I don’t understand this Huffington Post story about Donald Trump taking the Fifth 97 times during divorce depositions.
That’s a broader application of the right against self-incrimination than I thought possible, and I also don’t see the benefit of him doing it. I guess if there was (or is) still some statute against adultery on the books in New York, he could argue that he wasn’t going to admit committing a crime. But no one was going to charge him with that anyway. And no jury was going to judge him on it.
Being obnoxious as a strategy in a divorce proceeding? Lord knows it’s common, but I don’t know that it helps you.
The article says he was pleased with the outcome, though, so who knows?
Perhaps he couldn’t resist being obnoxious. Or was it the first divorce when he wife accused him of raping her? My god the presidential election campaign has sunk and we never seem to reach the bottom.
Guess Democrats/liberals really did miss the mudslinging 1990s because they can’t seem to get enough of slinging the mud this year. As obsessed with Trump as the ’90s GOP was with Clinton. Although Democrats/liberals didn’t shy away from slinging mud themselves back then; hence the resignations Newt and Livingston and electoral defeat of Hutchinson.
all mud is created equal (says so right there in the Constitution or whatever).
No distinctions on the merits to be drawn worth mentioning.
True. False. Valid. Invalid. Relevant. Irrelevant.
Who cares? What’s the difference?
Marie3, so your argument is . . . what? Democrats should never sling mud since it’s a terrible thing to do in politics, especially if the opponent is guilty of the very thing he/she is charging Democrats of?
Take the high road and not wallow in the mud like the pigs (no disrespect to the Suidae family of animals).
It’s not mud if it’s both completely true and highly relevant to public policy and/or the position of a public official. Thus, Packwood’s sexual harassment of staffers was both true and relevant. Newt’s and Clinton’s affairs weren’t, even though both were true.
Trump is an ignorant nincumpoop. Why isn’t that enough to defeat him without peering into his twenty-five year old divorce records (and both parties in divorces lie all the time) or using recollections of a former Miss Universe for which there is no real time evidence (remember the facts of what he and she did twenty years ago aren’t in dispute; it’s only her current claims of how it affected her that can’t be determined to be true. No different from the women that claim WJC sexually assaulted them and if Trump brought that into a debate or his campaign he would deserve every iota of flack he’d get for doing so.)
Still not taking the outcome of this election seriously, I see.
This would be like throwing a declawed cat in a burlap sack with a weasel and expecting an even fight.
Trump’s character is THE issue of this campaign. Insofar as there’s an argument against Clinton at all (given the choices), it’s her character that is fair game.
There is no high road. There is only a fight for our country with stakes that have never been so high, and that hopefully will never be so high again.
How could I not take it seriously — you’ve been preaching what the outcome shall be for nearly two years. Although you do seem to be at a loss to understand how HRC isn’t forty points ahead of possibly the most ludicrous nominee ever.
Republicans have enraged and disgusted me for my whole life. Democrats only intermittently, and with the exception of 1972 (and only at the Presidential level) never as profoundly as in this election cycle.
There is only a fight for our country
By restarting the Cold War? Surely you’re informed as to why there is animosity between Hillary and her buddies and Putin/Russia and it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with “fighting” for our country. And it’s exceedingly dangerous to our country and the world.
Howard Dean apologizes for ‘innuendo’ in cocaine comments. As someone who experienced first hand the power of negative spin on himself, he should have been the last person to engage in such sleazy politico-speak. But he still went there because Hillary.
Oh, lookee at what we now have — CNBC Debate commission: Yes, there were ‘issues’ with Donald Trump’s mic after all. Even if Trump’s mic glitch was inadvertent, why did Democrats and Dean roll in the mud on this one? After much of what has been seen from team-Hillary, her supporters, and media advocates in this election cycle, I wouldn’t put any money on the mic glitch being inadvertent.
And Trump’s threatening to abandon NATO or at least shake allies down for cash in exchange for continued membership is not dangerous to the US and the world (most certainly eastern Europe if nothing else)? Or having someone with clear impulse control issues in the oval office is not a danger not only internationally but internally? Energizing neo-Nazis, neo-Confederates, and the rest of alt-Right crowd is not a danger internally, especially to any of us who might be the “wrong” ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation? That is what is at stake to put it in stark terms. And the solution is to do nothing but smile and remain silent? The solution is to continue to promote the fallacy of false equivalence? SMH.
Trump can’t energize anything that isn’t already there and has been allowed to remain there by both parties in pursuit of their own agendas. Some bothered to notice way back when:
Although he failed to note that it wasn’t so much the Democratic Party pushing that in ’72 because the party elites felt as warmly towards McGovern in that election as they did towards Sanders in 2016. But it was good enough to pull out for the rubes every four years.
You said:
That is debatable. See, e.g., The Complete History Of Donald Trump’s Relationship With The White Nationalist Movement:
David Duke and other white supremacists see Trump’s rise as way to increase role in mainstream politics:
It’s a shame Putin doesn’t pay you.
You’re worth every dime.
Nobody, not even Putin, could pay me enough to be a propagandist. My ethics for honesty and consistent standards are too high. In real life, I’ve been tested on that and refused when the money on offer was more than I’ve ever seen. Frustrated them more than me because as my marketing professor said, “You have a natural talent for this and should change your major to marketing.” I’d rather starve to death.
Just like you i also have superior standards of honesty.
And i think its great that you would starve to death for your principles.
What i am worried about though is the apparent intention to make those not up to your standards suffer, and the seeming justification that “they” are all the same.
“Trump is an ignorant nincumpoop. Why isn’t that enough to defeat him … “
Why isn’t it enough? I dunno exactly. But clearly — obviously — undeniably — the events of this campaign have demonstrated over and over again that it’s not.
Because 40%+ of the population looks at Trump and sees themselves. Full stop.
Some of them actually like him. The whote supremacists, mainly. SOme of them are impressed with his supposed business brilliance. But s lot of them don’t actually like him. It’s more like, “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s OUR son of a bitch.” They want to shake things up. They really don’t like Hillary.
What these people don’t realize is that he’s not THEIR son of a bitch at all. He’s just a son of a bitch, pure and simple, out for nobody but himself. And as far as being president, he doesn’t know WTF he’s doing.
Maybe he can Make America Great Again for them. Or maybe he’ll burn everything to the ground and everyone who has succeeded will get theirs, so to speak.
Strongman Trump is a Strongman. It’s why I always label him that way. And his tens of millions of followers are right wing authoritarians who will do whatever he explicitly or implicitly says to do. It’s why he shouldn’t be allowed to win.
There was a –bleeping– reason why Sanders retained a positive favorable rating throughout his campaign. Alas, Republicans and Democrats prefer candidates that will do/say whatever.
And when was the last time some one was charged and convicted of committing adultery in New York State?
It was just an obnoxious way of being a dick. It didn’t fool anyone who was part of the divorce proceedings or help him do better in the final judgment.
It was a NY divorce deposition.
Listen, I don’t appreciate being put in a position of having to defend anyone as loathsome as Trump, but consistent standards are part of being an adult and not some wacko flaming partisan.
He took the fifth. That’s a hell of a lot easier to defend than WJC lying about an affair (that to the best of my knowledge wasn’t illegal in DC) in a deposition. And since I (and virtually every Democrat/liberal) defended and/or minimized his perjury, it’s rank hypocrisy to jump on Trump for this.
You just used the word hypocrisy is a comment defending Trump.
Now you’re arguing like Rush and dittoheads. If someone makes a point about A and only A that merits discussion, jumping in with “Well, what about B, C, and …!”
I can’t repeat 24/7 that Trump is an ignorant, blowhard, nincumpoop. He simply has never interested and fascinated me enough to let him occupy that much space in my brain and I’ve never been given to compulsive and obsessive behaviors. Plus, while I appreciate that he’s not all that much different from Reagan and GWB, those two didn’t get to the WH without being carefully and fully stage-managed. With all that along with massive media and Republican Party support, GWB still came up short against an opponent that many Democrats have never stopped criticizing. That is when they’re not blaming Nader (all smoke and mirrors IMHO because Gore was supposed to lose).
We’re in the messes we’re in because of Republicans, DINOs, and weak willed Democrats. And I’ll be damned if I’ll praise any of them because Trump is too crude for their delicate sensibilities. Racism, sexism, more war, and more income/wealth inequality has been their stock in trade for fifty years and it’s served them well. And anyone that praises Kissinger can go to hell.
I wouldn’t say it had much to do with the law but Trump alleges that taking the fifth kept the final settlement within the bounds of the pre nuptial. So, maybe it was a good strategy.
The article also notes that Trump has been critical of others taking the fifth and especially of Hillary’s staff in the e mail investigation. That particular one has made the rounds on Facebook and mine got infected with it through a few of my conservative friends. It seems in this case though that the FBI offered five of her assistants immunity to testify. So, as I understand it, they accepted it ( or one of more did) and did talk to the FBI. So I am not sure what the fifth is all about in that case. Trump though did make an issue of it, even though he found it useful in his divorce.
I watched Trump’s comments. He’s obviously making the point that people are guilty of something–email nonsense, whatever, he doesn’t really articulate–if they claim the 5th.
He knows where of he speaks considering that adultery is a misdemeanor under NY law.
On my FB it is taken for granted those people who got some kind of immunity or took the fifth are guilty and should be in jail, just like Hillary. Plus they now want Comey impeached since he let her off the hook. But not to worry too much. If she wins, they will impeach her forthwith. But then they worry Obama will pardon her. The mind of a RWNJ is,impenetrable.
In New York Adultery was a crime at the time.
There are ramifications to an admission.
It was very common in New York Divorce Proceedings for this to happen.
Yes I passed the NY Bar.
Apparently adultery still is a crime in new york state, a class B misdemeanor.
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article255.htm#p255.17
From what I can tell it it almost never prosecuted– ,aybe 15 times in the last 40 years.
well there is always this
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-pressured-second-wife-to-pose-nude-for-playboy
In a totally unexpected development, we learn today that back in the early 90s Donald Trump pressured his then-girlfriend, future wife and futurer ex-wife to pose nude in Playboy. Trump even negotiated a mega payday for the nude photo shoot. In the end, Maples refused.
Hardly surprising.
Trump has been extremely critical of Clinton’s staff taking the Fifth during the email kerfuffle. Maybe they’re just pointing out more Trump hypocrisy?