Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have doubts. You have not shown that they are reasonable. Your argument fails until you show that your doubts are reasonable.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Tara Rede the woman that accuses Biden of sexually assaulting her, sues DOJ for millions.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
McBell
Admiral Obvious
um...
So what?
Seeing as how he was found guilty...
Unless you had some kind of legal connection having to do with that specific case YOUR doubts are completely irrelevant to the case.
Thus meaning that your claims of in dubio pro reo do not apply and merely reveal you know little to nothing about how the law works in the USA.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
I disagree.
Her argument fails because she was not in any way connected the case in a legal capacity.
He has already been convicted.
Meaning that there was not enough doubt in the minds of those that mattered (meaning those whose doubts would have an effect on the outcome) to prevent him from being convicted.
The problem is that:
how credible is he?
how credible is she?
The truth is that these women come forward only after these politicians become POTUS.
And not before. Which makes anything incredibly politicized.
And when everything is politicized, serious jurists don't want to have anything to do with it.
The political instrumentalization of criminally or civilly relevant fact is not worthy of a civilized society, where the debate should be about citizens. And their exigences.
Asking questions doesn't mean that
cases cannot be decided in court.
A court ruled that Trump sexually
assaulted Carroll.
No court has ruled in Reade's favor
in any suit.
Your requirement that there must be
a video of the assault is simply an ad
hoc defense of Trump.
I have been reading strange and enigmatic statements by some Americans for years: something like "Trump must be ousted with any means possible, licit or illicit". Or something like that.
So...I am sorry. I believe that the number of politicized biased people is enormous in America.
I don't see anything done in good faith.
But in profound bad faith.
You can find people who make any
kind of statement you want. Does
this prove anything....like conspiracy
against Trump?
Dems & Pubs have hated each other
for centuries. Pubs have also played
politics to get rid of Biden. But you're
here to defend only Trump, right?
This doesn't excuse Trump for committing
sexual assault & insurrection.
Someone from Italy is in no place to
judge another country so generally
& harshly. Remember...you guys
wanted Hitler to win WW2.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Tara in spite of what people want to say about her has been as far as i can tell , consistent with her dates on the alleged assault.
I just see bias against Trump anywhere.
Yes. Especially when Obama and Hillary still have an enormous influence.
Trump is 100,000 times better than Obama and Hillary.
Despite all the flaws Trump has.
Never. There is no shred of evidence he assaulted someone.
Quite the opposite. The Stormy Daniels case shows that he can have any woman he wants,
even by paying.
He doesn't need to attack any woman because women throw themselves at him.
Again ad hominem attacks because of my nationality.
I kindly remind you the enormous amount of American people of German descent, and of Italian descent.
Trump is German. So what?
So are a significant number of American citizens.
If I believed in tribalism, I would have supported DeSantis.
Of course you do.
Love for Trump makes any slight or accusation
against him personally painful.
Hatred for Democrats, especially Obama, means
you won't see any bias against them.
This is more evidence that you're not a "jurist",
something you claim in order to argue from authority.
A real jurist would address evidence presented at
the trial, which you neither attended nor attempted
to investigate.
You demonized Ameristanians for political views.
This made addressing nationality & associated
characteristics relevant to your post. So I
countered with the hideous record of Italians
supporting violent fascists.
A real jurist would know that if they raise an
issue in court, then the other side may respond
to it, even if that issue was previously off limits.
In short....
If you go there, I get to go there.
Last edited:
I despise the Obama administration because they waged wars against nations for no reason.
Trump started no new war.
That makes him 100,000 better in my eyes.
Since you are the jurist here, enlighten me then: explain me what the legal principle "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit" means and
what "in dubio pro reo" means.
I will be amazed by your infinite knowledge and wisdom.
Teach me.
If you don't do that, it means that you are not interested in debating healthily, but you do nothing but attack, belittle and insult your interlocutor.
Because you have no other weapons to win a debate.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Good question. Well, we know that Trump holds the record for most lies by a President and it will probably never be broken:
" The Washington Post's fact-checkers documented 30,573 false or misleading claims during his presidential term, an average of about 21 per day.[1][5][6][7] "
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump - Wikipedia
I don't have any sources for Carroll, but if she was anywhere near that dishonest I am pretty sure that people would have come forward.
So Trump clearly loses on credibility.
There is some truth to that. But it is also understandable. When news of one's attacker is going to be in one's fact every day of the year a victim will often come forward.
Really? I doubt that.
Now you are just making lame excuses. You lose when you asked "who is more credible" and it is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo easy to show that Trump is a liar.
I recall looking into that claim, & it turns out toGood question. Well, we know that Trump holds the record for most lies by a President and it will probably never be broken:
" The Washington Post's fact-checkers documented 30,573 false or misleading claims during his presidential term, an average of about 21 per day.[1][5][6][7] "
False or misleading statements by Donald Trump - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
be false. Ironic, eh. The biggest problem is that
making a false statement isn't a lie if it's sincere.
People just get things wrong sometimes...often.
Eg, we can agree that Obama didn't lie about
having visited "57 states" or his "Muslim faith".
Trump is even less attached to reality.
As for the common support for Trump, the bad
thing I find is that so many falsehoods are sincerely
believed.
What is necessary to believe in order to believe Trump
is honest & not a traitor will be believed. What
contradicts that must be wrong....part of the conspiracy
against him.
(Conspiracies are useful because they're non-disprovable.)
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It does say "false or misleading". So I was the one that would have been wrong. It is hard to know for sure if a statement is a lie or not since one would need to get into the head of the individual involved. But there is no doubt that he uttered falsehood that many times. And according to my copper haired friend, though not much copper these days:
I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.
Abraham Lincoln
I agree on that.
A jury decided that she was much more credible than he is (83.3 million dollars more credible).
So it is not a problem anymore.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's true. This trial is over, but Trump is now on appeal. Anything he does that's wrong will be his fault if he loses again and even I will have to say that's that after the appeal is exhausted with Trump having a second chance to state his case and produce the proper evidence that could exonerate him.
Personally, I hope he submits the DNA sample like he said he would and settle the matter once and for all.
Meaning that he said he is going to appeal, not the the appeal has been accepted. It might surprise you to learn that you don't get an appeal jus cuz you wanna. There has to be grounds for an appeal, and I don't think Trump has any. And even if he does get an appeal, chances are they won't accept an appeal in the verdict (finding) but will only allow an appeal on the amount.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He has not appealed it yet as far as I know. Nope, he still has not appealed it. It is too late back east and it would have made the news. He has to scrape up the $83.3 million dollars first if he wants to appeal. Are you aware of that? He has to hand the money over to the court and they will hold it for him pending an appeal. He also has a limited time to file one. And he actually has to come up with about $90 million for that since he has to be ready to cover any possible interest until the appeal occurs:
Trump must still cough up at least $90M in E. Jean Carroll verdict — and soon — even though an appeal means she has to wait for it
Trump can appeal his E. Jean Carroll verdict, but he still must hand over damages, plus interest, within 30 days of the judge's written judgment.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And he would still need to deposit the full amount, plus interest, to be able to file even that appeal, as in my last post.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
There's interest on jury awards? I never knew that.He has not appealed it yet as far as I know. Nope, he still has not appealed it. It is too late back east and it would have made the news. He has to scrape up the $83.3 million dollars first if he wants to appeal. Are you aware of that? He has to hand the money over to the court and they will hold it for him pending an appeal. He also has a limited time to file one. And he actually has to come up with about $90 million for that since he has to be ready to cover any possible interest until the appeal occurs:
Trump must still cough up at least $90M in E. Jean Carroll verdict — and soon — even though an appeal means she has to wait for it
Trump can appeal his E. Jean Carroll verdict, but he still must hand over damages, plus interest, within 30 days of the judge's written judgment.www.businessinsider.com