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

[Twilight Hue]

You mean like SCOTUS.....

Nobody's going to live forever. You probably mean until it meets a certain political disposition each time personnal changes are being made.

I suspect some oversight might be warranted as far as the Supreme Court goes including the ability to impeach and remove members who have shown to be anything other than what their job description demands of them.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Court of Assizes of Perugia stated that Amanda Knox was guilty....

This isn't about her.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well if that evidence actually exists and can be properly displayed as evidence, that would be fine.

You doubt that happened during the trial?

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.

You consider the personal suspicion that she might
file suit against Biden to make her case rise to the
same level as Carroll's against Trump?

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.

You believe the court judgements against
Trump were in a kangaroo court?

 

[Twilight Hue]

You doubt that happened during the trial?


You consider the personal suspicion that she might
file suit against Biden to make her case rise to the
same level as Carroll's against Trump?

You believe the court judgements against
Trump were in a kangaroo court?

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.

MSN

The court you're describing is not something I would like to see in any alleged free country.

 

[Revoltingest]

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
accusation of equal cromulence?

 

[PureX]

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.

What is sad is that you think they should be handled the same.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What is sad is that you think they should be handled the same.

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.

 

[PureX]

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.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Does this mean you find Carroll's & Reade's
accusation of equal cromulence?

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.

Just watch and see how Tara is actually going to be viewed and treated here.

I suspect it'll be nothing close to how Jean Carroll was treated and rewarded in a court of law.

 

[Estro Felino]

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

Ad hominem attacks are the desperate attempt not to deal with the topic and to escape from debate.
Maybe because you know I'm right?

 

[Estro Felino]

Does this mean you find Carroll's & Reade's
accusation of equal cromulence?

Absolutely. Because I haven't seen a video showing it...in either case.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ad hominem attacks....

Just challenging your legal expertise.
You've claimed it in the pursuit of
attacking Biden, & defending Trump.

 

[Revoltingest]

Absolutely. Because I haven't seen a video showing it...in either case.

If a crime has no video evidence,
the court can render no judgment?
It doesn't sound like something a
"jurist" would claim.

 

[Estro Felino]

If a crime has no video evidence,
the court can render no judgment?

Yes, and there's a third solution: insufficient evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes....

Courts here can rule
without video evidence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Just challenging your legal expertise.
You've claimed it in the pursuit of
attacking Biden, & defending Trump.

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.

It's amazing you resorted to using such low life tactics. Something you really didn't do in the past a long time ago, but people change.

I'm hoping it's just temporary because stuff like this doesn't look good on either you or me I've been making attemps to reduce it on my part, how about you?

I'd like to talk about the subject, not about the people posting here.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's clearly an ad homonym attack....

And it's warranted in in this case.
The poster has regularly claimed legal expertise
as a "jurist" to justify their opinions. Their errors
regarding our justice system call those opinions
into question.
I notice that you enjoy the occasional ad hominem
attack. But yours lack cromulence.

 

[Estro Felino]

Courts here can rule
without video evidence.

If I say I had sex with Leonardo Di Caprio in 1999, it means it's true.
I got it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, and there's a third solution: insufficient evidence.

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.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I say I had sex with Leonardo Di Caprio in 1999, it means it's true.
I got it.

This is a perfect example of
proof that you're not a "jurist".