Posted on 06/22/2019 2:56:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
She needs to be SUED and PROSECUTED!
‘After looking at that picture again, I may have to start drinking even earlier than usual.’
and yet, at one point in her life, she was quite attractive...
She's lying.
Anita Hill was lying.
Christine Blasey Ford was lying.
Democrats are liars.
Raggedy Ann doll wannabe. I’m pretty sure President Trump has better taste in women than that. ROTFL. More lies from a lefty.
She couldn’t sneak up on a glass of water.
Crazy eyes, Jim.
Scary photo.
Every high profile person has nutjobs and fiction writes looking to cash in on them. It happens to both sides.
What’s important here is that the media gives these nutjobs CREDIBILITY when it fits their needs, but otherwise ignores these stories when it doesn’t fit their needs.
That’s why the media protections against being sued needs to end. The media is (obviously) a PLAYER now, and they need to be treated like any other player.
Trump may love hamburgers, but no way would he screw Ronald McDonald!!
My eyes!!!! What is that horrid creature??? It’s certainly not human, much less female. Or was it born female? Good thing she was dressed in appropriate non-sexy attire. If she hadn’t, no man, and a few women, would have been able to resist themselves.
We all burst out laughing when this story came on the news. What a load of you know what. Yeah, handsome billionaire Trump is so hard up finding a woman he has to get one in a dressing room. Uh huh, sure thing.
Funny how she doesn’t say she screamed for help or that anyone in the next stall came to her aid or that she reported the incident to the first sales lady she saw. I’m sure there was a sales lady at the entrance to the dressing area.
Not to mention trying to enter with her tights around her thighs. I cannot see how that happens from the front.
Enough with conservatives taking the high road. It’s about time we got down in the muck with these freaks and turn the tables right back on them. With every one of their lies, give them two back.
Ok, imagine department store dressing rooms, the commotion of this “rape while laughing” event. Unless they are steel vaults, the walls would be shaking while he is throwing her against them multiple times, she claims she is laughing, so evidently she is capable of screaming for help. Sounds like quite a physical struggle and yet, no sales people or other shoppers bother to say, “hey, you ok in there?” She is relating a violent rape scene and she doesn’t ask for help, she just runs out in her 4” Barney heels and that’s it?
It is impossible based on her story
And penetration while standing face to face and the woman resisting is impossible
Excellent response with no personal attacks.
Remember: all that these vile insane libs know how to do is project, project, project.
So, she, more than likely, threw herself at him and he rejected her on the spot and left...probably ran. That, in turn, chronically pissed her off, and she’s held all that resentment for years as she watched him rise up... Either that, or she’s just an outright liar dug up out of the evil cesspool known as deep state and UniParty.
Oh, she’s hyping her book. Just put it on the porn fiction shelf.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
I’m heading to bed after a 10 hr workday, but if anyone has pics of DJT in the 1990’s please post them. The man was an absolute stud. Other guys viewed him the way guys view Tom Brady now: Not fair to be that good looking, charming, famous, and RICH.
And he would risk all that on that thing pictured above?
As the old expression goes, “I might have been born at night, just not last night.”
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.
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.