quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
Bill Clinton’s “Stormy” story and his prejury really finished him, too, didn’t it. Stormy began her public expose’ of the 2006 allegation in 2011.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by tomahawker:
I’m certain all the members commenting here are above reproach. Not one us has cheated on a spouse, not one of us has lied. Not one of us failed to report earnings. Let’s start a club! Call it Internet Angels.

I have never cheated on my nursing wife with a porn actress, never paid the actress to keep it quiet and never falsified business records to keep it from derailing my Presidential campaign at a critical moment.

Folks forget that Trump was reeling from the release of the "Access Hollywood" tape despite the Russians releasing Podesta's emails within hours. A roster of Republicans withdrew their endorsements; the Stormy story would have finished him.

Had Clinton been dealing with a scandal that prompted 3 Democratic Senators, among a slew of others, to withdraw their endorsements of him when the Lewinski story broke I expect it would have.

The fact is that the judiciary has been damaged. The main evidence in that is the relentless attacks and lies by Trump, with plenty of help from the most part of the GOP and supporters and Fox News, has had obvious negative effect on public confidence in the supposed founding principle "equal under the law". That's the premise of the OP.

JudgeG and Lane have affirmed the damage with arguments based in what-about-them and look-over-there, primarily stating "evidence" that was available and considered, for its worth, by prosecutors and deemed to be flawed or insufficient relating to HRC and other democrats.

The basic claim is that democrats have been given a pass and also democrats chose to prosecute a political opponent, and the pass and prosecution are all about political lawfare despite the weight of or sufficiency of evidence. So, according to them the democrats violated the founding principle of the rule of law. Pass or prosecute is optional, according to them, evidence notwithstanding.

The fact is that Trump was prosecuted and the jury of 12 convicted based on finding the evidence sufficient beyond reasonable doubt. Somehow, IMO, the bare facts don't seem political.

Yet, according to them, Trump shouldn't have been prosecuted at all, because it's not fair. They seem to accept the fact that the jury found him guilty. So guilt is not the issue.

Here's damage:

I started this video at the key part of MAGA Mike's input. The whole video is worth watching, BTW.

https://youtu.be/Kdgq4IqneCs?s..._1H0e59xvm6jC7&t=607

Brooks and Capehart on Trump's guilty verdict and what's next for American politics

======================================

GOPer Mass Psychosis:

https://youtu.be/yUi6xwe5xbE?si=s5M4lkdv0CRDikk7

Kinzinger reacts to Mike Johnson bashing Trump verdict

===============================================

psy·cho·sis
/sīˈkōsəs/
noun
a severe mental condition in which thought and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with external reality.
"the symptoms of psychosis"

=============================================

This is a sample of the psychosis: (started at 2:40)

https://youtu.be/oLB_4yQBnqg?s...niLdpPfIr9gfTx&t=160

Republican Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) reacts to former President Donald Trump calling the US a 'fascist state' during remarks the day after a New York jury convicted him on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.