And his producer from the Apprentice just tweeted out that recordings, far worse than this, are coming out this week.
u r winning paul zeidan
ride that wave, brahhhh
u r winning paul zeidan
ride that wave, brahhhh
Let's give him some help.
Paulie...remember "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID?"
Is #FightForFifteen the Most Damning Indictment of Obama’s Failed Economy?
There are a number of phrases that mysteriously disappeared from the lips of Democrat politicians and their PR flaks in the mainstream press somewhere around January 2009. Does anyone remember these hits from 2000 – 2008 – “Irresponsible spending”, “Increasing the debt to pay for his wars”, or “failed to grow in office”? Naturally we don’t hear any of these anymore because they would contradict the narrative of the greatest president in American history.
But three big disappeared phrases that come to mind are “Where are the jobs”, “McJobs”, and “Jobless Recovery”. Now we no longer hear these phrases despite the fact that the United States has had a real unemployment rate of over 10% for the entire duration of the Obama presidency, and we’ve been hovering at Jimmy Carter levels of low labor force participation.
There’s no need to go into the reasons for this – if you’re reading this post you’re either intelligent enough to know why or enough of a true believer in President Obama to deny the obvious. But what is more damning is the unending quest by the Radical Left to increase the minimum wage. ICYMI, last week I gave a detailed breakdown of how having a minimum wage hurts the poor far more than it can possibly help them.
But what’s most telling is why the Radical Left has to champion this cause. For any youngsters reading this, there was a time when the words “entry level job” meant exactly that – they were meant to be entry level, not jobs that were meant to be able to support a family of four. But this is the product of eight years of a presidency whose economic policies failed to produce 3.0% in any single year (An historic first!), the ranks of Americans on food stamps swelled by 50%, up from 31 to 46 million, and a record of $10 thousand million ($10T) has been added to our national debt. When you have policies specifically designed to disincentivize growth and hiring (Obamacare, environmental regs, minimum wage, power to union bosses, etc) it’s no surprise that good job opportunities are scarcer than they were pre-Obama.
So why #FightForFifteen? Because it’s all that a failed administration has left to offer. And the fact that union raises (and dues collected) get pegged to minimum wage increases doesn’t hurt, either. The jobs aren’t out there, so the best they have to offer is force employers to pay more to those who are able to get entry level jobs, at least until reality catches up.
But then again, when has reality ever been the basis of the policies of the Radical Left?
The economy should be question number one in the next debate. Odds are that all focus will be on the unimportant issue of what Trump said 10 years ago.
Will the economy be addressed in the debate? I don't think the odds are that good. Of course if a question focuses on the latest "gotcha" on Trump, I don't think he will hold back on Hillary's problems with Bill, her abetting his behavior and treatment of his victims. That would be a danger for her as she would probably have a medical meltdown.
Moderator busted...Trump will be debating two opponents.
Trump could very well take that battle directly to Hillary's baggage and make her prepared script worthless. She does not present herself in a very positive manner when off script. Under pressure, her medical problems could very well arise and leave her twitching on the floor.
(That is probably the reason suggested that both candidates take drug test before the debate! LOL)
If Anderson allows the debate to go that way, it will demonstrate to the world that all Hillary and her media allies have is #neverTrumpism and nothing with topics of economy, borders, terrorism, etc.
I will always wonder why the Republican Party allows these debates to work against them by allowing the kind of moderators and formats that weaken their candidates and platform. Probably comes from the inner uniparty mentality.
Raddatz, along with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, will co-moderate this upcoming Sunday evening’s presidential debate between GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The first set of questions at Sunday night’s presidential debate will be about Donald Trump’s vulgar comments on a newly published 2005 videotape, and the fallout from it.
And Hillary Clinton will get the first question.
Moderators Anderson Cooper of CNN and Martha Raddatz of ABC have adjusted their plan for the debate in light of the Trump tape, sources told CNNMoney.
While everything is subject to change until air time, an ABC source said — perhaps confirming the obvious — that Trump and Clinton will both be prompted to address the matter.
A coin toss by the Commission on Presidential Debates determined that Clinton will speak first.
"Yes I said that. I have done many things that I am not proud of. Unlike hilary, I do not deny my past. I do not lie under oath about putting America in danger with an unsecured e-mail server. I do not defend the rapist of a 12 year old child and then laugh about getting him off even when I knew he was guilty.
I have never left an ambassador and other Americans to die in a foreign country because I was hiding the fact that I was dealing arms to islamic terrorists.
I never had sex in the oval office with a very young girl and then lied about it under oath and to the American people.
Unlike hilary, I have never tried to destroy the life of anyone wronged by my spouse."
Yes, I am human and make mistakes. I learn from the past. Hilary is not capable of either admitting her past sins or learning from them."
Get your a$$ over to that town hall....NOW. I will pay the for travel tab.
That was one of the best comebacks I have heard and could tilt the stage tonight.
The Rock
So, you'd have him basically begin his statement with a lie? He is exceedingly proud of anything he does that he thinks makes him an Alpha male, and the way he treats women is right up there at the top of the list as a verifier for him that he is the top dog. Anyone paying attention can see that quite easily.
And, he has denied many things in his past. Repeatedly. Despite reams of evidence/proof.
You have been here long enough to know what I think of trump. If trump does what I said, he will win the "debate" and put an end to the topic.
He is a politician (has been for years) so what he says and what he does do not necessarily need to match to get votes.
josh...why not a positive post and tell us of your trip out west--with some pictures?
Big deal. Not going to make any difference.
"Big deal. Not going to make any difference."
That's right, the two parties fanatics will stick with their team while America suffers. Some will have the nerve to ask how the other can be so stupid....lol in a sad laugh
…DESPERATION: MODERATOR RADDATZ DEBATES TRUMP…
…HILLARY DOESN’T DENY WIKILEAKS DOCS AUTHENTICITY…
…SHOCK: HILLARY BLAMES LIES ON ABRAHAM LINCOLN…
…TRUMP VOWS TO ELIMINATE THE LOOPHOLE FOR HEDGE FUND MANAGERS…
…FIX IS IN: THREE QUESTIONS ABOUT TAPE…
…TRUMP CALLS ON CLINTON TO APOLOGIZE FOR PUSHING BIRTHERISM…
After talking with voters tonight, he's back in this race. #Debate2016
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what a KO looks like.....
They looked terrible and the audience really showed them up.
The one demographic Trump needs more badly right now than any other is white, suburban women voters. His performance last night, playing the bully all evening, and making light of his 2005 bragging comments about sexually assaulting women, put white, suburban women voters even further out of reach for him. Maybe he has consciously decided to go "all in" on turning out the white angry male vote and disregard all the other major demographics, but that won't net him enough votes to win. Maximizing the white male, no-college vote and antagonizing white, suburban women may carry him to a 70%-30% win in West Virginia, but he'll get just as many electoral votes there as if he won WV by a 55%-45% margin. Meanwhile, the more he antagonizes white, suburban women voters, the more out of reach states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina become for him, and the more "in play" states like Georgia become, with their much higher percentage of white, suburban women voters than a state like WV.
Hey! I have never said that!
I never watch them (and you are right that they are intellectually inert), but they do matter. The average voter seems to care if one looks nervous or one sniffs all the time or if one is rude to the other. They are a beauty contest.
So is my nearly 50 y/o cousin, Republican voter all her life, doesn't agree with Hillary on anything, but told me recently she is voting for Hillary because she is scared to death that Trump and his big mouth and fragile ego are going to get us entangled in WW3.
I didn't say Trump won't get the votes of any women in that demographic, but he's already polling incredibly low with them, and it's only going to get worse with a debate performance like last night.
By the way, the vulgarity of the things Trump was on tape talking about won't be the problem for many white, suburban women voters (though some definitely will not like it). What will be a problem for a lot of women in that demographic is that he was talking about actions - that he engaged in - that would get you fired at just about any company in America, and very possibly would be ground for arrest on sexual assault charges if the woman chose to press charges.
I'd be curious to know what your wife thought about the transcript that came out in the last day or two of one of Trump's interviews with Howard Stern, where Trump said in the interview that he liked to, as the owner of the Miss Universe pageant, go backstage (while there were no doubt many contestants in all stages of dress and UNdress) to *inspect* things while contestants were getting ready. *Wink, Wink*.
By the way, my wife is a white, rural woman voter (more likely to be a demographic more in favor of Trump than suburban women) and she had a much...."stronger"....reaction than your wife did to the tape with Trump bragging about sexually assaulting women. She thought it was vile, disgusting, and beyond the pale, regardless of whether it was a "private" conversation or not. The "conversation" isn't as big of a deal. It's the things Trump was describing in the conversation that he DID/DOES that are the serious problem. I have a really hard time believing you and/or your wife don't see the distinction there.
If either had any moral high ground they could stand on they should be slapped around with such things until unconscious. But neither do, so IMO and that of many if not most.... it's a wash. She knows her husband has done all that and worse. And she defended him all the way, enabled him actually.
Media thought they could attack Trump and ignore/hide the Clinton's as bad or worse behavior. They just opened Pandora's box.....
I think Trump won this one hands down. I think he put the latest steaming pile behind him somewhat, and hammered her where he should have in the last debate when he tried to make it about him being so awesome and failed miserably. He came away much better. She looked and acted like she was caught up in all her lies and failures. He may not have had the grand slam, but he hit plenty of home runs and held her to trying to string together a few singles.
Was it enough to swing back momentum? Don't know. Maybe if he keeps his yap shut and doesn't shoot any more toes off his foot.....
"He was EXCEEDINGLY respectful."
So....because he was only a lech when he was still on the bus and was nice to her when he got out....that means....what?
"Where are all the women that are saying that trump actually assaulted them? Surely they must be some somewhere willing to talk."
Pretty sure there are at least 2 different women that have leveled charges of rape against him. Then there's the former Miss Utah who said that Trump inappropriately, and without her consent, kissed her, and she said he had done the same to many other contestants as well (kind of like what he was describing on the bus interview about "tic-tac's" and he might just start kissing some woman).
I have a suggestion for you, also: before you make another defense of something awful that Trump said or did....ask yourself: "If this was Bill or Hillary Clinton who had done this, would I be defending them on it"? If your answer is no, well....
And if you're really interested (I doubt you actually are) in finding out more about Donald Trump's attitudes toward women and what he has said about women, I'd suggest you spend some time watching/listening to his interviews over the years with Howard Stern.
joshuaf's Link
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-words-echo-womans-allegations-507763
You could have just dispensed with everything else you said, and wrote this sentence 10 times in succession, as that is really what it boils down to for you. The other stuff is superfluous for you, not really much point in discussing the "details" of just how awful Trump actually is, right?
And I do my own research on what Trump has said also. You and I obviously have come to very different conclusions as to the meaning and/or implications of the things he has said. We also obviously have a very different view of what "defending" someone means. I think that by voting for Trump, you *are* defending him by default.
And maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here, just trying to follow along with what you're saying...but, you said that even if Trump is everything I said he is, he is still the better of the two primary candidates. I guess that means if Trump actually is guilty of sexual assault (possibly multiple times), you still think he is not only better than Hillary, but is fit for the Presidency? If so....good to know what you're willing to defend as long as it's done by someone running with an "R" after their name and not named Hillary Clinton.
I would just go back to what I said before: Everything you have said in - yes, defense - of Trump....Would you have said the same if the offending person were Obama or Bill or Hillary Clinton? Somehow I think not.
It's like we said, again and again: They wanted Trump to be the nominee because he's her best shot at winning. https://t.co/Fpq5NGmWfG
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) October 10, 2016
As an aside, many here and elsewhere said for months and months that Trump's elevation was a tool/plan to get Hillary elected. Thanks to Wikileaks, it appears we now have confirmation that that is exactly what the Clinton camp had in mind. Does anyone think that the media's 24/7 focus on Trump throughout the primaries was just about ratings? Considering how much some of you have been whining about seeming coordination between the Hillary campaign and the media (of COURSE they're coordinating, she's a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!), I think it is time for some of you to admit that you - and Trump - have been used as "Useful Idiots" for the primary purpose of getting Hillary elected. And to think, some of us have been saying all along that those responsible for getting Hillary elected will be those who supported Trump. Apparently that was exactly Hillary's plan. Good Job, Trump supporters. To quote the great Trump sycophant, Sean Hannity: "You Own This!".
And again: if it was Obama, Bill, or Hillary Clinton in the same position as Trump, would you be defending them?
Read the Newsweek article I linked and see if you still think it may have been just a figure of speech.
I would just ask you again, since you have not yet answered: would you be making these same defenses if the people involved were Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner, or anyone running with a "D" after their name instead of an "R"? Your answer will say a lot about whether this is more about principle, or more about partisanship and a "Stop Hillary at all costs" mentality.
By the way, speaking of Bill Clinton, I would encourage you to take a trip down memory lane, back to the 90's. Spend some time going over all of the excuses and justifications from Clinton sycophants and Democrats everywhere, of why the horrible things Bill Clinton did really weren't all that horrible or not as bad as they seemed, or at least certainly "didn't rise to the level of impeachment". Then compare some of those justifications and excuses to some of the things that have been offered up by the likes of Jeff Sessions and others in recent days about Trump, and compare them to some of the things you wrote in the post preceding this one. I think you will find some of them are eerily similar in the spirit of their defense.
And regarding Cruz's "endorsement" of Trump....it was pretty weak sauce as far as endorsements go. I have seen much more spirited defenses of voting for Trump from you and others here than anything remotely offered up by Cruz in the last few weeks. There is no doubt in my mind that Cruz knows exactly what Trump is, and when in the privacy of the voting booth, I think it very likely that Cruz will leave the box for President "blank". I believe the turning point that caused him to offer up his tepid endorsement was when Reince started making threats that anyone who pledged to support the nominee in 2016 and didn't do so, might find themselves barred from running for President again in 2020. Whether or not Reince could actually do that, I have no idea, but it was shortly after that that Cruz came out with his "endorsement". I wish he hadn't done it, but I understand why he did, and I think he did it for reasons of political necessity, not because he had a sudden epiphany that Trump would be a clearly better President than Hillary Clinton. I can also say that his decision to "endorse" Trump had no effect on me whatsoever as far as changing my mind about voting for Trump myself. And I'm pretty sure I said many months ago that if Cruz did ever endorse Trump, it wouldn't affect my decision. It hasn't. I don't like that he did it, I understand why he did, I don't think he really believes Trump will be better than Hillary, and as long as he continues to have a nearly spotless Constitutionally Conservative voting record in the Senate, I won't hold this action against him.
"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
- Ronald Regan
The Newsweek article was about some of his accusers in the past. One of which said (years ago, before the Trump video was even made, much less made available to the public) that he did just exactly what he, himself, said in the video. "Grab them....."
Reagan was a politician. And so is Trump.
The point of your last post was that you think we should all vote for the lesser of two evils. Do you honestly think you're breaking new ground throwing that theory out there, or that I haven't addressed it already a gazillion times on here? Evil is evil, and I don't support evil. My conscience is very clear that I did what I could to see that a good candidate was elected, and I didn't compromise my conscience, principles, or character in that process. I didn't vote for Romney, McCain, or Dole, either, all of whom look like Founding Fathers in comparison to Trump, do you seriously think I would break my longstanding policy about this to vote for a guy who is by far WORSE than that trio?
I notice that you still have not answered my question about whether you would defend Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, of the same behavior Trump is accused of. Your way of avoiding the real point?
"Second, show me where Trump has been found guilty of assault."
I never said that. I said he has been accused of, and may be guilty of, and no, I am not making things up.
If your conscience is totally comfortable voting for a guy who has bragged about his loose morals, misogynistic behavior and attitude towards women, and actions that would get you fired for sexual harassment/assault at most companies in America, then you are the one that has to deal with that, not me. Just know that, in future, if you are deriding ANY politician for the same type of behavior, I will be reminding you at every opportunity of your former defense of Trump for the same things, and pointing out that you are a hypocrite. You, and many others here, have given up all the moral high ground to criticize politicians - of ANY party - over issues of character or ethics. Period. Hope it was worth it.
And that, by itself, is meaningless. Richard Jewell was accused of something once before, too.
Believe what you want, but when a guy says he does "this", and there is an accuser from his past that said he did "this" to her, and they're the same thing, seems to me it is more than a "figure of speech".
If you have no idea, it's because you want to have no idea. It certainly isn't because there is no supporting information available out there. Maybe you can salve your doubts about Trump by pretending it was sophomoric banter, but I didn't see it that way at all (nor did a lot of other voters), given Trump's VERY public history of misogynistic attitudes towards women. And, again, comparing it to the Cruz video is just willful ignorance. I remembered this afternoon, by the way, that his first wife Ivana ALSO accused him of Rape. And that is all public knowledge as well.
"Two vastly different things. I'm NOT defending Trump."
Nice dodge. Use whatever word you want, but now how about you try answering the question: if these same issues had arisen about Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, would you be defending them? And where, pray tell, DO you draw the line? What is the worst thing Trump could do and you would still support him? What is the worst thing you would look past because you still thought he was "better than Hillary"?
"what you think is moral superiority"
I don't think I have moral superiority over you on this issue, I know I have moral superiority over you on this issue. But it's not because I'm some extra perfect person, it's because you gave up the moral high ground when you take the position that it doesn't matter what Trump has done or what an awful person he is so long as you still think he's better than Hillary. When you said it's no problem that Trump doesn't even uphold basic standards of decency, as long as he's running against Hillary.
Going to look forward to reminding you of your position on Trump when you decide to hold forth on the character and/or ethics of some future politician.
And oh, by the way, you, me, and everyone else make moral judgements about people on a daily basis. If you don't want to admit as much, that's up to you, but we ALL make moral judgements on a regular basis, and not just of politicians.
You are starting to sound very much like the Clinton defenders in the 90's.
And?
You know and I know that just about everyone on here has criticized Bill Clinton in the past over accusations with no more evidence, and no "guilty" conviction in a court of law. Given Trump's very public history of misogynistic attitudes towards women, I'll give his accusers the benefit of the doubt, regardless of whether or not the accusation has been tested in a court of law.
Yes, you did previously, and you just did again in the sentence above, when you used the Constitution as a prop to justify your defense of voting for Trump, despite the fact there is no evidence that Trump even knows what the Constitution is, much less what it says. If Trump was convicted of sexual assault or rape, but you still thought he would uphold the Constitution better than Hillary, would you vote for him? If that was such an easy answer, by the way, why did it take so many times of me asking the question for you to answer it?
"The burden is on the accuser. Accusations without some corroborating evidence are not persuasive."
Who says there isn't/wasn't some corroborating evidence? Do you know all the facts of the case? I don't know if your special area of law is in defending against sex crimes charges or something, but I don't need the "Guilty" stamp of approval from a court of law to make my own personal judgement that when a man has a very public negative history with women like Trump does, and gets accused by more than one woman (including his wife) of sex assault/and or rape, there's a good chance some of it is true. We all make moral judgements about people - including politicians - on a daily basis. I don't need to know what a jury of 12 people finds about Donald Trump to know that he is a vile, disgusting man who has a history of misogyny towards women. Not every case even makes it to court, some are pled out, some don't have enough evidence for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean the perp is innocent in either case.
How many of Bill Clinton's accusers do you believe? Not how many do you believe could be proven in a court of law, but how many do you believe? I believe a bunch, including those women Trump brought to the debate as a publicity stunt the other night.
Presidential vote preference among female likely voters, @HillaryClinton vs. @realDonaldTrump: pic.twitter.com/G5VDBALp3H
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) October 11, 2016
.@farenthold on if he'd revoke support for Trump if he said "I like raping women" -- "It'd be bad...I'd consider it" https://t.co/jWCZ1YERYl
— All In w/Chris Hayes (@allinwithchris) October 12, 2016
Nice dodge.
"jodhuaf, that interview was akin to asking a guy if he has stopped beating his wife yet."
I'm sorry to hear you say that, and sincerely hope you don't really believe that.
"There is no right way to answer that question"
Actually, yes, there is. The correct answer to someone asking if you would stop supporting someone if they said they liked raping women is "OF COURSE!". Faster than you can say "lickety-split". That the guy hesitated greatly before even giving his mealy-mouthed answer is extremely damning. No thinking required in an answer like that.
Actually, no, it isn't. And unless I missed it, you STILL haven't answered the question of whether you would defend Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton, or Anthony Weiner, against the same type of behavior?
Yes, you have made it abundantly clear that you are a partisan who is OK with supporting atrocious & disgusting behavior in a Republican that you would never support or defend in a Democrat. You have left no doubt about that.
So, if you can't exercise sound judgment, your opinions are excrement-based, and will be given that weight.
As with Bill Clinton, a lifetime of a certain type of behavior by Trump, combined with multiple women accusing him of just such bad behavior, equals grounds for me to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe them, yes. If you don't like it, fine, don't believe them. I don't give a flip if you think it's "proved" or not. As I said, I don't need the stamp of approval of a court of law or a defense lawyer to tell me what I can or cannot believe, based on my own personal judgement and discernment and the publicly available information.
I have done nothing of the sort. Hillary and Trump are both manifestly horrible people and I will not be voting for either of them, which I have said a gazillion times.
You, on the other hand, are actively supporting a man who has been credibly accused of rape/sexual assault and a legion of other horrible things. Good job.
"If that's what you gleaned from what I posted, you need serious help. Not only in comprehension, but other areas as well."
Another opportunity to answer whether you would defend the same behavior in a Democrat, and another opportunity squandered. The more you try to run away from answering that question, the more you reinforce the notion that you are perfectly willing to, at the very least ACCEPT, behavior in members of your party that you would not in members of the other party. You're just proving my point.
K Cummings made the analogy of voting for Trump to drinking urine. That's a good one. And if I only thought it was simply something nasty to do, I'd probably be willing to hold my nose and chug as well. But I don't see it so benign. It's a poison drink, not simply something nasty. Hillary is poison for the country, but so is Trump. That's the difference of opinion. It's NOT support for Hillary as you assert over and over and over and over. Both are poison to the country. You don't see it that way, and that's your prerogative. I'm fine with that, even if I disagree. No need to be nasty. It does nothing good.
Joshuaf, a local talk show host yesterday likened the situation to a son or daughter dating a person we can clearly see is bad for them. Any pointing out of issues simply can't be tolerated. Warnings are ignored. Eventually not only the message, but even the messenger is rejected. Clearly not everyone is in a place to be objective enough to see the warning signs.
Yep, pretty good analogy. Lot of people here acting with about the maturity of teenagers, too. You try to point out they're headed down a dangerous road and they just yell that you WANT them to go over the cliff, all because you're warning them of dangerous curves in the road. To point out the irrationality of their argument just makes them more angry and more irrational.
Lot of people here and elsewhere who need to take off the Republican-colored glasses and acknowledge that bad character is bad character, no matter under which political party banner it is found. The thing that is so funny/sad about the desperate defense of Trump's awfulness is that he's not even an actual Republican, not to mention a genuine Conservative. He feels NO loyalty to Republicans, the Constitution, Conservatives, or any of the people here and elsewhere who are destroying their credibility to defend him. It is actually a negative-sum operation for them. They're destroying their credibility defending a guy that doesn't care about them, and is going to lose anyway!
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
So you need 12 people to tell you that Donald Trump has displayed bad character? Nothing in his books, interviews, or anything HE has said, from HIS OWN MOUTH, shows you that he has bad character?
Lol. You can go try to sell that tripe somewhere else. Since no jury has "proven" for you to your satisfaction that he has bad character, then why have you criticized him over and over again during this campaign? Because he has good character?
You believe what you want about Trump and I'll believe what I want.
I didn't say Trump had good character. I'm saying that you are being an internet gossip. I have plenty of information about Trump's character, from places that I will not divulge. I've said before he's not up to the job. That's far below claiming that he's sexually assaulting women.
I will say, since you're the bowsite gossip, that you have no place commenting on anyone else's character.
You're projecting.
Lol, so, you had no ability to form the conclusion that Trump has bad character by things he's written in his books and said FROM HIS OWN MOUTH (not to mention the accusations against him), but....you DO know he has bad character based upon information from your secret "sources"? Well, too bad all the jokers who voted for Trump didn't have the benefit of access to your secret "sources" and had to rely, you know, on things that came from Trump's OWN MOUTH!
Give. Me. A. Break. I hope you bring more game than this when you're in court.