Trump

[gumboot]

I'm a little surprised that Republicans would go to Hillary rather than that Libertarian whose name I forget. I mean, so many of them really hate Hillary... do they hate that other guy even more than that?

It seems it's either quite specifically an anti-Trump vote, in which case the safe vote is a vote for the other popular candidate, or somewhere deep down they admit that Democrat policy is not actually the worst policy in the world.

Or they just haven't heard of so-and-so. Gary? John? Whoever.

[pogo]

In the American system today a vote for a third party is as useful as not voting. It does not help Trump but it does not hinder him either. To stop Trump you need to vote for Clinton.

And I don’t think many really hate Clinton. Some on the far right to: the Tea Party and Trump supporters in particular. But I don’t know that more centrist voters do. They’ve been told Clinton is bad, by Republicans. But they’ve had the chance to see for themselves recently in both debates, and compare her with Trump.

[Cloudane]

Then there‘s this, his roast of Trump. Obama knows exactly who Trump is, what he’s about, and has for a long time.

It's great watching bullies getting roasted. Here's another

[Dio]

In the American system today a vote for a third party is as useful as not voting. It does not help Trump but it does not hinder him either. To stop Trump you need to vote for Clinton.

Unless Trump pulls out, which is unlikely but hardly totally out of the question given today's events...

And I don’t think many really hate Clinton. Some on the far right to: the Tea Party and Trump supporters in particular. But I don’t know that more centrist voters do. They’ve been told Clinton is bad, by Republicans. But they’ve had the chance to see for themselves recently in both debates, and compare her with Trump.

Well, the starting point is that nobody really likes Clinton. And a lot do hate her.

[KlaxonCow]

[pogo]

That’s by now unsurprising, after his previous statements about his own daughter, and his obsessive interest in teenage beauty queens. And there’s also this:

Two Women Say Donald Trump Touched Them Inappropriately

Reading it and it’s hard to disbelieve them; both are describing events that happened long enough ago that they could not sue Trump, and have nothing to gain from opening themselves up to the glare of publicity. Trump has said he will sue the NYT, but he would be very foolish to do so: not only would he lose but the court case would bring his sexual history out into the open, much as previous court cases (which he also lost) have provided insights into his finances.

[gravy]

There's no statute of limitations on suing, it's just harder gathering evidence and make a case. There is one on criminal charges. It's why Cosby is being sued rather than prosecuted for the majority of claims against him.

So what are the rules?

Assange: Rapist!
Trump: Molestor!
Clinton: Well nothing has been proven in court!

Or am I making the mistake of trying ascribe some form of rational thought to white noise?

[pogo]

Clinton: She has been accused of nothing of this nature.

You mean her husband? No-one doubts he was a serial philanderer. But none of that was illegal. He has never been charged or taken to court, unlike Trump and Assange, and only one person has accused him of any form of assault, while Trump and Assange have multiple accusers. Most importantly it was Bill Clinton, not Hillary.

[gravy]

Clinton: She has been accused of nothing of this nature.

You mean her husband? No-one doubts he was a serial philanderer. But none of that was illegal. He has never been charged or taken to court, unlike Trump and Assange, and only one person has accused him of any form of assault, while Trump and Assange have multiple accusers. Most importantly it was Bill Clinton, not Hillary.

Trump and Clinton have both been taken to court and both settled without any admission of blame.

Assange has neither been charged nor taken to court.

AFAIK none of the above have been arrested for the kind of charge we're talking about.

You're finding out a lot of things today, has it altered your opinions in any way?

[pogo]

You mean Paula Jones? It was a civil case rather than a criminal one and was tossed out before it went to trial as entirely without merit; even if Jones’s allegations were true they were not sexual assault, according to the Republican appointed judge:

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar_ca ... 4025806249

Although the Governor's alleged conduct, if true, may certainly be characterized as boorish and offensive, even a most charitable reading of the record in this case fails to reveal a basis for a claim of criminal sexual assault.

Of course this case led directly to the Lewinsky scandal, which arose from the deposition to it. When Jones appealed Clinton settled rather than go through that again, not as he was about to lose.

The only accusation of actual assault against him is Juanita Broaddrick, who has accused him of rape. But she has also denied it ever happened, signed a sworn affidavit that it never happened, and has not sought criminal or civil prosecution.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/joe- ... -1.2652509

Actually, there is only one candidate in 2016 who has faced credible charges of sexual assault: Donald Trump, whose first wife Ivana swore in a divorce deposition that he ripped out her hair and raped her (an accusation she recently withdrew). Perhaps Trump should disclose those divorce papers before he tries to smear Hillary Clinton again.

[gravy]

The Jones case was still live and in an appeal phase when Clinton went for a no fault settlement of $850k

And to be clear it was shown a few months later that the initial dismissal was made on the basis of testimony from Clinton found to be misleading. He was found in contempt and prosecuted for that and also stripped of his license to practise law.

Trump has settled similar cases in a similar manner.

None of the 3 have ever been arrested for or faced criminal charges for any form of sex crime as far as I know. Assange has never been sued for anything of that ilk either.

Now it's up to you if you want to take the 'innocent until proven guilty' path or the 'no smoke without fire' one.

Whatever you choose you apply that principle evenly irrespective of the defendant IMHO. This is mucky business all around, none of them look particularly clean.

[pogo]

But Jones’s was not about sexual assault: even if what she claimed happened it was not sexual assault. The only accusation of actual assault was Broaddrick, but she only ever pursued that through the media, after earlier signing an affidavit denying it ever happened. It has never been tested in court, either criminal or civil court, perhaps as Broaddrick has been advised it would not be credible, after delaying so long and her many contradictory statements on it.

Which is nothing like the long list of women who have accused Trump of actual assault, alongside his claims to have done it. Here’s some more. I’ve suggested already that Trump’s decision to branch out into the beauty pageant business was very creepy; there are no synergies with his real estate business, it just seems he was interested in being in charge of young women, including minors (the shows he owned including Miss Teen USA). Well, here’s some evidence of what he did while in charge.

A Timeline of Donald Trump's Creepiness While He Owned Miss Universe

Former Miss Teen USA Kamie Crawford says she was told ‘Mr. Trump doesn’t like black people’ during 2010 beauty pageant

[gravy]

Whether flashing is sexual assault or is debated, that's true.

Whether it's 'boorish behavior or a sexually related crime' isn't debated by most legal systems. Or sane people.

There are other Clinton accusations that are easily found if you want to search for them.

What I'm picking at here is the stupid characterization of their being clear water between Trump, Clinton and Asange.

None of these are rapists right now and none of the are squeaky clean either. And if you want to pre-judge this it's a bit of a stretch to call to pick out Asange as the likely worst if you look at the details of the cases.

The only facts here are Clinton paid out to halt a court case and was subsequently found guilty of giving misleading terstimony in that case.

The rest are allegations, some of which will likely never lead to criminal or civil charges (Assange) and others that may well (Trump, maybe Clinton but probably not) but it's still early days.

[pogo]

The only facts here are Clinton paid out to halt a court case and was subsequently found guilty of giving misleading terstimony in that case.

That happened due to a flaw in the US legal system though. Only in the US do they have lengthy pre-trial depositions where both sides can call for evidence, call witnesses and cross-examine them. The theory is it helps locate evidence, to make the trial more efficient and fairer. But in practice it has become part of the trial, in particular with witnesses under oath, so they can commit perjury if they say something that later turns out to be false. And they ask lots of questions, hoping to get an answer which can be contradicted or proven false later.

Why do it this way? It’s a make-work scheme for lawyers, as given the high stakes only the very well prepared or the very foolish would go into a deposition without their lawyer. With a lawyer or multiple lawyers on each side that’s lots and lots of billable hours. Lawyers are among the top contributors to the Democratic Party.

Anywhere else, if you are asked outside court “did you have sexual relations with this woman”, deny it, and are found out to be lying it’s embarrassing. It may be suitable fodder for tabloids, or grounds for a divorce. But you can’t be prosecuted for it.

[merman]

You know how Hillary has been getting stick for deleting 30,000 e-mails?

George W Bush and pals deleted 3 MILLION White House e-mails...