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

[Subduction Zone]

There's interest on jury awards? I never knew that.

I did not know either. But it makes sense. If he loses the appeal that means he should have paid her when the original judgment came in. It is not fair if someone wins case and then effectively loses money by having to wait for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

There's interest on jury awards? I never knew that.

There's statutory interest on
all awards, jury or bench trial.

 

[McBell]

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.

This is most entertaining.
You have already demonstrated you have no idea how these terms apply to a court of law.
But here you are, pretending you do.

 

[McBell]

Personally, I hope he submits the DNA sample like he said he would and settle the matter once and for all.

Not going to happen.
He knows it will only hurt his case.
Thus the reason he has refused to present from get go.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

There's no point answering questions merely to
prove my legal knowledge. Your argument for
Trump's innocence is debunkable without even
invoking the law. The jury decided. Your
objection based on no video recording is false.

 

[Estro Felino]

This is most entertaining.
You have already demonstrated you have no idea how these terms apply to a court of law.
But here you are, pretending you do.

Again ad hominem attacks while avoiding addressing the question.
An annoying tactic.

I do know that insufficient evidence leads to acquittal: that's how Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were acquitted by the Supreme Court, in Rome.

In this politicized trial nobody has demonstrated that Trump had sex with Carroll some undetermined day in 1996.
Period.

And by the way...this woman talks in a way that makes her narrative more about men in general, and about sex.

She wrote a book: what do we need men for?

 

[SkepticThinker]

A jury said that OJ Simpson was innocent. So..

I trust my eyes only.
If there is a video proving it, I will believe it.
Until then: it's her word against his.

First of all, justice is fallible. Jurors are fallible. They are not God.
The dogma of infallibility doesn't exist in the vocabulary of law.

And by the way, our juries have two professional judges and six lay people. Not 12 lay people.

Are you under the impression that rapes are usually caught on video?

 

[Estro Felino]

Are you under the impression that rapes are usually caught on video?

No, but in my country a 13 year old girl was gang-raped by a group of migrants.
She reported immediately. Two seconds later, she went to the police, and those men have been arrested.
That's how it works.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's the philosophy of a number of people these days. Guilty until proven innocent.

Or there's your philosophy ... proven civilly liable for sexual abuse in a court of law but somehow still innocent.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Would you? I don't remember the date I was raped. I can't even remember how I got home afterward.

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

The jury found her credible, apparently.

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.

You missed the point. The dude said he grabs women by the crotch without their permission.
He's just been found guilty of grabbing a woman by the crotch (and worse) without her permission.

This isn't rocket science, is it?

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

How about if someone sticks their fingers inside you without your consent?

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.

Enough to find Trump civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Bad example.

Here's a better one. Do you randomly just tell your friends you were raped recently?

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, but in my country a 13 year old girl was gang-raped by a group of migrants.
She reported immediately. Two seconds later, she went to the police, and those men have been arrested.
That's how it works.

It is far easier to report a gang of poor people without any resources than it is to report a very rich man who has lawyer and perhaps even politicians in his back pocket. That is a very poor comparison.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is far easier to report a gang of poor people without any resources than it is to report a very rich man who has lawyer and perhaps even politicians in his back pocket. That is a very poor comparison.

I respect your opinion.
But you can't demand that I consider her testimony that credible.
I consider her as credible as Trump. So it's her word against his.
Period.

Literature is filled with false rape allegations. Even the Bible, in the Genesis. Potiphar's wife.

 

[libre]

I consider her as credible as Trump.

Given that you seem to defend him constantly, I'm doubtful of this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I respect your opinion.
But you can't demand that I consider her testimony that credible.
I consider her as credible as Trump. So it's her word against his.
Period.

Literature is filled with false rape allegations. Even the Bible, in the Genesis. Potiphar's wife.

No, not "period". You are forgetting the two women that corroborate her story. You are forgetting that there are other women that testified to similar behavior, you are forgetting that Trump himself stated that he did that sort of behavior when he felt like it. And even worse, it was not his word against hers. Trump fled the country during the trial. He was not forced to, but he could have testified. It is only Carroll's word if you want to use that standard. You could not be more wrong about the evidence if you tried.

If it was just his word against hers I would agree with you. But it is not. And you have to know this by now.

 

[Estro Felino]

Given that you seem to defend him constantly, I'm doubtful of this.

It's called guaranteesm in my country.
It means I guarantee the in dubio pro reo principle, even in the Reade's case.

I don't know if Reade did suffer what she claims she suffered. It's possible.
But since I haven't seen the evidence, I cannot consider the POTUS guilty.

Do you understand?

 

[Estro Felino]

Trump himself stated that he did that sort of behavior when he felt like it.

What behavior?
And when did he state that?

 

[Revoltingest]

I respect your opinion.
But you can't demand that I consider her testimony that credible.
I consider her as credible as Trump. So it's her word against his.
Period.

Literature is filled with false rape allegations. Even the Bible, in the Genesis. Potiphar's wife.

Do you know what evidence was presented to the jury?
Which exhibits do you question or dispute?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, but in my country a 13 year old girl was gang-raped by a group of migrants.
She reported immediately. Two seconds later, she went to the police, and those men have been arrested.
That's how it works.

Without a video? However did they do that? I mean, you seem to think there can be no convictions without video evidence so...

 

[SkepticThinker]

What behavior?
And when did he state that?

On that tape that you keep brushing off as "locker room talk."
Turns out it was "reality talk."