His essential shallowness doesn’t allow enough room for anything resembling real principles.
Posted on 02/16/2024 9:58:23 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Mitt applied his great powers of discernment when reviewing the facts in the case and was unable to recognize the entire case was a sham.
He didn’t vote 4 him in 2020 so what has changed
Binders of women.
The Mitthole has lots of R Swamp team company with not voting for Trump.
He embarrassed them by making it look a little easy to get America tracking in a positive way in less than 4 years, all the while being a clear and present danger to the likes of Mittholes like Mitt..
Please, someone call Mitt and ask him if he still supports all those politicians who visited Jeffrey Epstein’s island….
Romney continues to show just what a small mind he has and what a small man he is. I for one could not care less what he thinks or has to say but he is an ever useful idiot for the Democrats/left and media.
This from the clown with binders of women.
C'mon, admit it. You were taken in by that dazzling smile...
It had more to do with how much I despised Obama.
He’ll just vote for Biden again, that’s what these RINOs do.
Isn’t this the 3rd time the loser has declared he won’t vote for Trump? I’m mean he’s got ONE VOTE LIKE THE REST OF US. What a creepy drama queen.
I also should have known what a piece of crap Romney was since the day he was born, let alone 2012.
I actually voted third party when Romney was running, and I proudly supported Rick Santorum instead of Romney in the Republican primary.
One issue is this: I don’t know that there is a prominent conservative with a decent amount of support running third party this year. So, who is Romney going to vote for? Biden? Not voting at all? What?
83 million?This article doesn't even discuss the startling similarities of the plot a "Law & Order" episode and her case or her stating that Trump's TV show was her favorite show (he discusses these in his podcasts).She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.
It was never clear what were the preliminaries that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours the alleged violence took place.
Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto—and only after Trump was running for and then president.
Carroll eventually sued him for battery, but well after the statute of limitations had expired and thus the case seemed defunct.
Her claims of defamation injuries arise from being fired from her advice column job at ELLE magazine.
She claimed that Trump’s sharp denials and ad hominem retorts led to her career ruin. But the loss for anyone of a column at 76 does not seem such a rare occurrence, and the absence of a salaried job in one’s late seventies for four years does not seem to equate to a $83 million hit.
And note the allegation that her dispute with Trump led to her firing was strongly denied by the very magazine that cut her loose.
But then another strange thing happened. In 2022, a new law (“The Adult Survivors Act”) was passed in the New York legislature. It also post facto established a twelve-month window (beginning six months from the signing of bill) that permitted survivors of long ago alleged sexual assaults suddenly to sue the accused long-ago perpetrator—regardless of the previous statute of limitations.
That unexpected opening suddenly gave Carroll’s prior unsuccessful efforts a rebirth. And she quickly refiled with the help of arch-Trump hating billionaire Hoffman.
Yet the bill may have been introduced with Trump particularly in mind—given the legislator who introduced it, Brad Hoylman-Siga, was known as another Trump antagonist.
More interestingly, he had earlier introduced and had passed another Trump-targeted bill. That “TRUST” act had empowered particular federal Congressional committees to have access to the New York State once sealed tax returns of high-ranking government officials—such as Trump.
That bill’s generally agreed subtext was a green light for anti-Trump members of Congress to obtain legal access to Donald J. Trump's tax returns.
So there is an eerie feeling that the New York legislature may have abruptly passed legislation that was aimed at the past conduct of Donald Trump but only after he entered the political arena.
While these are not quite bills of attainder, there is something unsettling if they are post facto laws aimed at targeting the most famous and controversial man in America and the leading candidate for the presidency.
In essence they were targeted statutes designed to make Trump’s prior legally unactionable behavior suddenly quite legally actionable.
Will Mitt change his vote when the Carroll case is thrown out on appeal?
Yeah, I know. I voted for him, too. Once he was the nominee, what are you going to do? Voting for a third party or not voting at all was still a vote for Obama.
Geesh, are we going to have to read this every month? Next, we are going to read another story about Christie too?
PIERRE DELECTO speaks!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.