Jelenafan
Multiple Major Winner
Identify as whatever you want mate. That's the new world we live in. I identify as myself it's more than enough
Identify as whatever you want mate. That's the new world we live in. I identify as myself it's more than enough
this text book corruption. If that's not bad enough, apparently the Chief Justice's wife has earned millions from commissions for legal recruitment at top law firms. You can't make shit up. How on earth would he have a moral authority to censure Thomas??How Troubling Are the Payments and Gifts to Ginni and Clarence Thomas?
They’ve gone on for years and they raise serious questions about accountability at the Supreme Court.www.newyorker.com
The many ethics scandals of Clarence and Ginni Thomas, briefly explained
We’re keeping a running list as more and more reports continue to pile up.www.vox.com
Ok per Clarence Thomas and his disclosure issues; doesnt pass the common sense rule, your great nephew that you are raising has all his tuition expenses paid by your billionaire buddy?
Disclosure statements are filed regularly with those in public service, they can seem repetitive & redundant, ive filled them out regularly just serving on a board with government grants and its boring & tedious, but again, common sense detector
this text book corruption. If that's not bad enough, apparently the Chief Justice's wife has earned millions from commissions for legal recruitment at top law firms. You can't make shit up. How on earth would he have a moral authority to censure Thomas??
I think ethics oversight of the Supremes is coming. Possibly even term limits.How Troubling Are the Payments and Gifts to Ginni and Clarence Thomas?
They’ve gone on for years and they raise serious questions about accountability at the Supreme Court.www.newyorker.com
The many ethics scandals of Clarence and Ginni Thomas, briefly explained
We’re keeping a running list as more and more reports continue to pile up.www.vox.com
Ok per Clarence Thomas and his disclosure issues; doesnt pass the common sense rule, your great nephew that you are raising has all his tuition expenses paid by your billionaire buddy?
Disclosure statements are filed regularly with those in public service, they can seem repetitive & redundant, ive filled them out regularly just serving on a board with government grants and its boring & tedious, but again, common sense detector
You weren't on the jury. They found the claim credible.so the orange turd has been found to be a sexual abuser. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand by his own words he pretty much outed himself. Also his claims that she wasn't his type was pretty much refuted by the fact that he mistook a picture of her to be his ex- Marla Maples. For sure on that basis alone I think that him being found guilty of defamation was appropriate, he didn't have to get himself in trouble with that. But... this thing about bringing suits to SA allegations after decades? Nah.. that's a bit weird to me. Particularly when the alleged victim can't even remember when the thing happened!
As usual you succeed in misunderstanding my post with gusto I’ve learned that even explaining further is a waste of my energy as you’re always so convinced what you felt I mean is what counts. Nothing to do with the jury.. putzYou weren't on the jury. They found the claim credible.
On a side note: I saw that bit where Trump mistook the woman for his ex-wife, Marla. That was odd! Fox News has spent an awful lot of time and effort at making Biden look dotty. If you ask me, that one makes Trump look borderline Alzheimer's. Even with 3 wives, you think you'd recognize all of them in a photo.
I'm perfectly happy if you refuse to waste your energy with me anymore. Better than encountering your bile. I understood your point. You find the sexual abuse part of the judgement late in the day, while agreeing with the defamation. My point stands. The jury found it credible. You can re-litigate it on the internet if you like, but your opinion isn't the same as what the jury knew, and they were unanimous. That's my opinion, as a response to your comment. Not an especial amount of gusto, just a rebuttal. You've made it clear that you think men are getting a raw deal out there.As usual you succeed in misunderstanding my post with gusto I’ve learned that even explaining further is a waste of my energy as you’re always so convinced what you felt I mean is what counts. Nothing to do with the jury.. putz
You just proved my point. You don’t understand my pointI'm perfectly happy if you refuse to waste your energy with me anymore. Better than encountering your bile. I understood your point. You find the sexual abuse part of the judgement late in the day, while agreeing with the defamation. My point stands. The jury found it credible. You can re-litigate it on the internet if you like, but your opinion isn't the same as what the jury knew, and they were unanimous. That's my opinion, as a response to your comment. Not an especial amount of gusto, just a rebuttal. You've made it clear that you think men are getting a raw deal out there.
I won’t be surprised if he has a strong argument for appealIf it were me, I want specific details, such as dates, location, etc. if someone is going to accuse. And even then, how can you refute testimony from 20+ Year ago without photographic memory? One thing that bothers me is that if nobody, neither the plaintiff nor defendant has a good recollection of the event, so how is testimony even credible?
Too much “Rashomon” in court for my taste.
Given that it’s Trump, I suspect this event really did happen, but it is problematic, in a broader sense, that testimony is permitted about events from decades ago. There have been many studies showing how faulty memory is.If it were me, I want specific details, such as dates, location, etc. if someone is going to accuse. And even then, how can you refute testimony from 20+ Year ago without photographic memory? One thing that bothers me is that if nobody, neither the plaintiff nor defendant has a good recollection of the event, so how is testimony even credible?
Too much “Rashomon” in court for my taste.
Spring of 1996 is fairly specific, as is the 6th floor dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, in the lingerie dept., if I have that right.If it were me, I want specific details, such as dates, location, etc. if someone is going to accuse. And even then, how can you refute testimony from 20+ Year ago without photographic memory? One thing that bothers me is that if nobody, neither the plaintiff nor defendant has a good recollection of the event, so how is testimony even credible?
Too much “Rashomon” in court for my taste.
jeepers! I'm hearing that Tucker Carlson's first show on Twitter had 70 million views. Versus Fox News averaging a couple of million in the same time slot. Oops!
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
Serious PC thread | World Affairs | 2450 | ||
T | THE EASTERNERS - THE SLAVS thread. | World Affairs | 13 | |
Russia Politics Thread | World Affairs | 82 | ||
UK Politics Thread | World Affairs | 1004 | ||
Geopolitics in the Middle East | World Affairs | 46 |