I’ve read this judge’s opinion about a hundred times now. He can clarify to his heart’s content, that doesn’t change how the law works. It is *an opinion*, not a conviction. It does not make Trump “guilty” of anything.
Really not sure how you can not be convinced at this point when he has said on tape that he grabs them by the pussy. Then doubling down under sworn deposition saying that rich people get to do that historically.
The sheer amount of overwhelming evidence to show that he has done some horrible things to women is beyond dispute. The saying "You're free to your own opinions, just not your own facts" seems to be made just for you.
Lol the entitlement to think you know how the law works against an actual judge. Whom to trust, a judge who actually passed the bar or Foxi...
What does one thing have to do with the other? You’re talking about two completely disconnected events. Boasting about alleged sexual conquests is not uncommon.
I would like to see some overwhelming evidence that he’s done something to Jean E. Carroll specifically, since that’s what the case is about, but none was presented. What was presented was a tangled story, one where the alleged victim doesn’t know what day, month or year it happened with any degree of certainty, what she did before or after, whether she did or didn’t use the change room, one where she wore a dress that likely wasn’t even designed yet and didn’t hit the market until a couple years after her best guesstimate, one she kept and had analysed, but never submitted as evidence, and all of this was relayed to her friends and family, and everybody under the sun, except the police. Let’s not forget that she swears she was fired over the whole affair, except as it turns out she was fired due to pre-existing issues with her editor, which she admitted to when pressed further. The whole thing has so many inconsistencies and raises so many questions that without solid material evidence I simply cannot treat it as anything more than rumour. After such a long stretch of time it would be very hard to produce convincing evidence unless there’s some kind of paper trail or recording of that specific encounter, which there doesn’t seem to be.
It’s not even debatable, this is the judge’s opinion, to which he’s entitled to, but it’s not a conviction and the judge knows this. This was a civil matter. The judge has passed the bar, but you clearly haven’t since you don’t know what you’re reading. He can state his opinion in an interview, or even in an official opinion (which is conveniently labelled as such), that doesn’t make it material fact, let alone a conviction.
Lol the Dunning Krueger from the failed english teacher posting random cope in support of a rapist
A judgment. From a jury.
If you think Trump is guilty of rape then it should be no trouble at all to produce a guilty verdict and a conviction, they’re usually public record. I will eagerly await them. Until then, I am obviously in the right. You should read the header of the document you have initially provided.
You call them "sexual conquests", normal people call them sexual assault. That's pretty depraved.
Thankfully it’s only an anthill so I’m fairly safe from any risk of death, and 100% correct.
Men regularly say worse things in private to one another, and having distasteful discourse does not make one a rapist. “Chicks love when you do this or that” is standard affair and basic macho talk - I find it cringe personally, but I’m not the global arbiter of acceptable locker room talk. If you’d like to convince me that the man *raped someone*, which is a very serious allegation indeed, you’ll have to do a little better than “he said some mean things”. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Providing *a date* would be a good start, followed shortly by some evidence that the two met in private and *something could’ve happened*, we can work our way up from there. A photo from an unrelated gala doesn’t count - I meet hundreds of people in passing every single day and I will happily say that I don’t “know” them and haven’t “met” them even if I’m unknowingly (or, frankly, even knowingly - I don’t pay that much attention to strangers, I’ll just smile for the group photo when asked) photographed with many. That’s not what making an acquaintance means. All I have is an alleged location and some of her friends saying it totally happened - not good enough.
That's not what I asked.
It’s not a guilty verdict, that’s the bone of contention here. A guilty verdict entails no reasonable doubt. Civil liability does not. This is very simple stuff.
Basic reading comprehension and even a cursory understanding of the law inevitably leads one to conclude that people who haven’t been found guilty of a crime are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Since Trump was not found guilty of a crime, he was not convicted. Very, very simple stuff. You guys will be angrily seething about this to the end of time and even when they close Trump’s casket he will still not be a convicted rapist as you guys wrongly and pigheadedly insist.
Jean E. Carroll isn’t my sister and trying to manipulate my emotions by injecting family or friends into the equation will not result in a different answer. I might believe someone close to me implicitly because of who they are, but that’s not a good thing - it negatively affects judgement. I will not *know* if they are telling the truth until the facts of the case are laid bare. I would undoubtedly feel hurt and make a bunch of assumptions, which is precisely why it’d make me a bad arbiter. Jean E. Carroll is not trustworthy to me due to her track record of playing loosey goosey with the truth. She is a stranger to me so I have no emotional attachment, which is *good* when deciding someone’s fate. If she was my sister, daughter or friend then I sure as shit wouldn’t want to prosecute the alleged culprit, it would be impossible for me to give them a fair trial, recusing myself would be the move. Someone’s guilt is not contingent on me believing or not believing the alleged victim based solely on personal feeling, what I *feel* is completely immaterial. Feelings aren’t proof.
Even simpler stuff: civil matters exist and people can be found liable. I suppose it's too hard for you to understand.
*snort* the cognitive dissonance is real.
I’m not sure which part of “beyond reasonable doubt” is difficult to understand. That is the standard to which one must prove the alleged crime. That standard was not met, hence reasonable doubt.
It should be trivial to prove beyond reasonable doubt then, but that wasn’t the case, and at this point it’s a little late for it.
You seem to think you get to decide the standards, but you don't. Despite you being like a broken clock you managed to break the old adage: wrong even the two times you're supposed to be correct.
It's just performative nonsense on its part, as usual when wrong.Again, it just doesn't take for some people and there's nothing we'll be able to do about that
I'd say that in the real world, a jury, a judge and a court of appeal agreeing is well beyond reasonable doubt but hey, keep clinging to that paper-thin literal excuse.
