How come this bitch didn’t pipe-up in 2016 when the Bad Orange Man was first running for President?
The despicable slime ball Dems are desperate to distract and divert attention away from the current investigations into THEIR treasonous "Trump-Russia" collusion hoax! Meanwhile, as you will find loads of evidence for on my FR Home page, THEY were actually the ones who were colluding with the Russians -- Big time!
Because the Dems thought that their other tactics in 2016 would have worked to take him down? They are reaching new lows of desperation and the campaign isn't in full swing, yet. I can't wait to see what else they come up with besides actual policy proposals. </s>
Another theory - Since there is no moral/social penalty for lying, the demokraps can periodically bring out their “victims” when needed for political reasons. Since there are so many accusing victims now, at some future point demokraps will list them (like around Nov 2020). Their major media propaganda arm will get the message out to certain voters in the struggle to control the election narrative.
Why now would this woman make these allegations, other than to sell a book because she needs $$$? Perhaps to take the light off of Biden’s inability to control himself with biologically defined females, even after his recent awakening, his mea culpa.
Anyone who sees a picture of her, judging from appearance and comparing to POTUS’ wives, or even Stormy Daniels, the latest accuser doesn’t seem to be his type.
She's lying.
Anita Hill was lying.
Christine Blasey Ford was lying.
Democrats are liars.
The 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling is what intimidates Republican government officials for suing for libel (the fact that Democrats don’t get libeled is what prevents Democrats from suing for libel).The case before the Warren Court in ’64 was brought by a Southern Democrat (Sullivan), and SCOTUS got all excited about how it was “protecting the First Amendment.” Sullivan lost, and maybe he should have in the particular case. But not on the grounds SCOTUS pronounced, because of facts not before the court. And (see “Duke, David”) a racist southern Democrat in 1964 would be an (dis)honorary “Republican” today. In fact, Joe Biden’s flap about getting along with southern Democrats - and journalists misstating their affiliation as “Republican” - illustrates the point.
The conceit that the First Amendment created a “Fourth Estate” similar to a title of nobility or an established priesthood in America is a fallacy. The First Amendment changed nothing. The entire Bill of Rights was intended to change nothing. It was proposed and ratified precisely to prevent interpretation of the Constitution as changing the rights of citizens. The Ninth Amendment
- Wire services in general and the AP in particular have homogenized journalism politically; Democrats go along and get along with the natural political implications of the negativity and superficiality of journalism. Since Mr. Sullivan was complaining about a paid political ad, the lack of ideological competition among journalists was not implicated in the case.
- Ideologically homogeneous journalism proclaims that “all journalists are objective.” Since objectivity is a laudable goal but not an immutable state of being, the claim is inherently nonsense. But since journalists know that journalism is negative, the claim that “all journalists are objective” is equivalent to claiming that “negativity is objectivity.” And you show me someone who claims that, and I’ll show you a cynic.
- The purpose of freedom of the press is to “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred thoughts contend.” The propaganda campaign to the effect that “all journalists are objective” suppresses ideological diversity in journalism. The effect of it is that Democrats are entitled, not only to their own opinions, but to their own facts as well. This effect was nowhere more pointedly on display than in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The situation cries out for a libel suit - but the Sullivan decision explicitly enjoins judges not to sue.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. pretty much says exactly that. 1A speaks not of “freedom of the press,” but "the freedom” - i.e., freedom with then-existing restrictions against pornography and libel - of the press.
The Sullivan decision was unanimous. But, if not for then-freshman Justice Scalia, the 8-1 Morrison v. Olson decision would have been unanimously too. Unanimously wrong. President Trump spoke of getting legislation to override Sullivan, but that was never going to happen and would have to pass SCOTUS scrutiny anyway. My advice to Republicans is - just sue. There are some presses out there which are sorely in need of suing.
She claims she ran out of dressing room afterwards and told two people. Did she call the police? Nope. If that would of happened to me or any other woman, you would have been screaming bloody murder.
Of course it is re-election time and there has to be the line up of women claiming sexual assault by the orange man.