Barr, and this decision is a product of that. But they at least have a shred of decency left.

See: No charges for HRC, Biden(s), Comey, Mueller, McCabe, Page, Strzok, or any number of others whom Trump has taken to Twitter over the past 3+ years to baselessly politically persecute.

Flynn was an unregistered foreign agent and lied to the FBI, but I give him credit for at least cooperating with the subsequent investigation.

Safe to say next up will be Stone, Manafort, etc... All the scalps bagged by Mueller. I guarantee Trump has a mind to pardon these folks regardless, but obviously he would prefer the DOJ to do as much of the dirty work for him as possible, as pardoning is politically costly.

I really expected something a bit more factual from you, KF.

I think you need to grab a beer and get some popcorn when it comes to Comey, Mueller, McCabe, Page, Strzok, or any number of other corrupt sleazeballs whom Trump has taken to Twitter over the past 3+ years to accurately politically persecute.

It's about to become based.

All the scalps bagged by Mueller were for crimes (or 'trumped' up charges) that had nothing to do with Russia collusion. Name one indictment for a Trump campaign staffer, Trump family member, etc., that resulted from the Mueller BOONDOGGLE that has anything to do with Russian collusion. You can't, because there aren't any. Tell that to your loser comrade, Adam Shitless, who I saw lie on TV time after time after time, saying he had proof of Trump colluding with Russia. Where is the proof?

Flynn didn't lie to the FBI, as is clearly evidenced by their notes. They were out to trap him into perjuring himself. And when they succeeded, he knew he had no chance, with not enough money to go up against the FBI, particularly in the form of the Mueller probe and it's deep, deep pockets (and not to mention the fact that they threatened to go after his son... a typical Mueller / Stalinist tactic) so he did what he could. He folded, cooperated and hoped for the best.

Fortunately, Trump is draining the swamp, one swamp rat at a time if need be. And one of the byproducts is the persecution of the innocent comes to an end.

As far as your ridiculous off topic meme, right after the election, when I foolishly believed what I saw from some snowflakes and the media about giving Trump a chance, I thought it was better for the country not to go after HRC. Heck, I was willing to overlook her destroying phones when the FBI tried to get them as physical evidence, using bleach bit on servers that had emails deleted AFTER they were subpoenaed by congress, etc., etc., etc. I was willing to overlook it all. Then the snowflakes, their comrades in the press, and lying sleazeballs like Adam Shift couldn't control their TDS, and went after Trump without giving him that chance. So now I say go after her for her crimes, and if found guilty, yes please, lock her up.

Let's let the facts drive the investigation of this cabal of sleazeballs. Hell, even Comey knew HRC was guilty. I won't post that link for you again, since you obviously choose to ignore all the crimes he listed that she had committed.

Unless the next Democratic administration has the balls to prosecute him once he can no longer hide behind Executive Privilege and the weight of his office

Clinton actually testified. He perjured himself. Congress judged his lie was not worth removing him from office.

But he lost his law license over it and is now forever branded a liar under oath. Otherwise a popular President, this will tarnish his legacy forever.

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

I"m glad you don't care about the sarcasm, KF, because I use it "liberally" when I repl to you.

Now, you're comparing apples to dump trucks, KF, when it comes to this crap about going under oath. Seriously? Go under oath for every claim ever made against him? Many presidents, living and now dead, would still be under oath if that's your standard. But I understand, it's all part of your shifty misdirection meme/reply strategy. So that's nothing new for you. Of course "the GOP", in the form of every legal opinion ever, would not let a sitting president fall into a trap like that. Oh wait, one did...

Democrats would be insane to put a microphone in front of Biden... but since they seem intent on doing so, the only logical conclusion to draw is that they're insane.

If there are any "unresolved sexual assault claims" against Trump, I couldn't find them. Maybe I didn't try hard enough? What little effort I put into it yielded plenty of allegations, but no claims, at least not in how I'm interpreting your intent behind your "claim", which I took to mean there are legal actions taken against him. I guess all those "claims" will be turned into lawsuits once he's out of office, right? I can hear KF chanting now, "lock him up, lock him up, lock him up!"

Just putting Trump under oath for one thing would be a start. I nominate the Ukraine nonsense, and what he's taken to just describing in public as a "perfect call." Not everyone agrees with that: particularly when put in the context of Giuliani & Co.'s months-long pressure campaign.

As for "locking him up" after he leaves: Maybe!

Sitting Presidents can't be indicted per OLC guidance, as we've all come to learn these past 3 years. That doesn't mean they're above the law. Unless, of course, Presidents have the power to pardon themselves, as Trump himself has opined.

So part of me wants to see Trump aggressively investigated and, possibly, prosecuted once the protections of his office and spurious claims of "Executive Privilege" fall away.

On the other hand, prosecuting former Presidents sets a troubling precedent in and of itself. So arguably, either path would damage our Republic in its own way. Really, the damage to our country, the Constitution, and the rule-of-law has been done whatever we do.

Example: Impeachment in the modern era is dead-letter if it means a President doesn't have to testify under oath or even bother to show his face on the Senate floor.

"But the Constitution doesn't say he has to!!!" Yeah. The Constitution leaves a lot of things unstated because it is a tersely-written document. If the Founders could have foreseen how cynical future GOP would be in violating the spirit of the Constitution they would have fleshed out the Senate's responsibilities regarding the Impeachment trial.

Still desperately clinging to that Ukrainian nonsense, hey KF? That horse has been flogged, and your side lost.

I don't know what surprised me the most. Is that after three plus years of Trump being president, that you snowflakes haven't figured out he's playing you, or that you can't learn to understand the way he speaks... meaning you should pay more attention to what he does, than what he says. He's an egotistical blowhard! As Joe Biden would say, "come on man!" We all know it. The fact that you snowflakes can't deal with it is what I find so amusing.

I think Ford set the precedent for NOT prosecuting former presidents. Hell, even Trump followed that doctrine (as applied to former dimocrat presidential candidates / secretaries of state) when he didn't really bother going after HRC.

Yeah, go ahead and trivialize the Constitution, when it suits your snowflake needs. That's snowflake doctrine 101. No foundation upon which beliefs are based. Use the Constitution one way when it suits your political needs, ignore it when it doesn't.

Regarding the Constitution, please explain to me why snowflakes believe a president should be forced to testify, which is a blatant violation of any citizen's 5th amendment rights?