Trump

[pogo]

And while there is no evidence or reason to think Clinton was covering up anything, Bush definitely was. One reason that there have been no prosecutions over the Iraq war is they deleted all the evidence. We know lots of illegal things went on (torture, detention), lots of bad decisions were made, but without evidence it’s impossible to make a criminal case.

There are other reasons: in the US as in many democracies there is a tendency to forgive the misdeeds of previous administrations, in the interest of a smooth transition. Any threat to prosecute them when they leave office may make them reluctant to peacefully leave. That’s why Trump’s threat to lock up Clinton is so disturbing as it goes against those norms.

And of course the Republicans have paid the price and are still paying the price for Bush’s failures electorally. It makes it hard for them to argue that Obama was a disaster, when he was so much better than Bush. Republicans have to look back to Reagan for an inspirational president, but he was a very different sort of Republican to the party today.

[KlaxonCow]

In response to this...



...Skittles issued this statement:

Skittles are candy. Refugees are people. We don't feel it's an appropriate analogy.

In response to Trump's use of Tic Tacs in his preparations for committing sexual assault, Tic Tac issued this Tweet:

Tic Tac respects all women. We find the recent statements and behavior completely inappropriate and unacceptable.

Snickers and Hershey Bars have yet to comment.

[gravy]

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.

Oh my word.

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.

Lol, he'd said he'd never been alone with Lewinsky and hadn't shagged her when the exact opposite had happened. And he did it under oath.

Clinton lied despite a much thorougher understanding of the consequences than most people given he's a lawyer.

It's not a slight stumble over some mis-remembered minor details you wad.

[F-ZeroOne]

Someone better call Saul...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuqobztXYAEIQn_.jpg

[pogo]

Lol, he'd said he'd never been alone with Lewinsky and hadn't shagged her when the exact opposite had happened. And he did it under oath.

Only because of the flawed and corrupt system of justice the US has. I mean, normally you go to court and give your evidence. You are allowed, even expected, to assert your innocence. If evidence is then presented that you are guilty then you don’t face further sanction, you just lose the case.

Only in the US are lawyers allowed to explore entirely unrelated areas in deposition. And because this happens under oath it can lead to brand new perjury charges. It does not require perversion of the cause of justice, as is normal in other jurisdictions. The Jones case was thrown out for reasons nothing to do with Lewinsky.

And the whole thing was politically motivated. Starr was originally appointed to look into Whitewater. When that led to no charges he decided to dig into unrelated sexual matters despite nothing illegal having happened. Bill and Hillary became more popular after it, as impeachment failed in Congress and voters agreed that the Clintons were the wronged party in all of this.

[gravy]

Lol, he'd said he'd never been alone with Lewinsky and hadn't shagged her when the exact opposite had happened. And he did it under oath.

Only because of the flawed and corrupt system of justice the US has. I mean, normally you go to court and give your evidence. You are allowed, even expected, to assert your innocence. If evidence is then presented that you are guilty then you don’t face further sanction, you just lose the case.

That's not true. If you lie in a court case and give false evidence that alters the outcome of the case then you're liable for perjury, even if you're the defendant.

If you're found guilty it's moot; you haven't altered the outcome.

This is also true in English law.

Clinton had a case thrown out, in part, due to his false evidence. You just don't understand this stuff at all.

[gumboot]

If you're found guilty it's moot; you haven't altered the outcome.

Does that mean that if you are found innocent and then your evidence is found to be false, you can defend your position by saying that it was other evidence that altered the outcome and that your own lie did not contribute to that?


Trump, for example, could argue that he talks meaningless shit almost exclusively, and everybody knows it so nobody could be expected to believe him and it must be some other evidence that changed things.

Similarly, even when he incriminates himself it's a work of fiction and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

[pogo]

Clinton had a case thrown out, in part, due to his false evidence. You just don't understand this stuff at all.

I linked to the judge’s decision in the case. It says, even if Paula Jones claims were true, and so Bill Clinton’s evidence was false, no sexual assault was committed. If the case had rested on who’s version of the truth was correct it would surely have proceeded to trial. But the judge threw the case out, as on that and on other matters no crime could have been committed. The Lewinsky evidence was not mentioned as it was not relevant to the claim, and was introduced for entirely political reasons.

[gumboot]

So what's the bet Trump wins by 98% or more? What with those Russian hackers so intent in helping him out, and all.

[SuperMappy]

I vastly agree with this!

[F-ZeroOne]

Obviously going for a certain person, but I can't help but feel that she was also aiming at our own, dear beloved Nigel:

[pogo]

Just in case anyone still has any doubts over Trump’s history of sexual assault.

Sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump: 10 women say he groped, kissed, or assaulted them

It’s not just the number, although that is striking. It’s the wide variety of them; these are not just copycat claims inspired by others. Some go back many years; they are not just politically motivated attempts to ruin his electoral chances. And two of them got as far as court, though for different reasons neither led to a conviction (one was part of a divorce case, one was a case that was dropped along with another business case).

And of course there’s Trump himself, claiming he could get away with and had gotten away with sexual assault on tape in 2005.

[merman]

Obviously going for a certain person, but I can't help but feel that she was also aiming at our own, dear beloved Nigel:

UKIP's MEPs are upset at Farage and his comments on Trump's "locker room banter".
So hopefully the backlash screws up UKIP even more.

[gumboot]

And of course there’s Trump himself, claiming he could get away with and had gotten away with sexual assault on tape in 2005.

Well I still maintain that if Trump incriminates himself it's not a mistake but a coincidence.

[gravy]

Just in case anyone still has any doubts over Trump’s history of sexual assault.

Sexual assault allegations against Donald Trump: 10 women say he groped, kissed, or assaulted them

It’s not just the number, although that is striking. It’s the wide variety of them; these are not just copycat claims inspired by others. Some go back many years; they are not just politically motivated attempts to ruin his electoral chances. And two of them got as far as court, though for different reasons neither led to a conviction (one was part of a divorce case, one was a case that was dropped along with another business case).

And of course there’s Trump himself, claiming he could get away with and had gotten away with sexual assault on tape in 2005.

I don't think anyone here is doubting Trump is a likely sex pest. Implying anything else is just muddled thinking.

The criteria you've used (number of complainants, similarity of complaint, a consistent history, settled law suits) apply to Clinton as well. The scale is likely different and in no way a migiation for Trump's behaviour.

The comments I've made about this are about your inconsistent application of thought depending on your political views. Bill Clinton, a victim of problems with the US legal system while Trumps a definite wrong un.

Not least calling someone a rapist to whom none of the above apply to because you don't like him.

You're Trump Jnr

And not to the man you've called a rapist.