Gotcha. Much different. Remind me again what evidence that you can't remember formed the basis for your conclusion that his affairs were non-consensual? "Abuse" does entail "non-consensuality," right?
Just so I don't go afoul of your rules, would you be a dear and enumerate what sorts of things form these "tiers" you mention? Maybe with all this time you're not doing actual work, you can devise a mathematical formula which informs us how much bandwidth should properly be distributed to each topic using this tier system? I'm going to go out on a limb and harbor a guess that Trump's pontifications and his comments on Russia will be firmly placed within tier one while all the things you don't enjoy thinking about will be no higher than tier three. Call it a hunch.
"Fitness for the highest office in the land and most important in the world is a tad higher, don’tcha think? Again the ONLY point I’m making is that society may be changing its fitness standard for that Office on the issue of sexually bad behavior by men. Do you agree or not?"
No, that's not the only assertion you've made in this thread. And, yes, I've now stated again that I'm all for society changing in that regard, provided that particular cases are rooted in solid evidence, something you seem not to be acquainted with on this issue given that you can't remember any. Again, particularly curious for a lawyer.
"Oh, by the way do you think more than 4% of male college students are expelled for sexual misconduct?"
No, I don't, Frank. Then again, I'm not the one who advanced the silly notion that quantity of cases determines whether a particular issue is important and worthy of discussion, as you've repeatedly done. If there are 5 unfounded cases in an entire year, spurred on by guidances by the previous administration and enabled by the codification of unjust, anti-Western principles within public institutions of higher learning, I think it merits a great deal of attention and investigation and debate.