Trumps rape case given court date

[RandomGuy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit


A federal judge in New York has ordered counsel for Donald Trump and the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein to appear in court along with the attorney for a woman referred to only as “Jane Doe” who alleges the Republican presidential nominee raped her when she was 13.

Judge Ronnie Abrams has slated an initial status conference in the civil lawsuit for 16 December in a New York district court.

[edit]
Nod to thesanityannex for doing the reading that I didn't initially:


The Guardian investigation found that a publicist calling himself “Al Taylor” attempted to sell the videotape of “Jane Doe” relating her allegations for $1m. It linked Taylor through a variety of means including shared email addresses and phone numbers to Norm Lubow, who used to work on Springer’s daytime talk show.

Lubow was connected to a contentious claim, raised in the 1998 documentary movie Kurt and Courtney, that Courtney Love offered a fellow musician $50,000 to murder her husband, Kurt Cobain of Nirvana. Love denied the charge.

According to the New York Post, Lubow was also behind a tabloid newspaper story that OJ Simpson bought illicit drugs on the day his estranged wife Nicole Brown was killed.

When the Guardian quizzed “Al Taylor” about his true identity, the publicist replied: “Just be warned, we’ll sue you if we don’t like what you write. We’ll sue your ass, own your ass and own your newspaper’s ass as well, punk.”

The Trump presidential campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the forthcoming court proceedings. A lawyer for the Trump Organization told the Guardian in July: “This is basically a sham lawsuit brought by someone who desires to impact the presidential election.”

[tlongII]

"Allegedly"

[RandomGuy]

"Allegedly"

"allegedly" given a trial date, with, it is assumed, testimony given under oath.

Guess we will get to find out, won't we?

[CosmicCowboy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit



But please, let's talk about emails... :rolleyes

Want to bet this miraculously blows over after the election? Sounds like pure cover for Bills multiple trips on the Lolita express and to Pleasure Island.

[RandomGuy]

Want to bet this miraculously blows over after the election? Sounds like pure cover for Bills multiple trips on the Lolita express and to Pleasure Island.

(shrugs)

Fuck Bill Clinton.

That said, does that make Trumps behavior any less reprehensible?

[FromWayDowntown]

That said, does that make Trumps behavior any less reprehensible?

"Bill did it, so what's the big deal? Besides, e-mails."

[CosmicCowboy]

(shrugs)

Fuck Bill Clinton.

That said, does that make Trumps behavior any less reprehensible?

I personally don't believe it's true.

[spurraider21]

is there a trial date? i'm just seeing initial status conference

[CosmicCowboy]

"Bill did it, so what's the big deal? Besides, e-mails."

It was Bills name, not Trumps all over the Lolita Express's flight manifests.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

is there a trial date? i'm just seeing initial status conference

Judge Ronnie Abrams has slated an initial status conference in the civil lawsuit for 16 December in a New York district court.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I personally don't believe it's true.

Of course you don't.

There are three women that are going to testify. Two victims and his former event planner all of whom corroborate each other.

Sex party in the 1990s where Ireland raped teen girls and Trump attended seems plausible to me.

[FromWayDowntown]

I personally don't believe it's true.

How would you know?

That's the thing I keep asking myself about Trump -- how on Earth does anyone claim to know (or even believe) anything about Trump that isn't just pure conjecture? He's absolutely refused any sort of traditional transparency about who he really is or what he really does, and when insights are offered, his chorus just wanders around behind him contending that what's alleged couldn't have possibly happened.

And that's the amazing thing about the Right's approach to this election: seemingly, a history of allegations against Hillary Clinton (most of which have been deeply investigated and none of which have been proven sufficiently to support any legal consequence) is more than enough to presume her guilt of just being a bad person A similar history of allegations against Donald Trump (none of which has been investigated, much less refuted in any way other than his say-so) is treated as nothing more than a string of unproven allegations and are cast as being wholly insufficient, taken alone or in combination, to even support a surmise that he might not be a good person.

Up has truly become down.

[RandomGuy]

I personally don't believe it's true.

Based on all the evidence pertaining to the case you have reviewed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How would you know?

That's the thing I keep asking myself about Trump -- how on Earth does anyone claim to know (or even believe) anything about Trump that isn't just pure conjecture? He's absolutely refused any sort of traditional transparency about who he really is or what he really does, and when insights are offered, his chorus just wanders around behind him contending that what's alleged couldn't have possibly happened.

And that's the amazing thing about the Right's approach to this election: seemingly, a history of allegations against Hillary Clinton (most of which have been deeply investigated and none of which have been proven sufficiently to support any legal consequence) is more than enough to presume her guilt of just being a bad person A similar history of allegations against Donald Trump (none of which has been investigated, much less refuted in any way other than his say-so) is treated as nothing more than a string of unproven allegations and are cast as being wholly insufficient, taken alone or in combination, to even support a surmise that he might not be a good person.

Up has truly become down.

The rank and file of the modern right wing are monumentally obtuse.

[Chucho]

How do you feel about Clinton being a proven sexual predator, lying about his sexual molestation and having no fewer than six civil suits against him during his Governorship and Presidency?

LOL, but, but "emails and Repug smoke screens". The hypocrisy and double standards is what is unbearable about your Leftwits.

[Chucho]

The rank and file of the modern left wing are monumentally obtuse.
FIFY

[RandomGuy]

How would you know?

That's the thing I keep asking myself about Trump -- how on Earth does anyone claim to know (or even believe) anything about Trump that isn't just pure conjecture? He's absolutely refused any sort of traditional transparency about who he really is or what he really does, and when insights are offered, his chorus just wanders around behind him contending that what's alleged couldn't have possibly happened.

And that's the amazing thing about the Right's approach to this election: seemingly, a history of allegations against Hillary Clinton (most of which have been deeply investigated and none of which have been proven sufficiently to support any legal consequence) is more than enough to presume her guilt of just being a bad person A similar history of allegations against Donald Trump (none of which has been investigated, much less refuted in any way other than his say-so) is treated as nothing more than a string of unproven allegations and are cast as being wholly insufficient, taken alone or in combination, to even support a surmise that he might not be a good person.

Up has truly become down.
+1

[RandomGuy]

How do you feel about Clinton being a proven sexual predator, lying about his sexual molestation and having no fewer than six civil suits against him during his Governorship and Presidency?

LOL, but, but "emails and Repug smoke screens". The hypocrisy and double standards is what is unbearable about your Leftwits.

Bill Clinton isn't running for president. Not sure you figured that out yet.

[RandomGuy]

How do you feel about Clinton being a proven sexual predator, lying about his sexual molestation and having no fewer than six civil suits against him during his Governorship and Presidency?

LOL, but, but "emails and Repug smoke screens". The hypocrisy and double standards is what is unbearable about your Leftwits.

Tell me what do Trumps emails show about his conflicts of interest?

[FromWayDowntown]

How do you feel about Clinton being a proven sexual predator, lying about his sexual molestation and having no fewer than six civil suits against him during his Governorship and Presidency?

Bill Clinton is running for President?

[CosmicCowboy]

Based on all the evidence pertaining to the case you have reviewed?

More on the basis of...why?

Why would he have sex with a 13 year old girl to start with?

Why did she wait until a month before the election to make the accusation? It wasn't like he wasn't a well known billionaire before that.

It's perfect offense by the Clinton camp to try to link Trump to Epstein to cover Bills more prominent and well documented link to Epstein and rationally makes more sense than this woman suddenly 20 years later decides to suddenly make the rape claim.

[FromWayDowntown]

Tell me what do Trumps emails show about his conflicts of interest?

or his tax returns? or the records of his charitable giving?

[Axl Rose]

How many times has this been thrown out? we never heard of it before trump was running for president

[FromWayDowntown]

More on the basis of...why?

Why would he have sex with a 13 year old girl to start with?

He's bragged to have traipsed through dressing rooms filled with disrobed girls, and he's alleged to have done that in rooms with girls as young as 15.

Is it really that big a step to think that he might have taken that a bit further?


Why did she wait until a month before the election to make the accusation? It wasn't like he wasn't a well known billionaire before that.

You're right. The victims in sexual assault cases have a very easy time of things once they decide to pursue claims, so when they wait any appreciable period of time before bringing suit, the only reasonable surmise is that their claims are just made up.

My guess about why these allegations are being made so close to an election is that there was a videotape in which Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women and a subsequent debate in which Trump denied ever having done such things. Once he denied it, the anecdotal proof of his bad acts became directly relevant to the election. And, remarkably, all of that happened only in the last month.

[Chucho]

Bill Clinton isn't running for president. Not sure you figured that out yet.


Don't deflect, answer the question.

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't deflect, answer the question.

So you're saying you don't care if Trump's a pedophile because Bill was alleged to have been one too?

[Chucho]

or his tax returns? or the records of his charitable giving?




Kinda like how the Clinton Foundation somehow was able to control funds from OTHER nonprofits in Haiti and then awarding their donors with contracts that were over budget and under fulfilled?

[Spurminator]

Didn't RG say "Fuck Bill Clinton" like 10 posts up?

[Chucho]

So you're saying you don't care if Trump's a pedophile because Bill was alleged to have been one too?

Don't deflect. I want to know why you support a party that has already placed a sexual predator in there and he is about to return to that position and you are aghast at "allegations" that come in under shady circumstances and timing, but when Comey reopens the much more important email thing that you and your ilk always try to trivialize and downplay, you call it shady timing and a waste of time. But when Comey played his role to pander to the Left, you and your ilk were fine with it because it benefited your position. So, again more double standards here.

So again, I ask, how do you feel about Bill Clinton being a sexual predator? I want a good understanding on the typical Leftwits psyche to see if I can understand why a group of people can be so selectively hypocritical. Don't deflect or employ any of your typical Leftist denial. Answer the question: why are you ok with one sexual predator having been our President and are ok with him returning to the White House, where he will continue to molest, and aren't OK with someone who isn't even proven to be


And let us not forget the main hypocrisy of "Oh, that person isn't credible, they are a Repug plant." But yet, random timed, 20 year old sexual allegation lawsuits come out and we should believe them? LOfuckingL.

[SnakeBoy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit



But please, let's talk about emails... :rolleyes

Are you employed by the Clinton campaign/DNC or are you just following their strategy of your own accord?

It would be weird if you thought posting on ST actually affected the election.

[tlongII]

More on the basis of...why?

Why would he have sex with a 13 year old girl to start with?

Why did she wait until a month before the election to make the accusation? It wasn't like he wasn't a well known billionaire before that.

It's perfect offense by the Clinton camp to try to link Trump to Epstein to cover Bills more prominent and well documented link to Epstein and rationally makes more sense than this woman suddenly 20 years later decides to suddenly make the rape claim.

+1

[FromWayDowntown]

Kinda like how the Clinton Foundation somehow was able to control funds from OTHER nonprofits in Haiti and then awarding their donors with contracts that were over budget and under fulfilled?

We wouldn't know about Trump, since he can't be bothered to reveal what has been expected of any other candidate for the White House. And the idea that there might be something like that in Trump's past isn't that far-fetched, since recent reporting (which hasn't been refuted, but simply denounced as biased) has certainly brought the legalities of the ways in which Trump has used his foundation into some question.

Somehow, even though you'd be screaming and yelling if Hillary had taken that approach, Trump supporters see that evasion as charming.

[spurraider21]

Judge Ronnie Abrams has slated an initial status conference in the civil lawsuit for 16 December in a New York district court.thats what i said. i see an initial status conference, not a trial date.

[Chucho]

Are you employed by the Clinton campaign/DNC or are you just following their strategy of your own accord?

It would be weird if you thought posting on ST actually affected the election.

NO! He is just a fuckwit LeftWingNut spreading Left propaganda that is more smoke and mirrors from the disgusting Leftwits to continue their mental conditioning since they are dumber than fucking dogs.

It's just more garbage from no-name liberal propagandists. Blahblahblah... *post some shitty liberal click bait trap story and tell repeat this post 10,000 times filled with obvious hypocrisy and double standards and small-child-scream-arguing*

/faggy boutons mode

[boutons_deux]

"Why would he have sex with a 13 year old girl to start with?"

sweet, tight pussy, pedophilia is widespread behaviour. Your imagination is terribly defunct.

"Why did she wait until a month before the election to make the accusation?"

Like the other women who came forward against Cosby after the first one did, she assumed nobody would believe her against power, wealthy man. When she heard all the shit from women, she decided she had to speak up about being raped.

CC! :lol Your boy Trash is pure garbage, in every aspect of his life that has been exposed.

[Chucho]

We wouldn't know about Trump, since he can't be bothered to reveal what has been expected of any other candidate for the White House. And the idea that there might be something like that in Trump's past isn't that far-fetched, since recent reporting (which hasn't been refuted, but simply denounced as biased) has certainly brought the legalities of the ways in which Trump has used his foundation into some question.

Somehow, even though you'd be screaming and yelling if Hillary had taken that approach, Trump supporters see that evasion as charming.


Please answer my original question; why are you ok defending a party that put a sexual predator in the White House, as is PROVEN, and supporting his wife, who will bring her meal ticket with her back to the White House, via rigged election, and you dare indict someone based on shoddy circumstances and convenient timed sham lawsuits with zero shred of evidence?

Please help me understand the Great Leftist Hypocrisy and why you and your ilk think ONLY you can be hypocrites and judges of moral fiber.

[Chucho]

"Why would he have sex with a 13 year old girl to start with?"

sweet, tight pussy, pedophilia is widespread behaviour. Your imagination is terribly defunct.

"Why did she wait until a month before the election to make the accusation?"

Like the other women who came forward against Cosby after the first one did, she assumed nobody would believe her against power, wealthy man. When she heard all the shit from women, she decided she had to speak up about being raped.

CC! :lol Your boy Trash is pure garbage, in every aspect of his life that has been exposed.



You're indicting a man with ZERO evidence, you disgusting deplorable Leftwit hate monger. You're everything you claim to hate about Trump. Disgusting, hypocritical racist.

[FromWayDowntown]

Don't deflect. I want to know why you support a party that has already placed a sexual predator in there and he is about to return to that position and you are aghast at "allegations" that come in under shady circumstances and timing, but when Comey reopens the much more important email thing that you and your ilk always try to trivialize and downplay, you call it shady timing and a waste of time. But when Comey played his role to pander to the Left, you and your ilk were fine with it because it benefited your position. So, again more double standards here.

I didn't say any of those things about Comey, and if you want to talk about double standards, I'd say Comey has readily exposed the double standards on both sides. When he wouldn't prosecute Clinton, the Right screamed that he was a shill for the Left and was corrupt; when he offered a vague letter to Congress closer to the election, the Left sung praises of his character and commitment to the sanctity of the FBI's role in our government.

And for the record, I support the party of Hillary Clinton because it's defined by things and people other just than Bill and Hillary Clinton.


So again, I ask, how do you feel about Bill Clinton being a sexual predator? I want a good understanding on the typical Leftwits psyche to see if I can understand why a group of people can be so selectively hypocritical. Don't deflect or employ any of your typical Leftist denial. Answer the question: why are you ok with one sexual predator having been our President and are ok with him returning to the White House, where he will continue to molest, and aren't OK with someone who isn't even proven to be

I think Bill Clinton is a despicable person who was a mostly very effective President. But if we had the record on him that we have on Trump, I wouldn't have voted for him (and, in fact, while I voted in 1992, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in the general election). I'm okay with Bill Clinton returning to the White House -- as First Dude, or whatever we'll call him -- because I believe in the policies that his wife supports and wants to enact for this country. I support electing Hillary Clinton because the rhetoric of Trump and his supporters is ridiculously divisive and threatens a social climate in this country that I don't want for my children. I support electing Hillary Clinton because I don't think the only part of the Constitution that matters is the Second Amendment. And I support electing Hillary Clinton because I also happen to think that electing the alternative is electing a charlatan who likely is also a sexual predator who may also have assaulted young girls.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FIFY


It helps to put analysis behind such claims. I was piggybacking off FWD. You are just mindlessly tit for tatting. It reeks of guilt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

thats what i said. i see an initial status conference, not a trial date.

The OP said court date.

[spurraider21]

The OP said court date.and post #3 said trial date

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and post #3 said trial date

Alright so now you have won a point of fact. Does it make any difference whatsoever?

[spurraider21]

The OP said court date.


Alright so now you have won a point of fact. Does it make any difference whatsoever?

[Chucho]

It helps to put analysis behind such claims. I was piggybacking off FWD. You are just mindlessly tit for tatting. It reeks of guilt.

Fuzz, I've told you before- you are not as smart as you think. No matter how well you write and speak the language doesn't change the fact the points you attempt to make are always never made. Work on your self-awareness and the fact you've casted your lot with a bunch of elitist pigs that happen to work as slave masters and agents of the bankers that own them. Congrats, you are the establishment and support them 100%. I'm sorry you're a moral degenerate, there is no need to pretend you're intelligent enough to be condescending to me.

[Chucho]

Alright so now you have won a point of fact. Does it make any difference whatsoever?

It does. Because you're wrong. Again. Per par with Liberals.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzz, I've told you before- you are not as smart as you think. No matter how well you write and speak the language doesn't change the fact the points you attempt to make are always never made. Work on your self-awareness and the fact you've casted your lot with a bunch of elitist pigs that happen to work as slave masters and agents of the bankers that own them. Congrats, you are the establishment and support them 100%. I'm sorry you're a moral degenerate, there is no need to pretend you're intelligent enough to be condescending to me.

Cool story. Who said anything about how smart I am? Only one bringing it up is you. You guys certainly are worried that I think that I am smart though. Reeks of an inferiority complex.

Cast my lot? Hardly. I reject the dem leadership outside of Warren. I just choose Hillary over Trump. That is the extent of it.

:lol morality.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and post #3 said trial date

And again what substantive difference does it make or are you just interested in scoring points like a simpleton?

[TheSanityAnnex]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-alleged-rape-lawsuit



But please, let's talk about emails... :rolleyesNo, let's talk about false rape accusations. Let's talk about the investigation the Guardian did into these specific allegations against Trump, it was only linked in your own article.

"A Guardian investigation (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow) this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag."


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.

Norm Lubow, a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show, has previously been involved with disputed allegations that OJ Simpson bought illegal drugs on the day Simpson’s wife was murdered, and that Kurt Cobain’s widow had the Nirvana frontman killed.


Statements made by Lubow over the past two decades on a variety of topics have been called into question.
In 2014, using his comic pro-marijuana pseudonym Reverend Bud Green, Lubow claimed to have arranged the replacement of US flags on the Brooklyn Bridge (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/marijuana-activist-claims-brooklyn-bridge-flags-swapped-article-1.1886915) with white flags. The following month, however, German artists came forward with video evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/arts/design/german-artists-say-they-put-white-flags-on-brooklyn-bridge.html?_r=0) that they in fact were behind the stunt.


In 1998, guests on Springer’s notoriously wild talkshow alleged that Lubow had encouraged them behind the scenes to stage fights and invent outrageous stories during recordings of the program. The allegation was denied by Lubow and other show staff.
Also in 1998, Lubow appeared wearing a disguise (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWJC_jfC0L0&feature=youtu.be&t=55m6s) in the controversial documentary film Kurt and Courtney under the name “Jack Briggs” alongside Bowman, the minor Hollywood promoter whose photograph was later used by “Al Taylor” for television interviews. Bowman said “Briggs” was Lubow.


In the film, director Nick Broomfield said Lubow and Bowman had introduced him to Eldon “El Duce” Hoke, a Seattle-based musician who claimed Courtney Love offered him $50,000 to kill her husband Kurt Cobain, the singer and guitarist in the rock band Nirvana. The allegation about Hoke, which became lore among some Nirvana fans following Cobain’s suicide in 1994, was denied by Love.




According to the New York Post (http://variety.com/1998/tv/news/springer-fights-peace-pact-1117470426/), in 1995 Lubow, using the name “Ron X”, also claimed to tabloids that he had sold drugs to OJ Simpson on the day Simpson’s estranged wife Nicole Brown was murdered. Lubow denied the Post’s report.
An attorney brought in to file Katie Johnson’s lawsuit against Trump in New York said any issues around the credibility of “Al Taylor” should not cast doubt on Johnson’s allegations

[spurraider21]

The OP said court date.
same question

And again what substantive difference does it make or are you just interested in scoring points like a simpleton?

[CosmicCowboy]

"Why would he have sex with a 13 year old girl to start with?"

sweet, tight pussy, pedophilia is widespread behaviour. Your imagination is terribly defunct.

"Why did she wait until a month before the election to make the accusation?"

Like the other women who came forward against Cosby after the first one did, she assumed nobody would believe her against power, wealthy man. When she heard all the shit from women, she decided she had to speak up about being raped.

CC! :lol Your boy Trash is pure garbage, in every aspect of his life that has been exposed.

:lmao

Boukaki fantasizes about sweet, tight, 13 year old pussy????? :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

same question

So no court date has been set. Again what substantive difference does that make?

[TheSanityAnnex]

/thread

[spurraider21]

So no court date has been set. Again what substantive difference does that make?you're running in circles. you tried to correct me in a manner that made no substantive difference, and at the same time are complaining that the correction i made makes no substantive difference. just shut up and move on

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you're running in circles. you tried to correct me in a manner that made no substantive difference, and at the same time are complaining that the correction i made makes no substantive difference. just shut up and move on

You sure are intent on your meaningless point of fact.

So we have nothing from you. You need to get over me and get over yourself, chachi. The distinction between trial date and court date has no significance in this discussion.

[FromWayDowntown]

The distinction between trial date and court date has no significance in this discussion.

To be objective, that distinction is pretty significant. A "court date" can mean just a preliminary proceeding in which deadlines are set, and sometimes those deadlines are for papers that attack the substance of the action (i.e., motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment).

A trial date arises only after all of the preliminaries have passed and the court has concluded that the allegations are sufficiently stated and supported to justify putting the case to a trial because there is some fact that is in doubt and hasn't yet been conclusively proven.

So, unless there's already been an evaluation of the merits of the action, the setting of a court date doesn't, by itself, say much about whether the action is or is not meritorious.

[spurraider21]

You sure are intent on your meaningless point of fact.

So we have nothing from you. You need to get over me and get over yourself, chachi. The distinction between trial date and court date has no significance in this discussion.
of course its relevant

"allegedly" given a trial date, with, it is assumed, testimony given under oath.

Guess we will get to find out, won't we?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

of course its relevant

He said that he was going to wait and see.

At least now you are trying to show some substance though. Does a pretrial hearing preclude testimony?

The bottom line is that the case is moving forward and Trump's attempts at dismissal have failed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To be objective, that distinction is pretty significant. A "court date" can mean just a preliminary proceeding in which deadlines are set, and sometimes those deadlines are for papers that attack the substance of the action (i.e., motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment).

A trial date arises only after all of the preliminaries have passed and the court has concluded that the allegations are sufficiently stated and supported to justify putting the case to a trial because there is some fact that is in doubt and hasn't yet been conclusively proven.

So, unless there's already been an evaluation of the merits of the action, the setting of a court date doesn't, by itself, say much about whether the action is or is not meritorious.

No one was claiming certainty of merit. The announcement of a trial doesn't do that either.

[tlongII]

We wouldn't know about Trump, since he can't be bothered to reveal what has been expected of any other candidate for the White House. And the idea that there might be something like that in Trump's past isn't that far-fetched, since recent reporting (which hasn't been refuted, but simply denounced as biased) has certainly brought the legalities of the ways in which Trump has used his foundation into some question.

Somehow, even though you'd be screaming and yelling if Hillary had taken that approach, Trump supporters see that evasion as charming.

I'm sure if Hillary were questioned she would just say "I don't recall".

[CosmicCowboy]

He said that he was going to wait and see.

At least now you are trying to show some substance though. Does a pretrial hearing preclude testimony?

The bottom line is that the case is moving forward and Trump's attempts at dismissal have failed.

Fuzzy Fuzzy on his facts AGAIN.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy Fuzzy on his facts AGAIN.

CC resorting to innuendo in place of analysis as is his wont.

You have to be one of the more vapid posters I have ever seen.

[FromWayDowntown]

No one was claiming certainty of merit. The announcement of a trial doesn't do that either.

Oh, I'd dispute that. Few are the cases that get to trial that lack merit because there are too many ways to short circuit unmeritorious cases before trial. So, if a trial date is set after dispositive motions have been filed, it generally means that there has been a finding that the case has some factual merit.

The claimant may not always win at trial, but that doesn't mean that the claim itself lacked merit; it just means that the jury had conflicting facts and elected to resolve those facts against the accuser.

[CosmicCowboy]

CC resorting to innuendo in place of analysis as is his wont.

You have to be one of the more vapid posters I have ever seen.

FWD just owned your stupid ass.

Is that clear enough for you?

[TheSanityAnnex]

No, let's talk about false rape accusations. Let's talk about the investigation the Guardian did into these specific allegations against Trump, it was only linked in your own article.

"A Guardian investigation (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow) this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag."


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuits-norm-lubow

Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.

Norm Lubow, a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show, has previously been involved with disputed allegations that OJ Simpson bought illegal drugs on the day Simpson’s wife was murdered, and that Kurt Cobain’s widow had the Nirvana frontman killed.


Statements made by Lubow over the past two decades on a variety of topics have been called into question.
In 2014, using his comic pro-marijuana pseudonym Reverend Bud Green, Lubow claimed to have arranged the replacement of US flags on the Brooklyn Bridge (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/marijuana-activist-claims-brooklyn-bridge-flags-swapped-article-1.1886915) with white flags. The following month, however, German artists came forward with video evidence (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/arts/design/german-artists-say-they-put-white-flags-on-brooklyn-bridge.html?_r=0) that they in fact were behind the stunt.


In 1998, guests on Springer’s notoriously wild talkshow alleged that Lubow had encouraged them behind the scenes to stage fights and invent outrageous stories during recordings of the program. The allegation was denied by Lubow and other show staff.
Also in 1998, Lubow appeared wearing a disguise (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWJC_jfC0L0&feature=youtu.be&t=55m6s)in the controversial documentary film Kurt and Courtney under the name “Jack Briggs” alongside Bowman, the minor Hollywood promoter whose photograph was later used by “Al Taylor” for television interviews. Bowman said “Briggs” was Lubow.


In the film, director Nick Broomfield said Lubow and Bowman had introduced him to Eldon “El Duce” Hoke, a Seattle-based musician who claimed Courtney Love offered him $50,000 to kill her husband Kurt Cobain, the singer and guitarist in the rock band Nirvana. The allegation about Hoke, which became lore among some Nirvana fans following Cobain’s suicide in 1994, was denied by Love.




According to the New York Post (http://variety.com/1998/tv/news/springer-fights-peace-pact-1117470426/), in 1995 Lubow, using the name “Ron X”, also claimed to tabloids that he had sold drugs to OJ Simpson on the day Simpson’s estranged wife Nicole Brown was murdered. Lubow denied the Post’s report.
An attorney brought in to file Katie Johnson’s lawsuit against Trump in New York said any issues around the credibility of “Al Taylor” should not cast doubt on Johnson’s allegations

[FromWayDowntown]

Questions about the source are reasonable and valid, but that doesn't prove that the allegations are false.

Even sketchy people tell the truth sometimes. For instance, I don't think Trump *always* lies.

[tlongII]

Questions about the source are reasonable and valid, but that doesn't prove that the allegations are false.

Even sketchy people tell the truth sometimes. For instance, I don't think Trump *always* lies.

:toast

[TheSanityAnnex]

Questions about the source are reasonable and valid, but that doesn't prove that the allegations are false.

Even sketchy people tell the truth sometimes. For instance, I don't think Trump *always* lies.

Wasn't getting an ounce of discussion amidst the purse swinging.

[pgardn]

Trump has been involved in more lawsuits than anyone I have heard of (does not mean anything) as defendant and filing. Has he ever had any type of assault brought against him? For some reason I get the feeling he is kind of a wimp. I can see him grabbing and such, but actually hurting anyone physically as in rape, it does not seem to fit him IMO. These old guys taking this leap ... I don't know. And yes I know rape does not necessarily have to hurt physically.

So, any assaults of this nature before, settled?

[pgardn]

Wasn't getting an ounce of discussion amidst the purse swinging.

Because of the shit you have put out before, ya think?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because of the shit you have put out before, ya think?
You may want to check back in on the shit I posted, it's all unfolding right before our eyes. Truly fascinating.

[DarrinS]

Meanwhile

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/02/report-weiner-checks-into-rehab.html

[spurraider21]

He said that he was going to wait and see.

At least now you are trying to show some substance though. Does a pretrial hearing preclude testimony?

The bottom line is that the case is moving forward and Trump's attempts at dismissal have failed.
An initial status conference won't elicit testimony. The lawyers discuss logistics of the case. Iirc the parties aren't even required to appear

[DarrinS]

A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.


Sounds legit. :tu

[FromWayDowntown]

Meanwhile

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/02/report-weiner-checks-into-rehab.html

Shitshows are gonna shitshow.

[hater]

75 replies and zero evidence on this charge :lmao

this case will go far :lol

keep trying Shitlernazis....

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FWD just owned your stupid ass.

Is that clear enough for you?

Again no one claimed certainty of merit. FWD is trying to have a discussion not a pissing contest, dimwit. Try acting over the age of 14.

[CosmicCowboy]

Again no one claimed certainty of merit. FWD is trying to have a discussion not a pissing contest, dimwit. Try acting over the age of 14.

says the guy that just got the golden shower.

[clambake]

i think cowboy has a horse in this race. i didn't think you'd pick.

[SnakeBoy]

Meanwhile

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2016/11/02/report-weiner-checks-into-rehab.html

:lol


The rehab facility where he will reportedly receive treatment specializes in sex addiction, separates patients by gender, and does not allow cell phones.

[RandomGuy]

Kinda like how the Clinton Foundation somehow was able to control funds from OTHER nonprofits in Haiti and then awarding their donors with contracts that were over budget and under fulfilled?


Don't deflect, answer the question.

:rollin

[RandomGuy]

thats what i said. i see an initial status conference, not a trial date.

okaaay. He is being sued for raping a 13 year old, and the important thing is whether we call an event at a courthouse a "conference" or "trial"?

Which is more important, the charges or what the action taking place at the courthouse is called?

[FromWayDowntown]

okaaay. He is being sued for raping a 13 year old, and the important thing is whether we call an event at a courthouse a "conference" or "trial"?

Which is more important, the charges or what the action taking place at the courthouse is called?

Again, I'm not here to dispute the allegations, which don't seem so far-fetched to me. But there is a really significant difference between an initial status conference, which one gets basically by having filed a complaint and maybe surviving a threshold motion to dismiss (in which everything is presumed in favor of the plaintiff/accuser), and a trial setting, which one gets only after conducting discovery and affirmatively demonstrating (usually by resisting dispositive motions) that there is at least some merit to the allegations.

In the law, those are two very, very different proceedings that take place at two very, very different stages of litigation.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

lol.

[101A]

It is really interesting the way political leanings on this site (even from the most rational posters) trend EXACTLY with whether or not one believes allegations made against a person.

In a nutshell: Trump is accused of raping a 13 year old girl. The timing of the accusation is inconvenient for the Trump campaign, but that certainly does not mean the accusation has no merit. If FWDT says it doesn't get this far without merit, I believe him. However, Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Any honest person would recognize that the odds of THAT happening are very slim. Donald Trump will not go to jail for raping a 13 year old 20 years ago. I would be willing to bet the bulk of my retirement savings on that statement.

[tlongII]

okaaay. He is being sued for raping a 13 year old, and the important thing is whether we call an event at a courthouse a "conference" or "trial"?

Which is more important, the charges or what the action taking place at the courthouse is called?

The action taking place at the courthouse is clearly more important at this point.

[FromWayDowntown]

If FWDT says it doesn't get this far without merit, I believe him.

I haven't said that; I've said that there's a significant difference -- relating to the ferreting out of the merits of the claim -- between an initial status conference and a trial setting. I have no idea about the merits of the claim, but as I've said, I personally don't find the allegations to be far-fetched.


However, Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Any honest person would recognize that the odds of THAT happening are very slim. Donald Trump will not go to jail for raping a 13 year old 20 years ago. I would be willing to bet the bulk of my retirement savings on that statement.

The point I made earlier relates to this.

Hillary has been investigated over and over again by those who oppose her politically without anyone ever reaching a conclusion that her purported misdeeds require further legal action - civilly or criminally. Yet, somehow, we're supposed to take the aggregation of these investigations and conclude that the fact of the investigations alone (and their number) is proof that she's crooked, even though none of them have shown her guilty of anything.

At the same time, we're supposed to permit the legal process to run its course on the allegations against Trump and presume him innocent until proven guilty.

I don't get that.

[spurraider21]

okaaay. He is being sued for raping a 13 year old, and the important thing is whether we call an event at a courthouse a "conference" or "trial"?

Which is more important, the charges or what the action taking place at the courthouse is called?it's important in the context where you stated we'd be getting "testimony given under oath" and therefore will "find out won't we"

typing in larger font doesn't change that

[spurraider21]

It is really interesting the way political leanings on this site (even from the most rational posters) trend EXACTLY with whether or not one believes allegations made against a person.

In a nutshell: Trump is accused of raping a 13 year old girl. The timing of the accusation is inconvenient for the Trump campaign, but that certainly does not mean the accusation has no merit. If FWDT says it doesn't get this far without merit, I believe him. However, Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Any honest person would recognize that the odds of THAT happening are very slim. Donald Trump will not go to jail for raping a 13 year old 20 years ago. I would be willing to bet the bulk of my retirement savings on that statement.trump wont be going to prison over this because its a lawsuit not a criminal case.

[spurraider21]

The point I made earlier relates to this.

Hillary has been investigated over and over again by those who oppose her politically without anyone ever reaching a conclusion that her purported misdeeds require further legal action - civilly or criminally. Yet, somehow, we're supposed to take the aggregation of these investigations and conclude that the fact of the investigations alone (and their number) is proof that she's crooked, even though none of them have shown her guilty of anything.

At the same time, we're supposed to permit the legal process to run its course on the allegations against Trump and presume him innocent until proven guilty.

I don't get that.i get it. its called hypocrisy. and then even they double down on hypocrisy by then saying "look at how hypocritical THEY are"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

says the guy that just got the golden shower.

:lol wanna be internet debate judge gives his verdict. He's going to ride Trump's dick.

[IceColdBrewski]

Allegations from 20 years ago? This will get tossed out again just like it was before. Libs getting desperate now for a distraction from the criminal bitch they support. :lol

[apalisoc_9]

Grab it her to young..

[RandomGuy]

The action taking place at the courthouse is clearly more important at this point.

Doesn't really answer the question and shifts direction. Sophism, per par.

Do you think offering sophistic arguments is more or less convincing than being honest and forthright?

[DarrinS]

So when does this Jerry Springer trial take place?

[Pelicans78]

I'm just gonna use the "He raped. Period." line even though i have no evidence.

[tlongII]

Doesn't really answer the question and shifts direction. Sophism, per par.

Do you think offering sophistic arguments is more or less convincing than being honest and forthright?

If you want honesty and forthrightness I have a hard time understanding why you're supporting Hillary.

[boutons_deux]

If you want honesty and forthrightness I have a hard time understanding why you're supporting Hillary.

It's an easy time to see why you are supporting dishonest, secretive Trash.

[RandomGuy]

Do you think offering sophistic arguments is more or less convincing than being honest and forthright?


If you want honesty and forthrightness I have a hard time understanding why you're supporting Hillary.

Also not really an answer.

I guess we can therefore assume you think being dishonest is more convincing. Shocker.

Why do you think the right has to lie so much to make their case?

[RandomGuy]

It is really interesting the way political leanings on this site (even from the most rational posters) trend EXACTLY with whether or not one believes allegations made against a person.

In a nutshell: Trump is accused of raping a 13 year old girl. The timing of the accusation is inconvenient for the Trump campaign, but that certainly does not mean the accusation has no merit. If FWDT says it doesn't get this far without merit, I believe him. However, Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Any honest person would recognize that the odds of THAT happening are very slim. Donald Trump will not go to jail for raping a 13 year old 20 years ago. I would be willing to bet the bulk of my retirement savings on that statement.

I honestly don't know.

Given Trump's behavior and sense of entitlement when it comes to females, I am far less inclined to simply dismiss anything. Bear in mind this is a civil trial. Given the age of the charges, I would posit the statute of limitations is long passed.

I give CC's position that this is somehow motivated by greed or something a modest chance, given the target's wealth. They could be seeking to settle for a good chunk of change.

OTH, the person making the charges could simply be saying to herself "at last someone will believe me" as so many of the Cosby accusers have said. This is often the case with victims of sexual assualt, i.e. they wait a long time, especially given the legal/society environment of 20 years ago.

If anything the age of the charges speaks, in my mind, volumes because of that. I grant the possibility that it is made up, but both the timing ("I don't want to see the man who attacked me elected president") and the age ("maybe now someone will believe my story") indicate a pretty good chance of this being truthful, over simple opportunism ("he has a lot of money, so I'm going to try and get some")

Since there is no solid evidence as yet, that is about everything anyone can say, and that with no real degree of certainty.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I honestly don't know.

Given Trump's behavior and sense of entitlement when it comes to females, I am far less inclined to simply dismiss anything. Bear in mind this is a civil trial. Given the age of the charges, I would posit the statute of limitations is long passed.

I give CC's position that this is somehow motivated by greed or something a modest chance, given the target's wealth. They could be seeking to settle for a good chunk of change.

OTH, the person making the charges could simply be saying to herself "at last someone will believe me" as so many of the Cosby accusers have said. This is often the case with victims of sexual assualt, i.e. they wait a long time, especially given the legal/society environment of 20 years ago.

If anything the age of the charges speaks, in my mind, volumes because of that. I grant the possibility that it is made up, but both the timing ("I don't want to see the man who attacked me elected president") and the age ("maybe now someone will believe my story") indicate a pretty good chance of this being truthful, over simple opportunism ("he has a lot of money, so I'm going to try and get some")

Since there is no solid evidence as yet, that is about everything anyone can say, and that with no real degree of certainty.

Not a single mention of Norm Lubow?

[tlongII]

Do you think offering sophistic arguments is more or less convincing than being honest and forthright?



Also not really an answer.

I guess we can therefore assume you think being dishonest is more convincing. Shocker.

Why do you think the right has to lie so much to make their case?

You're the one that's supporting a demonstrably dishonest politician.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you think the right has to lie so much to make their case?


You're the one that's supporting a demonstrably dishonest politician.

Now I am really confused, you think I am supporting Trump? or do you think I am claiming that Hillary is honest? I am doing neither.

So, in answer to the question "why does the right have to lie so much to make their case", your response is to lie?

The question remains:

Why do you think the right has to lie so much to make their case? Your thoughts. If you don't think the right lies so much, perhaps you can pick a topic, and we can walk through the lies I am observing.

We could start with the reasons Republicans gave for not voting on the Supreme court vacancy.

[RandomGuy]

Not a single mention of Norm Lubow?

Relevance? Honestly don't recognize the name. Just weeding through an initial vetting of what I do know, using critical thinking.

[RandomGuy]

Not a single mention of Norm Lubow?

Do you think the right-wing media is honest when it presents information? Why or why not?

I see a lot of poor critical thinking when I read your links, as I have pointed out in the past. Even the timeline you posted is not quite fully honest.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Relevance? Honestly don't recognize the name. Just weeding through an initial vetting of what I do know, using critical thinking.Very relevant.

The original Guardian article you posted included a link to the Guardian's investigation they did into the Trump rape accusations, which Lubow is behind. They found a bunch of other times Lubow was busted for similar false claims against celebrities. Not sure how you missed it the first time.

[RandomGuy]

Very relevant.

The original Guardian article you posted included a link to the Guardian's investigation they did into the Trump rape accusations, which Lubow is behind. They found a bunch of other times Lubow was busted for similar false claims against celebrities. Not sure how you missed it the first time.

Easy answer:

Didn't read the full Guardian article. Skimmed the story somewhere else, then google searched it, and linked the first article I found.

As much as I am loathe to admit a mistake, this is one. Since I hold intellectual honesty to be important, I will however put on my big boy pants and admit it.

Add that to the other bit, and the charges look a lot less likely, if Lubow is indeed involved.

Thanks for catching that. In retrospect that is probably a pretty fair reason that the mainstream media has left this one alone, and we haven't seen more of it, which is something of a good thing.

Again, thanks, and sorry for not fully reading my own article.

[RandomGuy]

Not a single mention of Norm Lubow?

So let's walk through this then.

It should be noted though, that there is nothing to show here, who is making the allegation, merely that Lubow attempted to profit from a tape.

In this case Lubow's credibility is not that of the claimants, assuming Jane Doe is the one bringing the suit. Agree or disagree?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Easy answer:

Didn't read the full Guardian article. Skimmed the story somewhere else, then google searched it, and linked the first article I found.

As much as I am loathe to admit a mistake, this is one. Since I hold intellectual honesty to be important, I will however put on my big boy pants and admit it.

Add that to the other bit, and the charges look a lot less likely, if Lubow is indeed involved.

Thanks for catching that. In retrospect that is probably a pretty fair reason that the mainstream media has left this one alone, and we haven't seen more of it, which is something of a good thing.

Again, thanks, and sorry for not fully reading my own article.

No worries :tu

[TheSanityAnnex]

So let's walk through this then.

It should be noted though, that there is nothing to show here, who is making the allegation, merely that Lubow attempted to profit from a tape.

In this case Lubow's credibility is not that of the claimants, assuming Jane Doe is the one bringing the suit. Agree or disagree?Actually it doesn't look like Lubow was involved in pitching the tape, that was some unnamed publicist. Lubow looks to have coordinated the lawsuit.

I'm not saying her claim is false, I'm just highly skeptical because of who's helping her push the claim.

[RandomGuy]

Actually it doesn't look like Lubow was involved in pitching the tape, that was some unnamed publicist. Lubow looks to have coordinated the lawsuit.

I'm not saying her claim is false, I'm just highly skeptical because of who's helping her push the claim.

I wouldn't say "highly". Such charges generally aren't made lightly against such powerful people, and when they are, they fall apart rather quickly.

As I said, hard to say with any degree of certainty, and we will get to see.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Not sure if same accuser but rape allegation case against Trump dropped, again.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770

[tlongII]

Why do you think the right has to lie so much to make their case?



Now I am really confused, you think I am supporting Trump? or do you think I am claiming that Hillary is honest? I am doing neither.

So, in answer to the question "why does the right have to lie so much to make their case", your response is to lie?

The question remains:

Why do you think the right has to lie so much to make their case? Your thoughts. If you don't think the right lies so much, perhaps you can pick a topic, and we can walk through the lies I am observing.

We could start with the reasons Republicans gave for not voting on the Supreme court vacancy.

Where did I lie? You support Hillary and she is demonstrably dishonest. I have no comment on why the right lies so much. Do you believe the left does not lie?

[FromWayDowntown]

Apparently, she dropped the suit, but insists that what she alleged is true:

http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who-accused-trump-of-raping-her-at-13-just-dr-1788603598

[FromWayDowntown]

But there's also this, which is more salacious than anything:

National Enquirer Shielded Donald Trump From Playboy Model’s Affair Allegation

The company that owns the National Enquirer, a backer of Donald Trump, agreed to pay $150,000 to a former Playboy centerfold model for her story of an affair a decade ago with the Republican presidential nominee, but then didn’t publish it, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and people familiar with the matter.

The tabloid-newspaper publisher reached an agreement in early August with Karen McDougal, the 1998 Playmate of the Year. American Media Inc., which owns the Enquirer, hasn’t published anything about what she has told friends was a consensual romantic relationship she had with Mr. Trump in 2006. At the time, Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who-accused-trump-of-raping-her-at-13-just-dr-1788603598

[Fabbs]

Well, whom are we to believe now?
Woman Suing Trump on Rape Charges a No-Show at Press Conference
Woman Suing Donald Trump Over Alleged Rape Drops Lawsuit (Again)

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/02/woman-suing-trump-on-rape-charges/
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/05/trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-again/

The complainant cited "numerous threats" against her life as the reason behind both her non-appearance and her dropping of the lawsuit. The woman alleged that Trump and billionaire Jeffrey Epstein had raped her in 1994, when she was a 13-year-old aspiring model.

“She has been here all day, ready to do it, but unfortunately she is in terrible fear,” attorney Lisa Bloom said of the abortive press conference. A status conference for the lawsuit was scheduled to be held on 16 December 2016.

Alan Garten, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said the claims were “a complete fabrication” and that "this is basically a sham lawsuit brought by someone who desires to impact the presidential election."

[Winehole23]

But there's also this, which is more salacious than anything:

National Enquirer Shielded Donald Trump From Playboy Model’s Affair Allegation

The company that owns the National Enquirer, a backer of Donald Trump, agreed to pay $150,000 to a former Playboy centerfold model for her story of an affair a decade ago with the Republican presidential nominee, but then didn’t publish it, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and people familiar with the matter.

The tabloid-newspaper publisher reached an agreement in early August with Karen McDougal, the 1998 Playmate of the Year. American Media Inc., which owns the Enquirer, hasn’t published anything about what she has told friends was a consensual romantic relationship she had with Mr. Trump in 2006. At the time, Mr. Trump was married to his current wife, Melania.

http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who-accused-trump-of-raping-her-at-13-just-dr-1788603598very magnanimous of the National Enquirer

[Warlord23]

Where did I lie? You support Hillary and she is demonstrably dishonest. I have no comment on why the right lies so much. Do you believe the left does not lie?

If you use Hillary's dishonesty as a disqualifier, you better be voting 3rd party because Donnie has her beat by miles on this one. Hillary twists the facts, hides stuff and lies like a lawyer, but Chump lies like an unbalanced sociopath, not caring if his lies can be disproved by a couple of minutes of research on youtube or google.

[Pelicans78]

Do you think the right-wing media is honest when it presents information? Why or why not?

I see a lot of poor critical thinking when I read your links, as I have pointed out in the past. Even the timeline you posted is not quite fully honest.

I just see semantics on your part to dismiss the fact that you are supporting one of the most corrupt politicians in history and seem to have no problem with that.

[tlongII]

If you use Hillary's dishonesty as a disqualifier, you better be voting 3rd party because Donnie has her beat by miles on this one. Hillary twists the facts, hides stuff and lies like a lawyer, but Chump lies like an unbalanced sociopath, not caring if his lies can be disproved by a couple of minutes of research on youtube or google.

Absolutely incorrect.

[spurraider21]

"thousands of muslims cheering from rooftops"
"people saw bombs on the floor and didn't report it"
"general pershing lined up and shot muslims with bullets covered in pig blood"

[TheSanityAnnex]

Apparently, she dropped the suit, but insists that what she alleged is true:

http://theslot.jezebel.com/the-woman-who-accused-trump-of-raping-her-at-13-just-dr-1788603598

She made up the story about Trump

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html

[Spurminator]

She made up the story about Trump

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html

You just linked the British National Inquirer with a story about making up stories.

Did you read it?

[Winehole23]

TSA isn't responsible for what he posts -- " just spreading information"

[RandomGuy]

I just see semantics on your part to dismiss the fact that you are supporting one of the most corrupt politicians in history and seem to have no problem with that.

(shrugs)

One has to weigh an awful lot of shit this election cycle. I don't buy all the "corrupt" blather entirely, as the people claiming that have every motivation to exaggerate, and you know it.

For the sake of argument, sure I am supporting one of the most corrupt politicians in history, over the least qualified candidate for president in modern history. Trump is so seriously stupid and irresponsible that I am still somewhat shocked that a major political party nominated him.

Do you think someone who can't be trusted with a twitter feed should be president? You do know his advisers took away Trump's twitter account right?

What does that say to you?

[RandomGuy]

She made up the story about Trump

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914012/Troubled-woman-history-drug-use-claimed-assaulted-Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-sex-party-age-13-FABRICATED-story.html

Did all of the women make up their stories?

Is drug use and other self-destructive behavior common among victims of childhood sexual assault?

[DarrinS]

There's enough dirt on Trump. No need to go full Duke lacrosse.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you think the right has to lie so much to make their case?


I have no comment on why the right lies so much.

The right has to lie so much, because their beliefs about what is true quite often aren't supported by facts and evidence. Pretty simple.

You cannot sustain an accurate model of the world around you if you believe lies and things without applying some modicum of skepticism.

Public policy should not be build on lies for this reason, because it wastes everybody's money.

Beliefs about reality have consequences. The fact that people in the right suck up everything they read without such critical thinking should bother you.

[RandomGuy]

If you use Hillary's dishonesty as a disqualifier, you better be voting 3rd party because Donnie has her beat by miles on this one. Hillary twists the facts, hides stuff and lies like a lawyer, but Chump lies like an unbalanced sociopath, not caring if his lies can be disproved by a couple of minutes of research on youtube or google.

That is a provable fact.

Trump lies reflexively. He is a salesman, and a con artist, and has gotten a lot of gullible people buying into what amounts to a pyramid scheme pitch.

[RandomGuy]

Absolutely incorrect.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-us-history-presidents-liars-dishonest-fabulists-214024


Trump is much more shameless as a trafficker in untruth. He seems willing to say whatever he deems necessary to win support at the moment, and he tries to get people to accept his statements through the sheer vehemence of his rhetoric. When he says, falsely, that “there’s no real assimilation” among “second- and third-generation” Muslims in the United States, it clearly doesn’t matter to Trump whether he’s right; what matters is that he wants us to believe he’s right. Many of his misstatements, taken individually, may be fairly innocent or at least commonplace, but the brazenness and frequency of the falsehoods, and their evident expedience, are what set Trump apart. Moreover, his typical response to being called out is to double down on a falsehood—like denying that he backed the 2003 Iraq invasion and the 2011 Libya intervention—or to pretend he never uttered it, showing an egregious unconcern or contempt for truth that taxes even the generous standards of political discourse.

[tlongII]

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

― Ronald Reagan

[RandomGuy]

There's enough dirt on Trump. No need to go full Duke lacrosse.

True that. As I have said before, what horrors lie in his finances should give anyone pause.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You just linked the British National Inquirer with a story about making up stories.

Did you read it?

And you linked an article from Jezebel, that quotes the Daily Mail.

Did you read it?

[FromWayDowntown]

And you linked an article from Jezebel, that quotes the Daily Mail.

Did you read it?

Spurminator didn't link that, I did. And I read the DM article that was included in the story I posted, which doesn't say the story was fabricated. It says that the fact that she dropped the case had led to speculation that the story may have been fabricated. ("But DailyMail.com has learned that she has dropped the case against Trump, leading to speculation that Johnson's story may have been fabricated."). Speculation is not proof.

The subsequent report, which you've posted, claims that the story was made up, but it's pretty thin on fact to support that assertion. I wouldn't be shocked if it were made up, but I've yet to see anything to conclusively (or even persuasively) prove that it was actually fabricated. And there are still plausible explanations for dropping the suit that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether her claims were true or not.

Regardless, it's over. Since I had been vocal on this subject, I posted a relevant story when I saw that the suit had been dropped. I thought that was a balanced approach to the issue.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Spurminator didn't link that, I did. And I read the DM article that was included in the story I posted, which doesn't say the story was fabricated. It says that the fact that she dropped the case had led to speculation that the story may have been fabricated. ("But DailyMail.com has learned that she has dropped the case against Trump, leading to speculation that Johnson's story may have been fabricated."). Speculation is not proof.

The subsequent report, which you've posted, claims that the story was made up, but it's pretty thin on fact to support that assertion. I wouldn't be shocked if it were made up, but I've yet to see anything to conclusively (or even persuasively) prove that it was actually fabricated. And there are still plausible explanations for dropping the suit that have nothing whatsoever to do with whether her claims were true or not.

Regardless, it's over. Since I had been vocal on this subject, I posted a relevant story when I saw that the suit had been dropped. I thought that was a balanced approach to the issue.

Not the first time I've confused you and Spurminator, take that as a compliment. I'm assuming it was made up after reading about all of the other frivolous lawsuits Lubow was behind, but my opinion on the matter means jack.

It is over.

[FromWayDowntown]

Not the first time I've confused you and Spurminator, take that as a compliment.

I'll gladly take being confused for Spurminator. Spurminator may not be as pleased.

[clambake]

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.”

― Ronald Reagan

thats funny.

but, actually, most everyone that worked closely with him have said "you could wade through ronald reagan's deepest thoughts and never get your ankles wet"

[Spurminator]

I'll gladly take being confused for Spurminator. Spurminator may not be as pleased.

Highly pleased.