jknowgood
Diamond Member
Well I guess as far as you did. This is the standard your type made common.I'm afraid next week a couple of days before the debates liberals will start yelling "Trump raped 13 y.o!!" or something like that. No real evidence but a lot of noise, like always. By the time Americans figure out the truth, the elections will be over.
Just like they’ve done with Dominique Strauss-Kahn in France, who wanted to run for a French president (and the guy would have been a strong president!):
By early 2011, his work as head of the International Monetary Fund saw him touted as a potential challenger to Nicolas Sarkozy as president of France.
But in May 2011, his political ambitions were all but ended in a single day when the US authorities filed charges of attempted rape.
He was acquitted of the charge of "aggravated pimping" on 12 June, bringing to an end four years of legal proceedings against him.
Profile: Dominique Strauss-Kahn - BBC News
Dominique Strauss-Kahn courtroom drama headed for the big screen
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/world/europe/dsk-acquitted-aggravated-pimping-charges.html?_r=0
If there's no real evidence of the Trump rape, then why did the judge see enough in the prelim to allow it to go to trial? You're attempting to defend an incredibly immoral man - and self-admitted sex offender. How far does a man have to go before you'll stand against him?