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

[Estro Felino]

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

Yet I am expected to believe that in the nineties, a billionaire, chased by actresses and models, was interested in a woman in her fifties who didn't want him.
I am sorry, I need evidence to believe that.

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

I do. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit: that the local version of evidence, here.

 

[McBell]

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

Trump refused to give up a DNA sample for more than two years.
It was a legal strategy that backfired.

He thought that waiting to offer up his DNA would drag out the trial.
But since he waited to long to "offer it up" the Judge ruled that it apparently was not an issue and denied the blatant attempt at trial delay.

now the real question here is:
do you understand that and are merely being dishonest
or
do you honestly not understand it and are merely waving your ignorance around like flag?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trump refused to give up a DNA sample for more than two years.
It was a legal strategy that backfired.

He thought that waiting to offer up his DNA would drag out the trial.
But since he waited to long to "offer it up" the Judge ruled that it apparently was not an issue and denied the blatant attempt at trial delay.

now the real question here is:
do you understand that and are merely being dishonest
or
do you honestly not understand it and are merely waving your ignorance around like flag?

So it should be refused because it took too long? It would drag out the trial? Jesus Christ , that's really really stupid reasoning.

Trials are never about time , some even go on for years and years, it's actually about getting to the bottom of the issue. What a dumbass reason that it takes too long or would take up too much time. Idiots.

 

[McBell]

... it's actually about getting to the bottom of the issue...

And Trumps delay tactic was in no way helping with that.
Thus it was called out for what it is and denied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet I am expected to believe that in the nineties, a billionaire, chased by actresses and models, was interested in a woman in her fifties who didn't want him.
I am sorry, I need evidence to believe that.

Trump stated very clearly that she was his type. In fact he stated that was the sort of woman that he would marry. You really should follow these stories if you want to comment upon them

I do. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit: that the local version of evidence, here.

That appears to be just you admitting that you are wrong again. Please, try to argue rationally and you won't get snark.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And Trumps delay tactic was in no way helping with that.
Thus it was called out for what it is and denied.

Well I suppose I shouldn't be too wrapped up with watching multi millionaires, who will never give people like me the time of the day, try to skin and eat each other alive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet I am expected to believe that in the nineties, a billionaire, chased by actresses and models, was interested in a woman in her fifties who didn't want him.
I am sorry, I need evidence to believe that.

Perhaps you don't read news.
It's common for rapists to target unattractive,
even elderly women.
It's analogous to people who....
- Steal an old Camry instead of a new Lexus.
- Rob a seedy liquor store instead of Nieman Marcus.
- Shoplift a candy bar instead of a watch.

You won't get your evidence. You weren't at the trial.
By your rationale, everyone whose trial you didn't
attend is not guilty.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well I suppose I shouldn't be too wrapped up with watching multi millionaires, who will never give people like me the time of the day, try to skin and eat each other alive.

Millionaires might've given you the time of day,
but you never knew of their wealth. Rich folk
I know look like everyone else....often dressing
shabbier. But that might be an engine show thing.

 

[Estro Felino]

Perhaps you don't read news.
It's common for rapists to target unattractive,
even elderly women.
It's analogous to people who....
- Steal an old Camry instead of a new Lexus.
- Rob a seedy liquor store instead of Nieman Marcus.
- Shoplift a candy bar instead of a watch.

You won't get your evidence. You weren't at the trial.
By your rationale, everyone whose trial you didn't
attend is not guilty.

Have you ever heard of "in dubio pro reo"?
Well...I have so many doubts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you ever heard of "in dubio pro reo"?

I don't speak jibber jabber.
Have you ever heard of "The jury found Trump liable"?

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't speak jibber jabber.
Have you ever heard of "The jury found Trump liable"?

A juridical principle.
You studied engineering. Of course you don't know it.

 

[Revoltingest]

A juridical principle.
You studied engineering. Of course you don't know it.

I've also studied law.
Your claim of "juridical" authority has been debunked.

 

[Estro Felino]

I've also studied law.

Perfect.
Then explain me the juridical principle In dubio pro reo.
I am listening.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perfect.
Then explain me the juridical principle In dubio pro reo.
I am listening.

You keep deflecting.
Your problem...
- You reject the jury's verdict.
- You accept accusations that were never tried.
Yours is a horrible double standard.
No jibber jabber can justify your argument.
Such reasoning destroys any claim to authority
that you ever had.

 

[Estro Felino]

You keep deflecting.
Your problem...
- You reject the jury's verdict.
- You accept accusations that were never tried.
Yours is a horrible double standard.
No jibber jabber can justify your argument.
Such reasoning destroys any claim to authority
that you ever had.

You probably haven't read that I have many doubts on both cases.
To me, they are equal. So I apply one standard.

There are those who apply two standards: one with Biden, one with Trump. 1+1=2

 

[Revoltingest]

You probably haven't read that I....

I've read so much bogus rationalization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps you don't read news.
It's common for rapists to target unattractive,
even elderly women.
It's analogous to people who....
- Steal an old Camry instead of a new Lexus.
- Rob a seedy liquor store instead of Nieman Marcus.
- Shoplift a candy bar instead of a watch.

You won't get your evidence. You weren't at the trial.
By your rationale, everyone whose trial you didn't
attend is not guilty.

Also the "Not my type" claim of Trump was a lie. The only time that I have ever heard Trump speak with a wistful sadness was when he misidentified Carroll as his ex-wife Marla. Rape is often a crime of violence. Could he have been set off by Carroll's similarity to his ex?

 

[McBell]

Perfect.
Then explain me the juridical principle In dubio pro reo.
I am listening.

Seeing as he was found guilty, how exactly do you think it applies?

 

[Revoltingest]

Also the "Not my type" claim of Trump was a lie. The only time that I have ever heard Trump speak with a wistful sadness was when he misidentified Carroll as his ex-wife Marla. Rape is often a crime of violence. Could he have been set off by Carroll's similarity to his ex?

Or it could be as simple as Trump being in the
mood to assault, & opportunity presents a victim.

 

[Estro Felino]

Seeing as he was found guilty, how exactly do you think it applies?

I have reasonable doubts he did what she claims he did, so in dubio pro reo.

Come one...she can't even remember the month and the day...somewhere in 1996, she says.
What if it were winter 1995?