Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, I must reply to you pretend posters. You might be correct on your point. I am thinking the testimony is far far too ancient to be believed. It is impossible for a person to accurately make statements dating back 30 years. If a person said to you that you stole a car 30 years ago, would you believe them?Stop pretending to be ANY type of legal expert. A witness testifying to what a victim of a crime told them is NOT hearsay.
"Joe heard from Tom that Judy was raped", That's hearsay. "Jean told me she was raped", isn't.
One has nothing to do with the other. Do you know the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence? Apparently not. Your handle is appropriate.What are you contending? There's an absence of evidence, or there's no credible circumstantial evidence? You said both and the statements are contradictory.
There was none. The dress she claimed she wore was not created when she said the event happened. Strike one. She could not remember the hour, date, month or year that this life-changing event allegedly occurred. Strike two. There were no witnesses. Strike three.the circumstantial evidence is not credible.
Please link to the names of these accusers.You don't find the 2 people who testified to Trump assaulting them credible
Irrelevant to any case before the courts. Next.When Trump said that he grabs woman by the pussy,
Again, relevance. She's not my type either and I could confuse her with any number of women. Does that make me a rapist in your mind? Why did EJC's testimony follow a L&O script that she admits to watching? That is more relevant than your last two points.When Trump said Carrol wasn't his type but confused her with his wife in a picture, he was blind.
Make that three irrelevant points. You haven't ever sat on a jury have you?When Trump said he didn't know it was fortunate or unfortunate that "stars" get away with sexual assault he misspoke.
He doesn't have to say a word. Innocent until PROVEN guilty, commie.You believe that Trump is telling the truth when he said he didn't do it, although he's never been subjected to cross.
Nope, you haven't been correct in any point you've posted. Hide and watch. The appeal will deny EJC and the rest of you commies. She'll never see a dime and you'll cry a bucket of tears.Am I about right?
Not at all. That's a strawman. When a testimony is credible, the only thing I'm conceding that it's believable. Not that it happened. So that's NOT what I'm implying.Using just your legal explanations, you mean by insinuation that all black men currently in prison, even for rape, murder and more, are all totally guilty. That the innocence project is doing wrong by freeing prisoners from prison.
If it is about a crime that the witness did not personally view--it is hearsay. The witness DID NOT WITNESS ANYTHING.A witness testifying to what a victim of a crime told them is NOT hearsay.
Trump has not been convicted of any criminal wrong doing. Please feel free to link to even one CRIMINAL conviction.Not at all. That's a strawman. When a testimony is credible, the only thing I'm conceding that it's believable. Not that it happened. So that's NOT what I'm implying.
Even in a criminal case the standard is beyond all reasonable doubt. That implies that doubt can almost never be eliminated.
As such I believe that the overwhelming majority of people in jail are guilty. Some however will be not.
I am right. You know little about the worth of science, education and the constitution. If you did, you wouldn’t be a Republican or Humper..Your mind is where waste was deposited, maybe by minorities.
Here say evidence is permissible under guild-lines in civil crimes. the direct evidence is the testimony of the plaintiff and her veracity is the testimony of her friends during that time. Trump has little to niw history if telling the truth and a ling history of ADMITTED sexual abuse.They can not determine guilt or innocence in the absence of evidence. There has been NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in the E. Jean Carroll case and there is no credible circumstantial evidence. It will be overturned on appeal and EJC will never spend a dime.
Trump has avoided prosecution for criminal fraud by paying off fines and restitution. The jails have lots of criminals who were prosecuted for criminal fraud because they were too poor.Trump has not been convicted of any criminal wrong doing. Please feel free to link to even one CRIMINAL conviction.
Nope since I've never stole a thing.Well, I must reply to you pretend posters. You might be correct on your point. I am thinking the testimony is far far too ancient to be believed. It is impossible for a person to accurately make statements dating back 30 years. If a person said to you that you stole a car 30 years ago, would you believe them?
You are missing my part of the discussion.Nope since I've never stole a thing.
On the other hand I remember that my grandma died when I was 12 or 13. That's 30 years ago. I know it was spring. Don't know the date, yet aspects of that day are still vivid.
Knowing that some of the things are fussy and it's 30 years ago. Would those fact's make it reasonable to assume that I might have misremembered the death of my grandma? Would it be reasonable to assume that after 50 years?
Rape, just like the death of a loved one is a traumatic event. You might forget some stuff but I'd dare say that the fact that you were raped does not get lost in time.
You are a Bigot, but correct? So far you bat poorly Dennis.I am right. You know little about the worth of science, education and the constitution. If you did, you wouldn’t be a Republican or Humper..
You aren't clarifying. You are changing the parameters of what happened. Something you've done often in this OP. Nobody is claiming Trump talked to Carrol. What is claimed is that he put his fingers in her vagina against her will. Something that is considerably more memorable than a random conversation.You are missing my part of the discussion.
I will clarify. How well do you recall talking to a party you casually know, or know well, 30 years back's story? Are you willing to concede the two women just may get enormous rewards should she win her case in a higher court?
But you are implying guilt by Trump. All I can do is explain and if you do not get it, simply ask questions. What are you alleging I change often? I am trying to unravel a very unbelievable but complex subject as should happen when Juries discuss things.You aren't clarifying. You are changing the parameters of what happened. Something you've done often in this OP. Nobody is claiming Trump talked to Carrol. What is claimed is that he put his fingers in her vagina against her will. Something that is considerably more memorable than a random conversation.
And NO, I don't concede that 2 woman get enormous rewards. One woman gets enormous rewards. ALL the people who testified DO NOT GET MONEY with the exception of the psychiatrist. Neither, does the fact a woman reaps enormous rewards speaks in any way to the truthfulness of her statements. Just because somebody has a motive to do something doesn't mean guilt is implied.
Nope, not true. Trump does not have to have put up 5 million yet. That case is on appeals. Actually he can manage this two ways at least. Way 1 is to put up the cash. Way 2 is to buy a bond.
I asked all of you yesterday to try to pretend this happened to Biden. Would you talk that way about Biden? Biden in his future will face criminal charges. Will you quickly find him guilty?
Men have for all of history bragged about sexual exploits. Sad as it is, it is factual. It was also done on a bus many years earlier. We know he said it, but why is the only thing Democrats think is true?Who would sell Trump a bond? He thinks that because he's a celebrity he's entitled to grab women in their private parts.
The US has become a Banana Republic ever since Potatohead stole the election and the country has an epidemic of the TDS mental illness so never think that justice will prevail.
My god you are a clueless moron.The US isn't a banana Republic, but Florida comes close.
Men have for all of history bragged about sexual exploits. Sad as it is, it is factual. It was also done on a bus many years earlier. We know he said it, but why is the only thing Democrats think is true?
