How is that a better quality to his base? That means he has never taken communion at church.
who are you peddling this nonsense to? Most churches aren't catholic or episcopal, and those that are generally don't harp on the wine thing. Most of their folks just eat the bread. If they take the wine it's just a sip.
Churchgoers generally know this, so who are you trying to fool here?
Do Churchgoers know Trump has broken 4 of the 10 commandments? But so do most "Churchgoers"
Who gives a damn. He is still a POS of a human, convicted felon and guilty of tax fraud, sexual abuse and defamation.
Funny how Trump is totally demonised from every possible angle and yet Democratic presidents like Clinton for example and his whole Monica Lewinsky affair where he lied under oath are completely overlooked and he’s painted as a great former president
Cause we did really well under his term. Great economy etc.
1. Trump himself has never been found guilty of tax fraud.
2. Trump himself has never been found guilty of sexual abuse. He was found "liable" for sexual abuse (not rape) and defamation, but all that means is the jury thought there was a 50.1% chance he fingered his accuser 30 years ago, which is basically a nothingburger.
Do better. This fake narrative is why the left is hemorrhaging supporters every day.
trump was impeached twice.
trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records, pending sentencing.
trump organization was convicted of financial/tax fraud and has a $354m penalty on it.
trump was held liable for defaming jean carroll and owes her $88.3m in damages. the defamation finding was that he lied by denying he sexually abused her.
you can do better with your parsed crap.
If you have been paying attention to the coverage of those cases by legal experts (even liberals like Alan Dershowitz), they will tell you the tax fraud case and the falsifying business records will be overturned on appeal due to egregious errors made during the cases. I am not sure if the E. Jean Carroll one can be, but it seems absurd to me that she should be owed nearly 90 million dollars because Trump defamed her. She certainly couldnt have been damaged THAT much. And of course it would be Trumps prerogative to attack her if she is lying about him. Is he not allowed to defend himself? The impeachments were of course political.
"Vamos"= "let's go!" You meant the opposite, but unintentionally said the right thing! Si, como no? Why not "go" forward together while we still can? lose the antagonism and rancor and gather up the pieces and build a newer stronger Democracy?! Andale!
applies to both sides of the spectrum-the other general spectrum of people.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Sp
He hasn't touched drink or smoke, but he's touched plenty of underage girls. He's a pedo the far-right is covering up because they are all pedos. Enjoy the next four years you sickos.
trump was convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records, pending sentencing.
trump organization was convicted of financial/tax fraud and has a $354m penalty on it.
trump was held liable for defaming jean carroll and owes her $88.3m in damages. the defamation finding was that he lied by denying he sexually abused her.
you can do better with your parsed crap.
If you have been paying attention to the coverage of those cases by legal experts (even liberals like Alan Dershowitz), they will tell you the tax fraud case and the falsifying business records will be overturned on appeal due to egregious errors made during the cases. I am not sure if the E. Jean Carroll one can be, but it seems absurd to me that she should be owed nearly 90 million dollars because Trump defamed her. She certainly couldnt have been damaged THAT much. And of course it would be Trumps prerogative to attack her if she is lying about him. Is he not allowed to defend himself? The impeachments were of course political.
She wasn't lying. A court determined he sexually assaulted her. His defence failed. That's why he was held to have defamed her.
Our Führer vas alzo drinking not zi alcohol, except maybe a sip at zi state dinner wis zi Italian prime minister an such. And he vas alzo eating not zi flesh ov zie animals. I am feeling zis characteristics ver making him Zo brave and alzo compassionate. Danke.
If you have been paying attention to the coverage of those cases by legal experts (even liberals like Alan Dershowitz), they will tell you the tax fraud case and the falsifying business records will be overturned on appeal due to egregious errors made during the cases. I am not sure if the E. Jean Carroll one can be, but it seems absurd to me that she should be owed nearly 90 million dollars because Trump defamed her. She certainly couldnt have been damaged THAT much. And of course it would be Trumps prerogative to attack her if she is lying about him. Is he not allowed to defend himself? The impeachments were of course political.
She wasn't lying. A court determined he sexually assaulted her. His defence failed. That's why he was held to have defamed her.
you don't understand what being held liable means. Trump was held liable for SA which just means the jury thought there was a 50.0000000001% chance she could be telling the truth. it wasn't even pursued as a criminal case because the defense knew they had no real evidence.
I have no dog in fight. Regardless of what people think of Trump, the guy keeps an insane schedule, especially for his age. He doesn't look very fit, but I would safely guess that not drinking or smoking has contributed to him being able to do what he is doing at his age. The guy is relentless.
She wasn't lying. A court determined he sexually assaulted her. His defence failed. That's why he was held to have defamed her.
you don't understand what being held liable means. Trump was held liable for SA which just means the jury thought there was a 50.0000000001% chance she could be telling the truth. it wasn't even pursued as a criminal case because the defense knew they had no real evidence.
You are a moron and don't understand the law. A finding by a jury in a civil case is a finding of fact. The judge said it could not be subsequently argued by Trump that he hadn't sexually assaulted her ("raped", the judge said). To do so was defamatory - to the tune of $83m. It wasn't pursued as a criminal case solely because of the Statute of Limitations. As a criminal case, it was out of time. Otherwise the rapist would be behind bars now.
I have no dog in fight. Regardless of what people think of Trump, the guy keeps an insane schedule, especially for his age. He doesn't look very fit, but I would safely guess that not drinking or smoking has contributed to him being able to do what he is doing at his age. The guy is relentless.
That's what the women he sexually assaulted say. He doesn't take "no".
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
