Donald Trump and US politics

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

Bottom line, if Moore is innocent, where's the litigation? All he he has to do to exonerate himself, is get a forensic hand writing analysis of the message...

His lawyers are now trying to get the yearbook released for just that...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0eXpU35nZ8

One of the accusers who said she had no contact with Moore afterward is lying. He was her judge in her divorce case (1999?).

It also looks like the Judge's signature may just be a Court stamp. The D.A. is the initials of his assistant.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-roy-moore-accusations-20171115-story.html

"

Time to manufacture some additional fake accusers. I wonder how many will pop up today?

"

kolyaboo wrote:

I don't know if he is innocent or guilty but the witch hunt environment is not good for anybody. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Americans have a history of witch hunts. They eschew civilized behavior once they sniff blood in the water.

The burden of proof is on prosecution, not defense. Duh. If anyone has credible proof then charge him.

Uh, this guy was a VERY high profile judge for years he did not just crawl out of the woodwork to run for senate. Why were there no accusations in all these years?

Were these people in hibernation or what when he was making a name for himself in AL (and nationwide)?

"

kolyaboo wrote:

If he is guilty, than formal charges should be brought and he should have his day in court. It is really that simple. He has a right to defend himself and his accusers have a right to accuse.

I'm certainly not defending him; I'm defending the notion of justice. Guilty until proven innocent (except when you are high profile or on the "wrong end" of the political spectrum?) is what a nation of laws is based on. Undercut that, and you have chaos.

How would you like it if I publicly accused you of stealing from me and showed no proof but had some thugs throw you in jail. No jury trial, no chance to defend yourself. You can rot in jail, I may even have you tortured or killed there.

What if you did steal? Does that make it right? Is it OK for me to ruin your life, because you are a certain "kind of person" you don't get a trial. I can convict you by just saying you are guilty. No proof needed. That is where the US is heading.

This is where the death of a credible justice system leads. Try going to Russia and talking to people that remember what it was like there under Stalin and come back and tell me that is the sort of "justice" system you want.

Or hey, don't bother leaving the country. Maybe you can't afford it or have Russophobia. Why not talk to some people that survived McCarthyism in the 50's and ask them what kind of justice they received? My father knew someone that committed suicide from being falsely accused. His wife and kids were homeless.

The Americans seemed fine with it then, and they certainly do now too.

The US is not a vigilante justice country or banana republic. Except it is certainly looking more and more that way.

Maybe they don't want a credible justice system anymore.

"

Kellog wrote:

I said all along Assange had/has an agenda. He's another one that should be in jail.

We Knew Julian Assange Hated Clinton. We Didn’t Know He Was Secretly Advising Trump.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Kellog wrote:

I said all along Assange had/has an agenda. He's another one that should be in jail.

We Knew Julian Assange Hated Clinton. We Didn’t Know He Was Secretly Advising Trump.

Imagine this, if you will...

So Mrs Obama, we at the Washington Post have an unusual idea.

Let us publish your birth certificate. (Not Barry's, yours.)

The benefits are this:

1. Most of the harm has already been done by 4chan and pre-empted by your husband (secret adoptions)

2. It's possible at any moment it could come out through the most biased source (eg Breitbart/InfoWars) who will distort it in the worst visible light

3. If we publish it it will dramatically improve the perception of our impartiality. This is the real kicker. That means the vast amount of the stuff we are publishing about Trump will have a much higher impact, because it won't be perceived as coming from a "pro-Democrat" "fake news" source, which the Trump administration is constantly slandering us with.

How "pro-Obama" would you consider the above message? If Michelle refused to reply (as she shouldn't), would it be fair to say the Washington Post was "collaborating" with the Obamas?

"

"“Here’s where I am tonight. Between this interview that I did and the inconsistent answers; between him saying ‘I never knew this girl’ and then that yearbook comes out - for me, the judge has 24 hours,” Hannity said Tuesday night.

“You must immediately and fully come up with a satisfactory explanation for your inconsistencies that I just showed,” Hannity continued. “You must remove any doubt. If he can’t do this, Judge Moore needs to get out of this race.”

"

“I adamantly deny the allegations of Leigh Corfman and Beverly Nelson, did not date underage girls, and have taken steps to begin a civil action for defamation,” Moore wrote directly to Hannity. “Because of that, at the direction of counsel, I cannot comment further.”

"

“It shouldn’t be decided by me,” he said.

"

“In my opinion, the people of Alabama—they need to know the truth,” he added. “Whatever it means to get to the truth... the Alabama people deserve that.”