Crime Trump loses appeal against E Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation

[HomeCheese]

Im not sure why you keep going in circles. You ask me why Im not convinced and I explain that the evidence was weak or non existent, and even people who defend the verdict dont use the evidence, they just appeal to the verdict itself. Then you keep appealing to the verdict and ask me why I dont agree with it, and I say because there was little to no evidence. Then you appeal to the verdict again.

"Not enough evidence" is all I need. Then you could prove me wrong by bringing up the convincing evidence, but you cant because theres isnt any.

My argument is something doesnt exist (strong, compelling evidence from the prosecution ). The easiest way to prove me wrong is show that strong, compelling evidence from the prosecution exists, but you never do that. I cant show you more of something that doesnt exist. I cant point any more to the non existence of something other than to say that it doesnt exist. Someone might believe it exists. Some people believe Bigfoot exists. But its on the person arguing Bigfoot exists to show the person saying theres no convincing evidence, that said evidence does in fact exist. You're not doing that, for the reasons I've already said you can't do it. But then you keep doing exactly what Im saying you're gonna do. Then you ask me to repeat myself.

And, yes, I followed the case. I watched it while it was televised. I saw the witness statements and the evidence put forth.

Then why did the jury and various judges disagree with you?

 

[Bob Gray]

Then why did the jury and various judges disagree with you?

I dont think you know how this works. I cant read their minds and tell you what they thought. I can only look at the evidence myself and go from there.

You're choosing to not look at the evidence at all and say anyone who disagrees with the verdict is wrong.

 

[HomeCheese]

I dont think you know how this works. I cant read their minds and tell you what they thought. I can only look at the evidence myself and go from there.

You're choosing to not look at the evidence at all and say anyone who disagrees with the verdict is wrong.

Are you an attorney or trained via law school? Any relevant legal experience?

If not, I'd suggest you might be part of a cult and that you are inflected with a bad case of TDS.

I'll ask a simple question: Do you think Trump respects women as equals?

 

[Bob Gray]

Are you an attorney or trained via law school? Any relevant legal experience?

An attorney? No, but I have a degree in Administration of justice and worked as a paralegal for a few years. How about you? Whats your legal experience? I expect this question to be completely ignored.

If not, I'd suggest you might be part of a cult and that you are inflected with a bad case of TDS.

So you're just trolling now? How would I be the one with TDS?

I'll ask a simple question: Do you think Trump respects women as equals?

Why do you keep sperging into random topics? The only thing that matters is the evidence the prosecution presented.


You keep spiraling into other random areas that dont matter to my position. The prosecutions case was completely weak and this is the reason that you and other people never try to argue using the prosecutions case itself. Ever. This has been my point since the beginning and the only thing you do is keep reaffirming the point that I already made. You're proving my argument over and over again every time you post by asking random, stupid shit like whether Im an attorney or if Trump respects women.

 

[HomeCheese]

An attorney? No, but I have a degree in Administration of justice and worked as a paralegal for a few years. How about you? Whats your legal experience? I expect this question to be completely ignored.

So you're just trolling now? How would I be the one with TDS?

Why do you keep sperging into random topics? The only thing that matters is the evidence the prosecution presented.


You keep spiraling into other random areas that dont matter to my position. The prosecutions case was completely weak and this is the reason that you and other people never try to argue using the prosecutions case itself. Ever. This has been my point since the beginning and the only thing you do is keep reaffirming the point that I already made. You're proving my argument over and over again every time you post.

Why did the various judges and jury disagree with you? Why should I trust your opinion over theirs?

Not a lawyer at all but worked at the PD for a few semesters in college. Hardly relevant in this case. I base my opinion in the fact that Trump lost the case AND the various appeals. That's enough for me unless you can point to a conspiracy where they are all compromised.

Listen Bob, for you to be correct all these people need to in either stupid or involved in a conspiracy. We're talking various judges and a jury. It just seems really unlikely.

The fact that you believe you are correct and all these people are wrong suggest you see the world through orange colored glasses.

 

[Bob Gray]

Why did the various judges and jury disagree with you? Why should I trust your opinion over theirs?

Not a lawyer at all but worked at the PD for a few semesters in college. Hardly relevant in this case. I base my opinion in the fact that Trump lost the case AND the various appeals. That's enough for me unless you can point to a conspiracy where they are all compromised.

Listen Bob, for you to be correct all these people need to in either stupid or involved in a conspiracy. We're talking various judges and a jury. It just seems really unlikely.

The fact that you believe you are correct and all these people are wrong suggest you see the world through orange colored glasses.

lol. " Hardly relevant in this case", after YOU brought up the topic of legal experience. WTF?

I never asked you to trust my opinion. Ive asked you to present the compelling evidence the prosecution brought up in the trial, and I claimed that you would never do that because there isnt any and you'll keep pointing to the verdict as the only means of arguing that the verdict is sound. Its circular logic over and over again and the only thing you've done in this entire thread is do exactly what I predicted you'd do.


Just for reference, you disagree with the Rittenhouse verdict, right? Despite the jury saying he's not guilty, you dont agree with the verdict, correct?

 

[idrankyourbeer]

the typical chuds doing all they can do eat some more ass of their most adored fraudsters and rapists.

but but but whatabout kyle rittehhouse? and hunter's laptop? and the hindenberg? and the blue gatorades?

 

[Andy Capp]

the typical chuds doing all they can do eat some more ass of their most adored fraudsters and rapists.

but but but whatabout kyle rittehhouse? and hunter's laptop? and the hindenberg? and the blue gatorades?

Indeed.

The irony in here is thickened with the contents of Trump diapers.

 

[HomeCheese]

lol. " Hardly relevant in this case", after YOU brought up the topic of legal experience. WTF?

I never asked you to trust my opinion. Ive asked you to present the compelling evidence the prosecution brought up in the trial, and I claimed that you would never do that because there isnt any and you'll keep pointing to the verdict as the only means of arguing that the verdict is sound. Its circular logic over and over again and the only thing you've done in this entire thread is do exactly what I predicted you'd do.


Just for reference, you disagree with the Rittenhouse verdict, right? Despite the jury saying he's not guilty, you dont agree with the verdict, correct?

Look, you are the one claiming the verdict was incorrect so I wanted to understand if you had any legal knowledge which you don't. You got nothing but your own slanted, orange colored glasses opinion. I don't have to have an opinion because legal experts have already reviewed everything multiple times. Plus no one, including you, have presented anything improper being done at the tail or appeals.

Trump's legal team approved of the jury. Multiple appeals failed.

You still haven't offered any wrong doing by the jury or various judges.

I know you love Rittenhouse but if you go back and look at the thread I never made a stink of the verdict. It's clear he broke the law, he was at a riot after curfew. At the very least he should been convicted of reckless endangerment. You can't have idiot kids running off to the riots armed to the teeth. Just look how it turned out?

The adults in that idiot kid's life have failed him miserably. The fact that the maga idiots STILL love this kid puzzles me greatly. Just another toxic man crush for the maga dolts. Maga is toxic AF.

 

[Bob Gray]

Look, you are the one claiming the verdict was incorrect so I wanted to understand if you had any legal knowledge which you don't. You got nothing but your own slanted, orange colored glasses opinion. I don't have to have an opinion because legal experts have already reviewed everything multiple times. Plus no one, including you, have presented anything improper being done at the tail or appeals.

Trump's legal team approved of the jury. Multiple appeals failed.

You still haven't offered any wrong doing by the jury or various judges.

I know you love Rittenhouse but if you go back and look at the thread I never made a stink of the verdict. It's clear he broke the law, he was at a riot after curfew. At the very least he should been convicted of reckless endangerment. You can't have idiot kids running off to the riots armed to the teeth. Just look how it turned out?

The adults in that idiot kid's life have failed him miserably. The fact that the maga idiots STILL love this kid puzzles me greatly. Just another toxic man crush for the maga dolts. Maga is toxic AF.

Yeah. Im the one with the slanted view. The guy looking at the evidence as opposed to ignoring it.

I never said there was any "wrong-doing", you dolt. The system isnt perfect. I said the prosecution had virtually no evidence. Youve never once contested this adequately because you're deliberately ignorant of what the evidence actually is.

 

[that Indian]

This time line is shit

To me this is the more substantial story.

The complete normalization of this egotist, not only by his enablers but even the mainstream news media has accepted that it's just normal to swear in public, use elementary school lexicon (Big Beautiful Bill) and post memes that would be more appropriate for high school.

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Didn’t trump make a video with Giuliani in drag very similar to the events of this case?

 

[Confucamus]

You said there wasn't any evidence but there was. These are the "alternate facts" that maga clings to.

What makes you think he's not guilty? Because Trump said so?

I mean, Trump has bragged about doing this exact thing so it's not hard to believe he did it. The guys a creep in the first order, he even bragged about bursting into a dressing room full of teenagers.

Let me ask you a simple question: Do you think Trump respects women?

I'll repeat this because you ignored it.
Answer my question: You ever disagree with a jury's verdict before? You like to inject race into everything so I'm sure there's cases where you believe a black person was wrongfully convicted, am I right?

 

[Khaosan]

the typical chuds doing all they can do eat some more ass of their most adored fraudsters and rapists.

but but but whatabout kyle rittehhouse? and hunter's laptop? and the hindenberg? and the blue gatorades?

Debasing themselves daily all in the name of another man who hates them.

It's as equally pathetic as it is gay.

 

[Confucamus]

I know you love Rittenhouse but if you go back and look at the thread I never made a stink of the verdict. It's clear he broke the law, he was at a riot after curfew. At the very least he should been convicted of reckless endangerment. You can't have idiot kids running off to the riots armed to the teeth. Just look how it turned out?

The adults in that idiot kid's life have failed him miserably. The fact that the maga idiots STILL love this kid puzzles me greatly. Just another toxic man crush for the maga dolts. Maga is toxic AF.

So you know nothing about the Rittenhouse case, huh?

 

[jefferz]

lol. " Hardly relevant in this case", after YOU brought up the topic of legal experience. WTF?

I never asked you to trust my opinion. Ive asked you to present the compelling evidence the prosecution brought up in the trial, and I claimed that you would never do that because there isnt any and you'll keep pointing to the verdict as the only means of arguing that the verdict is sound. Its circular logic over and over again and the only thing you've done in this entire thread is do exactly what I predicted you'd do.


Just for reference, you disagree with the Rittenhouse verdict, right? Despite the jury saying he's not guilty, you dont agree with the verdict, correct?

buh buh buh Kyle Rittenhouse!

 

[HomeCheese]

Yeah. Im the one with the slanted view. The guy looking at the evidence as opposed to ignoring it.

I never said there was any "wrong-doing", you dolt. The system isnt perfect. I said the prosecution had virtually no evidence. Youve never once contested this adequately because you're deliberately ignorant of what the evidence actually is.

You say not enough evidence but the judges and jury disagree. You haven't offered anything other than your untrained opinion so yeah, I'll stick with the highly trained appellate court judges.

 

[HomeCheese]

I'll repeat this because you ignored it.
Answer my question: You ever disagree with a jury's verdict before? You like to inject race into everything so I'm sure there's cases where you believe a black person was wrongfully convicted, am I right?

Certainly it happens but none come to mind. Often it involves suppression of evidence or bad eye witness. Lots of cases are overturned during appeal or overturned because further evidence becomes available like DNA tests. As with the OJ trial, the prosecution messed up and the lead investigator was proven to be a lying racist if I remember correctly. So, one could point to problems with the trial.

Trump had a jury trial where his team approved of the jury. He lost. He had numerous appeals and lost them all.

What do you see that all these people are missing?

 

[HomeCheese]

So you know nothing about the Rittenhouse case, huh?

I know enough to understand you probably see a lot of yourself in that idiot man child.

Why does maga have such a man crush on that idiot kid?

 

[Bob Gray]

buh buh buh Kyle Rittenhouse!

Correct. The guy im quoting puts stock in verdicts, but I know he doesn't agree with that one. Im demonstrating to him that its possible to disagree with a verdict, because he does the same thing. Follow?