Now that Franken has resigned...

[TyroneSlothrop]

Trump must Resign
Evan Rosenfeld ✔ @Evan_Rosenfeld


BREAKING: @PageSixEmily reports: Former Fox News anchor Juliet Huddy said President Donald Trump tried to kiss her in an elevator around the time he married First Lady Melania. https://pagesix.com/2017/12/08/ex-fox-news-anchor-claims-trump-tried-to-kiss-her/amp/?__twitter_impression=true …

7:16 PM - Dec 8, 2017





Ex-Fox News anchor claims Trump tried to kiss her
Juliet Huddy says the mogul leaned in to kiss her after he took her to lunch at Trump Tower in 2005.

pagesix.com

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Oh? Which part is that?

Don’t know. The news only reported that some parts were confirmed by the FBI.

So far I have seen nothing credible that ANY part of the dossier was factual. There are multiple claims that have however been PROVEN false. In a Court of Law the rule is "if one part is a lie, all parts are lies" applies very well to this "document".

Can you site that rule?

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

 

[westwall]

Don’t know. The news only reported that some parts were confirmed by the FBI.

So far I have seen nothing credible that ANY part of the dossier was factual. There are multiple claims that have however been PROVEN false. In a Court of Law the rule is "if one part is a lie, all parts are lies" applies very well to this "document".

Can you site that rule?

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

 

[Jackson]

When will Trump follow his lead and do the same. I mean, they both have admitted to sexual misconduct. Shouldn't we hold all elected officials to the same standards?

When will Trump follow his lead and do the same. I mean, they both have admitted to sexual misconduct. Shouldn't we hold all elected officials to the same standards?

There's big difference between a do-nothing Senator from Minnesota, and the greatest President this country has ever seen.

Are there pictures of these things Trump said he did, or was it just locker talk? And why are women not coming out of the woodwork to accuse him, like there were Franken?

Greatest president we've ever seen? Uh ... what?

At least he has the balls to make a difference. If he'd get a little help from other ;awmakers, both sides, we'd have a great country again. Look at the DOW and the unemployment numbers!

 

[HappyJoy]

So far I have seen nothing credible that ANY part of the dossier was factual. There are multiple claims that have however been PROVEN false. In a Court of Law the rule is "if one part is a lie, all parts are lies" applies very well to this "document".

Can you site that rule?

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

I think you were the one accused of false equivalencies so at least be original.

 

[westwall]

Can you site that rule?

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

I think you were the one accused of false equivalencies so at least be original.

Unlike you I know what the term means.

 

[bripat9643]

So far I have seen nothing credible that ANY part of the dossier was factual. There are multiple claims that have however been PROVEN false. In a Court of Law the rule is "if one part is a lie, all parts are lies" applies very well to this "document".

Can you site that rule?

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

False equivalency is the leftwing stock in trade. It's one of their favorite logical fallacies.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump must Resign
Evan Rosenfeld ✔ @Evan_Rosenfeld


BREAKING: @PageSixEmily reports: Former Fox News anchor Juliet Huddy said President Donald Trump tried to kiss her in an elevator around the time he married First Lady Melania. https://pagesix.com/2017/12/08/ex-fox-news-anchor-claims-trump-tried-to-kiss-her/amp/?__twitter_impression=true …

7:16 PM - Dec 8, 2017





Ex-Fox News anchor claims Trump tried to kiss her
Juliet Huddy says the mogul leaned in to kiss her after he took her to lunch at Trump Tower in 2005.

pagesix.com

Oh my, that does sound positively criminal!

 

[Coyote]

Can you site that rule?

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

False equivalency is the leftwing stock in trade. It's one of their favorite logical fallacies.

Funny. The right uses that a lot as well. Imagine that.

 

[Oldstyle]

When will Trump follow his lead and do the same. I mean, they both have admitted to sexual misconduct. Shouldn't we hold all elected officials to the same standards?

When did Franken resign? In his speech he said that he'd resign later...with no date given. He's trying to weather the storm by "faux" resigning and then hoping women stop coming out of the woodwork to accuse him of being a sleazy abuser! You're too naive to understand that though...aren't you?

 

[bripat9643]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

False equivalency is the leftwing stock in trade. It's one of their favorite logical fallacies.

Funny. The right uses that a lot as well. Imagine that.

For example?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

I think you were the one accused of false equivalencies so at least be original.

Unlike you I know what the term means.

You just demonstrated that the only thing you know the meaning of is copy and paste.
You have zero critical thinking skills and you lack the ability to put ANYTHING in a human context at all.
You're a textbook sociopath.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So far I have seen nothing credible that ANY part of the dossier was factual. There are multiple claims that have however been PROVEN false. In a Court of Law the rule is "if one part is a lie, all parts are lies" applies very well to this "document".

Can you site that rule?

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

Yeah, there is a huge difference between a mistaken observation and an intentional lie.
There's also a huge difference between misappropriating a legal tactic used for witness testimony and attempting to impress people with it, and actually having a functional understanding of how attorneys decide what cite to use when advancing an argument.
And the simple fact here is, not only is falsus in uno innapropriately applied, it's also mighty reactionary of you to even attempt applying it in the first place because you don't have enough information to apply anything yet.
All you have is what World Net Daily told you.

 

[westwall]

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

I think you were the one accused of false equivalencies so at least be original.

Unlike you I know what the term means.

You just demonstrated that the only thing you know the meaning of is copy and paste.
You have zero critical thinking skills and you lack the ability to put ANYTHING in a human context at all.
You're a textbook sociopath.

That's pretty funny. Sociopaths are what your hero, the shrilary is. She doesn't care about other people, and she feels the laws don't apply to her. That is textbook sociopathy. I on the other hand, am determined that ALL people follow the rule of law. You not so much, so on the sociopath walk of infamy, you are trotting right along behind your mistress.

 

[toobfreak]

Now that Franken has resigned...

One down, about 242 more Democrats to go . . . .

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

I think you were the one accused of false equivalencies so at least be original.

Unlike you I know what the term means.

You just demonstrated that the only thing you know the meaning of is copy and paste.
You have zero critical thinking skills and you lack the ability to put ANYTHING in a human context at all.
You're a textbook sociopath.

That's pretty funny. Sociopaths are what your hero, the shrilary is. She doesn't care about other people, and she feels the laws don't apply to her. That is textbook sociopathy. I on the other hand, am determined that ALL people follow the rule of law. You not so much, so on the sociopath walk of infamy, you are trotting right along behind your mistress.

See, now you just sound desperate because there is nothing in any of my posts that would indicate that I had any affinity for Hillary Clinton. So you're just grasping at straws now, hoping you'll trigger some defensiveness on my part.
But since you DID bring her up, isn't it interesting that in almost THIRTY YEARS, NO ONE has managed to get a grand jury empaneled or an indictment handed down with regard to Ms. Clinton.
The thread is about Al Franken resigning, but here we are, watching you flail around with your anguished mudslinging.
You should try slinging feces.

 

[Faun]

Yea, another nonsensical conspiracy theory in order to save Trump's reputation.

The anything but Trump movement will stop at nothing.

We've already seen that.

How bout that fake Hillary dossier that got the ball rolling with Mueller?

The “fake” dossier? Some of it’s been confirmed by the FBI.

Oh? Which part is that?

Don’t know. The news only reported that some parts were confirmed by the FBI.

So far I have seen nothing credible that ANY part of the dossier was factual. There are multiple claims that have however been PROVEN false. In a Court of Law the rule is "if one part is a lie, all parts are lies" applies very well to this "document".

LOLOL

That’s funny.

As if your opinion matters. I have a hunch the FBI knows more than you.

 

[bripat9643]

The anything but Trump movement will stop at nothing.

We've already seen that.

How bout that fake Hillary dossier that got the ball rolling with Mueller?

The “fake” dossier? Some of it’s been confirmed by the FBI.

Oh? Which part is that?

Don’t know. The news only reported that some parts were confirmed by the FBI.

So far I have seen nothing credible that ANY part of the dossier was factual. There are multiple claims that have however been PROVEN false. In a Court of Law the rule is "if one part is a lie, all parts are lies" applies very well to this "document".

LOLOL

That’s funny.

As if your opinion matters. I have a hunch the FBI knows more than you.

Yep, they know this whole thing is a big nothing burger.

 

[Faun]

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

I think you were the one accused of false equivalencies so at least be original.

Unlike you I know what the term means.

You might know what it means but you don’t know how to apply it. For example, it’s not applicable to a compiled document being scrutinized by our intelligence community. It’s also meaningless in an Internet forum like this. All you did was to reveal how partisan and desperate you are to blindy dismiss anything factual contained within it because parts of it could be damaging towards Trump.

 

[Faun]

Can you site that rule?

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus Is the term, the Ninth most recently used it in a immigration case.


Enying Li v. Holder, 738 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th Cir. 2013).

That's applicable to witness testimony only. Nice try but fail.

It's not even applicable in all witness testimony either.
Can you imagine if a witness testified that they saw a burglar jump into a maroon Ford pickup, TX license # 33JK428, but due to the streetlights casting a tint, it only APPEARED maroon whereas in daylight it was red, and the judge tosses out the entire testimony because the defense argues Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "the pickup truck was NOT maroon in color, your honor, the defense objects to the entire testimony"?

The material inconsistencies in testimony regarding one claim support an adverse credibility determination on another claim, ONLY WHEN the inconsistency "STRIKES AT THE HEART OF" the entire claim.

It is so pathetic to watch these amateur armchair attorneys attempt to twist an obscure ruling from an immigration case and try to apply it to something entirely different.

False equivalency is your middle name ain't it. There is a HUGE difference between a mistaken observation, and an intentional lie. But that requires you to be honest and we all know you ain't.

False equivalency is the leftwing stock in trade. It's one of their favorite logical fallacies.

LOLOLOL

^^^ a dumb schmuck employing a false equivalency to accuse others of relying on them.