Tara Rede the woman that accuses Biden of sexually assaulting her, sues DOJ for millions.

[Revoltingest]

I don't hate Biden at all.

<snicker>
But you do love Trump.
As much as Putin though?

I did point out that I haven't seen the evidence of Raede's allegations yet.

You weren't on the jury.

But the difference between dems and me, is that they consider Trump a priori guilty.

There was a jury that ruled Trump liable.
Because he did it.
Do Italian "jurists" give no weight jury
verdicts, instead viewing all allegations
as equally cromulent?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Wrongo pongo, Trumpophile.
I look at court rulings.
Unlike you & the other Trump lover here.

BTW, Trump's own proud public announcement
that he sexually assaults women is also damning.
He just thought that he could get away with it.
And that Republicans would admire him for it.
(As do some Italians.)
But he found out otherwise in civil court, & now
in the court of public opinion, ie, women starting
to vote against him. Apparently many women
(other than Italians) don't some rando grabbing
at their crotch.

All opinion.

Seems you like to see the courts run on opinion based doctrines and conclusions therewith.

 

[Revoltingest]

But Carroll is not one of them because Trump is a pig, right?

Odd question.
Trump is guilty because a court found him so.

Calling Trump a "pig" is unfair to pigs,
who give us bacon, ham, pork chops,
& cracklins. Pigs are useful.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, it's Biden 1, Trump 18......

So I'm guessing from that assessment if you do it once you're fine.

 

[Revoltingest]

All opinion.

I give more weight to a jury's opinion
than to an accuser who never presented
their case, & has a big credibility problem
with all who know her.

Seems you like to see the courts run on opinion based doctrines and conclusions therewith.

It would seem that way to Trump's lover.

 

[Estro Felino]

There was a jury that ruled Trump liable.

A jury said that OJ Simpson was innocent. So..

Because he did it.

I trust my eyes only.
If there is a video proving it, I will believe it.
Until then: it's her word against his.

Do Italian "jurists" give no weight jury
verdicts, instead viewing all allegations
as equally cromulent?

First of all, justice is fallible. Jurors are fallible. They are not God.
The dogma of infallibility doesn't exist in the vocabulary of law.

And by the way, our juries have two professional judges and six lay people. Not 12 lay people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Has anyone ever looked into a
Maga home to see what's on TV?

Spoiler: It's ew.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I give more weight to a jury's opinion
than to an accuser who never presented
their case, & has a big credibility problem
with all who know her.

It would seem that way to Trump's lover.

Even if it means they claim to have in their possession the very dress that they cannot for some mysterious reason or another produce in a courtroom?

 

[Revoltingest]

A jury said that OJ Simpson was innocent. So..

A civil court ruled otherwise.

I trust my eyes only.

It seems only that you trust your heart.

If there is a video proving it, I will believe it.
Until then: it's her word against his.

You're not really a jurist if you don't
believe in court judgements.

 

[Revoltingest]

Even if it means they claim to have in their possession the very dress that they cannot for some mysterious reason or another produce in a courtroom?

The jury ruled.
Trump did it.
Trump even admitted that he generally
likes to grab women's crotches, believing
that they all "like it".
That's an expensive hobby.

 

[Estro Felino]

You're not really a jurist if you don't
believe in court judgements.

Do you know at least that we have a different system? Three degrees of judgment?
First, the first degree, then the Court of Appeal, and finally the Supreme Court (Court of Cassation).
So...a judgment isn't definitive unless it's not appealed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The jury ruled.
Trump did it.
Trump even admitted that he generally
likes to grab women's crotches, believing
that they all "like it".
That's an expensive hobby.

Not the kind of evidence-less jury I would like to see in this country as I'm sure Trump would agree on that front.

Let's now see how it goes on the other foot for Tara Reid shall we?

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you know at least that we have a different system?

From your posts, your views about what
a "jurist" does & believes, I've seen that
it's very different.
We give far more weight to court decisions
than love or hate towards this or that
politician.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not the kind of evidence-less jury I would like to see in this country as I'm sure Trump would agree on that front.

Why do you believe the jury didn't
see any cromulent evidence of
Trump's assault.

Let's now see how it goes on the other foot for Tara Reid shall we?

She hasn't even filed a suit against Biden.

 

[Estro Felino]

From your posts, your views about what
a "jurist" does & believes, I've seen that
it's very different.
We give far more weight to court decisions
than love or hate towards this or that
politician.

The Court of Assizes of Perugia stated that Amanda Knox was guilty even if there was no shred of evidence of her guiltiness.

Then, the Supreme Court in Rome fortunately annulled such judgment, and definitively acquitted Knox.
Meaning: a popular jury can be wrong.

 

[Firenze]

So I'm guessing from that assessment if you do it once you're fine.

You're assuming Biden is guilty. Why? The only sexual predator with a conviction so far is Trump.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You're assuming Biden is guilty. Why? The only sexual predator with a conviction so far is Trump.

Did I actually say Biden was guilty, or are you just projecting in your own thoughts as if you know exactly what's going in in my mind?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why do you believe the jury didn't
see any cromulent evidence of
Trump's assault.

She hasn't even filed a suit against Biden.

Well if that evidence actually exists and can be properly displayed as evidence, that would be fine. As for Tara not filing a lawsuit against Biden yet, only she knows what the deal is with that but I suspect she's not stopping at the DOJ here.

She doesn't strike me completely as the knee jerk type, but rather is preparatory to ensure her case is valid enough to produce to a court. Provided we're talking about an unbiased neutral minded court and not a biased kangaroo court comprised of lopsided political affiliations of its ruling judgemental members.

 

[Firenze]

Did I actually say Biden was guilty, or are you just projecting in your own thoughts as if you know exactly what's going in in my mind?

My post referenced the fact that Biden has been 'accused' once, while your hero has been accused 18 times - and so far found guilty once. Your response says "So I'm guessing from that assessment if you do it once you're fine". Do what once? Get accused? Or actually commit assault? Your words expose your foregone conclusion, unless you simply worded your response poorly.

 

[Firenze]

Provided we're talking about an unbiased neutral minded court and not a biased kangaroo court comprised of lopsided political affiliations of its ruling judgemental members.

You mean like SCOTUS.....