daz28 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 29 minutes ago, Doc said: No, we're saying we have no proof either happened. And again, all moral superiority went out the window with Slick back in 1992 and when Hilly used him to campaign for her. In this country, we use a jury to look at the evidence, and come to judgment. That's the proof we use, not the public's examination of the limited facts, that the media provided them, and then take a poll. You may not think there's proof, but the jury did. Ken Starr was an actual witch hunt. Borderline blackmail. Either you admit to your wife and America you had an affair, or lie and accept perjury. Surely a guy that stands up for justice and what's right, like yourself, can admit that. Free Slick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 56 minutes ago, daz28 said: In this country, we use a jury to look at the evidence, and come to judgment. That's the proof we use, not the public's examination of the limited facts, that the media provided them, and then take a poll. You may not think there's proof, but the jury did. Ken Starr was an actual witch hunt. Borderline blackmail. Either you admit to your wife and America you had an affair, or lie and accept perjury. Surely a guy that stands up for justice and what's right, like yourself, can admit that. Free Slick! We've heard everything the jury did. Which was basically just her claim and her friend (a known Trump-hater) backing her up. We have a shifting account of when it happened and what she was wearing, we have no video evidence, she admitted she didn't scream during the encounter to bring attention to the alleged assault, she didn't go to the police afterwards and she didn't write about it in her diary around the time it happened, instead waiting 20+ years later to write about it in a book she was trying to make money off of. Could it have happened? Sure, it's possible. Would I and down an $83M judgment over it? No way. Edited March 19 by Doc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 7 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: Coming for the OP next hopefully. Bump. See just below the part circled in red. Donald Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll. X Yes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 4 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Bump. See just below the part circled in red. Donald Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll. X Yes. They don't even read half the stuff they post. Ironically, I do and catch it every time. Comically, the preponderance of evidence part is in the red circle. Edited March 19 by daz28 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: No, we're saying we have no proof either happened. And again, all moral superiority went out the window with Slick back in 1992 and when Hilly used him to campaign for her. This is beautiful. We have, in just a few short pages, the classic Trump Descending Scale of Excuses. First: he didn't do it! He doesn't even know her! She wanted fame and to ruin Trump and a bunch of activists put her up to this. Second: he didn't "rape" her! He was found not liable for rape!! [upon being reminded that he was found liable for sexual assault by fat finger] Third: NY jurors are a bunch of Democratic Trump haters!! They'd find him guilty of anything put in front of them, regardless of the evidence!! Fourth: But Hillary! But Bill!! Finally (after NC Lab Tech finally fesses up that he is performatively "ignoring" me): You're a Commie !@#$ stain groomer pedo!! Edited March 19 by The Frankish Reich 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 22 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: This is beautiful. We have, in just a few short pages, the classic Trump Descending Scale of Excuses. First: he didn't do it! He doesn't even know her! She wanted fame and to ruin Trump and a bunch of activists put her up to this. Second: he didn't "rape" her! He was found not liable for rape!! [upon being reminded that he was found liable for sexual assault by fat finger] Third: NY jurors are a bunch of Democratic Trump haters!! They'd find him guilty of anything put in front of them, regardless of the evidence!! Fourth: But Hillary! But Bill!! Finally (after NC Lab Tech finally fesses up that he is performatively "ignoring" me): You're a Commie !@#$ stain groomer pedo!! By their logic, no one in history has ever gotten a fair jury trial, because people have an innate prejudice against criminals. For the trial to be legit, it should be by a jury of peers made up of only fellow criminals to avoid a bias. The solution? Trump can only be tried fairly if the AG, judge and jury are all ultra MAGA, and the trial is held in a rural area in a deep red state. Everyone else is a crooked democrat deep stater. This of course doesn't apply to the SCOTUS, especially if they find him immune to all crimes. Oy vey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted March 19 Share Posted March 19 7 minutes ago, daz28 said: By their logic, no one in history has ever gotten a fair jury trial, because people have an innate prejudice against criminals. For the trial to be legit, it should be by a jury of peers made up of only fellow criminals to avoid a bias. The solution? Trump can only be tried fairly if the AG, judge and jury are all ultra MAGA, and the trial is held in a rural area in a deep red state. Everyone else is a crooked democrat deep stater. This of course doesn't apply to the SCOTUS, especially if they find him immune to all crimes. Oy vey! Meanwhile, Trump drew probably the biggest Trump loyalist on the entire federal bench for his classified documents trail in Florida, and she continues to issue headscratchers of rulings that any fair observer can only describe as "results oriented." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: This is beautiful. We have, in just a few short pages, the classic Trump Descending Scale of Excuses. First: he didn't do it! He doesn't even know her! She wanted fame and to ruin Trump and a bunch of activists put her up to this. Second: he didn't "rape" her! He was found not liable for rape!! [upon being reminded that he was found liable for sexual assault by fat finger] Third: NY jurors are a bunch of Democratic Trump haters!! They'd find him guilty of anything put in front of them, regardless of the evidence!! Fourth: But Hillary! But Bill!! Finally (after NC Lab Tech finally fesses up that he is performatively "ignoring" me): You're a Commie !@#$ stain groomer pedo!! We know he was "found liable." Welcome to the party. The question was...how? Where is the smoking finger? Her words mean as little as Blasey-Ford's did. And we just had a case of a former Bills' punter being accused or rape...and then not. And sorry if Slick is an (always) inconvenient topic for you guys. But it won't stop me from continuing to bring him up when you talk about sexual assault, affairs and lecherous behavior. Edited March 20 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: We know he was "found liable." Welcome to the party. The question was...how? Where is the smoking finger? Her words mean as little as Blasey-Ford's did. And we just had a case of a former Bills' punter being accused or rape...and then not. And sorry if Slick is an (always) inconvenient topic for you guys. But it won't stop me from continuing to bring him up when you talk about sexual assault, affairs and lecherous behavior. When Alina is eventually fired or arrested(like every single lawyer for him EVER), you can take up the case, and tell the courtroom that you don't see any smoking fingers, so the jury should be executed and trump TODULLY IGZONHERATED!!!! Every single other allegation ever made about "Joke" Biden,on the other hand, HE DID IT. CM'ON MAN. Not enough evidence to bring a case, from a right wing special prosecutor, but i guess that's different. 2 tiered lawfare communist blah blah. I wonder if you guys even understand how sick people get of conspiracy after conspiracy, court case after court case that gets slapped down, but you just don't stop. Ya'll are persistent. I give you that much. Your boy had his day in court, and he lost. Look in the mirror tomorrow morning, and try to say, "he lost", because eventually you're going to have to accept the truth. Edited March 20 by daz28 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Aw. The farm can't grasp basic legal germs like guilt and liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 8 hours ago, daz28 said: When Alina is eventually fired or arrested(like every single lawyer for him EVER), you can take up the case, and tell the courtroom that you don't see any smoking fingers, so the jury should be executed and trump TODULLY IGZONHERATED!!!! Every single other allegation ever made about "Joke" Biden,on the other hand, HE DID IT. CM'ON MAN. Not enough evidence to bring a case, from a right wing special prosecutor, but i guess that's different. 2 tiered lawfare communist blah blah. I wonder if you guys even understand how sick people get of conspiracy after conspiracy, court case after court case that gets slapped down, but you just don't stop. Ya'll are persistent. I give you that much. Your boy had his day in court, and he lost. Look in the mirror tomorrow morning, and try to say, "he lost", because eventually you're going to have to accept the truth. Nice rant. The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed. So they went civil knowing a bunch of people dumb enough to not get out of jury duty and who hated Trump would rule against him despite no evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 On 3/20/2024 at 8:55 AM, Doc said: Nice rant. The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed. The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed Have you ever heard of statute of limitations? New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation Wednesday that extends the statute of limitations for certain cases of rape and other sex crimes. He was joined at the signing by actresses who have been active in the Time’s Up movement, which aims to combat sexual harassment. They included Julianne Moore, Mira Sorvino, Amber Tamblyn and Michelle Hurd. Under the new law, the statute of limitations for reporting second-degree rape increases to 20 years and third-degree rape increases to 10 years. Previously, both were five years. -This was in 2019 Are you still sure about this, "The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed"? Your last silly argument, "The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed", will not even be addressed beyond this, because it'a maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Lastly, let's put this whole thing to bed. Thanks to you having me do a little more research: Under New York Penal Law article 130, rape is defined as a non:consensual sexual intercourse with another person. Non:consensual sexual intercourse requires penetration of the victim’s anus, *****, or mouth by a penis, or any foreign object, without consent. So if he had of used his sharpie instead of his finger, it would have been rape, but ok I'll let you guys split that hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 10 minutes ago, daz28 said: Have you ever heard of statute of limitations? New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed legislation Wednesday that extends the statute of limitations for certain cases of rape and other sex crimes. He was joined at the signing by actresses who have been active in the Time’s Up movement, which aims to combat sexual harassment. They included Julianne Moore, Mira Sorvino, Amber Tamblyn and Michelle Hurd. Under the new law, the statute of limitations for reporting second-degree rape increases to 20 years and third-degree rape increases to 10 years. Previously, both were five years. -This was in 2019 Are you still sure about this, "The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed"? Your last silly argument, "The reason why this wasn't a criminal case is because it would have failed", will not even be addressed beyond this, because it'a maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Lastly, let's put this whole thing to bed. Thanks to you having me do a little more research: Under New York Penal Law article 130, rape is defined as a non:consensual sexual intercourse with another person. Non:consensual sexual intercourse requires penetration of the victim’s anus, *****, or mouth by a penis, or any foreign object, without consent. So if he had of used his sharpie instead of his finger, it would have been rape, but ok I'll let you guys split that hair. After looking more into it, yes, you are correct that the statute of limitations wouldn't have applied because it was beyond it, and moreover the change wasn't retroactive. I will admit my mistake. But while I've learned (after the OJ trial) not to be 100% confident of any verdict, yes I am still very confident a "not guilty" verdict would have been returned in a criminal trial for the reasons I mentioned. Quoting penal laws doesn't change anything for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 13 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Anyone who feels this way is free to GTFO of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 minute ago, Doc said: Anyone who feels this way is free to GTFO of the country. They're winning though. No incentive to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 15 minutes ago, Doc said: After looking more into it, yes, you are correct that the statute of limitations wouldn't have applied because it was beyond it, and moreover the change wasn't retroactive. I will admit my mistake. But while I've learned (after the OJ trial) not to be 100% confident of any verdict, yes I am still very confident a "not guilty" verdict would have been returned in a criminal trial for the reasons I mentioned. Quoting penal laws doesn't change anything for me. I'll agree about the stupid jury part you said earlier too, but it's the best system we have. Imagine being dumb enough to wear your own unique shoes to commit a crime, but being smart enough to drop an undersized glove, you happened to find on the way, makes you innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 37 minutes ago, daz28 said: I'll agree about the stupid jury part you said earlier too, but it's the best system we have. Imagine being dumb enough to wear your own unique shoes to commit a crime, but being smart enough to drop an undersized glove, you happened to find on the way, makes you innocent. I don't think it was undersized. I think he pretended it didn't fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daz28 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 Just now, Doc said: I don't think it was undersized. I think he pretended it didn't fit. Either way the jury was dumb. Luckily most criminals are dumb, or they'd be smart enough to leave 'exonerating evidence' behind every time. That wasn't me, I don't have a mustache! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted March 24 Author Share Posted March 24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts