President Donald Trump acused by 3 women of Sexual Misconduct

[HomerThompson]

Yeah, yeah, you tried this already. He's not stepping down on unfounded allegations. He does not adhere to the new silly standard of "guilty if someone says so".

This song is getting old. Change the fuckin' record already.

Don't let the door hit you, Al.

Already have. According to the woman, Al apparently was the one who wanted to rehearse the kiss, and she didn't. He pressured her into it, and stuck his tongue down her throat. She felt violated.

Al doesn't remember it that way, but apologized anyways.

Nope. He's staying, and Pelosi already showed her true colors, by calling for "due process" over that other Dem clown who buried his sex scandals with tax payer money. He stepped down, and made her look like a complete dolt for defending him.

Lets just say the Dems folded their cards for any future re-litigation of Trump on this matter. It sure didn't take too long either. The fire was getting a little too hot on their end, I suppose.

<puh-lease75>

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Trotsky]

Too bad this isn't how reality operates little buddy.

It's funny how people like that can be so legally objectivist, yet don't apply such generous "well if no charges, then no wrongdoing" standards to, say, the Clintons

 

[elfeliz]

I wouldn't be surprised if the allegations were true, dude has said some creepy shit about his daughter and an underage girl. He has also said some other shit that shows he is a horndog. His supporters wouldn't care tho.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Also maybe we can take a tip and at least go 1/8 Sharia and make it so there has to be some sort of evidence and preferably a witness of some sort, not just a victim allegation and her word is final.

But I missed Trump's and the GOP's public defense of Al Franken on these grounds.

 

[HereticBD]

<puh-lease75>

If Franken outright denied everything, and didn't apologize, I would give him the same benefit of the doubt.

Nice try though, geek.

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's funny how people like that can be so legally objectivist, yet don't apply such generous "well if no charges, then no wrongdoing" standards to, say, the Clintons

Their position is so nakedly partisan I'm starting to have trouble even mustering the energy to respond.

 

[Trotsky]

If Franken outright denied everything, and didn't apologize, I would give him the same benefit of the doubt.

Nice try though, geek.

 

[snakedafunky]

But I missed Trump's and the GOP's public defense of Al Franken on these grounds.

To be fair Al Franken had to go based on the picture alone.

 

[splendica]

But I missed Trump's and the GOP's public defense of Al Franken on these grounds.

There was the picture of Franken for one.

Also, I read something recently (I believe it was in here) where someone said they'd lie if it meant impeaching Trump. If people have called for an assassination, and if ANTIFA, BLM, HAMAS/Hezbolah justify violence for their causes, you can bet their are fanatical Trump haters who could justify falsifying stories to impeach him. That should all make perfect sense.

 

[ultramanhyata]

And just like a record it goes round and round.

Provide evidence or piss off.

What "evidence" would convince you in a case where two people are in a private space and one of them is alleged to have made a statement to and/or touched the other?

 

[HomerThompson]

If Franken outright denied everything, and didn't apologize, I would give him the same benefit of the doubt.

Nice try though, geek.

He did deny the bulk of the allegations. His apology, and resignation, are clearly political. Which, of course, I'm fine with getting him out of there.

You're being a blind, partisan hack again. Hardly surprising. Especially considering that Trump has admitted to sexual assault on fucking tape. You suck at life, bro.

 

[kenetics]

I don't doubt Trump wouldn't do something like that sadly.

 

[kpt018]

The idea that the president is absolved of past behavior because it was covered during the election and he won anyone is utterly fucking ridiculous on many accounts.

 

[kpt018]

That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Damn, that kills like 95% of your posts.

 

[Kitafuji]

It's funny how people like that can be so legally objectivist, yet don't apply such generous "well if no charges, then no wrongdoing" standards to, say, the Clintons

from the article:
In other words, without any sort of supporting evidence, we should not put much stock in the sensational and belated claim of Trump himself participating in the rape of a young teenager.

Also, Bill Clinton was mentioned in the article as being buddies with Epstein. Did you miss that part?

 

[Rational Poster]

We'll give you Al Franken for kissing, but we're going torpedo your administration with this Mr. Trump.

 

[wake_me]

Senators are being forced out to build a case to do the same against Trump.

Same reason dems/CNN are saying Bill Clinton should have been forced out in hindsight

 

[ultramanhyata]

To be fair Al Franken had to go based on the picture alone.

Like the picture itself, that's laughable.

 

[HomerThompson]

The idea that the president is absolved of past behavior because it was covered during the election and he won anyone is utterly fucking ridiculous on many accounts.

Seriously.

"A lot of people are idiots who don't care that their Daddy Trump sexually assaults women like other people drink coffee. Therefore, Trump can't be held accountable for his crimes."