Tim Walz's family shares image supporting Trump for president | The Independent
By: Gustaf Kilander (The Independent)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Eight relatives of Democratic vice presidential candidate pose in T-shirts backing Republican after brother addresses critical Facebook posts
Members of Tim Walz's extended family have shared a photo wearing T-shirts in support of former president Donald Trump.
The image of the eight relatives shows them wearing grammatically incorrect "Walz's for Trump" shirts, and standing in front of a "Trump 2024" flag that also reads: "Take America back."
The image was shared by a family friend and posted on X by Charles Herbster, a former Republican candidate for governor in Nebraska, where the Democratic vice presidential nominee grew up.
"Tim Walz's family back in Nebraska wants you to know something," Herbster wrote on X.
Trump also shared it on his Truth Social profile.
A spokesperson for Herbster told Newsweek that the people in the image are related to Walz via his great-uncle - his grandfather's brother. The family reportedly permitted Herbster to share it online.
The photo comes after Walz's brother, Florida resident Jeff Walz, told NewsNation that he doesn't plan on making any political endorsement after his Facebook posts critical of Kamala Harris's running mate came to light.
On Facebook, Jeff Walz wrote that his brother was "not the type of character you want making decisions about your future."
He added that he "thought long and hard" about publicly backing Trump but told NewsNation that he doesn't want to be engaged politically.
"It wasn't my intent, it wasn't our intent as a family, to put something out there to influence the general public," he said.
"I was getting a lot of feedback from my friends, old acquaintances, thinking that I was feeling the same way that my brother did on the issues, and I was trying to clarify that just to friends," Jeff Walz added. "I used Facebook, which wasn't the right platform to do that. But I will say, I don't agree with his policies."
The Facebook posts were initially seen by the New York Post.
Even so, Trump appeared to think that Jeff Walz had endorsed him, writing on Truth Social: "Thank you very much, Jeff. It is a Great Honor to have your Endorsement. I look forward to meeting you soon!"
Jeff Walz, who is not in the new group picture, said on Facebook that there were "stories" he could tell about why he wouldn't want his brother in charge.
"Nobody wanted to sit with him, because he had car sickness and would always throw up on us, that sort of thing," Jeff Walz told NewsNation. "There's really nothing else hidden behind there. People are assuming something else. There's other stories like that, but I think that probably gives you the gist of it."
The Independent has contacted the Harris campaign and attempted to reach Herbster for comment.
Calling members trolls or dishonest will cause your comments to be deleted.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, respond to themselves, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed. Posting debunked lies will be subject to deletion
No Fascism References, Memes, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
394 visitors
" On Facebook, Jeff Walz wrote that his brother was " not the type of character you want making decisions about your future ."
This guy believes that Trump is "the type of character" he wants making decisions about the future of our nation. One can disagree with policies and ideology, but finding Trump's character superior to ... anyone who was in this extended race for 2024 ... is some wildly confused reasoning.
The only people he triggered are those who are still crying they lost the 2016 election. During his term, despite all the crying and hoaxes and "investigations" the country was undeniably in a much better place than we see right now.
And there is NO denying it. Period.
His family know him best, and trying to warn the voters that Walz is a bad choice to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
You ignored my point. Complaining about the ‘character’ of Walz and then supporting Trump is irrational.
comments 1.1.1 and 1.1.2 ARE irrational.
What is hilarious is leftists all screamed in unison when RFKjr’s family showed support for Biden that family knows each other best and by the family doing what they did, it shows RFK jr is a kook.
Now, when the family of one of their un-primaried, service lying heroes face the same scrutiny, they turn on the family.
This is why trust for leftists in this country has dropped like a rock
The people claiming to be Walz family have not even met Walz; they are at best distant cousins:
Walz brother Jeff is estranged (unknown reason) and is ideologically opposite of Tim. He has recently publicly stated that the things he could tell us about Walz were stories like Tim getting car sick.
This is a non-issue. Just slimy partisan crap.
The RFK Jr. situation is quite different because it was his actually family (real relatives who do indeed know him) who denounced his candidacy.
Speaking of slimy partisan crap,
The actual quote:
“Look, I don’t like this, I don’t like to admit this, I don’t like that this is a fact of life, but if you are a psycho and you want to make headlines, you realize that our schools are soft targets,” said Vance during a campaign rally in Arizona:
And twisted into a pretzel...........like this
"Vance’s remarks were quickly distorted by media outlets, including AP, which published them under the headline, “JD Vance says school shootings are a ‘fact of life.'”
While AP changed its headline after receiving backlash on social media, Harris’s campaign attacked Vance in several posts which distorted the vice presidential nominee’s actual remarks.
“Donald Trump and JD Vance think school shootings are a ‘fact of life’ and ‘we have to get over it,'” said the Harris campaign in a statement. “Donald Trump and JD Vance will always choose the NRA and gun lobby over our children. That is the choice in this election.”
Slimy indeed. Of course, the Democrat mantra has always been "Never let a good crisis go to waste."
First of all, your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment (to which you replied). So it is pure deflection.
Second, the AP first made the distortion and thus it spread through the media so it is not as though Harris invented this from whole cloth.
While I disapprove of ALL political hyperbole and falsehoods, I also have no respect for ignoring a point made and instead deflecting with a "but they did it too" response.
Distortion of the truth is always bad. And if you accept that principle you should be embarrassed to support Trump.
So you didn't type "Just slimy partisan crap."? Someone must have hacked your account.
Faux obtuseness is a weak, transparent tactic that never bodes well for the user.
I also typed "This is a non-issue." so I suppose you would argue that means you could literally reply with any random example of a non-issue and it would ipso facto be a logical reply to my comment.
That's one person's opinion.
You can pick your friends but you can't pick your family. I also grew up in a family of far right wingers that caused me no end of grief. I was often embarrassed by and for them by what I saw as their stupidity and ignorance. We get along fine these days as long as we can stay away from the subjects of politics and religion.
Nice failure at a spin.
Just curious if maybe they were embarrassed by your belief in whacked left wing lunacy.
It does go both ways, right?
Hilarious that the left will believe absolutely anything third or fourth hand accounts about Trump from obscure people no one has ever heard of but are very quick to dismiss and attack actual family members of Walz, cousins or otherwise.
Pure partisanship at the least
Thank you for posting the link. It sets the record really straight. I read the link. There are no obvious skeleton's in the closet to rumor.
Reasoning? lol
Other than the one brother who Walz has been estranged from since 2016, these people don't know him at all.
The Projection.
Today's gqp is the Party of Projection and lies. All they got.
Tim Walz is not the liar about anything 'here'.
Remember when Trump's nephew said he wouldn't support him? That was headline news for them. Now they try to down play several family members not supporting Walz like it's some kind of dysfunctional family.
Well it just goes to show the difference in people. People who don't support Donald for president remember his unworthy treatment of the presidential office, improper holding of classified documents, disrespect to veterans (especially those imprisoned in foreign wars and killed), and infinite lies on a daily basis.
Some subset of 'distant relatives' and an estranged brother (who clearly waded into politics without a clue to how his innocuous statements would be received), don't compare-except to some right-wing propagandists.
So Biden. Or are you willfully ignorant of his holding classified documents, disrespecting veterans (causing their deaths is the ulitmate disrespect) and infinite lies on a daily basis.
I am not going to dignify such reckless propaganda with further commentary. Believe what the collective "you" wish to opine. Donald's 'baggage' is recognized in courts of law . . . . That's undeniable.
I will take grand exception to any veterans who will not challenge Trump's callous remarks about veterans and dead war heroes.
So you CHOOSE willful ignorance. And you expect to be taken seriously.
Much like, as a veteran, I take exception to:
Don't try to pawn all that off on somebody who was not in the decision making process or in office when the atrocity happened.
Since I won't be dignifying any of that with commentary. You GOT the last word!
Previously I've considered that the widening and deepening political divide in America was regretful, especially when rules have to be set for family celebrations and festival get-togethers about what cannot be talked about, and restaurants refusing to serve someone whose politics differ. What kind of life is that? And now, as you now see within Walz' extended family such ugly behaviour. It's getting worse, I sure as hell hope it doesn't infect my son's family down the road, and I sure wish he could find a similar position in Canada, especially since my young grandchildren have to gamble with their lives attending school in the USA.
So his own Family doesn't want him anywhere near the Whitehouse. that says a lot.
You got that right!
It says that in a large divided family there are different opinions, nothing more, nothing less.
Funny how Trump supporters gobble this shit up while completely ignoring anything Donald Trump's family members like niece Mary Trump has said about him and the Trump family she was a part of and witnessed the making of the "World's Most Dangerous Man" as her book claims. Apparently, some extended family that have never actually met Tim Walz show support for his opponent and that "says a lot", while Mary Trump, who grew up around her uncle and saw who he really is firsthand, is dismissed and attacked by Trump sycophants. Hypocrisy at its finest.
It is blind partisanship. Never ceases to amaze me that some ignore the 400lb gorilla only to complain about a buzzing fly.
I was just watching an extreme MAGA on You Tube. He claims that the atomic bombing of Japan (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was a hoax, and that dinosaurs did not exist.
I heard a maga on TV recently insist that the Earth is flat. Brilliant!!!
The same nuts who sued to prevent teaching evolution because evolution is a religion?
The judge tossed it.
And these people are the smart magas!
Don't be concerned GG, because all that will happen is that they will "Inherit the Wind".
I will be concerned until November 5th.
Me too. And then I hope that my concern is eradicated.
I don't blame either of you (GG and TiG) but what's worse is that I'm now concerned in the event of either one winning.
So do I. Fervently. The alternative is unthinkable.
[deleted][✘]
IMO, if Harris is elected then we will have a normal, responsible (albeit liberal) D PotUS. Someone who will push some policies with which I will disagree (e.g. taxing unrealized capital gains) but will likely also push others I support such as continued vigilance on environmental responsibility, infrastructure, consumer protection, etc. But someone who is responsible and focused on what is good for the nation (not herself), and presidential.
In contrast, if Trump is elected we will have provided a narcissistic vindictive loose-cannon con-man pathological liar with the powers of the presidency which he will use for his own benefit rather than for the good of the American people. With the newfound enhanced immunity provided by the SCotUS. We will have furthered the dysfunction and ruination of the GOP. We will have sanctioned future presidents to engage in fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement in a desperate attempt to steal a lost election. We will have enabled Trump with the means to cause Ukraine to lose the war and encourage Putin. And we will have elected the oldest nominee in US history and one who is clearly scatterbrained and impulsive backed up by a VP with some very odd views on voting rights and the role of women. We will have, in short, put someone entirely unfit in the most powerful office on the planet.
After Nov 5th, we will either have a normal politician or a scoundrel as president-elect.
And we will have an OVERBEARINGLY and potentially insurmountable conservative SCOTUS (as Trump may retire any old justices who wish to be so) for several generations.
Also, Donald is selling (on the strength of his name) in the marketplace again :
Trump Trout (real ad running on Newsmax)
Donald is presidential material (for some people)?!!
Note: The 'stand' version of this. . .gives an overly-active imagination room to consider a secondary use for this. . .'creature.' Just wait until Bill Maher (HBO - REAL TIME) sees this one!
While I agree with much of what you said, my big concern is the continuing crisis atvthe border with the massive influx of illegal immigrants across the wide open Southern border, some of which is literally my back yard but about 6 blocks from my front door. Based on the last four years I do not look for that to change any with the legal residents on the border like me getting repeatedly thrown under the bus by Biden and Harris. If you think Harris is a acceptable candidate that's fine and I respect your choice. Based on what I said above I cannot agree with you that she would do a acceptable job as POTUS.
I believe Harris will do as she said and will push for the bipartisan bill (Sinema, Lankford, Murphy bill that Trump killed so that he could get credit for it) to be passed and that she will sign it.
But even if she were to do nothing, the incredible negatives of Trump so overshadow those of Harris that the determination of which is better for the nation is beyond obvious.
Finally, Harris would be the PotUS. The way the border should be addressed is by Congress passing legislation to fund more technology, barriers, and agents to effectively deal with illegal attempts to violate our border. That is, empower our border professionals. Harris then either signs or vetoes. I do not see her vetoing such a bill.
You know for somebody who really does want to be taken seriously (he is not) Donald authorizes some WEIRD products to be marketable under his brand.
Bullshit!!!
Biden and Harris have had four years to do something relevant about the border situation. They never have supported the border agents or ICE, and have actually weaken them drastically. Legislation of new laws and regulations is pointless if the democrats won't enforce them. There is no guarantee that Harris would enforce and them any better than Biden has done with already existing laws/
As soon as she is inaugurated President Harris has pledged to get the bipartisan immigration reform bill negotiated by Oklahoma's arch conservative US Senator James Lankford passed and signed giving the government the manpower and infrastructure needed to accomplish to fix immigration! Vote Democratic!
I do not like Kamala Harris, but I am willing to giver her the benefit of the doubt for six months or so and see what happens.
Calm down with the over-the-top cynicism. My comment stated that the key to addressing the border is more agents, technology, and barriers. That requires money and Congress holds the purse strings. Harris has stated she supports the bipartisan funding bill so let’s see.
Democrats are not to be trusted with anything to do with the border.
Democrats are in favor of sanctuaries and amnesty.
That isn't helpful to Americans.
My feeling is that a border security bill should be a stand alone one with no other riders attached. I could be wrong, but my understanding was that the Democrats tried to do just that with tying in aid to Israel, Ukraine and other issues along with the US border issues.
People, immigrants, who commit crimes will be pursued and turned in to the authorities—same as ever. This is how we do all other crimes committed by this nation's citizens. It may not be the same as not having immigrants here (legal or illegal) to start the process, but it does work subsequently.
Amnesty is not a crime. It is the legitimizing of good people who are here (through hook or crook). It should not be considered a 'problem' just to legitimize immigrants who can't or won't be made to leave.
Completely false.
Replies such as yours indicate you may not know what amnesty is.
Non sequitur. Absolutely no one is making the argument you are .
.
I wish Congress would create focused legislation but they seem incapable of doing so. No matter which party is in control.
Great that you looked it up.
Now, I expect I won't be seeing any claims about it like in post 2.3.23.
I don't follow what that has to do with this discussion. You may have the last word if you wish it, nevertheless.
Yes. I see.
I know.
Agreed.
"People, immigrants, who commit crimes will be pursued and turned into the authorities - same as ever"
I agree with you up to a point on that. What did not get mentioned is that does not always apply in self proclaimed "sanctuary cities" with soft on crime progressive liberal Soros paid for DA''s that refuse to prosecute and put a lot of those illegal immigrants that have committed crimes right back out on the streets with little or no consequences for their actions.
First Ed-NavDoc. . . you are addressing me twice now despite your clear rebuke to me to 'never' do so. For the record, I am OPEN to sharing in discussion with you. Just want to make sure we are on the same page about sharing going forward.
Now then, you have a snuck premise in your statement. " . . .Soros paid for DA''s. . ." That has to be proven as a fact (and not just one commenter's propaganda talking point). Please proceed. . . .
Hard on crime/soft on crime, whatever. When a crime is committed-its ultimate outcome is in a court of law. If offenders (legal/illegal) are taken to court. . .before a judge and jury. . .then they have completed their 'obligation' as it is under the law. If/when they are released it is an after effect.
We, the public, can question and opine on the decision as we wish and as often as we can to positives and negatives in those cases, but the court is satisfied in each individual decision rendered and appropriately the case is closed.
Very common knowledge, and facts you can easily Google for yourself.
I took everybody I had off of ignore because I found it to be a largely meaningless function. Plus I figured I can try a bit harder to get along with people.
I will try harder with you as well.
Problem is that the DAs refuse to prosecute to begin with so it never gets to court.
That is a different sort of problem, one involving the structure of our 50 states legal systems. And arguably, judgement is reserved as to which states perform and operate best in dealing with its 'problem citizens.'
And that right there is the part some always want to skip over, ignore, and pretend isn't true.
People who always squawk about 'more laws' never seem to get at all upset when said laws are not enforced, rendering them meaningless.
They want more laws to 'feel' better that they 'did something' and it doesn't even matter if what they 'did' was effective or not or benefitted the citizens or not.
But hey, they 'feel better'!!
And THAT is all that really matters to the majority of them
Progressive Democrats are great at creating slogans and doing nothing helpful.
Generally speaking from my experiences with democrats - they don't operate in a worldview that is meant to 'get people' they don't like. . .I mean, of course, there can be and probably are outliers but I can't think of a vindictive democrat off the cuff (may be trumpists have one or several to pull from their 'archive').
It does appear strict disciplinarian and prosecutorial attitude and acts are a policy prescription for some conservatives. Arguably, a decision can not be reached as to which policies work better overall. . .maybe its due to all the political in-fighting and all the 'noise' and disinformation surrounding the subject matter that a proper conclusion can not be reached.
I bet San Francisco residents would disagree that 'prosecutorial attitudes and acts' have made them any safer or cleaned up the community any.
Open drug use tolerated and actually encouraged. Thefts tolerated and often not prosecuted since the feel-gooders decided that lower amounts of the costs of thefts are 'better' than charging people with felonies.
Bet away. San Francisco is not a 'free-for-all' as trumpists would like to envision for themselves and project to readers. I know, I have been there—recently. And I looked for chaos roiling in the streets. . . all I saw are clean swept streets and nice homes/houses/dwellings (barring the side of town where 'shit' is 'coded' or 'looked over' . . . but even that side of town slotted for reworking because of Governor Newsome's executive order to clean out homeless encampments due to 'new' SCOTUS legal permissions under the constitution about such matters).
Since it won't take any 'coin' out of the collective 'you" pockets. . . opining won't help or hinder. You get the last word if you wish it.
Tell it to a Trumpist.
San Francisco resident's video shows severity of city's drug crisis as children try to navigate past users - ABC7 San Francisco (abc7news.com)
San Francisco Drug Crisis: Photos of Seventh and Market Streets (sfstandard.com)
Drugs are sold out in the open in San Francisco’s Tenderloin district. Inside the fight to curb it | CNN
It appears as if you missed seeing some of San Francisco.
I don't see the point in saying take the last word. If what you are saying is you have nothing further to say, just stopping commenting would be far more efficient.
Sometimes I wonder how many degrees of Trump some liberals are playing.
Seems like a whole lot.
It says that they are right wing rednecks.
What's going on in America is going to put Barnum and Bailey out of business. Who needs a regular circus these days when the political one is so much more fantastic.
Tim's brother is the important one.
Trump would like to meet them all.
Then Harris would get Fred Jr and Mary Trump to interview her.
be careful what you wish for...
His brother has childhood nuisance stories to share. The 'distant relatives' are well. . . distant and really shouldn't have much to share-except their support for Donald.
We all know that if Trump had a brother or sister that came out and said he should not be trusted with decision making for the country, you, et al would be seeding daily seeds here highlighting that family knows better than anyone else. Proof of that is his niece, where we still see the occasional seed about her hating her uncle to ‘prove a point’.
It is obvious that Walz’s brother knows pretty much everything about him so why don’t you take his word for it?
The cousins may not know everything, but they have probably been exposed to Walz’s lying far more than anyone else not in the family.
Trump's niece has been opining on Trump for years now.
Your 'proof' contradicts your claim that there would be daily seeds. There is hardly any mention of his niece. An occasional seed at best.
Walz's brother has said his stories are about childhood hi-jinx and simiiar elementary allergies. . .nothing that would drive a news cycle or the 'engine' of the media for days. I don't have anything else to say about it, either.
Of course, close family members have stories (on all of us respectively) but they are personal and private (and mostly should stay that way.
The surest way to stop 'anybody' good, bad, or indifferent from running for a public office is to continue by hook (probing their kin) or crook (stealing their private and personal documents and devices) in order to make an attempt to ruin their personal reputation.
Now to the final matter in your comment: Donald Trump is a louse. We all know it. Donald knows it. It's his calling 'card.' Anybody who wishes to be our hand-picked 'strong-man' with its negative connotation intact by definition is such a 'man.' He expects—should expect retaliation, push-back, and such for attempting to push other people around, trolling them, and attacking the truth when it goes against him. Donald Trump's several family members are attacking, confronting him in the media, because he physically and mentally hurt/s them. Walz has not done anything remotely like that for which we have proof!
Walz is estranged from his brother and they have not spoken since 2016. Given the family dynamic his brother probably doesn't know much about him at all. Why would you take his word for anything? Furthermore, the story the brother has to tell about Walz that was supposed to be so revealing turns out to be that Walz used to get car sick when they were kids, so supposedly the other kids didn't want to sit near him. His brother has admitted that everything else he has to say about his brother is of the same nature, i.e. a big nothing. See the link:
As for the cousins, they are distant relatives, related to Walz's grandfather's brother. Walz's sister said she did not even recognize the people in the photo and they do not know them. They haven't been exposed to anything about Walz other than what they might have seen on TV. See the link:
You ignored what I said, to wit…..
‘Proof of that is his niece, where we still see the occasional seed about her hating her uncle to ‘prove a point’
You actually proved my point.
As I have opined, when the niece first came out about Trump, there was an almost daily seed about it and we still see an occasional mention of that now.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
Your 'logic' is inverted.
Sorry you either didn’t read or could not understand my post.
My logic is spot on.
We all know when you say, "We all know", we do not all know...
My point stands.
We all know
What proof? Alway says they won the argument when no proof or facts provided.
They don't know dick.
How is Walz's brother the important one? In what way?
Given how excited progressives get when some random congressman in Arizona's brother doesn't support him, I'm sure they'll find this as equally damning of Walz character.
From what I read these are very distant cousins, like 3 times removed from Walz, haven't even met Walz. His brother said stories he was referring to were Tim used to throw up on car trips, stories like that. His brother said in no way should his comments be taken as political.
Whereas Trump's wife has been reluctant to publicly support him, as has his daughters and sons-in-law. His two oldest sons support him because they depend on him for money and fame. Many in Trump's previous administration and political circle have denounced him, are supporting Harris.
"Not the type of character you want making decisions about your future," Jeff Walz wrote, referring to his brother. how is that not political?
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz ’s brother said Tuesday that he doesn’t agree with the Democrat’s policies but expressed some remorse for inserting himself into the spotlight after he posted on social media last week he is “100% opposed” to his brother’s political views and was considering officially endorsing former President Donald Trump.
Jeff Walz, the older brother of Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate, told NewsNation in an interview that he didn’t intend to “influence the general public” with social media posts that indicated his support for Trump over Harris’ and his brother’s campaign and said he has no plans to be campaigning “for him or against him” ahead of November’s election.
Jeff Walz lamented the distance between him and his brother, saying “it’s too bad” they’ve grown apart and expressing hope for the possibility they can “disagree and still be civil brothers.” He added that any “stories” he had to share about Tim Walz wouldn’t reveal anything “hidden” about him.
“My little brother, when we were younger, we would go on family trips and in a station wagon. And the thing was, nobody wanted to sit with him, because he had car sickness and would always throw up on us,” he said. “That sort of thing. There’s really nothing else hidden behind there. People are assuming something else.”
So it's not political he just feels his brother doesn't have the integrity or the character to make decisions for others. Is that somehow better?
Where does his brother mention integrity. You are one ofthe people his brother speaks about "there's really nothing else hidden behind there. People are assuming something else".
Tim and his brother are estranged, haven't spoken since 2016 if I remember correctly. Take the word of an estranged family member, sounds like you believe Trump's niece, Mary Trump, or some of his other family members who have spoken negatively about Trump.
I always take into consideration the views of non-politicians who aren't driving an agenda, like i belive Ashley biden when she says her dad took inappropriate showers with her, I believe Mary trump when she says Trump is all about the profit at all costs and is a complete douchebag. that is why i won't be voting for either of them.
Ashley Biden never said it, it was in her stolen diary. Here is what she wrote to judge in that case:
After being the victim of a crime in my early twenties, I developed PTSD. The journal that was stolen was part of my efforts to heal.
I am a private citizen, targeted only because my father happened to be running to be President. In other words, the extensive work I have done to move past my trauma was undone by Ms. Harris's actions. …
Although this criminal act happened more than three years ago, because of the publicity it drew—exactly as Ms. Harris intended—I am constantly re-traumatized by it. I will forever have to deal with the fact that my personal journal can be viewed online.
Repeatedly, I hear others grossly misinterpret my once-private writings and lob false accusations that defame my character and those of the people I love.
Part of what she said at DNC 2024:
"Dad always told me that I was no better than anybody else, and nobody was better than me. He taught me that everyone deserves a fair shot and that we shouldn't leave anyone behind. That's what you learn from a fighter who has been underestimated his entire life," she said.
"When I look at Dad, I see grace, strength and humility," she added. "I see one of the most consequential leaders ever in history."
Jealousy is ugly no matters who is involved.
I didn't know Ashley was running for anything.
Ashley Biden introduced her father at the Democratic convention a couple weeks ago, and hugged him when he came on stage.
It's not unusual for abused children to form an unhealthy bond to the abusing parent.
Just how many squirrels fit into your hat?
Ashley Biden did not specify in any detail what she meant by "maybe inappropriate showers" or words to that effect. Besides, she did state that people are taking her words out of context or proportion. That is, to put words (with 'seedy' intent) in her mouth.
So in what situation would you deem a shower with a pre teen daughter as appropriate?
One where she tells somebody in a position of authority to do something about it. . . particularly a mother, an authority figure (like a priest), the head of a political party, or civil authorities in her state. So since it went there. . .provide something of proof of what EXACTLY happened that was flirty, dirty, or churly. . . .
Oh and by the way, this so-called 'scandal' would have received 'blanket' media coverage while Biden was in the 2024 presidential campaign mode had there been something of national interest in the diary about the presidential candidate. There was no wall-to-wall coverage of it! Only trumpists carrying a narrative around for their private audiences and low-information readers and listeners about what they 'wished' happened between a father and daughter that was 'unsanctioned' by the Church!
‘One where she tells somebody in a position of authority to do something about it. . . particularly a mother, an authority figure (like a priest), the head of a political party, or civil authorities in her state. So since it went there. . .provide something of proof of what EXACTLY happened that was flirty, dirty, or churly. . . .’
Funny……….I don’t remember you are any other leftist here saying that about the woman who made false charges of rape in a department store dressing room. You know, the same person who told no one until Trump decided to run for president
Prove "the woman who made false charges of rape in a department store dressing room "- made false charges. We have jurists and a judge who believe "the woman" and do not believe Donald. In addition to that, I will presume, Ashley Biden never sat in court against her dad (that I know) over any showering incident.
Trump was found liable by a jury for sexual assault in a department store dressing room. The trial judge described it as rape. The judge wrote, referencing rape: "as the evidence at trial... makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."
Read the link:
That comment is reactionary propaganda and is, of course, false. At trial, "[h]er sexual assault claim was corroborated by two 'outcry' witnesses in whom Ms. Carroll had confided shortly after the attack".
Read the link:
The attack occurred in the mid-1990s, many years before Trump announced his candidacy for President.
Jesus was found guilty of sedition.
Equating Trump and Jesus is a very anti-Semitic comment.
‘Prove "the woman who made false charges of rape in a department store dressing room "- made false charges. We have jurists and a judge who believe "the woman" and do not believe Donald’
Not up to me to prove anything. The appeals court and maybe even the SCOTUS will show you the way.
‘Trump was found liable by a jury for sexual assault in a department store dressing room’
By a jury of far left, Trump hating leftists. If the trial was held in a more ideology mixed jurisdiction that would show more fairness, then you as a lawyer should know that the outcome could have been far different.
‘corroborated by two 'outcry' witnesses in whom Ms. Carroll had confided shortly after the attack’
If that truly happened, then those two ‘outcry’ witness should be charged with withholding evidence in an instance where a woman was sexually assaulted. Again, you as a lawyer should know this.
But truthfully, those two were just probably promised a percentage of what Carrol would collect if she wins if they say she ‘told’ them.
That comment is pointless. The point about Ashley Biden stands: Provide something of proof of what EXACTLY happened that was flirty, dirty, or churly. . .
Donald has been proven to be a liar an 'indefinite' number of times on any number of subject matters and people. . . and the collective "you" still point to regular 'joes' and 'janes'. . .and juries and judges to besmirch their characters! Just unbelievable. Still, it does show what so-called, "dedication" the nation is up against when trying to bring justice to Donald!
Prove it. Provide the identification and political affiliation of all the jurors, since it was a unanimous verdict. Provide any social media posts or any other writings created by the jurors that would support your allegation.
Apparently, you don't like how the American justice system works.
Withholding evidence from whom? Was there a police investigation? Were they contacted during the course of the investigation and refuse to provide evidence of which they were aware? Did they withhold evidence from Carroll's or Trump's attorney? You as a layman obviously don't understand how things work. That's Ok, though. We wouldn't expect you to.
Let's break that one down:
No, phantasmagorically. (Phantasmagorically means something has a deceptive or fantastic appearance, or feels or looks like a crazy dream.)
Pure speculation unsupported by any facts. Imaginary at best. Phantasmagoric.
‘Prove it’
93 percent democrat demographic voting block in NYC. They hate Trump but probably loved him when he was a democrat and spending millions to make the city better.
‘Apparently, you don't like how the American justice system works.’
I spent 20 years defending this country and including the American justice system. Your guess is wrong.
‘Withholding evidence from whom’
From the authorities when Caroll supposedly told them. They are complicit in a sexual assault case and should be prosecuted for it…….if what they say is true.
‘No, phantasmagorically. (Phantasmagorically means something has a deceptive or fantastic appearance, or feels or looks like a crazy dream.)’
You seem very familiar with this term. Maybe you have had several personal experiences?
‘Pure speculation unsupported by any facts’
I never said anything I typed is fact. The vast majority of posts here are opinions. Even the worst defense attorney would easily crucify your arguments.
That's not proof regarding the attitude or opinions of the jurors who you disparaged without knowing anything about them.
When did that occur? Cite the date and incident number. If you knew anything about this situation, you would know that Carroll never reported Trump's assault to the police. Read the link:
Again, your comment demonstrates a total lack of understanding. Doubling down on your failure doesn't prove you're correct or give the impression that you are.
When I read your comments on here, yes.
I suppose that's why you labeled it "truthfully".
Coming from somone who can't prove any of his contentions.
Thanks for the laugh. It's been fun playing with you.
‘That's not proof regarding the attitude or opinions of the jurors who you disparaged without knowing anything about them’
93 percent shows a high bias against Trump. If you were defending a well known liberal in a dark red state or city, would you try to get the venue changed or just throw your client to the wolves and hope for the best. I would correctly believe you would do the former.
‘When did that occur? ’
Supposedly right after the ‘incident’ happened. If she told them and they did not report that to the police, they are accomplices to a crime and complicit.
‘Coming from somone who can't prove any of his contentions. ’
I’m not even an attorney and I have totally destroyed your ‘argument’. Too easy.
I always like playing the cat in the cat/mouse scenario. Thanks for letting me be the cat once again.
If your number is correct it would only indicate the number of registered Democrats in New York. You have not and cannot prove your contention that it was "a jury of far left, Trump hating leftists". You can pretend like you have, but everyone can see through your pretense.
No wonder you failed criminal procedure.
Obviously.
Funny.
In this case "cat" is short for catastrophic failure, which best describes your comments in this entire discussion.
I would usually tell you "nice try", except it wasn't.
‘If your number is correct’
It is.
’That's basically insane’
so if someone told you about a crime committed and you did nothing about it, you say you are not complicit? Please remind me to never hire you.
‘Obviously.’
But I have obviously destroyed your argument. Pretty good for not being an attorney.
‘In this "cat" is short for catastrophic failure, which best describes your comments in this entire discussion’
Must be another of your ‘phantasmagorically’ dreams you are so familiar with.
’I would usually tell you "nice try", except it wasn't.’
I can assure you it wasn’t even a try. It was too easy for that much effort. Try again tomorrow. Maybe better luck will come your way.
No, it isn't. Your number is fake. 70.01% of registered voters in New York County/Manhattan are registered as Democrats, not 93%. The rest of New York City has an even lower percentage of registered Democrats. Read the link:
"Complicity in criminal law refers to the participation in a completed criminal act of an accomplice , a partner in the crime who aids or encourages ( abets ) other perpetrators of that crime, and who shared with them an intent to act to complete the crime. A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of a crime if they purpose the completion of a crime, and toward that end, if that person solicits or encourages the other person, or aids or attempts to aid in planning or committing the crime, or has legal duty to prevent that crime but fails to make an effort to prevent it properly." Read the link:
You can't show where anything Carroll's friends did or failed to do fits within the legal definition of complicity. Furthermore, your contention that they should be prosecuted is beyond ridiculous.
You can be certain that I would never agree to represent you. The worst clients are the ones who pretend like they know everything when in reality, they know nothing. By your comments, you have proven yourself to be in that category.
Thank you for your opinion by my post stands as is.
The one thing you fail to acknowledge is that the law that allowed Trump to be charged for sexual assault was written specifically to get him and only him.
That in itself is reason to dismiss and it probably will be.
New York passed a law specifically to 'get Trump' and then held a trial to find him liable in a civil case??
Why write such nonsense? ( Other than to prove G2's point about clients who only think they know what they are talking about. )
Your post fails as is. Everyone knows it and you know it, too.
Dude, you're just embarrassing yourself with this stuff now. Give it up already.
JFC
It's hilarious that she didn't know if she was violated by his little hand or his little mushroom, they're both so small.
It's delusional
As usual Gsquared I defer to your knowledge and truth and the facts of the matter.[✘]
Since I didn't specifically address your comment that Carroll reported the assault 'Supposedly right after the 'incident' happened', I will now. That's fake. To repeat:
AWESOME Gsquared, as usual
All they have is lies and agnorance.
[✘]
I never said she did. Specifically, I stated she did not but supposedly reported it to two friends’ right after the alleged assault. Those two never said anything to anyone until right after Trump declared his candidacy.
You know this is true
Of course the law was written to get Trump. Here is a story of some lunatic left wing democrat state legislator that admits he wrote other state laws only to get Trump.
It is delusional to think otherwise
State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal has been prolific in this field.
State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal NYS SENATE MEDIA SERVICES
By REBECCA C. LEWIS AND SHANTEL DESTRA
| APRIL 4, 2023State Sen. Brad Hoylman-Sigal has made a habit of introducing bills aimed at former President Donald Trump, and Tuesday’s indictment has given him inspiration for his latest one: a proposal to allow cameras in New York courts in an effort to draw even more eyeballs to his indictment and trial. Although attempts to repeal the law banning cameras date further back than the Trump indictment, the situation brought renewed attention to the matter and provided a high profile case to make the case to the public for its necessity.
Hoylman-Sigal asserted that New Yorkers are “repulsed” by the former president’s actions, including inciting the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol and not disclosing his tax records.
“I take a special responsibility as a New Yorker – the original home state of Donald Trump – to ensure that the public gets the truth about his background,” Hoylman-Sigal said. “It’s our responsibility to bring those issues to bear.”
What’s in it for Hoylman-Sigal? National spotlight? “This is a New York issue, to the extent that it reverberates nationally … So be it,” he told City & State.
Try as he might, Donald Trump just can’t escape his home state. Despite relocating to Florida following his presidency, Trump found himself back in New York City for his arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court on charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.
But as much as Trump has tried to distance himself from New York, Democratic lawmakers in the state have tried even harder to make the former president’s longtime home as inhospitable as possible. The Manhattan district attorney may be fighting for criminal charges against him, but state lawmakers, particularly Hoylman-Sigal, have for years proposed bills targeted specifically at Trump to make his life just a little bit more difficult.
Perhaps the most high profile examples came in 2019, when the state Legislature approved not one but two bills aimed at the then president. The first, called the TRUST Act , sponsored by Hoylman-Sigal and former Assembly Member David Buchwald, permitted the state Department of Taxation and Finance to turn over Trump’s tax returns to Congress if certain committees in the body requested them. The legislation came when the House was attempting to access Trump’s federal tax returns as part of its investigation into him.
The legislation passed in 2019 after similar legislation called the Tax Returns Uniformly Made Public – or TRUMP – Act , also sponsored by Hoylman-Sigal failed to pass that year and in years past. It would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to file five years worth of federal tax returns with the state Board of Elections.
The second bill from 2019 aimed to make it easier for the state to prosecute New York friends and allies of Trump he pardoned of federal crimes while in office. Prior to the legislation, state law prohibited prosecutors from pursuing state-level charges against people who have already faced federal charges for the same crimes.
Most recently, the Senate passed the No Citizen is Above the Law Act – sponsored by Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris – a bill meant to remove the statute of limitations for criminal and civil prosecutions for people who served as president of the United States. “Any president who breaks the law should be held accountable without regard to the time they spend in office,” Gianaris said in a statement last month. “We must close the loophole that allows presidents to escape culpability by exploiting statutes of limitations due to presidential immunity.”
On a lighter note, state lawmakers have been trying for seven years to remove the former president’s name from a Hudson Valley park. Legal questions about the state’s authority to do so have stalled the efforts. A bill , sponsored by Hoylman-Sigal and Assembly Member Dana Levenburg, has gained new momentum . Levenberg, who recently took over as lead sponsor of the bill in the Assembly, represents the district the park lies in and says she’s received call after call from constituents demanding Trump’s name be removed. Both sponsors assert the fanfare surrounding the impending criminal case may also help finally get the bill over the finish line.
Leftists in New York are truly delusional
Please provide the citation for the story.SP
Always amusing to see stories like this while Democrats pretend that they aren't doing what they are.
A civil case does not adjudicate law. Right off the bat you were dead wrong.
A civil case determines wrongful acts and deals with liability; not legal guilt based on law.
Would not let me copy/ paste link but here is the headline and the website is cityandstateny.com
NY bills specifically targeted at Donald Trump
What is actually more funny is a website in NY that is actually admitting to it with the idiot NY legislature doing the same.
I think at this point a reversal is unavoidable and the left will go absolutely ape shit when it is.
Never said it did but thank you for your opinion.
You argued a law was written to get Trump in a civil case.
A civil case does not determine legal guilt. It determines liability for a wrongdoing.
Thus your argument is absurd and confused.
Criminal cases, not civil cases, adjudicate legal guilt.
Voting for democrats may be an antisemitic action.
Not in the reality-based world.
You and Trump, accusing Jews of hating themselves. That doesn't put you in very good company.
Well, maybe just maybe there is a really, interestingly good reason, why their are white supremacists mixed in the GOP vote count. Some of us would love somebody to let that reason be known. Can't get more anti-Semitic than that!
One would have to be, just HAVE to be, very, very naive to ever believe that the Democratic Party doesn't contain some of those same-thinking folks.
The GOP is enabling white supremacists within it ranks. Then, GOP commenters write comments attempting to get traction - projecting a supremacist worldview onto democrats. All while ignoring and falling silent about those supremacists that help them at election times.
I will take that as an admission trumpists are aware of the white supremacists in their midst. We don't have to look for them in the GOP, because they are talking up and writing articles to let their presence (and threats) be known publicly.
White supremacists are by definition anti-Semitic, which for starters easily explains why Jewish people generally, specifically, and politically 'feeds' the GOP with a ten-foot pole!
As usual, take your beef up with whomever you deem a Trumpist. BTW, that ain't me!
I never said anything about criminal so stop inventing things so you can argue.
cityandstateny.com NY Bills Specifically Targeted At Donald Trump - Search (bing.com)
Took literally three seconds.
Thanks
You can’t choose your family. We probably all have some losers that we are embarrassed to be related to, and Tim Walz is no different.
Well, they potentially are your 'front-row' seaters at the upcoming V.P. debate. Donald loves to display his version of "shock and awe" when he can! Walz needs to be ready for "everything all at once."