He was saying what you can get away when you’re a star, not what he does when he meets people. But it was in the context of meeting the woman standing just outside.

Democracy is always the alternative. It’s just that we cannot reach it through collectivist calculations and means.

I think that is the key, in the end. Rather than wasting time devising a collectivist system that ought to deliver the rule of the people (an absurdity, as Michels shows), which in practice is oligarchy, the people just need to go rule themselves.

The fact is, he supported Mussolini. If he thought that Mussolini and/or fascism could lead to democracy he was wrong.

Are you suggesting that Trump's autocratic demography delivers democracy?

Many people did. Clearly he was wrong.

I’m suggesting that democracy is impossible where certain organizational structures are concerned, for instance representative government.

Exactly right. Democracy is only achievable outside of representational government. And I do not think we need to go backwards in order to remove the shackles of another’s rule. In the meantime I guess we can pretend it is democracy, protect our “democratic institutions”, and go on as if we’re not serfs for the time being.

You can watch it on video. The woman he was speaking about greets him at the door of the bus.

I don’t, save for its collectivism. Michels did, though. He was in the milieu.

He clearly admits in the first-person what he does. As for grabbing pussy, he’s clearly speaking in the second person. You have neither the incident nor the admission, but you believe both occured.

You can watch it on video directly after he was speaking about her. But I wouldn’t want you to betray your own senses.

Michels was an ardent socialist and believed Fascism would deliver democracy.

Good thinking.

Just to be clear, I didn’t mean they favor oligarchy, but that their organization necessarily tends in that direction, no matter what type of organization they prefer.

It also seems to me that the Republican style of representational government was designed, as it was in the founding fathers of the United States, to forbid the excesses of democracy. Given that many governments since then have styled their governments in the Republican fashion—Union of Soviet Republics, People’s Republic of China, Italian Social Republic—it was almost inevitable that there would be no democracy.

Claim: "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. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

Fact: He does not grab by the pussy the woman he was just talking about.

Cult Members: "He grabs them by the pussy!"

It’s true. I think he is the victim here and my bias is evident. But so is everyone else’s. This includes the DA’s and AG’s in New York and Georgia, or federal prosecutor Jack Smith. You can go on Twitter and observe his anti-Trumpism. It’s political animus all the way down. The difference is I’m not in charge of the law.

My presumption of innocence has yet to be affected by any of the countless, myriad accusations he has received since he came down that escalator. They are using the justice system to engage in lawfare, and the ease with which they can do it makes the system a bloody joke.

I don’t even know what you’re talking about. Perhaps you can show me.

Your nagging is unwanted, Frank. Grow a pair.

There was the claims of the accused, the access Hollywood tape, other accusers, and Trump’s deposition, none of which establish any rape or battery occurred.

Clearly they thought that either a) the evidence of what Trump did didn't satisfy the legal definition of rape or b) the evidence of rape wasn't a "preponderance" of evidence.

What evidence? There was no evidence of either rape or battery. But they went with one and not the other, for whatever reason.

He was talking about the publicist, whom he didn’t grope and kiss directly after his comments.

Clearly the jury disagreed. There was more evidence that he was guilty than there was evidence that Carroll and the others were lying.

They disagreed with her rape accusation. So it’s clear they thought she was lying.

I’m quite aware he lost. But the fact remains there is no evidence of his supposed crimes.

It obviously did, which is nonsense because the access Hollywood tape occurred a decade later and was irrelevant.

It doesn’t mean partial, either.

I guess that’s why they went from rape to battery. It’s just more likely. Utterly bonkers justice system. But thanks for your expertise.

Yes, the sordid fears of a New York judge take precedence over an individual’s right to an impartial jury.

One reason I would have found against him was because he decided not show up. Silence can be used against you in a civil trial. It's hard defending an empty chair.

That seems to be why he lost, not because E. Jean Carrol established anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because it was Donald Trump.

So then why was it not allowed in this case?

Then why would they have voir dire in civil cases?

It would prove that the DNA wasn't Trump's, that it was some other person's DNA.

If you are a lawyer, Hanover, what is your opinion on anonymous juries and the 6th amendment?

As far as I know the judge didn't allow any of it, including the admission of Trump's DNA to compare to the male DNA found on the dress.

It's evidence she doesn't have a case and one of the reasons why we have statute of limitations. She neither remembers the date nor wrote about the episode in her diary.

There was no evidence of any battery, and certainly no rape, like she claims.

She was funded by a democrat mega-donor. She just released a book. The man she hates is running for president. There is plenty of incentives beyond justice for her actions.

Exactly.

You can prove it in court. The scars, the medical records, the witnesses. They’re probably all there. Supposing there is medical malpractice, would you wait 30 years to accuse someone?

I think they were all in on it. None of them can remember the year it happened. The supposed episode never appears in E. Jean Carrol’s diary. None of them spoke about it until 2019. They all hate the man.

It’s not far fetched in clown world.

That’s because I know you cannot name one reason. You don’t have any reason.

Americans have the right to an impartial jury. That’s why during voir dire jurors are often questioned to decide whether they can be fair and impartial. They weren’t in this case, and in an anti-Trump city. It was corrupted from the very beginning.

She didn’t know when the date was, meaning no alibi could be established. They wouldn’t accept Trump’s DNA, despite finding male DNA on the dress. Statute of limitations have long passed. The alleged incident is almost 30 years old and now conveniently starts after Trump mentions his candidacy.

Give me one reason why I should believe any of it.

There is no evidence. Her claims of sexual assault can be discarded along with her accusations of rape. Believing such accusations without evidence says a lot about character.

I have no interest in the sexual lives of politicians. But yeah, the conversations between males can get quite sleazy.

Yeah, pretty funny.