mspart

I'm agreein' to all that. mspart

You know, I am over Ryan Reynolds. Plays the same character in every movie, like Tom Cruise. I think he is typecast by now. Anyway, not really a fan. Kevin Hart voice over would be really funny potentially. mspart

I don't think there is a video but Grand Funk's Creepin' is pretty good listening. Off their We're an American Band album. mspart

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/mccaul-blinken-contempt-defy-subpoena-afghanistan-cable McCaul moves toward holding Blinken in contempt for again defying subpoena by Jerry Dunleavy, Justice Department Reporter | May 12, 2023 10:25 AM A top House Republican is moving closer to holding Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt after he again refused to comply with a subpoena demanding the State Department hand over a July 2021 dissent cable from the United States Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has argued since late 2021 that the Biden administration has been stonewalling his investigations into the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. An aide for the House Foreign Affairs Committee told the Washington Examiner on Friday that the State Department “has once again failed to comply with the subpoena,” and so McCaul will now work with his fellow committee members “to pursue holding Secretary Blinken in contempt of Congress.” McCaul is fed up with Blinken repeatedly refusing to hand over an internal dissent cable that was signed by two dozen U.S. Embassy members in Kabul and sent to the State Department in mid-July 2021, just over a month before the Taliban took Kabul. The dissent cable is known to have criticized the State Department’s planning for the evacuation and warned that Kabul could collapse soon after the U.S. troop withdrawal. What is Blinken blinking for? We all know and have been told many times that this was the most orderly and wonderful evacuation of a war zone ever in the history of mankind, never mind what you saw live when it was happening. mspart

Penultimate's almost the last word. mspart

My black lab would attack the raccoons, jump on top of them. Yes, he had deep scratches and all that, but he got the property rid of raccoons. mspart

One would think! Getting any international experience one would think. mspart

What was their experience like? mspart

You see, that is an opinion statement stated like an opinion. Use of the word "likely" is all you needed for that statement to be considered your opinion. What were his remarks and how were they defamatory? I have not read or heard anything about it today. She got him in the lawsuit just ended with defamation claims so you might not be far off the mark depending on what he said. mspart

You guys are all verklempt I called him a rapist. No, you said he was officially a rapist, look at the title. And you submitted a link to prove your point. Only it does not prove your point, it proves you wrong. Saying he is now officially a rapist does not connote that this is just your opinion. The fact you tried to substantiate with the link makes it all the more so. You tried to say something that was not true, have been caught and repeatedly shown that even you understand this and yet you still argue that you are correct. You appear to be OK with the fact that he was found liable for sexual battery though. I am ok that in a civil trial he was found, by a preponderance of evidence to be liable for sexual battery. I don't want him running for President. Obviously there is not enough evidence to bring a criminal case because there is no criminal case. This was a civil case which can be squishy on details, obviously because she couldn't even name when it happened. And that is one reason there is no criminal case. Is the finding by the jury disqualifying in my eyes? Not really. It's a $5million liability. It is not a criminal conviction. Is it disqualifying in anyone's eyes? That remains to be seen. And certainly the jury did not agree that he raped her. Again, I hope he quits the campaign, I don't want him to run. You are asking this in a vacuum though. Should the allegations against Biden put out yesterday disqualify him? You will say no, because he hasn't been convicted. I could say the same about Trump. I don't think either of them should run personally. I don't think Biden is aware enough of what is going on and I think Trump doesn't have the temperament as he has showed time and again. This is really about you saying something that was not true. You could have said in the thread title that "in my opinion, Trump is now officially a rapist." But you didn't, you presented it as fact and that is wrong. You have essentially agreed with this in your responses prior to this but still try to maintain you are correct. But you are not correct. Trump is NOT officially a rapist. You can find nothing to prove me wrong or you would have. You have tried spinning this way and that. But the fact remains, your title on this thread is not truthful like you wanted us all to believe. Fake News. mspart

This is a pretty lame line of reasoning Mike. "I linked to the article." That makes this all ok because you linked the article. That must be proof enough because you took the time to link the article. I quoted that article in the third post of this thread. It said in no uncertain terms the "jury didn't agree to the allegation of rape". Therefore your linked article does not support your hypothesis nor your thread title. Are you serious? Posting a link to an article somehow makes you right when it says you are wrong? I'm glad you went the extra mile and linked to the article. You might have read that article, and decided not to link to it and to find one that said they found him guilty of rape. Good luck with that because it didn't happen. Now for pointing this out, I will be belittled and called names. But the fact remains. You called Trump an official rapist. You linked to an article to prove your point. But it disproved your point. And somehow you want to use circular reasoning to get back to the place that you posted a link? Mike, you are good at misdirection and practice that everyday on this board. But truth, in this instance, is not on your side. That said, I don't like Trump, he is toxic. His policies were good and our country was prospering when he was in office except for all the drama. The drama was too much for the country and Biden won, against all odds. Trump needs to just go away. I would be happy with that. mspart

Sounds more like a Nittany Lion kind of thing rather than a Hawkeye thing purely based on genus. mspart

Intentional Hyperbole? You mean Intentional Fake News. mspart

Yes, quite. Legally of course. mspart

This is true and it good news for the nation. It needs to go lower still as it is still higher than it has been the last 30 years barring this latest round. mspart

I'm not. If illegal, they should be prosecuted. Did you expect I'd say that? Probably not. Are you saying that the Biden's should get a pass because Trump's daughter and son-in-law apparently got a pass according to you? I've heard that this is not a viable line of reasoning for conservatives. Apparently it is viable for those on the left of politics. mspart

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/10/politics/comer-bank-records-biden-family-members-payments-foreign-entities/index.html Washington CNN — House Oversight Chairman James Comer laid out new details to support allegations that members of Joe Biden’s family including his son Hunter received millions of dollars in payments from foreign entities in China and Romania including when Biden was vice president, according to a memo obtained by CNN. New bank records cited in the memo were obtained by the committee through a subpoena and include payments made to companies tied to Hunter Biden. Maybe we should be asking other questions as well. mspart

I know the mountains are blue in north eastern Oregon. Hardly the middle of the country. But still... mspart

Yes it was a civil trial therefore there can be no conviction for prison/rape purposes. You are absolutely correct in this and thus your thread title is wrong and not truthful. mspart

At least that is supported by the media and the court. mspart

Interesting, this article also doesn't say Trump is a rapist. You are two for two now. It does say he is not the nicest guy in the world, but we all know that. I again reiterate I don't want him as President and I view him as toxic. mspart

Al-Czari is the new terror group to look out for. mspart

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But it is not supported by this lawsuit as stated by the article you posted. mspart

The title probably cannot be altered by now anyway, but it is not a statement of objective truth. Even the article you posted explicitly says it isn't true. mspart

Jury Finds Donald Trump Liable For Sexual Battery At New York Trial After deliberating for only an early Tuesday afternoon, the jury in a civil case against Donald Trump alleging sexual assault found the former president liable for damages over the claims, concluding that he — to the extent relevant here — likely committed the attack. They didn’t agree to the allegation of rape but did agree to allegations of sexual abuse, which was enough for upholding the battery claim at issue. Forcible touching would have also sufficed, allowing the imposition of penalties. Mike, you might want to revise the thread title. The jury concluded that he "likely" committed the attack. They did not agree to the allegation of rape. These are essentially quotes from the article you posted. The above in blue is cut and paste from that article. I am sick of Trump, I don't want him to run, he is toxic. But he was put on civil trial for an accusation that the accuser can't remember any timing details, like when it happened. That seems like a strange thing to go to court over claiming someone raped you but not being able to recall when. https://www.wxhc.com/e-jean-carroll-testifying-in-civil-case-says-she-cant-recall-date-of-alleged-trump-attack/ “When do you believe Donald Trump assaulted you?” her attorney, Mike Ferrara, asked Carroll during her testimony Wednesday. “This question, the when, the when, the date, has been something I’ve constantly trying to pin down,” Carroll said. ... “She can’t tell you the date that she claims to have been raped. She can’t tell you the month that she claims to have been raped. She can’t tell you the season. She can’t even tell you the year that she claims to have been raped by Donald Trump,” defense attorney Joe Tacopina said during his opening statement. Maybe he did do it, maybe he didn't, but if he did, you would think she would remember when it happened. It would be indelibly written in her brain one would think. But that detail was not important apparently. Which is why this wasn't a criminal trial. One thing is for sure, this will be appealed. mspart