What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

More details re Santos...

Speaks a lot to Trump's character, that following his hush money payments to the pornstar he slept with when his wife was pregnant, and now being found liable for sexual assault (not to mention his comments in the deposition about rape and his "grab them by the pussy" comments), his current wife's support for his Presidential campaign constitutes a 'KEY ENDORSEMENT' worthy of an announcement/statement.

Ah yes, the adoring wife of the alpha male. Into him for as much as she can get.

Given the precarious majority they hold on the house, and the fact that the Democratic governor may replace Santos with a Democrat, I doubt he'll be shifted

He won't be replaced per above, the DOJ could simply arrest him, giving McCarthy an out. If he's kickedout of Congress, McCarthy has one fewer vote, but the Democratic Party don't gain a vote.

Slate's published a lengthy, very detailed piece about the range of dubious behaviors wrt campaign finance and personal finances that Santos has gotten up to. Independent of him being first man on the moon/Nobel prize winner/brain surgeon/whatever he claimed:

"Didn't follow this case..."

I'll take 'things that aren't true for $100, Alex."

Love this usual comment about TDS when its Trump himself constantly putting himself in the news with his constant statements and attacks, not to mention he does plan to run again. I'd say most people would prefer if he'd just go away and we could all ignore him.

In the time it took you to post that pretending not to know the details a 10 second google would have done the trick

Still going out to bat for a guy you apparently don't support, huh?

Dealing with your razor sharp legal questions/points

1) Why was she going into a changing room with a man she barely knew, what was the point of even going into the changing room if she said she wouldnt try the lingerie on ?

If you had listened to her testimony, or any interview, she explained that her idea was to get him to put it on - they were both joking about it but she had said multiple times she would absolutely not be putting it on.

2) Where was Trumps pants in all of this ?

On his legs? what's your point?

3) How come nobody heard a commotion ?

there was no one else around. She also said she did not scream.

4) It all seems a bit odd.

The jury heard a lot more than you did, you didn't even bother to check out what she has consistently said, but you go right ahead and reach the conclusion that you want.

5) I guess she was flirting with him and he lost the plot.

Listen up to this 'cause it's kind of important - that doesn't mean he is allowed to force himself on a woman. Unless of course, you, like Trump believe you can, when you're famous.

Just think, the lawyers that would have won the case were on boards the entire time. Someone call the man himself, we have his new legal team!

Go through court transcripts and find out the answers that the jury heard. Go through the actual time line of the case. This is just throwing around random stuff and expecting others to debunk each little piece of misinformation before you come out with another (I am presuming this tactic has a name by now)

gish gallop.

“Each point raised by the Gish galloper takes considerably more time to refute or fact-check than it did to state in the first place, which is known online as Brandolini's law.[5] The technique wastes an opponent's time and may cast doubt on the opponent's debating ability for an audience unfamiliar with the technique, especially if no independent fact-checking is involved or if the audience has limited knowledge of the topics.[6]”

which is specifically why many news anchors openly decline to allow trump live air time.