Trump Summons Boebart To White House Over Discharge Petition

[Andy1]

5 hours ago, muppy said:

why the pivot then though?

One possible explanation may be that he previously, honestly believed in the “if you’re rich and famous you can do what you want” philosophy which I’ve heard from someone before. A psycho person could believe that and think that nothing would ever stick to them, like Teflon Don. Projection onto their political opponents becomes the strategy. Then at some later time, some attorney knocked some sense into their brain and they realized that sexually assaulting young girls is considered socially unacceptable so the stop the release strategy is adopted. People with twisted brains do things the rest of us would consider illogical. 

Edited 14 hours ago by Andy1

[JDHillFan]

4 minutes ago, Andy1 said:

One possible explanation may be that he previously, honestly believed in the “if you’re rich and famous you can do what you want” philosophy which I’ve heard from someone before. A psycho person could believe that and think that nothing would ever stick to them, like Teflon Don. Projection onto their political opponents becomes the strategy. Then at some later time, some attorney knocked some sense into their brain and they realized that sexually assaulting young girls is considered socially unacceptable so the stop the release strategy is adopted. People with twisted brains do things the rest of us would consider illogical. 

You must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Good heavens. 

[SCBills]

Absolutely disgusting for the Democrats to be propagandizing like this. 
 

What you can’t see referenced is a deleted tweet by The Democrats official account alluding to Trump spending the Thanksgiving referenced in the tweet with Epstein.  
 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by SCBills

[Homelander]

 

[muppy]

13 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Muppinator….he was not convicted of sex crimes. He lost a civil case.  There is a difference, and it’s substantial.    

I did not say in a civil proceeding .  My bad

 

I  am not an esquire but I know the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "by a preponderance of the evidence." Hence  the burden of proof being much lower in a civil case.

 

Either way who wants that on their record?  Nobody

 

I read he wants to dismiss the judgment and absolve himself.

 

WTF

 

SMH He is our POTUS

 

Lord have mercy

 

and for those people who don't know me I am NOT using the Lords name in Vain. I mean it. with every cell in my body

 

Happy Thanksgiving amigo  🙂

 

m

Edited 3 hours ago by muppy

[muppy]

16 hours ago, Roundybout said:

 

 

 

What the hell, man

this quote is one of the most disgusting things Ive  read in the cesspool. That statement was birthed in the bowels of hell, the insinuations are evil and against the law. 

 

WTAF

 

**BLECH***~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited 3 hours ago by muppy

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

12 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

You must have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Good heavens. 

Take the scales off of your eyes for God's sake 

 

Why is Maxwell being given special treatment? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

41 minutes ago, muppy said:

I did not say in a civil proceeding .  My bad

 

I  am not an esquire but I know the difference between "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and "by a preponderance of the evidence." Hence  the burden of proof being much lower in a civil case.

 

Either way who wants that on their record?  Nobody

 

I read he wants to dismiss the judgment and absolve himself.

 

WTF

 

SMH He is our POTUS

 

Lord have mercy

 

and for those people who don't know me I am NOT using the Lords name in Vain. I mean it. with every cell in my body

 

Happy Thanksgiving amigo  🙂

 

m

Everyone has a right to an opinion, and we all know that even with the higher standard of a criminal trial, there are times when innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.  
 

 

The civil justice system is the best we can do, but not all civil cases in all jurisdictions work the same.   The term “ambulance chaser” did not come about because it was based on purity and virtue.  
 

Broadly speaking, the ability for victims to have their day in court for deeds that took place decades ago can be applauded.   The fact that a victim of abuse at the hands of a person in a position of authority (clergy, teacher, scoutmaster etc) can seek some sort of relief is a good thing. 
 

However, it’s also fraught with potential for abuse and manipulation.  I think that’s maybe why, generally, the statute of limitations  isn’t

10, 20, 30 or 50 years.    Getting to the bottom of who did what and when and why becomes increasingly difficult with the passage of time. 
 

In this case, we obviously have different points of view on the situation, plaintiff and defendant.  I respect that, but if the jury incorrectly decided the outcome, Trump is 100% justified in pursuing every recourse available to him, as is his right in the same civil system that awarded the plaintiff a sizable sum of money.  
 

Again, a step back.  Trump says the plaintiff is lying, opts not to settle and takes his chances with a jury.  He then decides to fight the verdict for as long as necessary, regardless of cost.  Liberal people are stunned, can’t believe that others cannot see what is painfully obvious to them. 
 

Meanwhile, Kamala Harris partners with Bill Clinton, who opted to pay a victim who claimed he sexually assaulted her  $800k.  She also partnered with JB, after she stated that she believed the women who accused him of taking liberties with them.  This, of course, after she sought to reinvent SC Justice Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook entries.   She was the chosen one to be President by millions, after gropey Joe, and after Clinton’s wife who stood by her hubby and victim shamed the people who accused him. 
 

SMH indeed. 

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

Trump won't talk to press now. He's really running scared

 

 

[muppy]

24 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Everyone has a right to an opinion, and we all know that even with the higher standard of a criminal trial, there are times when innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit.  
 

 

In this case, we obviously have different points of view on the situation, plaintiff and defendant.  I respect that, but if the jury incorrectly decided the outcome, Trump is 100% justified in pursuing every recourse available to him, as is his right in the same civil system that awarded the plaintiff a sizable sum of money.  
 

Again, a step back.  Trump says the plaintiff is lying, opts not to settle and takes his chances with a jury.  He then decides to fight the verdict for as long as necessary, regardless of cost.  Liberal people are stunned, can’t believe that others cannot see what is painfully obvious to them. 
 

SMH indeed. 

having said all that Leo the crux of THIS matter is Naranja. If you really in your heart of hearts think he is innocent that is also your opinion.  You know what I think. He is not  good guy. I question his morals ethics and don't believe much of what he says.  Bottom line is we will always see him differently

 

Based on what evidence you would think that  he is innocent Im not sure.  I tend to believe women who make claims of sexual assault.   I don't wish to elaborate further

 

yes he has the right to appeal.    He did it (MY opinion)  and he wants to win in court and clear his name.  that's a no Brainer for him. Fat chance of that.

 

I'll SMH  back and raise you a hair flip

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by muppy

[thenorthremembers]

The longer this nonsense goes on the more I feel like Trump has something to hide.   Getting a little tired of the back and forth.

[AlBUNDY4TDS]

Honestly I don't think Trump is protecting himself, he's protecting some power friends. The dems are guilty of this as well.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 hour ago, muppy said:

having said all that Leo the crux of THIS matter is Naranja. If you really in your heart of hearts think he is innocent that is also your opinion.  You know what I think. He is not  good guy. I question his morals ethics and don't believe much of what he says.  Bottom line is we will always see him differently

 

Based on what evidence you would think that  he is innocent Im not sure.  I tend to believe women who make claims of sexual assault.   I don't wish to elaborate further

 

yes he has the right to appeal.    He did it (MY opinion)  and he wants to win in court and clear his name.  that's a no Brainer for him. Fat chance of that.

 

I'll SMH  back and raise you a hair flip

 

 

 

 

 

I don’t know if Trump did what he is accused of or not.  The outcome of a civil trail on an allegations decades in the past doesn’t move me one way or the other.  In a different, less liberal part of the world, then outcome of the same trial where Trump prevails leaves in the same spot.   Oh, and if Trump is successful in his fight to overturn the verdict, I still won’t know one way or the other….and you’ll still believe. 
 

However….when money, power and politics collide, I am very naturally cynical of who is saying what, and why.    In that regard, Mup, I think I’m pretty much middle of the road on how most people view these things.    
 

As for believing woman who allege sexual assault, I agree with you.   I don’t agree 100% of the time, and again, I view criminal v civil differently. 

 

At the end of the day though, it still seems an awful lot to me like people are willing to look past the glaring issues of their own party while passing judgement on the opposition.  Did Harris partnering with Clinton cause you to sit on the sidelines?  I’m betting no, and I don’t judge that, I just find it sort of interesting.   
 

Oh, and I SMDH!