Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nobody's going to live forever. You probably mean until it meets a certain political disposition each time personnal changes are being made.You mean like SCOTUS.....
This isn't about her.
You doubt that happened during the trial?
You consider the personal suspicion that she might
You believe the court judgements against
Stuff like this must revolve around the actual evidence and the actual evidence has not to this date had been proven to be without a doubt.
Does this mean you find Carroll's & Reade's
What is sad is that you think they should be handled the same.The question is will Tara be given the same legal 'courtesy' as Jane Carroll received? Or will it be vastly different?
Biden accuser Tara Reade sues DOJ, seeks millions in damages following alleged 'FBI operation' against her
Biden accuser Tara Reade filed a tort claim against the Justice Department, seeking $10 million in damages over alleged misconduct after she came forward with her allegations.www.foxnews.com
I think the answer to that question will be actually how her case will be handled and processed going foreward, how she is going to be being treated admist her allegations not only by the DOJ, but against her alleged sexual attacker then VP Joe Biden as I'm fairly sure she is not stopping with the DOJ.
Commence the debate.
Predictably they're not going to be, which will be a greater shame in the present era of evidence-less courts with questionable predetermined outcomes.
There is no logical or even just reason why they should be treated the same. And the fact that you can't or won't acknowledge this is what I find so sad.
That depends upon the evidences if there are any, but it's undeniable both cases are similar in the way they're being presented but will definitely have different outcomes as I see it.
Ad hominem attacks are the desperate attempt not to deal with the topic and to escape from debate.
Absolutely. Because I haven't seen a video showing it...in either case.
Just challenging your legal expertise.
If a crime has no video evidence,
Yes, and there's a third solution: insufficient evidence.
Courts here can rule
It's clearly an ad homonym attack, otherwise you would have had a well thought out counterpoint on the subject to put out instead of resorting to personal attacks and commentary and then leaving it as being such. There's a lot of that going on now and it's telling.
And it's warranted in in this case.
If I say I had sex with Leonardo Di Caprio in 1999, it means it's true.
I think cases with insufficient evidence should be put on hold until proper evidence is produced. If they can't, then it's just the way it is if one wants to be fair about it.
This is a perfect example ofIf I say I had sex with Leonardo Di Caprio in 1999, it means it's true.
I got it.