Reply With Quote
says the guy that just got the golden shower.
Again no one claimed certainty of merit. FWD is trying to have a discussion not a pissing contest, dimwit. Try acting over the age of 14.
says the guy that just got the golden shower.
i think cowboy has a horse in this race. i didn't think you'd pick.
The rehab facility where he will reportedly receive treatment specializes in sex addiction, separates patients by gender, and does not allow cell phones.
okaaay. He is being sued for raping a 13 year old, and the important thing is whether we call an event at a courthouse a "conference" or "trial"?
Which is more important, the charges or what the action taking place at the courthouse is called?
Again, I'm not here to dispute the allegations, which don't seem so far-fetched to me. But there is a really significant difference between an initial status conference, which one gets basically by having filed a complaint and maybe surviving a threshold motion to dismiss (in which everything is presumed in favor of the plaintiff/accuser), and a trial setting, which one gets only after conducting discovery and affirmatively demonstrating (usually by resisting dispositive motions) that there is at least some merit to the allegations.
In the law, those are two very, very different proceedings that take place at two very, very different stages of litigation.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 11-03-2016 at 09:27 AM.
lol.
It is really interesting the way political leanings on this site (even from the most rational posters) trend EXACTLY with whether or not one believes allegations made against a person.
In a nuts : Trump is accused of raping a 13 year old girl. The timing of the accusation is inconvenient for the Trump campaign, but that certainly does not mean the accusation has no merit. If FWDT says it doesn't get this far without merit, I believe him. However, Trump is innocent until proven guilty. Any honest person would recognize that the odds of THAT happening are very slim. Donald Trump will not go to jail for raping a 13 year old 20 years ago. I would be willing to bet the bulk of my retirement savings on that statement.
The action taking place at the courthouse is clearly more important at this point.
I haven't said that; I've said that there's a significant difference -- relating to the ferreting out of the merits of the claim -- between an initial status conference and a trial setting. I have no idea about the merits of the claim, but as I've said, I personally don't find the allegations to be far-fetched.If FWDT says it doesn't get this far without merit, I believe him.
The point I made earlier relates to this.
Hillary has been investigated over and over again by those who oppose her politically without anyone ever reaching a conclusion that her purported misdeeds require further legal action - civilly or criminally. Yet, somehow, we're supposed to take the aggregation of these investigations and conclude that the fact of the investigations alone (and their number) is proof that she's crooked, even though none of them have shown her guilty of anything.
At the same time, we're supposed to permit the legal process to run its course on the allegations against Trump and presume him innocent until proven guilty.
I don't get that.
it's important in the context where you stated we'd be getting "testimony given under oath" and therefore will "find out won't we"
typing in larger font doesn't change that
trump wont be going to prison over this because its a lawsuit not a criminal case.
i get it. its called hypocrisy. and then even they double down on hypocrisy by then saying "look at how hypocritical THEY are"
wanna be internet debate judge gives his verdict. He's going to ride Trump's .
Allegations from 20 years ago? This will get tossed out again just like it was before. Libs getting desperate now for a distraction from the criminal they support.
Grab it her to young..
Doesn't really answer the question and shifts direction. Sophism, per par.
Do you think offering sophistic arguments is more or less convincing than being honest and forthright?
So when does this Jerry Springer trial take place?
I'm just gonna use the "He raped. Period." line even though i have no evidence.
If you want honesty and forthrightness I have a hard time understanding why you're supporting Hillary.
It's an easy time to see why you are supporting dishonest, secretive Trash.
Do you think offering sophistic arguments is more or less convincing than being honest and forthright?
Also not really an answer.
I guess we can therefore assume you think being dishonest is more convincing. Shocker.
Why do you think the right has to lie so much to make their case?
I honestly don't know.
Given Trump's behavior and sense of en lement when it comes to females, I am far less inclined to simply dismiss anything. Bear in mind this is a civil trial. Given the age of the charges, I would posit the statute of limitations is long passed.
I give CC's position that this is somehow motivated by greed or something a modest chance, given the target's wealth. They could be seeking to settle for a good chunk of change.
OTH, the person making the charges could simply be saying to herself "at last someone will believe me" as so many of the Cosby accusers have said. This is often the case with victims of sexual assualt, i.e. they wait a long time, especially given the legal/society environment of 20 years ago.
If anything the age of the charges speaks, in my mind, volumes because of that. I grant the possibility that it is made up, but both the timing ("I don't want to see the man who attacked me elected president") and the age ("maybe now someone will believe my story") indicate a pretty good chance of this being truthful, over simple opportunism ("he has a lot of money, so I'm going to try and get some")
Since there is no solid evidence as yet, that is about everything anyone can say, and that with no real degree of certainty.
Not a single mention of Norm Lubow?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
