Donald Trump

ballysmate

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Not a good day for either of the sex pests.

For Trump it's revealed he charged Eric with trying to suppress the Stormy Daniels story back in February. Just imagine that for a second, being ordered by your dad to hide stories of his affairs. How morally bankrupt a family they are.

For Kav, further evidence of him lying under oath plus more allegations of sexual violence and substantive proof of his drunken and violent behaviour. Those decades of white male privilege that protected him are coming to an end.

Talking of sex pests. Curious link between Kavannaugh and the Starr whitewash of another sex pest and if Juanita Broaddrick is to be believed. rapist.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/my-bat ... pritchard/

bompington

PhilipPirrip wrote:

For Kav, further evidence of him lying under oath plus more allegations of sexual violence and substantive proof of his drunken and violent behaviour. Those decades of white male privilege that protected him are coming to an end.

Look, can we just get over the "white male privilege" thing? What Kavanaugh has is "rich powerful person's privilege".

kingstongraham

Matthewfalle wrote:

oh dear.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... trump.html

This is why he mocked Blasey-Ford.

The comparison between this and how he has passed money to his children is going to be very interesting.

ayjaycee

KingstonGraham wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

oh dear.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... trump.html

This is why he mocked Blasey-Ford.

The comparison between this and how he has passed money to his children is going to be very interesting.

I'll go out on a limb and suspect that this might be accurate. One would hope that this alone would be enough to bring the orange sh1t down but I suspect his supporters will just see it as another example of him being a good businessman. If it happened here in the UK, they would probably be putting the stake in the ground and building a bonfire by midday!

shirley_basso

It won't make a difference to his supporters.

As he said himself if he gunned someone down in the middle of the street in broad daylight, it wouldn't change a thing

robert88

KingstonGraham wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

oh dear.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... trump.html

This is why he mocked Blasey-Ford.

The comparison between this and how he has passed money to his children is going to be very interesting.

The New York State Inspector General who will presumably oversee any investigation is Ms. Leahy Scott. In 2013 she presided over the sacking of a Democratic candidate for a Supreme Court justice position for allegedly campaigning on state time, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. In a bizarre coincidence in August she was involved in deciding a case of sexual harassment

The case stoked unrest among many state workers because two women who had cooperated in the inspector general's investigation of sexual harassment at DCJS were later punished — one terminated and the other transferred against her wishes — and the longtime director accused of wrongdoing, Brian J. Gestring, was not disciplined.

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article ... 123758.php

john80

I am laughing at his news conferences as it seems that gone are the men in suits and the people asking the questions are nearly all women. Yet Trump keeps being utterly unprofessional and outlandish when speaking with them. There has to be a point that this obvious trap he has seemingly not noticed has consequences. If it is not when he is president then it will likely be afterwards as if I was a female reporter I would probably spend my free time at work creating stories to put him in a bad light post office as he is a massive doofus. Given his skeletons I would not want to annoy the media but then I don't have his ego.

robert88

The president [Donald Trump]'s lawyer signaled in a statement the possibility of a defamation lawsuit "should the Times state or imply" that he engaged in "fraud, tax evasion, or any other crime," but one of the reporters who broke the story, Susanne Craig, is "not at all" concerned about the warning, she told "Good Morning America" Wednesday.

Oh do have a defamation lawsuit. Please..

dodgy

He's not going to sue them. Best the NYT leak the evidence.

dinyull

Robert88 wrote:

The president [Donald Trump]'s lawyer signaled in a statement the possibility of a defamation lawsuit "should the Times state or imply" that he engaged in "fraud, tax evasion, or any other crime," but one of the reporters who broke the story, Susanne Craig, is "not at all" concerned about the warning, she told "Good Morning America" Wednesday.

Oh do have a defamation lawsuit. Please..

Lawyers representing NYT 1st request would be his tax return's.....

Matthewfalle

dotard and Capone, both bought down by dodgy taxes.

who'd a thunk it?

kingstongraham

dodgy wrote:

He's not going to sue them. Best the NYT leak the evidence.

"Leak"? They did an 8 page, 14,000 word special on it, including all the evidence, after an 18 month investigation.

kingstongraham

"This is a very important time in our country. Due Process, Fairness and Common Sense are now on trial!"

Surprisingly self aware tweet there.

dodgy

KingstonGraham wrote:

dodgy wrote:

He's not going to sue them. Best the NYT leak the evidence.

"Leak"? They did an 8 page, 14,000 word special on it, including all the evidence, after an 18 month investigation.

Shows how much notice I take. He could shag a horse on the Whitehouse south lawn live on TV and he'd still be able to shrug it off.

kingstongraham

dodgy wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

dodgy wrote:

He's not going to sue them. Best the NYT leak the evidence.

"Leak"? They did an 8 page, 14,000 word special on it, including all the evidence, after an 18 month investigation.

Shows how much notice I take. He could shag a horse on the Whitehouse south lawn live on TV and he'd still be able to shrug it off.

You're not wrong.

"Not presidential, they say, the 'elite'. Well that's not what the horse was saying."

Vino'sGhost

trump is volatile, uses careless language and a braggard. BUT stripping that away he does say some stuff which is true.

This woman who discusses what to do with her beach friends makes accusations without providing any evidence, is unable to remember the details which might exonerate the judge. Convenient or unfortunate you make your mind up.

im not condoning trumps mocking, it was crass and un necessary but the message underneath is not without merit.

As for the judge??? given the behaviour demonstrated live on TV im surprised he's still being considered as a nominee. Its a serious position for which his temperament political impartiality and judgement must now questioned.

kingstongraham

Vino'sGhost wrote:

trump is volatile, uses careless language and a braggard. BUT stripping that away he does say some stuff which is true.

This woman who discusses what to do with her beach friends makes accusations without providing any evidence, is unable to remember the details which might exonerate the judge. Convenient or unfortunate you make your mind up.

im not condoning trumps mocking, it was crass and un necessary but the message underneath is not without merit.

As for the judge??? given the behaviour demonstrated live on TV im surprised he's still being considered as a nominee. Its a serious position for which his temperament political impartiality and judgement must now questioned.

You'd think someone more believable if she could remember every detail of something she's probably tried very hard to forget from 36 years ago?

tangled_metal

Supreme judges don't have to be politically impartial. That's part of the problem. Right now there's equal numbers of republican and democrat supreme Court judges with a handful of judges that are moderate without alignment to any party or politics as far as can be determined from judgements and behaviour. The retiring judge came from this centre / impartial ground and is being replaced by a partisan Republic.

Out of curiosity, pick one highly memorable event from about 36 years ago and write down everything you can remember. Dates, your age, location, who was there, what were you wearing, etc. How much do you remember? Ask someone who was there to do the same. Compare your memories. How thin on the details were they? Remember I asked you to recall a highly memorable event not a run of the mill event or an event you've tried to forget. An event you want to remember.

Before you criticise her lack of memory of the details do this experiment to understand what time does to the memory. BTW I would be 9 years old. I can barely remember any event clearly that's definitely from when I was 9. I can only remember two events at about 36 years ago and the details are very hazy now. They weren't quite as memorable or as horrible as sexual assault. All fairly pleasant or a minor let down by parents in a very trivial way.

pblakeney

1982. Lots of memories. Thanks for the recap. :P
Not sure if they are accurate but that is unimportant. For me. At this time.

PhilipPirrip

Tangled Metal wrote:

Before you criticise her lack of memory of the details do this experiment to understand what time does to the memory. BTW I would be 9 years old. I can barely remember any event clearly that's definitely from when I was 9. I can only remember two events at about 36 years ago and the details are very hazy now. They weren't quite as memorable or as horrible as sexual assault. All fairly pleasant or a minor let down by parents in a very trivial way.

Unless peole have direct experience of a traumatic event such as rape, ABH or brutal loss of a limb then there is no comparison yet to do so trivialises Dr Ford's experience, which is the intention of her critics

In addition, Dr Ford hasn't just remembered what happened 36 years ago but has lived with the trauma and has received therapy, counselling and support throughout that time and, I imagine, has had very vivid traumatic memories despite her level of lucidity at the time.

robert88

In the early 80's I worked for a bullying abuser who picked on a colleague. I can remember 2 specific instances to which I would swear in court did happen. If the defence tried to say that they didn't because I couldn't remember minor details and a jury were swayed by that then the jury would be wrong. It was a bad time for all of us thanks to this individual.

Trump's mocking attack reminds me exactly what he was like and the tactics he used. Birds of feather..

bompington

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Before you criticise her lack of memory of the details do this experiment to understand what time does to the memory. BTW I would be 9 years old. I can barely remember any event clearly that's definitely from when I was 9. I can only remember two events at about 36 years ago and the details are very hazy now. They weren't quite as memorable or as horrible as sexual assault. All fairly pleasant or a minor let down by parents in a very trivial way.

Unless peole have direct experience of a traumatic event such as rape, ABH or brutal loss of a limb then there is no comparison yet to do so trivialises Dr Ford's experience, which is the intention of her critics

In addition, Dr Ford hasn't just remembered what happened 36 years ago but has lived with the trauma and has received therapy, counselling and support throughout that time and, I imagine, has had very vivid traumatic memories despite her level of lucidity at the time.

This throws some light on the whole memory thing. Key point: research shows that people who have had traumatic experiences are more likely to misremember them.

Vino'sGhost

she seemed credible and yet.... discussing with her beach friends what to do is very flakey.

It's not about privelage or class, this woman had the same privilege and class as the people she's accusing. What she's saying is, and its being taken at face value by the light of intellect, "believe my testimony, not a jot of corroborating evidence is necessary.

where did this take place, i don't know
when I don't know

Just believe me ok cause i know the names of parts of the brain and some stuff about hormones.

Looking at it dispassionately there is nothing here. Thats not to say she didn't have a bad experience but even her "witnesses" don't appear to be that. Thinking back to Weinstein his "victims" had remarkable recall and there was a pattern, then the court of social "me too" had him hung drawn and quartered before any reasonable argument was made. Its mob justice and wholly inappropriate.

For once Trump might be making a valid point albeit in a remarkably unpleasant way.

tangled_metal

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Before you criticise her lack of memory of the details do this experiment to understand what time does to the memory. BTW I would be 9 years old. I can barely remember any event clearly that's definitely from when I was 9. I can only remember two events at about 36 years ago and the details are very hazy now. They weren't quite as memorable or as horrible as sexual assault. All fairly pleasant or a minor let down by parents in a very trivial way.

Unless peole have direct experience of a traumatic event such as rape, ABH or brutal loss of a limb then there is no comparison yet to do so trivialises Dr Ford's experience, which is the intention of her critics

In addition, Dr Ford hasn't just remembered what happened 36 years ago but has lived with the trauma and has received therapy, counselling and support throughout that time and, I imagine, has had very vivid traumatic memories despite her level of lucidity at the time.

I am not comparing the sexual assault which I believe happened as she gave evidence. I am not trivialising anything. I am using a simple test on memory to try and stop this idea that you need to remember everything of whatever form of abuse afflicted on you for it to be true. It is highly likely everyone posting on here knows a victim of abuse of some kind, whether they know or or not. The chances are their memory of abuse that happened decades ago is vivid in the details they remember but it is highly unlikely they will remember details, dates, even names of co-conspirators or enablers of the abuse.

BTW even good memories can be vivid and remembered by remembered differently by different people present. Memory is not long lasting in the precise details courts (and especially courts of public opinion) prefer to have.

In this case I think you have to have a less forensic approach in that you have to take an opinion as to whether you believe one side or the other. It is a guy feeling you have. I believe her evidence. I also believe in the idea that judges need to be held to the highest standard.

In some ways my view on the nominee is a gut instinct he's not got the right temperament to be a judge at any level. That's in some way backed up by stories I've read of his involvement in the Starr enquiry and parts of it. The way I believe an 8 page supplement was added to his report on a murder or suicide case of someone linked to Clinton stating his part of the investigation had FBI improprieties and wrongdoings (witness tampering in other words). The first time judges have agreed to attach such a statement to a report by the independent council's office. That report was authored by the nominee and the investigation was taken over by him.

I have no links to any of the American political party politics. I have taken a view on suitability of presidents to hold office (I'm thinking W Bush was a better president than I thought at the time because I've seen in trump how bad a president can be). However I still take the view that courts everywhere should be apolitical. With this nominee and past ones too out has not been.

tangled_metal

bompington wrote:

This throws some light on the whole memory thing. Key point: research shows that people who have had traumatic experiences are more likely to misremember them.

That's a very interesting link.

The intense event of the sexual assault on the Prof Ford is possibly less likely to have details accurately remembered and each remembering of those events is likely to alter them or weaken the memory's accuracy. That's if I understood the flashbulb memory and the recall research mentioned correctly.

If she did remember all those names, dates and other details then perhaps they could have been changed by the recall of them in therapy or taking to friends about the events. So using her lack of details as a negative against her might not be right?

It's interesting topic memory. I bet most jurors and nomination committees don't know anything any recall and memory research.

kingstongraham

darkhairedlord

For me it is clear. Ford may have been assaulted by kavanagh but there is a lack of firm evidence. For the GOP they now get to select him even though their are grave doubts about his integrity. Shirly, If there are any doubts about him, why would you elect him to the most powerful court in the land for life?

pblakeney

Don’t call me Shirly.

kingstongraham

darkhairedlord wrote:

For me it is clear. Ford may have been assaulted by kavanagh but there is a lack of firm evidence. For the GOP they now get to select him even though their are grave doubts about his integrity. Shirly, If there are any doubts about him, why would you elect him to the most powerful court in the land for life?

They are trying to convince that the only question over his suitability is whether he assaulted Blasey-Ford. This will be the talking point - if you can't be sure that he did it, he should be appointed, otherwise it's just not fair to him.

It's not true, obviously.

Matthewfalle

question is: when he is confirmed, how much will it all kick off in the streets?