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

[fantome profane]

undeniable both cases are similar ...

I deny that.

 

[Revoltingest]

....it's undeniable both cases are similar in the way they're being presented.....

Hardly.
Reade's suit is against the federal government for
a claimed FBI "operation" against her. It's not even
been heard yet. She has no suit against Biden.
Carroll's suit is over, & the jury found that Trump
sexually assaulted her.

 

[Estro Felino]

Personal testimony is evidence. Carroll did testify that Trump attacked her. Trump had the right and ability to testify, but he refused to. Carroll also told friends of hers of the attack when it happened and two of them testified that she had told them of the attack. That is evidence as well. It still relies on Carroll's original claims, but it shows that she made the claims long long before Trump got involved in politics. They had two other women testify of similar attacks by Trump and also of similar behavior by Trump after the attacks. Trump attacked the victims in all of those cases. That shows a pattern of behavior. To date there are 26 different women that have claimed that Trump attacked them sexually.

Yet she doesn't even remember the month in 1996 where she was allegedly raped/assaulted.
Whether it was winter, spring, summer, autumn, at least.
I would remember the exact day and the exact hour of the day, if it happened to me.

It's her word against his: you choose to believe her. I believe neither of them.

Trump has admitted and women have come forward and confirmed, that he ogled underaged girls in a state of undress when he used to regularly barge into changing rooms while running the teen Miss Universe pageant. And of course he has openly advocated for grabbing women by the hee haw.

Again with the locker-room talk.
The English expression "they let you do anything" means consent in my language.
I don't know why Americans interpret this sentence differently.
But any linguist will tell you that letting someone do something implies consent.

For example: someone hugs me and I let them do that. I consent.
If I push them away: not consent.

As in many cases when evidence is present it is not just one piece of evidence but the fact that there is so much evidence confirming this behavior.

Zero evidence.

What many people do not seem to realize is that court cases would be very rare if one had to have a slam dunk piece of evidence.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit: which means that if you can't prove a fact, just don't go to court, because it can turn against you.

 

[McBell]

Hardly.
Reade's suit is against the federal government for
a claimed FBI "operation" against her. It's not even
been heard yet. She has no suit against Biden.
Carroll's suit is over, & the jury found that Trump
sexually assaulted her.

Well yeah,
But other than that..
They are practically identical!!!!

 

[McBell]

Zero evidence.

This is blatantly flat out false.
There was, at the very least, enough evidence to convict him.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit: which means that if you can't prove a fact, just don't go to court, because it can turn against you.

A lesson that cost Trump nearly $100 million dollars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet she doesn't even remember the month in 1996 where she was allegedly raped/assaulted.
Whether it was winter, spring, summer, autumn, at least.
I would remember the exact day and the exact hour of the day, if it happened to me.

It's her word against his: you choose to believe her. I believe neither of them.

I am not sure if she does not remember the season. But you are wrong about it being his word against hers. How can you forget this? She told to friends about it at that time. And they confirmed that under oath. I even put that in my post. That means it is more than Carroll's word against Trump.

Again with the locker-room talk.
The English expression "they let you do anything" means consent in my language.
I don't know why Americans interpret this sentence differently.
But any linguist will tell you that letting someone do something implies consent.

Rape is not consent. A helpless victim that says nothing is not consenting. I doubt if all of Italy believes that way. I have heard that too many do. But in a court of law? It is probably different I hope.

For example: someone hugs me and I let them do that. I consent.
If I push them away: not consent.

Many women do not have the strength to push away. Then what?

Zero evidence.

Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit: which means that if you can't prove a fact, just don't go to court, because it can turn against you.

And you confirm that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is blatantly flat out false.
There was, at the very least, enough evidence to convict him.


A lesson that cost Trump nearly $100 million dollars.

Nope. There wasn't any evidence.

Where the damm dress? Caroll refused to produce it .

Trump offered his own DNA. The judge refused this major key evidence citing that "he lost his chance" .

Of course this is what you call "fairness" inside a clearly left-wing kangaroo Kourtroom.

She easily won , no surprise there, and they all went to a party afterwards.

Trump appealed.

The end.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. There wasn't any evidence.

Where the damm dress? Caroll refused to produce it .

Trump offered his own DNA. The judge refused this major key evidence citing that "he lost his chance" .

Of course this is what you call "fairness" inside a clearly left-wing kangaroo Kourtroom.

She easily won , no surprise there, and they all went to a party afterwards.

Trump appealed.

The end.

No, he did not. The article that you supplied refuted that claim. It was not until it was too late that he made a fake offer.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No, he did not. The article that you supplied refuted that claim. It was not until it was too late that he made a fake offer.

Yeah right fake DNA in exchange for a fake report.

That's quite a situation.

 

[McBell]

Nope. There wasn't any evidence.

Where the damm dress? Caroll refused to produce it .

Trump offered his own DNA. The judge refused this major key evidence citing that "he lost his chance" .

Of course this is what you call "fairness" inside a clearly left-wing kangaroo Kourtroom.

She easily won , no surprise there, and they all went to a party afterwards.

Trump appealed.

The end.

You are a landmine of cheap entertainment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You are a landmine of cheap entertainment.

Yeah you would see stuff like this as entertainment. Thank you for the personal commentary. Have a good day.

 

[McBell]

Yeah you would see stuff like this as entertainment. Thank you for the personal commentary. Have a good day.

Thanks.
Keep up the good work.

Could always use a good hardy laugh and you do not disappoint!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah right fake DNA in exchange for a fake report.

That's quite a situation.

Now you are entering into conspiracy theory territory. The test was done by a well respected lab. They are not about to give fake results for a law suit.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Now you are entering into conspiracy theory territory. The test was done by a well respected lab. They are not about to give fake results for a law suit.

That would be fine if they ever had the guts to show it to the public.

 

[Estro Felino]

I am not sure if she does not remember the season. But you are wrong about it being his word against hers. How can you forget this? She told to friends about it at that time. And they confirmed that under oath. I even put that in my post. That means it is more than Carroll's word against Trump.

They confirmed that she told them.
It's like in the nineties I told my friends I slept with Leonardo Di Caprio. So what?
They will confirm I told them back then.
If I telly you I slept with Leonardo, I expect you to believe me, then.

Rape is not consent. A helpless victim that says nothing is not consenting. I doubt if all of Italy believes that way. I have heard that too many do. But in a court of law? It is probably different I hope.

Qui tacet, consentire videtur.

And you confirm that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

I don't understand the notion of evidence in the United States.
Because biased jurors and a politicized legal system stand for the death of justice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They confirmed that she told them.
It's like in the nineties I told my friends I slept with Leonardo Di Caprio. So what?
They will confirm I told them back then.
If I telly you I slept with Leonardo, I expect you to believe me, then.

I doubt if your friends would have believed you. Bad example.

Qui tacet, consentire videtur.

I don't understand the notion of evidence in the United States.
Because biased jurors and a politicized legal system stand for the death of justice.

I doubt it you even understand your local version of evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That would be fine if they ever had the guts to show it to the public.

You are making even less sense than usual. And that is saying a LOT.

 

[McBell]

Nope. There wasn't any evidence.

Where the damm dress? Caroll refused to produce it .

Trump offered his own DNA. The judge refused this major key evidence citing that "he lost his chance" .

Of course this is what you call "fairness" inside a clearly left-wing kangaroo Kourtroom.

She easily won , no surprise there, and they all went to a party afterwards.

Trump appealed.

The end.

Here is your own source coming back haunt you.

Perhaps actually read it this time?

Judge rejects Trump DNA offer in E Jean Carroll rape defamation case

Lewis Kaplan says Trump has missed his chance to provide DNA sample to rebut allegations first made by Carroll in 2019 book

www.theguardian.com

 

[Twilight Hue]

Here is your own source coming back haunt you.

Perhaps actually read it this time?

Judge rejects Trump DNA offer in E Jean Carroll rape defamation case

Lewis Kaplan says Trump has missed his chance to provide DNA sample to rebut allegations first made by Carroll in 2019 book

www.theguardian.com

I did and it's pretty clear on its own terms in spite of your interpretation to the contrary.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You are making even less sense than usual. And that is saying a LOT.

Thank you for the personal attack.

Have a good day.