This Didn't Age Well For Tom

The only people ignoring their OWN standards are Democrats.

Conservatives, from the beginning, have said "show me the evidence" while Democrats have said "all that matters are the accusations", at least until their candidate is accused.

What you are engaging in here is Whataboutism, it's not highlighting hypocrisy. You need to learn the difference.

As to "morally upstanding" candidates, we ran Romney and liberals trashed him as sexist over a comment regarding "binders full of women". It doesn't matter who Republicans run, Democrats always accuse them of being racist, sexist, bigots. It's amazing, Democrats are the luckiest people on Earth, everyone they run against is a racist.

Standards lose. That's why hypocrisy always wins.

I’ve showed you cartloads of evidence against Trump that you dismissed and ignored, so I’m not convinced by the needle you’re trying to thread here.

If you’re looking for more substantial evidence than a “he-said, she-said” situation, I have bad news for you: That’s all that usually exists.

Christine Blasey-Ford testified against Kavanaugh in front of the Senate with a very plausible story of a nonconsensual upstairs bedroom encounter involving two drunken high school students (one of them Kavanaugh), and was called a liar, a w**re, and worse.

For everyone’s benefit, I’ve attached a signed statement under oath of Jane Doe in the minor rape lawsuit she filed against Trump and Epstein in 2016, then withdrew, citing death threats.

Tara Reade hasn’t testified under oath, but again, Democrats are taking her allegations very seriously: another allegation or two like this, and I bet Biden is done.

Meanwhile, Trump trucks on under the cloud of 20+ allegations, his “grab them by the pussy” comments, and the lawsuit I mentioned.

[image deleted]And you go FULL F**KING RETARD

"I’ve showed you cartloads of evidence against Trump that you dismissed and ignored, so I’m not convinced by the needle you’re trying to thread here.

If you’re looking for more substantial evidence than a “he-said, she-said” situation, I have bad news for you: That’s all that usually exists."

No, no you have not. "He said, she said" doesn't PROVE anything. This simply reality is not debatable.

"Christine Blasey-Ford testified against Kavanaugh in front of the Senate with a very plausible story of a nonconsensual upstairs bedroom encounter involving two drunken high school students (one of them Kavanaugh), and was called a liar, a w**re, and worse."

"Very plausible story"...really. It was so plausible she couldn't remember the place, time or day the alleged incident took place. The other person Ford said witnessed the party, said she had no recollection of any such party. Ford's own father doubts her story. Ford testified in front of a WOMAN criminal prosecutor (Rachel Mitchell) who summarized her findings in a report that said "a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring charges against Kavanaugh."

"For everyone’s benefit, I’ve attached a signed statement under oath of Jane Doe in the minor **pe lawsuit she filed against Trump and Epstein in 2016, then withdrew, citing death threats."

Which proves NOTHING, other than she made a statement. The statement was never investigated or litigated BECAUSE SHE DROPPED THE CASE.

"Tara Reade hasn’t testified under oath, but again, Democrats are taking her allegations very seriously: another allegation or two like this, and I bet Biden is done."

NO. They are absolutely are not taking them seriously. Tom Perez said any candidate or elected official accused of sexual assault should step aside. THAT THE PARTY'S DEFINITION OF TAKING SOMETHING SERIOUSLY. Has that happened? NO.

Further, Nobody has asked Tara Reid to make sworn statements. I don't see Democrats in the House asking to her to appear to make sworn statements, but they were demanding we have hearings over Kavanaugh, weren't they?

"Meanwhile, Trump trucks on under the cloud of 20+ allegations, his “grab them by the pussy” comments, and the lawsuit I mentioned."

UNPROVEN ALLEGATIONS. Fixed it for you.

I am done with you on this. You don't understand the basic difference between exposing hypocrisy and whataboutism, and you don't even try to.

Rachel Mitchell's comments aren't really relevant. No one was ever trying to throw Kavanaugh in jail -- and the SOL for such conduct would have long since passed anyway -- just determine whether he was fit for the highest judicial office in the land. That's the only purpose of SCOTUS confirmation hearings, and the net can and should be cast broadly and deeply. Aspiring lawyers across the country are routinely subject to character & fitness tests and reference-checks, and so should aspiring Supreme Court justices.

Having watched Blasey-Ford's calm and collected Senate floor testimony, and Kavanaugh's angry, tearful, and self-pitying denial of the same, I believe her and I wouldn't judge him fit to be dogcatcher, personally.

But as a practical matter, he still could have gone back to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. He still could have coached his daughter's softball team, or whatever he somehow feared he'd be unable to do. And the GOP could have nominated someone different in his place: perhaps a conservative female judge. That would have been a tactful way to handle it.

But that's not what happened. The GOP Senate rammed him through regardless, in one of the most contentious confirmation votes in our lifetime. A foreshadowing of the GOP Senate's total capitulation in impeachment -- and part of the reason I am completely done with the GOP until they do some profound course-corrections on some of this stuff.

(Side-note: Avenatti's client had a ridiculous story about Kavanaugh that I never paid much mind, and there was a third woman who said something to the effect that Kavanaugh once whipped his dick out at a party in college. But she didn't testify, so I didn't really consider her statement.)

As for the Trump/Biden accusations: None of them have been fully litigated. But the information is public and we still have to decide what to do with them.

FBI statistics suggest only 2-10% of sexual assault claims are false. 20+ stories against Trump, plus his own pussy-grabbing comments, suggest that he is guilty of at least some of the alleged behavior. Tara Reade could be telling the truth as well, but it's less likely than 20+ women making stuff up.

I'll end with a reference to Tiffany Doe, the third-party witness who verifies Jane Doe's story, who described working for Jeffrey Epstein to recruit minor women for parties in a way that is now common knowledge ever since Epstein's death, but wasn't necessarily in 2016 when she made this statement.

Again, we're not talking about convicting Trump, Biden, or Kavanaugh beyond a reasonable doubt. Never have, never will, so I'm not moving any goalposts at all. All we are doing here is assessing their moral character and fitness to serve in the highest positions of our government.

OJ Simpson was acquitted of the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. He was later found responsible for those deaths in a civil trial, applying the "preponderance of evidence" standard. Most people these days believe he did commit those murders. OJ's diligent search for the "real killer" hasn't found any promising leads in the last 25 years. So "innocent until proven guilty" isn't the end of the story. It is more reasonable to use publicly-available information to arrive at one's own informed judgment than to defer to a criminal jury's verdict or the lack thereof.

As for Virginia Roberts Giuffre: Trump didn't have sex with one woman, so therefore he didn't rape all women? Yeah, not buying that.

All it takes is raping one woman of the thousands one has ever encountered in his life to be a rapist. And the Trump-Epstein connections I've discussed here and elsewhere, plus these affidavits, raise a whole lot of suspicion.

"In 2002, in a profile about Epstein in New York Magazine, Trump was quoted as saying, 'I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. 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.'"

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a28320376/jeffrey-epstein-president-trump-connection/

Were you dropped on your head as a kid? Repeatedly?

"Again, we're not talking about convicting Trump, Biden, or Kavanaugh beyond a reasonable doubt."

Where did I say that? I said there is NO EVIDENCE.. In Kavanaugh's case there is SUCH A LACK OF EVIDENCE charges wouldn't even be filed, so he doesn't have to worry about reasonable doubt.

You say "this isn't a trial" (I am obviously paraphrasing) but then you go on to CITE THE OJ MURDER AND CIVIL TRIALS. Are we looking at this a trial or aren't we? If we are not, then what the f**k are you doing? Oh I know, you are obfuscating, again, as usual.

"As for Virginia Roberts Giuffre: Trump didn't have sex with one woman, so therefore he didn't **pe all women? Yeah, not buying that."

Well 1) Thats now what she said. She said "Trump didn't have sex with any girls and 2) You're going back on your own standard of established evidence as Guiffre's statement was made under oath in a trial. So you if you are going to believe one statement under oath, then you must also believe her statement. Unless of course you wish to continue your hypocrisy.

""In 2002, in a profile about Epstein in New York Magazine, Trump was quoted as saying, 'I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. 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.'"

Holy Lord. I see what you are saying now! It's clear as day. Trump admitted to rape in there!!! No wait, he didn't. In fact nothing in there is related to anything about your claim. Its more obfuscation.