Never, ever trust a Clinton.
Never, ever trust a Clinton.
Poor old DonDiego usually posts his source specifically so the interested reader, if any, can determine how credible it is.
In DonDiego's post of 9:05AM 8 July, DonDiego cited the New York Post for the information that Clinton flew the "Lolita Express" 26 times. It does not seem all that unlikely that wikipedia may have presented that same information.
DonDiego's similarly provided his source for the information that the unfavorable mention of Clinton's association with Mr. Epstein was deleted from wikipedia while the similar and much less daming information of Mr. Trump's association with Mr. Epstein was left intact.
By providing his sources poor old DonDiego intentionally allows the interested reader, if any, to judge the likely accuracy of the information. DonDiego opines the report of the alteration of the wikipedia entry is likely accurate; if so it is despicable "journalism". Others may believe what they wish.
Fritz, Avenatti certainly had proof Trump lied and conspired to commit two campaign finance felonies. A Federal Judge and Federal Prosecutor in SDNY said so on the record in court. The judge examined the evidence in the case and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Donald Trump directed Michael Cohen to commit these felonies. How is that not sufficient PROOF for you? Again what is your standard of proof? It certainly isn't what the law defines as sufficient PROOF?
Yes, we define the standard of proof in this country as something being more likely than not in a civil matter and beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal matter.
You attempt to boil it down to a simple matter as he said vs she said. It is not. If we use Trump as an example it is actually more like a he said she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she, she and she said because close to 20 some women have collectively accused Trump of sexual assault rape and sexual harassment. In any trial, Trump was faced with all of these women could be called to testify as to Trump's behavior towards them.
In addition to first-hand witness accounts, you have numerous public statements where Trump made sexually suggestive comments directed at girls (some not even teenagers), that he liked to peep on naked 15-16-year-olds in the dressing room, his acknowledgment that he knew Epstein liked them young, his acknowledgment that he frequently didn't ask women for their permission to, "Grab Them By The Pussy." and on and on. All of this plus a whole lot more together would be sufficient proof for the standards of proof we use in this country.
I find it an odd disconnect that you want more than this to draw your conclusion about Trump but for the Clintons, all you need is your seat of the pants feelings to find sufficient proof that they did or did not do something.
I hope your not a human resource manager. I can see a guy being interviewed by you saying I have been collectively accused of sexual assault, rape and sexual harassment by twenty different women. There are YouTube videos that have been viewed by millions of people where I gleefully say I grab women by their pussies without permission. I have made numerous public statements of a sexual nature about pre-teen girls, young teenage girls and my own daughter. Oh, and I like to peep in the dressing rooms of 15-16-year-old girls while they are changing. I can only conclude with what you demand as evidence of proof you would tell such a prospective employee, "Sounds good to me. You start tomorrow."
You are aware just about anybody can edit a Wikipedia entry. It is considered a crowdsourced encyclopedia. I am confident if such editing did occur and if it was indeed a fact-based statement it will be restored by the Wikipedia management. Politicians of all stripes frequently get their Wikipedia entries edited with false information. It is sad we don't have many real researched based encyclopedias anymore.
Funny, but I don't recall any judgement against President Trump, at least not yet. However, i do seem to recall a former President being disbarred.....or am I mistaken? I also recall a certain dress with dna PROOF. Sticky (pardon the pun) word, that word PROOF ain't it Mark. And you yap on about people looking the other way.I
For the record, you need proof, which so far you can't produce. If you could, Mike Pence would be the leader of the Free World.
So you don't think a Federal Court order is an adverse judgment? And besides that my point is valid. No thinking person would hire somebody with the same track record as Trump to water their lawn. Yet Republicans somehow think he is fit to be President. Here is the list of 22 women that have accused Trump of rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment. If it was your job to hire someone, would 22 accusers be enough proof for you to not hire them?
Trump is currently on trial in Federal Court in a civil case in New York for sexual battery and sexual harassment. His attorneys are doing everything they can to delay the trial so Trump doesn't have to go under oath. They know if does, he will either commit perjury or implicate himself in the case.
Clinton was suspended not disbarred for a lack of candor. An attorney owes a special duty of candor to the court that a regular person does not. He was given a definition by the judge of sex that only included intercourse. He answered the question truthfully. However, the panel of Republicans (there were no Democrats on the panel) ruled that despite answering the question truthfully Clinton was required to go above and beyond the truth. If Clinton had been a non-attorney he would have not been punished.
