Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Apples to Oranges. Nasser wasn’t a stupid HS kid.

Had Kavanaugh not been a stupid kid at the time then of course my opinion would be different.

Had this been more of a predatory assault vs drunk kids at a party then of course my opinion would be different.

Like I’ve said before, context matters, this was 35yrs ago at a HS party.

Can Kavanaugh be tried and convicted today for sexual assault 35yrs who when we was a minor? He can’t.

You can agree or disagree. I really don’t care.

Alan

Monkeys typing wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

So what I’m gathering from the story is that he groped her*, . . .

* In a locked room with his hand over her mouth while restraining her against her will and trying to remove her clothing.

If not here, I'm curious at what point you would call it attempted rape.

I misread what you posted. Long day. I understand your point friend. Carry on.

It's disgusting that you would support Hillary Clinton, vote for her, and then deny what she was accused of by more many woman, one who ended up killed the day before she was to report her.

I know, brains aren't a big thing with you. Just spouting off at that mouth fits you well.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Well yes that’s attempted rape, according to her testimony. Again I wonder why now? Why wait 35yrs?

So I’ll say yes, a 17yr old HS kid attempted to rape a 15yr old girl. It’s sad, it’s horrbile, but again that was a lifetime ago. I just don’t think it should affect his appointment. Mostly because this incident would never have come up otherwise, it’s using a sad horrible 35yr old incident for political gain.

Alan

It's very common. Teenagers are the least likely to report sexual assaults, less likely than younger children. They're overcome with intense feelings of shame and feel like damaged goods. Do some research on this subject. The woman in question told her therapist about the incident six years ago. That's evidence to believe her.

You honestly think that's evidence to believe her?

Anyone who thinks any sort of conviction will come out of this is totally disillusion. There is literally no way on Earth this story can be corroborated unless it turns out Kavanaugh wrote about it in his diary that night and made an 8-track voice recording bragging about it.

There you go again - creating an alternate reality and trying to pass it off as the real thing. HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED??? Nobody knows except for the 2 or 3 who were there. That is why they have scheduled hearings to try to get to the truth. And yet you repeatedly come on here and try to foist your completely uninformed opinion of what when on as fact. It is nothing of the sort.

So, what the fvck is wrong with you that you feel such a need to create this fiction? In all seriousness, what is in your own past that has turned you from being a reasonable poster into basically a liar? STOP MAKING SH!T UP AND TRYING TO HAVE THE NARRATIVE REVOLVE AROUND YOUR MADE UP SH!T!

We don't even know that this event even took place. Your narrative is that an incident took place. Right now we have one person saying it did and two people saying it didn't.

Let it play out before coming up with YOUR narrative.

“Let that sink in. Trump's campaign chairman is GUILTY of CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.”

No, that is NOT my narrative, moron. I don't know what happened and I eagerly await the hearings to try to develop a better understanding.

Now, try not to be so stupid. That may be difficult for you but give it a try.

What is WRONG with you?!? wrote:

Calm down, Flagpole wrote:

We don't even know that this event even took place. Your narrative is that an incident took place. Right now we have one person saying it did and two people saying it didn't.

Let it play out before coming up with YOUR narrative.

No, that is NOT my narrative, moron. I don't know what happened and I eagerly await the hearings to try to develop a better understanding.

Now, try not to be so stupid. That may be difficult for you but give it a try.

How do you know 2 or 3 people were there if it is not YOUR narrative?

Calm down, Flagpole wrote:

Right now we have one person saying it did and two people saying it didn't.

One of those two people who says he has no recollection of this happening also says that he regularly got blackout drunk at high school parties. There's a lot he doesn't recall from those days.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Calm down, Flagpole wrote:

Right now we have one person saying it did and two people saying it didn't.

One of those two people who says he has no recollection of this happening also says that he regularly got blackout drunk at high school parties. There's a lot he doesn't recall from those days.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-mark-judge-high-school-drunk-allegation-alcohol/

I do believe he still says it didn't happen. Even if you take him out, it's still one person saying it happened and one person saying it didn't.

You know, I managed to get through high school just fine without sexually assaulting someone. It was so easy! Weird how some people seemed to have a hard time avoiding it.

Even if Kavanaugh didn't sexually assault that woman (he did), he's still a hyperpartisan nutjob unfit to serve on the court.

The guy spent YEARS and millions of dollars investigating the right wing conspiracy theory that Hilly Clinton killed Vince Foster, despite the fact that his death had been ruled a suicide by congressional committees, local police, the FBI, and the first special counsel . He harassed the family of a guy who committed suicide in order to give credibility to right-wing sex rumors about Clinton. He isn't a judge, he's a professional ratfker.

Calm down, Flagpole wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

One of those two people who says he has no recollection of this happening also says that he regularly got blackout drunk at high school parties. There's a lot he doesn't recall from those days.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-mark-judge-high-school-drunk-allegation-alcohol/

I do believe he still says it didn't happen. Even if you take him out, it's still one person saying it happened and one person saying it didn't.

I love me some unbiased Mother Jones.

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

Even if Kavanaugh didn't sexually assault that woman (he did)....

We need you to testify before Congress, please.

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

You know, I managed to get through high school just fine without sexually assaulting someone. It was so easy!

I have no doubt you did.

Asks a hopeful Trumper.

I have answered this before...Woodward isn't a legal investigator, and he doesn't have the legal authority that Mueller does or the staff that Mueller does to investigate fully. So, whether he "researched" the Trump Tower meeting or not is immaterial.

You Trumpers want to have it both ways...to say that Woodward is a bad journalist so none of the horrible things attributed to Trump are correct, but amazingly he's the best investigator in the world, so if he says he didn't see any evidence of collusion then that means there wasn't any.

Now, if he is including the Trump Tower meeting information that we all know publicly in his statement about not seeing any collusion (again that's not the question he was answering), then he has a different definition of what that entails, because it is clearly that (conspiracy).

1) Russia announced its support and specifically the Kremlin's support for Trump in an e-mail that we can all read.

2) Russia said it had dirt to give on Hillary in order to help Trump win again in an e-mail we can all read.

3) Don Jr., representing the Trump Campaign not only said "I love it" but told them when it would be best to release that info "later in the summer".

4) After step 3, we already have conspiracy, and this is even before the meeting. Once we get to the meeting, as Don Jr. said, they wanted to talk about Russian adoptions. Um...that is wrapped up in the Magnitsky Act which is about SANCTIONS placed on Russia following the death of Russian tax accountant Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009. So the quid pro quo here was insinuated...dirt on Hillary to help Trump win and lessening of sanctions as pay.

So, why is it conspiracy after step 3? They are conspiring in an illegal way. Dirt offered, and acceptance of dirt tendered along with when to release said dirt. It doesn't all have to be enacted. If the police get wind of two guys conspiring to rob a bank, they can arrest them for conspiracy before they rob the bank.

Calm down, Flagpole wrote:

What is WRONG with you?!? wrote:

No, that is NOT my narrative, moron. I don't know what happened and I eagerly await the hearings to try to develop a better understanding.

Now, try not to be so stupid. That may be difficult for you but give it a try.

How do you know 2 or 3 people were there if it is not YOUR narrative?

I do not. I could have typed something like "hypothetically 2 or 3 people" but kept it short. And you are so profoundly stupid that you were unable to see the obvious? Really?

#stupidbeyondbelief

Runningart2004 wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

* In a locked room with his hand over her mouth while restraining her against her will and trying to remove her clothing.

If not here, I'm curious at what point you would call it attempted rape.

Well yes that’s attempted rape, according to her testimony. Again I wonder why now? Why wait 35yrs?

So I’ll say yes, a 17yr old HS kid attempted to rape a 15yr old girl. It’s sad, it’s horrbile, but again that was a lifetime ago. I just don’t think it should affect his appointment. Mostly because this incident would never have come up otherwise, it’s using a sad horrible 35yr old incident for political gain.

Alan

You seem to be really struggling with this one. Let’s say she had spoken out back then and charges were filed and he was found guilty. He probably would have never become a judge in that scenario, and certainly not have been nominated for SCJ. Hopefully you can understand why (if not no one can help you). So it is not only important, but critical that we get to the bottom of this allegation. You may not know this, but in many licensed professions you can be barred from practice if a panel finds your behavior unethical or sufficiently damaging from a reputational perspective, you don’t actually have to be found guilty or even charged in court. What I’m trying to say, once again and more clearly this time, is that the standard for SCJ is and should be the highest of all positions. You are effectively saying that standard should be lowered. These people need to have demonstrated a consistently perfect record of ethics and professionalism. They need to be scrutinized to the Nth degree, all of them, Democrat or Republican. That the Dems are politicizing it is unfortunate for Republicans and the people involved, but it doesn’t take away from a high standard needing to be upheld.

Using another example - if he had committed tax fraud at age 20 and only now the IRS came out with potential charges, would you say it’s wrong to look into that?

It's in the name wrote:

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

You know, I managed to get through high school just fine without sexually assaulting someone. It was so easy!

I have no doubt you did.

THAT is supposed to be an insult?!? That he got through high school without sexually assaulting anyone?

What is WRONG with you?!?