Top House Democrats Want Sessions Punished For Breaking Federal Law

In spite of the current administration’s endemic corruption, and congressional Republicans complicit involvement in covering up, or at least ignoring, blatant corruption and criminal acts, it was surprising there was little outrage after it was revealed the Attorney General committed perjury before the Senate. Even for corrupt Republicans, it seemed impossible they would do or say nothing about the nation’s top lawman committing a federal felony with impunity, but apparently there really is a perverted sense of honor among Republican criminals. Now, because Jeff Sessions was able to commit a federal felony and then get rewarded with a cabinet level position, he broke the law again. But Democrats are finally taking the criminal Sessions’ actions seriously and calling for his discipline at the least, and by rights summary termination.

The day following Trump’s obstruction of justice in firing James Comey, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) labeled Sessions’ role in the criminal obstruction of justice endeavor a “blatant disregard for the pledge he made in his recusal letter.” Remember, proud evangelical Sessions had to recuse himself from “any investigations” related to the Russian interference in the 2016 election because he violated the Ninth Commandment (he lied) about his contacts with Russians during the campaign. Wyden’s point, and it is beyond refute, is that Sessions violated that “public recusal” when, as attorney general, he played an integral role in firing the FBI Director overseeing the probe into Russian interference in the election; thus Senator Wyden’s remark that Sessions displayed “blatant disregard for the pledge he made in his recusal letter.

On Friday, two House Democrats went farther than just talking about Sessions’ violations and rightly asserted that indeed, in violating two very public recusal pledges, the Attorney General broke the law. The House Oversight Committee’s top Democrat, Representative Elijah Cummings (D-MD) was joined by the highest ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.) in issuing a letter to the Department of Justice demanding disciplinary action for Sessions’ federal violations.

In their letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, senior House Democrats Conyers and Cummings not only informed Rosenstein that Sessions broke another federal law, they demanded to know what kind of discipline the Deputy Attorney General was going to impose on the nation’s top law enforcement official. They wrote in part:

We are writing to request your assistance in addressing the crisis of confidence created by Attorney General Jeff Sessions when he participated directly in the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey despite the fact that he previously recused himself from any actions involving the investigations of the Trump and Clinton presidential campaigns.

It appears that the Attorney General’s actions recommending that Trump fire Director Comey may have contradicted his sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee at his confirmation hearing, breached the public recusal he made before the American people, and violated the law enacted by Congress to prevent conflicts of interest at the Department of Justice.

Federal law sets forth as a penalty for recusal violations removal from office, and the Attorney General’s violation in this case appears to be particularly grave. Since you are the acting Attorney General in this particular matter, we call on you to explain the measures that now may be required to mete out appropriate discipline in this case.” (author bold)

The issues leading to Sessions committing another federal crime are his blatant violation of two separate recusal promises related to the 2016 presidential campaign. First, during his Senate confirmation hearing, Sessions promised to recuse himself from any investigation involving Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton because of the several derogatory statements he made about her while he was actively campaigning for the Trump.

Second, Sessions succumbed to public and Democratic pressure on March 2 after it was revealed he committed perjury under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee when he could no longer conceal that he lied that he had no contacts with Russia’s ambassador. But instead of resigning from Trump’s Cabinet, or being charged with perjury, removed from office, and prosecuted, Sessions simply recused himself from “any existing or future investigations of any matters related in any way to the campaigns for president of the United States.

The two House Democrats’ letter to Rosenstein, also complicit in aiding Trump’s obstruction of justice in Mr. Comey’s dismissal, asserted that Sessions broke the law by violating his recusal promises in several ways.

First, the Democrats point out that in his May 9 letter to Trump recommending Comey’s immediate termination, Sessions specifically agreed with the assessment by Rosenstein that Comey mishandled the “investigation into Clinton’s emails.”

That was a direct contradiction to Sessions’ first recusal promise and it is a contradiction widely publicized and in writing. And, in Representative Conyers and Cummings’ letter they particularly cited a report in Reuters that Jeff Sessions, Rod Rosenstein, and Trump met with and asked the then-FBI Director Comey to give them a preview of his testimony into the “Clinton email investigation” when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3; another violation of Sessions’ stated recusal.

As far as Jeff Sessions’ very public recusal regarding the FBI’s investigation into Russia’s involvement in the election on Trump’s behalf, the House Democrats specifically made note of “multiple press reports that stated that Mr. Comey’s dismissal in which Sessions was a direct participant was directly related to the FBI’s ongoing Russia investigation.” That particular contention, that Comey was fired because of the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference, was confirmed by Trump himself in a nationally-televised interview with NBC’s Lester Holt; an interview in which Trump all but admitted to obstructing justice.

According to Representatives Conyers and Cummings, Jeff Sessions’ actions merit some serious disciplinary action, including termination. As the Democrats proffered, Sessions certainly broke a federal law “barring Justice Department officials from participating in any investigation that presents a conflict of interest.” And, as if to punctuate their assertion that Sessions is guilty, Conyers and Cummings demanded that Rosenstein answer questions about Sessions’ conduct leading up to his violating two recusal promises.

Those questions include whether Sessions took the time or proper step of consulting with ethics officials regarding his involvement in matters relating to Comey’s firing, and whether Sessions had taken part in any discussions about the Clinton email or Russia investigations; something his meeting with, and letter to, Trump would inform that he certainly did.

The chance that the Deputy Attorney General will be any more law abiding or honest than Sessions or Trump seems slim to non-existent. This is especially true if he joined Trump and Sessions in asking the FBI Director to reveal in advance what his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee would entail. In fact, once one realizes that this entire affair is being run by corrupt and criminal Republicans from the Oval Office to the House to the Senate to the Department of Justice, there is little hope whatsoever that justice will ever be served. If Jeff Sessions was able to blatantly commit perjury under oath before the Senate with impunity and then be rewarded with a cabinet position, no Republican alive is going to hold him accountable for breaking another federal law.

Trump Punked Willard Romney Into Humiliating Himself

 

It isn’t often one gets an opportunity to acknowledge that yes, there are one or two Republicans who are capable of speaking the truth, if only once. This is particularly noteworthy of an acknowledgment when a pathological liar, a master of mendacity, departs from uttering perpetual prevarications; in this case it is 2012’s “lyin’ king” Willard M. Romney.

The horrible thing about any psychosis, is that the result of drifting too far afield from an intrinsic and deeply ingrained pathology will likely lead one to humiliate themselves, and good old “mendacity Mitt” did so in full view of the mainstream media and the American people. It was really a sight to behold, Willard Romney humiliating himself, but particularly because he was punked and incited to national public self-shame by a con man Willard knew damn well was vindictive and nasty.

During the presidential campaign, Romney made a name for himself, and actually stopped lying for a couple of minutes, by giving speeches absolutely disparaging Donald Trump’s character and unleashing scathing critiques of every last thing dirty Don ever uttered. That’s why it was stunning that Romney was desperately seeking, and publicly supplicating Trump for the nomination as the next all-important position of secretary of state.

Maybe because Willard isn’t one of Vladimir Putin’s allies and two decade-long confidante, or possibly because he can’t give “old Vlad” a super-duper discount on Exxon oil after lifting sanctions for Russian aggression, but by now everyone knows that despite a serious public ass-kissing over two or three weeks, deceitful Don dumped Willard for an oil man. It is infinitely more likely that Trump never really considered Romney for anything and instead played on his lack of integrity  and lust for relevance just long enough to let him humiliate himself for ever daring to criticize tyrant Trump.

A few of the remarks Willard had about Trump during the campaign reveal that not only is he capable of telling the truth, he fundamentally reiterated every legitimate fear and criticism the rest of decent humanity has for Trump.

On the economy Willard said, “If Trump’s plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession. Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.”

On Trump’s character and temperament, Romney was spot on in saying, “Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be[ing] president. This is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.

Dishonesty is Trump’s hallmark. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power. Trump’s personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics… We have long referred to him as ‘The Donald.’ He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn’t because he had attributes we admired.”

Yes, it is true; Willard Romney was truthful in his assessment of Donald Trump, and it was likely his heartfelt belief that Trump epitomizes all those bad things and much more. But everything changed after the election and Willard was overcome with mendacity and reverted to his pathology in praising “the Donald” to high heaven. Of course everything Willard said in elevating Trump to a place reserved for gods was a lie, but like “lying for the lord,” there was a high-level administration reward if Willard worshipped Trump sufficiently and performed public acts of veneration.

It wasn’t enough for Romney to revert to his predilection to lying in crediting terrible Trump for having an endearing message of inclusion for all Americans. He had high praise for Trump’s ability to conduct his transition effectively, including carefully choosing “solid, effective, capable people” to run the country. In spite of absolutely railing on “dumb Donnie” for months as a “phony” and a “fraud” whose “promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University,” Willard licked the soles of Trump’s shoes clean and declared that “President-elect Trump is the very man who can lead us to a better future.”

It is inconceivable that Trump didn’t con Romney into making an ass of himself by contradicting everything he said about the moron prior to the election, and elevated the fascist as some kind of messianic gift to America and will “lead us to a better future.” Many pundits commented that during a photo opportunity while Trump and Romney broke bread, while the Donald was grinning ear-to-ear, humiliated Willard could barely manage a “grimace” in lieu of a smile for the cameras.

The publisher of Political Wire, Taegan Goddard, commented on the image of Trump and Willard over dinner and a heaping helping of humiliation: “Donald Trump looks like a cat that caught a mouse and is now batting it around with its paws until it dies, Romney is the mouse.”

Willard Romney will survive being punked by a notorious con man, but one wonders if he will ever live down being publicly humiliated because he just couldn’t resist lying with praise for a “phony and a fraud;” something this author is convinced was Trump’s only intent in even talking to his biggest Republican critic.

Nate Silver is Right – Democrats Are Lying To Themselves

 

It’s probably the case that every human being has experienced recurring nightmares and for some political observers this election is shaping up to be yet another disaster, for Democrats. One might think all Americans were aware that polling and election outcome predictions are not reliable, especially after the past two or three election cycles where Democrats were crushed in congressional and state-level races even after outrageous reporting that Republican governors, legislators and state representatives were destroyed by this or that Democrat leading up to voting day. This nightmare scenario is raising its ugly head and it appears that only Nate Silver is aware that Democrats are lying to themselves if they think Donald Trump can’t defeat Hillary Clinton.

Democrats know Nate Silver and yet it appears they have little regard for an “ominous warning” he recently issued:

There’s still a lot of denial among Democrats about how tight the race has become, despite evidence from high-quality polls.”

One of the big problems, and it is huge, is that although many voters claim they don’t support Trump and are highly-unlikely to vote for him in public, when queried anonymously, they do support the television celebrity and will be ticking a box with his name next to it in November. But, one might say, the polls show Hillary crushing Trump and pundits keep claiming the Republican Party is all but destroyed. However, according to experts like Thomas Edsall, some Trump voters are lying to the pollsters. In a prescient, but ignored op-ed a couple of months back, Mr. Edsall asked, “How Many People Support Trump but Don’t Want to Admit It?” The answer is probably a lot, and a lot means a Clinton win is not nearly as likely as Democrats want to believe.

There is something known amongst pollsters as “social desirability bias; the desire of respondents to avoid embarrassment.” Some voters refuse to tell a live interviewer that they support a candidate like Trump because he is offensive and outrageous. But like most establishment Republicans publicly rejecting Trump and claiming to support Hillary Clinton, once they’re in the privacy of the voting booth on November 8, they will, without hesitation, cast their secret ballot for every Republican up and down the ballot; including the Republican candidate for president.

According to real experts, in matchups between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump does much better in polls that are conducted online where a respondent, in the privacy of their computer screen, can tick a box next to Trump’s name sans embarrassment. In fact, it is a completely different story when they are faced with responding to a human being’s voice in person-to-person polls by landline and cellphone surveys.

To make the point clearer, Real Clear Politics aggregated 10 separate telephone polls giving Hillary Clinton a respectable nine point national advantage over Trump. However, the combined results of two online surveys conducted by YouGov and Morning Consult, Clinton’s lead fell to only four points. It’s why Nate Silver is right in saying Democrats are in denial if they think Donald Trump can’t win in November.

To re-emphasize the point, Nate Silver ran a national presidential poll about two weeks ago and to say the results are shocking is an understatement. In telephone calls where a live person asks a respondent to “disclose their preference to a living person,” Hillary Clinton polls at a very strong 86 percent. However, in Silver’s online and “robo” polls conducted over the Internet and in private, Clinton polls a whopping 15 percent lower, coming in at only 71 percent.

Where Democrats and liberal pundits alike have to start being honest is admitting that no matter how offensive and dangerous Donald Trump may be, and he certainly is both, he is the Republican Party standard bearer. That he is a racist, bigot, misogynist and inept at everything just endears him a bit more to the preponderance of ignorant Americans who will flock to the polls to vote for a celebrity they’ve watched on their televisions.

Americans are also memory challenged besides ignorant and all of the offensive and hateful remarks by Trump, even targeting Veterans and women, are already long-forgotten by many prospective voters. Remember, that even after shutting down the government six months before the 2014 midterms, Republicans who pundits claimed were finished easily won their races.

Democrats can never assume the voters are dependable according to their responses in polls and surveys, but they can, and damn well should assume that when they hit the voting booth in November the preponderance of racists, religious, and bigoted Republicans and their independent or first-time voting brethren will pull the lever or tick the box for the Republican. That his name is Donald Trump is of no consequence; he will have an “R” beside his name and he promised to protect their Christian heritage and make America great again. It is meaningless to informed Americans, but it cements the deal for conservatives.

 

This article was originally set for publication Sept. 15, 2016

Trump’s Sexual Assault Talk Epitomizes Why Rape Culture Thrives

 

One of the benefits of a nation that welcomes people from around the world is that there are many diverse cultures that make up what it means to be an American. It is a sad fact of life, though, that there is one specifically prevalent culture in America that targets one major demographic and because Donald J. Trump is the Republican candidate for the presidency, rape culture is now front and center if the media would make it a national issue.

In its most basic form described by a very simple definition, “rape culture is the normalization of sexual assault in a society.” Another definition is “a culture in which rape and other sexual violence (usually against women) are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualized violence.”

That definition fairly explains all of the horrendous “rape apologists” rushing to defend or excuse the sexist Republican candidate for president. And it describes the American social norm perpetuating the idea that women are sexual objects, and that sexual objectification is simply a fact of life; so there is nothing “wrong” with Donald Trump’s behavior, or nasty “rape” talk. It is talk that perpetuates rape culture primarily because when it occurs no-one challenges the attitude the Trump-types exude when talking about women.

Trump’s talk was not locker room chatter, not in any typical locker room, and not the kind of talk normal locker room men would comport or allow to go unpunished. However, it is the kind of talk prevalent among a certain class of males; males that feel entitled due to wealth, family name, power, connections or celebrity. Remember, it wasn’t just Trump’s claim that he could “move on” or “grab” the genitals of any woman he wanted and do anything his perverted mind dreamed up, it was his justification that because he is rich, a “star” celebrity, and powerful that he and his class are entitled to “the right” to sexually assault women. It is not unlike the reasoning television celebrity Bill Cosby used to explain away his years of sexually assaulting young women. And in Donald Trump’s case it excused his assaults on his wives, strangers on airplanes, beauty pageant workers and women sitting in bars.

The truth is that if men like Trump were challenged, or beaten to within an inch of their perverted lives, when they boast about their sexual predation bona fides, that culture may cease being an attractive option for men like Trump. When Trump boasted to Billy Bush about his unwanted advances on unsuspecting women, Bush should have at least feigned outrage and besmirched Trump’s character and told him what a real man would do if Trump acted like an animal around a woman. Instead, he laughed in apparent agreement and encouragement leading one to wonder if he didn’t “high five” Trump for his “achievement;” he certainly wasn’t appalled like any decent human being.

The rape culture is perpetuated in many ways, but none more so than the “rape apologists” rushing to defend the perpetrators whether they are rich celebrities like Donald Trump, high school football stars carrying around an unconscious rape victim, rock celebrities or television stars. Of course there was no shortage of Trump defenders who excused his lewd description about how he commits sexual assaults according to the Justice Department definition.

It is exactly that kind of defense by his supporters and campaign surrogates using “creative excuses that normalize and minimize sexual assaults” That perpetuate and normalize rape culture. And it doesn’t matter who is guilty whether it is Donald Trump or any other male sexual predator. A despicable example was the co-chair of Trump’s New York campaign, Carl Paladino, who excused Trump’s remarks about sexually assaulting women as “something all men do, at least all normal men.” And according to rape culture, if it is “something that all normal men do” then it must be permissible in society and women who object must be sick, or at least they don’t really comprehend what “legitimate rape” entails. Yes, just uttering the words “legitimate rapeperpetuates America’s rape culture that sexual predators like Donald Trump thrive in.

There has always been a culture promoting rape in America simply because the nation is and always has been dominated by patriarchs that believe their “biblical superiorityover women excuses all manner of misogyny whether it is sexual assault, controlling women’s bodies, underpaying them, slut-shaming for using birth control or daring to come forward to unconcerned, mostly male, law enforcement to report a sexual assault.

In fact, another thing that makes rape culture “self-perpetuating” is that assaulted women are terrified to come forward and report their rapists out of fear of not being taken seriously or having “their characters ripped apart.” It is why so many victims stay silent to avoid having their motives questioned like Trump’s accusers or to avoid being accused of “asking for it.” As Laurel Raymond at Think Progress put it, “If we are to learn anything from Trump’s masterclass in rape culture, it’s that none of us [women] should keep quiet.”

If nothing else comes out of the revelation that Donald Trump is, by definition, a sexual predator and guilty of sexual assault according to his own words, it is possible that more Americans will become aware of rape culture and who is perpetuating it. It is true there are Republicans condemning Trump’s “remarks,” but one has to add that they are all the same Republicans guilty of perpetuating rape culture whether by slut-shaming contraception advocates or questioning the validity of a rape. It is something only a Republican still supporting Donald Trump is guilty of and as some people have noted are also guilty of wishing they were in Trump’s situation so they too could “move hard” on any woman with impunity because they are rich, famous or powerful.

Image: Gage Skidmore

Washington Post Offers Brilliant and Reasoned Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Anyone familiar with a newspaper editorial board’s process of deciding which candidate to endorse for any office in any election will confess it can be a lengthy and sometimes contentious task. Two weeks ago when the New York Times editorial board endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, anyone with a pulse could see the board did its due diligence and put forward a well-researched and well-conceived rationale for endorsing Clinton. Late this week, the Washington Post weighed in on the presidential election and officially endorsed Hillary Clinton and gave what is arguably the most well thought-out and clearly reasoned endorsement of any candidate in recent memory.

Although the Post methodically laid out its reasons for endorsing Ms. Clinton, the editorial’s first paragraph really said everything any of their readers needed to know about Clinton as a superior choice over not just Donald Trump, but any candidate from any party.

There is a well-qualified, well-prepared candidate on the ballot. Hillary Clinton has the potential to be an excellent president of the United States, and we endorse her without hesitation.”

In similar fashion of the NYT’s endorsement, the Post did not focus on why Donald Trump is “dreadful” or why Clinton is the “lesser of two evils;” because it is not why the board endorsed her. However, like any thoughtful endorsement it did not shy away from why it believes, right or wrong, that some Americans dislike and distrust the former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator. The piece carefully explained how and why it believes Hillary could have handled the past 25 years of conservative attacks on her character better.

Interestingly, the endorsement did note what it called Clinton’s “genuine flaws, missteps and weaknesses;” of which one, a lack of charisma, the board considered an asset in America’s “angrily divided nation” where, if elected, she will have to govern and work with a political party “determined to thwart her.”

It is worth taking the 4 minutes to read the Post’s endorsement, but there was one specific point that stands out as justification for the opening paragraph about Clinton being “well-qualified and well-prepared” to be “an excellent president.”

In a few words with significant weight behind them, the Post said Hillary Clinton is “dogged, resilient, purposeful and smart. She does not let her feelings get in the way of the job at hand. She is well positioned to get something done,” and she will not be deterred from progress by a defeat no matter how brutal.

The Post specifically noted that instead of holding “some grudges” toward Republicans who “lambasted her husband in the most personal terms” during an impeachment fiasco, after winning election to the Senate in 2000 “colleagues in both parties found her to be businesslike, knowledgeable, intent on accomplishment, willing to work across the aisle and less focused than most on getting credit.”

On domestic issues, the Post remarked that “Ms. Clinton’s agenda is commendable, and parts may actually be achievable: immigration reform; increased investment in infrastructure, research and education, paid for by higher taxes on the wealthy; sounder family-leave policies; criminal-justice reform. In an era of slowing growth and growing income inequality, these all make sense, as do her support for curbing climate change and for regulating gun ownership.”

On all of those issues, the editorial board noted that Clinton may not please some farther-left Democrats or hard-right Republicans, but because this is a divided America and progress comes in excruciatingly painful incremental steps, her steady hand, knowledge, and intent on accomplishment by working across the aisle will achieve results; if only incrementally.

What was surprising, really, was the Post’s remark that “Ms. Clinton underlined her fitness for office in what was essentially the first major decision of her potential presidency: her choice of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) as running mate.” The Post noted, rightly, that “Ms. Clinton selected a person of sound judgment, with executive and legislative experience and unquestionable capacity to serve as president if necessary.” It was an executive-level choice that demonstrated Clinton’s “seriousness of purpose and relentless commitment to achievements in the public interest” instead of making a choice based on exciting “this or that part of her base.”

The Post ended its endorsement with a point that did not have to be made and really did nothing to substantiate the worth of a major newspaper’s otherwise brilliant endorsement. It said, “We believe that Ms. Clinton will prove a worthy example to girls who celebrate the election of America’s first female president. We believe, too, that anyone who votes for her will be able to look back, four years from now, with pride in that decision.”

Anyone who supports or votes for Hillary Clinton should not do so based on her gender regardless the historical or role model value for girls or women. The only reason to support Clinton’s candidacy is because she is “well-qualified and well-prepared to be an excellent president;” the most important reason offered by the Washington Post editorial board.

 

h/t shoq

Media Ignores Legitimate Federal Rape Case Against Donald Trump

If Americans plagued with the task of observing and commenting on the state of American politics haven’t already figured it out, America’s mainstream media certainly detests strong intelligent women. If that were not the case, and it definitely is, the media would eschew the proliferation of phony Republican claims about Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and start focusing on legitimate scandals involving their favorite “man of the year” Donald Trump. No, this isn’t about Trump’s illegal campaign contribution to a corrupt Florida attorney general,or his ties to Russian oligarchs, or his failure to pay income taxes; it is about the legitimate child rape case against an avowed misogynist the GOP felt comfortable nominating as their standard bearer seeking the White House.

As misogynists go, now that the American queen of misogyny, Phyllis Schlafly, is dead, Donald Trump surely ranks as America’s greatest and most visible woman hater and has the right to claim Schlafly’s crown. If the big-time wrestling and reality television celebrity wasn’t defaming women as “dogs, slobs and pigs,” he was attacking a Fox News journalist Megyn Kelly for asking him a question that Trump claimed was unprofessional because she was menstruating. Add to those anti-women credentials his attack on the appearance of another Republican candidate, Carly Fiorina, and Ted Cruz’s wife Heidi.

It is no surprise, then, that Trump is facing a very real, and very credible, federal lawsuit accusing the Republican nominee for president of raping a 13-year old girl during a party hosted by a billionaire and convicted pedophile, Jeffrey Epstein. Although this has been ongoing for some time, now more than ever the mainstream media should be delving into to case after a federal judge announced a pre-trial conference scheduled for September 9 was rescheduled for October 14th. The judge gave the plaintiff extra time to “legally” serve defendants Donald J. Trump and a man Trump said was a “really neat guy,” and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein who was present during the “alleged” child sex abuse.

As a side note, even pretend journalists are encouraged to use the “alleged” because Trump is not yet convicted, but there is plenty of evidence pointing to Trump’s guilt; primarily from Trump himself. There is, however, a good reason to believe there is validity to the victims charge if for no other reason than there is an eye witness accounting of the brutal child rape of a 13-year old girl by the man the GOP establishment want sitting in the Oval Office to make America even more exceptionally Republican.

Eye witness account aside, there is the account of Epstein who was with Trump at the time of the “alleged” child rape. Epstein, a now-disgraced investment banker and “good buddy” of Trump’s, was previously accused of running a “sexual abuse ring” involving underage girls and providing them to high-powered clients and wealthy businessmen like Donald Trump. Epstein was successfully convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and served 13 months in prison after pleading guilty.

Even setting aside the two other allegations of “violent rape” against Trump, it is prescient to consider his decades worth of contempt for, and debasing comments about, women in general, but especially those he has worked with. The misogynist king takes great pride in his “longstanding and well-documented” record of objectifying the gender he decreedhave to be treated like shit.”

Trump’s contemptible record of abusing women is an important point in claiming this rape charge is completely believable; because according to American Psychological Association (APA), “men who objectify women are more likely to become perpetrators of sexual violence; just as one with a long history of overtly racist comments is more likely to commit a hate crime.” One would add that a child who enjoys torturing and killing animals is more likely than not to torture and kill human beings in later life with Jeffrey Dahmer being a prime example psychologists cite often.

As noted here, “Decades of abusive language [targeting women] does not make Trump a rapist, but it does show who the man is: a callous, mean-spirited misogynist who no sane person would leave alone with their daughter.” And, as acclaimed American poet Maya Angelou once said, “When someone shows you who they really are, believe them.”

Trump has revealed who he is and what he thinks of the fairer sex that makes the allegations he is a child rapist very believable. If the main stream media would take a second out of focusing on Hillary Clinton coughing, or slipping on icy stairs, or using email to give attention to a legitimate charge of child rape against the Republican nominee for president, perhaps his ardent supporters would pause and realize they are enamored with a dirty lying pedophile.