In a civil case involving a claim for relief based on a party’s alleged sexual assault or child molestation, the court may admit evidence that the party committed any other sexual assault or child molestation.

The access Hollywood tape is not evidence he committed sexual assault.

In the recording, Trump states that he ‘moved on’ a woman named Nancy ‘like a bitch,’ that he ‘tried to fuck her.’” As summarized by the district court, Trump also says “that he just starts kissing beautiful women, he does not first obtain consent, that the women just let one do it when one is a ‘star,’ and that a ‘star’ can ‘grab’ beautiful women by their genitals or do anything the ‘star’ wants.”

Classic contextomy. You quote that he moved on Nancy O’Dell “like a bitch” but leave out the clause immediately after “but I couldn’t get there.” Of course, Nancy O’Dell didn’t describe any assault during the encounter. This is because taking someone furniture shopping is not sexual assault in the real world.

You quote “grab” and “star”, and fill in the blanks in-between, but leave out “they let you do it”. There is no evidence of assault in the tape at all. The summary from the court is stupid.

You make no attempts at objectivity, just fallacy, propaganda, and projection.

It's bizarre that you ignore the fact that Trump sexually abused Carol and defamed her, and deflect by obsessing on a crime that Trump was not found liable for. Unable to face the facts about your idol?

What evidence do you have that Trump assaulted Carroll? DNA? Video? Admission of guilt? It’s bizarre that you can believe someone committed a crime without evidence. Unable to ignore the facts about your folk devil?

You're quick to judgement on the judge, who did nothing wrong and displayed no blatant bias even in the context of daily attacks by Trump during the trial. Do you just accept everything Trump says?

It matters because it's relevant to what Stephanopolous said. ABC would probably have won the case, although it would have raised Trump's ire and led to his retaliation.

That’s false, he allowed the access Hollywood tape into evidence. He coached the witness. He scolded the defense. He tried to say her claim was “substantively true” when it was not. Did the jury believe the plaintiffs claims of rape or no? The answer is no, and no amount of gymnastics is going to change that.

You're ignoring reality. She proved Trump sexually abused her and defamed her on multiple occasions. The jury felt that rape (as defined in NY criminal code) was not proven, but neither did they judge that it was DISproven.

How did she prove it? You tell me and we’ll see who is ignoring reality.

A special prosecutor can be appointed to take over the case.

What special prosecutor will take up a case brought by a corrupt political prosecutor? An idiot would, no doubt.

You Trumpists are the ones splitting hairs. Here's what Judge Kaplan said:

I don’t care what the anti-Trump judge said. It’s right there in the verdict form.

“Did Ms.Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

Mr. Trump raped Ms Carroll?

No”

Carrol couldn’t prove her one accusation. This is a corrupt case from top to bottom.

Another technicality that has zero bearing on Trump's guilt in the crimes for which he was indicted.

Jack Smith will be out of a job soon. I wonder if Georgia will make him an offer.

Sure it does. She was the one prosecuting him. The appearance of impropriety clouds her prosecutorial decisions, leaving the prosecution itself in doubt.

It’s “sexual abuse”. You just can’t help yourself.

Yikes. It looks like anti-Trumpism can’t help itself. The question is: do they believe their own lies, or is lying a principle of their ideology? In any case, a very expensive choice of words.

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos was repeatedly warned not to use word ‘rape’ by producer — but said it anyway: sources

https://nypost.com/2024/12/18/media/abc-parent-disney-didnt-think-it-would-beat-trump-in-court-report/

Looks like Fani Willis was disqualified from prosecuting the president. She wanted to make a name for herself but ended up dragging her legacy through the proverbial mud.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/19/politics/fani-willis-donald-trump-georgia/index.html

The problems you mention doesn’t entail a flight to the Americas and being trafficked through the Darién Gap to the United States and Canada.

Migration has many causes, overpopulation, war, even bad weather. As climate change ramps up, so does the surge of migrants. The US will need to accept even more. Canada has so much wide open space, it can take even more than the

The government of Canada recently decided to freeze its disastrous immigration policies because it can’t keep up with the effects. The cost of living is unsustainable. Getting healthcare means an 8-hour wait in ER. Senior tax-payers are barely scraping by on their meagre state pensions amid rising costs. Everything is taxed to shit. Migrants might fare better fixing their own countries.

Kamala surrogates: “There is no crisis at the border”.

Analysis: Recent Immigration Surge Has Been Largest in U.S. History

The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in U.S. history, surpassing the great immigration boom of the late 1800s and early 1900s, according to a New York Times analysis of government data.

Annual net migration — the number of people coming to the country minus the number leaving — averaged 2.4 million people from 2021 to 2023, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people.

That’s a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic, when millions of Europeans came to the United States. Even after taking into account today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the most rapid since at least 1850.

The numbers in the Times analysis include both legal and illegal immigration. About 60 percent of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization, according to a Goldman Sachs report based on government data.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/11/briefing/us-immigration-surge.html

See ya.

Oh hello.

It’s an apt metaphor, in my book.

Watch the rats cut and run. It’s glorious.

Biden White House Is Discussing Preemptive Pardons for Those in Trump’s Crosshairs

The deliberations touch on pardoning those currently in office, elected and appointed, as well as former officials who’ve angered Trump and his loyalists.

Those who could face exposure include such members of Congress’ Jan. 6 Committee as Sen.-elect Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former GOP Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming. Trump has previously said Cheney “should go to Jail along with the rest of the Unselect Committee!” Also mentioned by Biden’s aides for a pardon is Anthony Fauci, the former head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who became a lightning rod for criticism from the right during the Covid-19 pandemic.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/04/biden-white-house-pardons-00192610

That’s your problem: you imagine. You read a story like this then immediately predict the future with some degree of anti-Trump confidence. But the one-sided story they served you leads you to believe this is the only option they’re considering. You did not give a link to the article, so I am unable to read further, but the administration is clearly looking to tackle a problem that until now seemed insoluble. Instead of predicting some dire future, maybe use your imagination to help them out, come up with different ideas that aren’t as weak and ineffectual as every other administration that hasn’t been able to do squat.

I’ve only ever accused people of being trapped in something like a moral panic. I do not believe they’re deranged, even if their behaviors may exhibit otherwise. They are responding to an exaggeration or distortion of a threat via mass media. Your story about the meeting, for example, quotes maybe two sentences, and from this small inkling of information you go on to imagine innocents being droned in their houses. That’s all it takes.

No @NOS4A2, just stop and think about this one for a while: It's impossible for ANY President to perform at the same time of 1) tackling all the crises that land on the desk of the POTUS daily, 2) of doing the obligatory functions of the executive, 3) leading foreign policy, 4) leading trade and economic policy (and the trade wars), 5) leading all other policies and 6) implement radical reforms. And then is the work of getting all the contributions to the next elections.

If anyone can be close to doing all that it is a workaholic like Trump. His deluded haters just won’t give him a chance. I mean, this is a great opportunity for them: if he does horribly it will tarnish and discredit MAGA into the future.

Yes, and that's the kind of lawyer Kash Patel is and that's why he is Trump's pick. Doing lawyer stuff as an aide for Nunez etc. Yet Kash hasn't lead anything larger than a small team of lawyers and tried to find the "mole" inside the White House. Oh but you think Kash Patel will do fine by leading an organization of 37 000 policemen? Oh, any lawyer can do that, right? After all that rhetoric of going against the real gangsters inside the FBI.

I do indeed think he’ll do fine. There is no indication he’ll do otherwise except with the weird fortune-telling that goes on with appointments like these. He’s uniquely qualified. Many directors are lawyers. Hell, Rod Rosenstein, Gina Haspel, and Christopher Wray all work for the same incestuous lawfirm. Few of them were prosecutors, defenders, and intelligence officials.

No, Comey's stupidity comes from not understanding what kind of person Trump is. When Trump asked him for loyalty, he would simply have said to be loyal to the President of the US and then veer the discussion to something like Trump likes, like how kick-ass FBI agents the bureau has and Trump should come to see them, it would be a perfect photo op for the Prez.

His stupidity was Trump’s fault!!! Of course it was. Everything is Trump’s fault in anti-Trumpism. Just yesterday some press were saying Biden flip-flopped on Hunter’s pardon because of Trump. My guess is we’ll be studying this phenomenon well into the future.

Look, the administration could do horribly, and if that happens it will be obvious, but I’m not going to listen to the most deluded predictions from the press or otherwise.

No wonder he couldn’t get everything done that he wanted to. It’s difficult to run a country with the ceaseless disruptions from all branches of government and the fourth estate. His own DOJ believed in a conspiracy theory that embroiled the government in insubordination, from top to bottom, for years. The impeachments, the insubordination, the riots, a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic, hindered and stifled the efforts of the executive branch throughout his entire administration. So I forgive any and all failures.

It was Patel’s work on the so-called Nunes memo that broke the scandal wide open, and was later confirmed by the Inspector General’s report and the Durham investigation. The DOJ, along with Ray, claimed the release of the memo to be “reckless”. It turns out it was right all along; the FBI was reckless, incompetent, grossly negligent. They failed to uphold their one mission, to maintain a strict fidelity of the law, and it’s clear they just didn’t want anyone to find out the truth.

Yes, at least Fox News makes him to be well suited for the job. He also sells Trump shirts, btw.
So he was a NSC staffer there, but I think his breakthrough, if I remember correctly, was writing or assisting on writing the Nunes memo. Interestingly it was Carter Page that made me first surprised, because Page was the first American ever to say that Ukraine was an artificial state (and hence talked the Kremlin line). Then Patel was active in Ukraine when Trump was looking ways to get Biden. So basically he's a minion that Trump wants to have around.

The stupidest argument is that he is a “loyalist”, which implies an executive branch employee should be an insubordinate to his boss like Alexander Vindman and James Comey and Mark Milley. That’s not how a chain of command works in any functioning democracy, I’m afraid. The president is supposed to be the highest representative of the people, and if his staff are disloyal to him they are disloyal to the people.

So what failure did Trump do with the current FBI director, that he himself appointed? Comey or McCabe aren't replaced here, but Christopher Wray, a Trump appointee.

What is his wild incompetency? That he didn't deliver an "October Surprise" like Comey did with reopening the Hillary Clinton investigation and didn't go after Biden, his boss, with similar investigations? Not MAGA enough for you?

This is just bullshit. You really think you are rooting for someone like Patel to "drain the swamp", go against the Deep State? Nothing like that is happening here. Everything is just partisan politics and a power grab disguised in "fighting the Deep State". But people fall for it, just like they have fallen over every time to think that Republicans will make the Government smaller. Trump made it very clear what kind of a FBI director he really wants: a loyal Herbert Hoover that will go after Trump's own enemies.

It’s an absurd assessment. “Nothing like that is happening here”? Of course not, they’re not even in power yet.

Your unmitigated fears are not based on much, ssu. Again, your experienced directors have been proven incompetent, and numerous investigations and whistleblowers has proven the FBI in need of serious reform. What defenders of these institutions keep falling for is that these agencies are above reform, above the law, in no need of systemic change. That has proven to be false.

Joe Biden pardons his son, despite claiming many times he never would. Every time he uttered “no one is above the law” was a lie. What a legacy.

Dismissing Patel because of his lack of experience is silly because his experience includes serving as a U.S. National Security Council official, senior advisor to the acting Director of National Intelligence, and chief of staff to the acting United States secretary of defense.

Besides, all of your experienced directors like McCabe and Comey have been proven by investigations to be wildly incompetent, biased, and unable to abide by a strict fidelity to the law. The organizations and investigations they ran displayed “gross incompetence and negligence”.

The author of the Atlantic article, too, tried to make fun of him for writing a children’s book, implying he ought to have used government as a springboard to jobs at Raytheon and Boeing. I’d rather a man who wrote a children’s book to have control of these decrepit agencies than any number of the career, unelected bureaucrats using their office to further their own financial future.

At any rate, I’ll do as I always do and save your predictions for when they undoubtedly miss the mark.

“If I am to be denied any rights in the next four (or more) years, I will not give them up without a fight,” said Lydia Echols, 28, a Texas woman making plans for a bilateral salpingectomy — a procedure in which her fallopian tubes will be removed.

An unidentified 39-year-old who had just gotten the procedure told the outlet that she felt she had no choice after the election results.

“I am not happy that I felt forced into a surgery I did not want to alter my body, I feel like the election tied my hands and forced me to be sterilized — that is horrible.”

You can tell people are scared of getting exposed by Patel. The best part is the writer for that rag cannot even name something Kash has done wrong, just that deep-state stoolies like Barr and Haspel were scared of him. Good.

It’s just not true that Patel has no plan, because he wrote a whole book describing it. I can list for you some of his ideas for reform if you like, at least so you don’t continue through life spreading deep-state misinformation.

For the FBI in particular, his plans consist of the following.

• move the FBI office out of Washington.
• Cut the general counsel office

For all such agencies:

• Aggressive congressional oversight.
• prosecute leakers
• Civil service reform.
• seek trials outside of DC
• Reform the FISA court.
• Create a permanent declassification office

There’s much more, and I can expound on them if you like. Then we can discuss the merits and demerits of these ideas should you be interested.

But keeping you ignorant, blind and loyal is how these people control you, ssu. Venture outside the bubble now and again.

Smith’s October suprise”. I do not need to read a dismissed case from an unlawful special counsel who puts out a motion in violation of DOJ’s own rules in order to criticize it. It is exactly as every investigation into Trump has ever been hitherto, little more than a list of word and thought-crimes imagined in the head of a fevered anti-Trump prosecutor, all while presuming to know Trump’s thoughts, desires, and feelings in an assumption of guilt. It’s clear they didn’t like what the president said and believed, or that he didn’t comply lock step with their own judgements, so they thread a one-sided story without the benefit of any defense in order to influence an election. As such it can serve as nothing more than opposition research, a conspiracy theory, like every investigation before it. That’s all it will ever be.

To me it is neither wrong nor immoral to contest or dispute an election if one believes it was stolen. I believe it is both right and good to want to get to the bottom of it.

As for the Truth post, it’s a great one. The fevered, conspiratorial, and reactionary forces weaponizing the justice system and the media warrant precisely such an insult. Their actions warrant far more than a Truth post, in my opinion, and I hope they get their comeuppance.

Trump’s best pick yet.

I would argue that individualism has not yet caught on. No one even knows what it means, because its principles have hardly been expressed or advocated in the historical record. If they have, then it was forever against the dominant collectivist ideologies that imprisoned them, or used as a snarl-word from communists, fascists, and arch-conservatives wherever anyone spoke of freedom. At any rate, not a single individualistic principle has been codified in any modern system.

Even though the 20th century may have proven the collectivist project evil and wrong, the species has been sat upon and inundated for millennia with the teachings and actions of it, and the interventions of its avatars. Because of this long history it is still regnant in the language, hearts, and minds of most, including in Western democracies.

But, like your author implies, there is reason to hope we are progressing in the proper direction.

They make excuses that Martin was referring to this or that, and Carroll simply forgot about her outside funding, that they were not scheming to get Trump despite using the word “scheme”.

“Relevant in establishing his character”. Again, not a single fact to support your beliefs and claims, in contradiction to everything you say.

Emails showing the two wanted to scheme and do their patriotic duty in reference to Trump are facts. And another fact is an email from Martin to someone else stating about Carroll: “It’s too hyperbolic. Too much celebratory stuff over something that hasn’t really happened. She said next she’s gonna sue T when adult victims of rape law is passed in new York State or something. WTF.” These are “established facts”, as you call them. What facts do you have? None.

Yes much unrelated evidence was submitted, none of which have been proven. And that’s all you have is unproven allegations and irrelevant recordings.

I don’t care what I appear like to anti-Trjmpists, especially because you have no evidence for what you claim is a fact.

You're making excuses. The litigation was funded, not the allegation and witnesses.

And then there’s the emails between Jean Carroll and her friend Carol Martin, one of the two women who corroborated her story. Emailing Carrol, Martin wrote in 2017 in reference to a Trump article:

“This has to stop. As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."

“TOTALLY!!!,” wrote Carroll. “I have something special for you when we meet."

This is shortly before she starts writing her book accusing Trump. Martin later said “scheme” was a reference to supporting Democratic party causes. Right.

You have poor understanding of both the law and epistemology. Legally, it would be absurd to avoid prosecuting cases that lacked thoroughly conclusive evidence - like DNA or video. It is legally correct, and morally fair, for a jury to pass judgement based on a preponderance of evidence. It is also reasonable epistemology to conclude that the evidence shows it more likely than not, that Trump committed the act. I asked you to provide a basis for considering Trump's denial to be credible. You obviously had nothing. This was a case of 3 women vs one habitual liar with a history of immoral behavior.

I don’t care what you think because it’s uninformed and one-sided. You have zero facts while claiming his alleged assault was a fact. This is your “reasonable epistemology”: accept any accusations of the political opponents of Donald Trump. Do away with the statute of limitations so you can punish people for allegations from a quarter of a century ago, where any and all evidence against the allegations have been lost. Your understanding of law and epistemology is to get rid of legal statutes so you can get the verdict you like.

Focusing on a single action can never suffice;it is the collective set of activities that establish his crime. The superceding indictment (here) outlines the case. Read it, then get back to me.

You’re sure he’s committed a crime but cannot name a criminal act.

ROFL! A victim would obviously hate her attacker, and so would her confidants. Does that mean their testimony shouldn't be considered? Trump alleged she was politically motivated based on hearsay (someone, he didn't remember who, told him Carroll was a Hillary supporter and was "political"), so of course - you treat that as established fact. However, her article alleging the assault was published in June 2019, rather late for a political hit job for the 2016 election.

On what grounds do you give credibility to Trump's denial? You know he lies all the time; and nearly every criminal claims they're innocent.

I said “politically-funded”. I treat this as established fact because it is established fact. It appears you’re not even aware of this, among others, once again deflecting to something unrelated. Neither was Carrol, apparently, because she lied and said she did not receive outside funding. Once it was revealed that she did in fact receive outside funding, her lawyer claimed she forgot. In other words, she could not remember that someone else was funding her lawsuit, but in your mind is credible enough to accuse someone of an event from 30 years ago—as far as we know because she can’t even remember the year it happened—long past the statute of limitations for your so-called crime.

Why does it matter that it's appealed? The facts speak for themselves, irrespective of whether or not Carroll will receive a payout from Trump.

The appeal matters because he did not get a fair trial. The facts do not speak for themselves because you haven’t given a single fact. DNA, video, an entry in her diary, witnesses, medical examinations—you’ve given no such thing while claiming otherwise.

He was within his legal rights to file those 63 court cases that he lost, and to ask for recounts. It's illegal to try to overturn an election through fraud, which is what he tried to do after losing those court cases.A nexus of his election fraud case is his many lies about election fraud, a lie you said you don't care about.

What fraud? You keeping making accusations or otherwise repeating them, but then leave it there. I just want to read one action he took that constitutes fraud according to you.

The primary evidence is the testimony of E. Jeane Carroll, and the two women she confided in just after it occurred. So it's the word of 3 women, who a jury judged to be credible, against that of a man who routinely tells self-serving lies, including the lie that Carroll wasn't "his type" - during a deposition, he misidentified a picture of Carroll as his wife.

On the Access Hollywood recording, Trump bragged that as a celebrity - he could get away with grabbing women by "the pussy". He doubled down on this during his deposition. This is among the reasons to believe Trump has no moral compunction against doing what he was accused of.

The politically-funded words of a batch of Trump haters and an unrelated recording 10 years removed from the alleged event is your evidence. Your “crime” is a civil case still under appeal. That’s it.

The appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the special counsel statutes remain binding within their jurisdictions, while Canon's ruling is binding on no court (not even her own). Thomas' comment also has no bearing because it was not part of a majority opinion.

Regardless, whether or not SCOTUS would overturn the statutes is a red herring; it has zero bearing on Trump's guilt or of the ability of DOJ to prosecute with staff already employed. The AG has the authority to hire people, so he could easily get around Canon's issue if he chose to do so (I mentioned this before, but -as usual- you ignored it).

You can mention it a thousand times. The AG doesn’t have the authority to hire special counsels. As usual you skirt around the arguments and simply repeat your conclusions, or at least the conclusions you’re taught to repeat.

The changes were legal, but they indeed helped Democratic turnout- and this may have helped them win. Likewise, Russia's assistance may have helped Trump win in 2016. Both issues are moot, and have no bearing on Trump's attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election.

There is no law against contesting an election.

The most straightforward is the sexual assault case. I pointed you at the jury's ruling. They found him liable for sexual assault and defamation against the woman he assaulted.

What evidence do you have that Trump committed sexual assault?

She didn’t claim, she ruled. And you cannot tell me why she’s wrong. Her argument’s, Justice Thomas’ arguments, and former attorney general Edwin Meese’s arguments forever remain untouched by your criticism.

I don’t care what Trump said about the 2020 election. The massive changes to the way people vote warrant scepticism. Besides, all of it pales in comparison to the massive fraud perpetrated against the American people (and indeed, the world) in the 2016 election and beyond.

Tell me in your own words one criminal act Trump committed. Pointing me to some anti-Trump publication just doesn’t work anymore.

He was unlawfully appointed and illegally funded. Your lie is ludicrous because it was on this basis that his classified documents case was dismissed. I never said he was guilty of some crime.

What crime did Trump commit again?

A historical nothing-burger put out by an unlawful counsel before an election. It’s a good reminder of the DOJ’s election interference.

Jack Smith said he wanted American people to have the benefit of his evidence for the election. Well, the jury decided, and no one cared about any of it.

Sure they will. They had years to do it. What’s another four?

Hilarious. A waste of money and a perversion of justice. A witch hunt, a hoax, a scam on Americans.

With D.C. case dismissed, Trump is no longer under federal indictment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/25/trump-cases-motion-to-dismiss-jack-smith/

Speaking as someone who has studied physics, when I first saw the argument, I thought it was obvious that nature was "determined" by the laws of physics. All natural laws described by physics prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics are deterministic laws. You can take the equations of parabolic motion taught in high school as an example. If you know the initial conditions of the ball, then you know when and where it will end up.

How does physics, or natural laws described by physics, determine your actions? Do equations of some law of motion decide which direction you will walk, for example?

Note the passive voice: everything in nature is determined. Determined by what? If human behavior is determined then it needs to be determined by something other than ourselves, or else it is determined by us, which entails free will.

To get around this determinists often posit an abstraction of ourselves to be the determiner of our actions. But it's just a roundabout way to say we determine our actions. For example, if our behavior is determined by our "emotional responses", then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our emotional responses. If it is determined by neurons, then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our neurons. If it is determined by a "certain state of mind", then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our states of mind.

We have to consider the ultimate source of our actions, and rarely is this source something other than ourselves. If the source of our acts and behaviors are an abstraction of ourselves, then it is invariably determined by us, unless some other force in the world can be shown to produce such an act.

Biden has until now resisted Ukraine’s pleas to ease the limits on the use of U.S. ATACMs missiles, and then shifts to allowing their use during the presidential transition in which his regime and party lost. Why would he do that, you think?

Some claim it is because North Korean troops entered the engagement, others mention it is to “Trump-proof” United States Ukraine policy. In any case, it’s a political move, and it looks like a cynical ploy to stifle the incoming administration, or worse.

Hostile talk against China? Do you mean talk of tariffs? I don’t know; peace through strength comes off as a better principle than war through political conniving. It’s no strange wonder that Biden has been involved in that theatre since before it all started to kick off.

Sure, but this escalation is a complete flip-flop from Biden’s earlier policy. Americans were lied to again, and here we are closer to nuclear war.