Winners only.

[RobGMN Premium Member]

How can you even try to defend yourself when there's no hard fact in the accusation? There's a location and extremely "rough idea" when it happened...there's no way to call a potential witness, corroborate an alibi, on even try to get surveillance video...there's no justice in that scenario...


And I dont know if it's true or not...

You defend yourself in the same way the accuser supports themselves. It’s not a one-way street.

He-said/she-said cases happen all the time. Trump is not the newest or the bestest at being involved in one.
The jury of six men and three women accepted the she-said over the he-said for a reason.

None of us were on the jury, or saw any of the testimony. We can only speculate about what happened, and the decision is not ours to make. That is how our justice system works.
That IS justice as it has been laid out in out country.

 

[djdilliodon!]

Beyond a reasonable doubt could certainly have happened with this one if the victim and her attorney did what needed to be done to convince the jury of the legitimacy of the claim.

“A juror can have some doubt in their mind, but it cannot be one that would affect a reasonable person’s “moral certainty” that a defendant is guilty.”

This is how a jury can convict without actually seeing the defendant commit a crime.

It looks like the ASA allowed for a one-year look back and in 2019 they extended the SOL to 20 years. For the benefit of Trump’s accuser?

In 2019 was exactly when she came forward with her accusations in a book. Look at the time lines don’t just take my word for it.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a big burden for prosecution. There is many ways to establish evidence such as dna which she said she still had the dress, trump eventually I believe agreed to provide dna and I believe the judge said it was too late (not 100% don’t feel like looking it up right now). Actually having the date, the defense can establish a possible alibi with proof or store security cameras can possibly be viewed to actually see them together etc. Other dna evidence such as threads of clothing, hair left behind, many things. Her case would have never met the Burden of beyond reasonable doubt. In a civil case they didn’t even say ****.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Asking this as a genuine question: Do you know anything about how our justice system, to include the courts, is set up and operated?

How it is supposed to work as apposed to how it actually works... sure do.

I would fully expect the jury to do what they are supposed to as jurors. Feelings certainly come into play when making a judgment. Doubt is a feeling.
And there is the whole “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” thing.

Doubt is a feeling based on a fact. The fact of lack of evidence. It sounds like you don't mind tossing out facts though opting for feelings when it suits your need. Facts are needed when arguing on this forum... an irrelevant place but in a court of law feelings are just fine.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

But you’ve said video evidence can be faked.
Back to square one.

Really, let's throw out any common sense or brain function. So this ****** is going to locate any and all CCTV or security footage and has the knowledge to edit them? I tell you what, you and Jimi go on being satisfied in convicting people with feelings. The only place facts come into play is when you are arguing with anyone who disagrees with you. Suddenly facts matter.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

You defend yourself in the same way the accuser supports themselves. It’s not a one-way street.

He-said/she-said cases happen all the time. Trump is not the newest or the bestest at being involved in one.
The jury of six men and three women accepted the she-said over the he-said for a reason.

None of us were on the jury, or saw any of the testimony. We can only speculate about what happened, and the decision is not ours to make. That is how our justice system works.
That IS justice as it has been laid out in out country.

And you wont question it because it paints Trump in a bad light. You will just accept the decision. Now if it was someone you support you'd argue till you were blue in the face about how it's a conspiracy or propaganda or hate speech or some shit.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

There are Trump's actions/comments. Like Trump lying about not knowing who she was. Trump saying "she's not my type" and then mistaking a photo of her for one of his x-wifes. "Just grab their *****," and on and on. I don't know that I would have found him guilty, but Trump dug his own hole.

That whole grabbed by the lussy thing is overblown...I promise you I've heard and said worst bullshitting with friends while enjoying a frosty beverage

I'm pretty damn sure most guys have as well...

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Video evidence? We role playing, she likes it rough... plus how many ****** record their crimes?

Even back then pretty much all stores had cameras pointed at the dressing room doors

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

You defend yourself in the same way the accuser supports themselves. It’s not a one-way street.

He-said/she-said cases happen all the time. Trump is not the newest or the bestest at being involved in one.
The jury of six men and three women accepted the she-said over the he-said for a reason.

None of us were on the jury, or saw any of the testimony. We can only speculate about what happened, and the decision is not ours to make. That is how our justice system works.
That IS justice as it has been laid out in out country.

How do you defend yourself? There's no way to provide evidence to support your innocence against that vague of claim...

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

That whole grabbed by the lussy thing is overblown...I promise you I've heard and said worst bullshitting with friends while enjoying a frosty beverage

I'm pretty damn sure most guys have as well...

You've boasted that grab random women by the *****? It's not like Trump said "I'd hit that" or "what I'd do to her," etc, he said "he's a celebrity and therefore can just grab women by the *****."

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

You've boasted that grab random women by the *****? It's not like Trump said "I'd hit that" or "what I'd do to her," etc, he said "he's a celebrity and therefore can just grab women by the *****."

"Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.

And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything."

He said they let you...implying consent not force...he was crudely bragging on his ability to pull tail...

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

How it is supposed to work as apposed to how it actually works... sure do.

So the entire justice system works contrary to how it should?
Can you explain further or provide some data on this?

Doubt is a feeling based on a fact. The fact of lack of evidence. It sounds like you don't mind tossing out facts though opting for feelings when it suits your need. Facts are needed when arguing on this forum... an irrelevant place but in a court of law feelings are just fine.

Doubt is a feeling, whether it’s based on fact, lack of fact, instinct, fear, lack of knowledge.
To say that a court of law disregards feelings when they literally invoke “proof beyond reasonable doubt” is pretty ludicrous, don’t you think?
It’s like saying evidence is disregarded when judging based on “clear and convincing evidence”.

By the way, I didn’t create these standards of judgement, and I do t just invoke them “as needed”. They’ve been around quite a long time, and they are part of how our justice system is operated.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

If they were convicted without evidence and only on their word then they were unjustly convicted.
No, people lie. You have to prove without doubt. That is how the law works.

You have basically said our justice system as it exists and has long existed was set up by people who got it wrong.
You have an unusual habit of saying experts are wrong but you are right.
What is your education background regarding law?

I agree. That is why one must question everything.

The shady evaluation is just how I see most women. It is not the reason to not believe. That reason is because people lie.

Do you trust the extra shady women just as much as the not-so-shady men?

You may want some backup on correcting my grammar. "...they ***** before" in my usage is correct. However, asking the accused if they **** people is not relevant to the topic.

I said if you ask someone whether they ***** someone, they will very likely lie even if they did it.
The d indicates an action that happeneD. As in “before”, or the past. It was not meant to question “did you **** anyone before you ***** this one?”. But even that question WOULD have relevance in a **** trial.

So you, the person who demands facts, has NO PROBLEM convicting someone with your feelings.
Her eyes watered enough to give me butterflies in my simp belly. We must convict this man!!! Yeah, good job soiling our legal system.

Once again, you are showing you know nothing about how the legal system or court cases work. If you believe every court case is based on presentation of irrefutable facts and evidence, you really have no understanding at all. Have you ever served in a jury, been involved in a case, or even watched a movie about court?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

How do you defend yourself? There's no way to provide evidence to support your innocence against that vague of claim...

Reverse the position. How does the accuser support their claims? If the claims are that vague and dubious, then the testimony will reflect that.

With he-said/she-said, it boils down to who has the most credible testimony. This is not something that was just whipped up for Trump and this court case.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

"Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.

And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab them by the p****. You can do anything."

He said they let you...implying consent not force...he was crudely bragging on his ability to pull tail...

I'd say he was implying something other than consent.

 

[Firewalker]

That deposition is what did him in the civil trial. IF he could keep quiet he wouldn't have been found liable or if he had just been sensible and used common sense (yeah I know asking a lot of trump and TBH any celebrity or politician) he wouldn't have gotten hit with the 5 million dollar judgement against him.

Kinda shocked also that no one has posted on good 'ole Lying Multiple Personalities George Santos being charged today with multiple felonies including money laundering iirc.