Grand jury testimony is taken under oath. If testimony taken under oath in a court of law isn’t tangible evidence to you then you’re an idiot and part of the “both sides” problem. These people are actively dismantling our constitution and this idiot over here is pounding the table for a rape kit for a rape that took place on a private island years ago.
Dude, just because someone thinks another Democrat has a better chance at beating Trump doesn’t mean they are a “both sider.” Nor does it automatically make them an idiot. That is just reductive and dismissive on your part.
No one is saying Biden is just as bad as Trump, or Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. We’re saying Biden doesn’t have a chance at beating Trump and we need a stronger candidate.
They’ve got a candidate that can literally be criminally charged and it won’t matter. We’ve got a candidate who voter will stay home for because he’s old. That’s a huge problem.
I don’t have a problem with their estimation of the odds of winning an election. I have a problem with them dismissing any insinuation that the proven rapist is a proven rapist unless and until they see a rape kit or a video of a rape. That is some pre-Me Too, but what was she wearing, ignorant ass rapist apologist garbage and I won’t not call it out. Trump is a rapist. There is evidence. Judges and Juries of the United States have decided this, even without having to rely on a video or rape kit!
He’s definitely a rapist, no doubt about that. Appreciate you linking the case, too. But just because his being on Epsteins flight logs isn’t blowing up in the same way Biden getting pressured out of his campaign is blowing up, doesn’t mean the media is trying to get Trump elected. They’re advancing their own interests, for sure, and those interests are inherently capitalistic, but to say or infer this push to replace Biden is originating as a right wing media campaign to get Trump elected is just nonsense to me.
I did not say or infer that. I’m only responding to the “no rape kit = no rape” statement. No perspective on media coverage or fitness for presidency is intended to be inferred.
I didn’t even say that, it’s likely the rape happened, but without tangible evidence it sounds like every allegation against him. Testimony is simply more allegations and his voters won’t believe it. FWIW, he is already a civilly convicted rapist and it didn’t move the needle at all.
Testimony under oath is evidence. Federal rules of evidence article VI. If a court finds it credible (as the court did here), it is evidence. Not being familiar with the law is no excuse to spread incorrect information about whether or not the former president is a rapist.
It’s testimony, not evidence. No one has to believe it. And suddenly I’m an idiot and pounding the table? You wanted to know why the media is talking about Joe Biden and not Donald Trump and I gave you answer. The fact that “people are actively dismantling our constitution” is actually completely irrelevant to the facts. Trump is a known piece of trash and Biden should also know where he is. Both things can be true and the new dementia information is actually far more interesting to people and the media.
Testimony under oath is evidence. Federal rules of evidence article VI. If a court finds it credible (as the court did here), it is evidence. Not being familiar with the law is no excuse to spread incorrect information about whether or not the former president is a rapist.
Grand jury testimony is taken under oath. If testimony taken under oath in a court of law isn’t tangible evidence to you then you’re an idiot and part of the “both sides” problem. These people are actively dismantling our constitution and this idiot over here is pounding the table for a rape kit for a rape that took place on a private island years ago.
Dude, just because someone thinks another Democrat has a better chance at beating Trump doesn’t mean they are a “both sider.” Nor does it automatically make them an idiot. That is just reductive and dismissive on your part.
No one is saying Biden is just as bad as Trump, or Democrats are just as bad as Republicans. We’re saying Biden doesn’t have a chance at beating Trump and we need a stronger candidate.
They’ve got a candidate that can literally be criminally charged and it won’t matter. We’ve got a candidate who voter will stay home for because he’s old. That’s a huge problem.
I don’t have a problem with their estimation of the odds of winning an election. I have a problem with them dismissing any insinuation that the proven rapist is a proven rapist unless and until they see a rape kit or a video of a rape. That is some pre-Me Too, but what was she wearing, ignorant ass rapist apologist garbage and I won’t not call it out. Trump is a rapist. There is evidence. Judges and Juries of the United States have decided this, even without having to rely on a video or rape kit!
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/carroll-v-trump/
He’s definitely a rapist, no doubt about that. Appreciate you linking the case, too. But just because his being on Epsteins flight logs isn’t blowing up in the same way Biden getting pressured out of his campaign is blowing up, doesn’t mean the media is trying to get Trump elected. They’re advancing their own interests, for sure, and those interests are inherently capitalistic, but to say or infer this push to replace Biden is originating as a right wing media campaign to get Trump elected is just nonsense to me.
I did not say or infer that. I’m only responding to the “no rape kit = no rape” statement. No perspective on media coverage or fitness for presidency is intended to be inferred.
Sorry, you’re right. The original person you responded to was pushing back against someone saying
I didn’t even say that, it’s likely the rape happened, but without tangible evidence it sounds like every allegation against him. Testimony is simply more allegations and his voters won’t believe it. FWIW, he is already a civilly convicted rapist and it didn’t move the needle at all.
Testimony under oath is evidence. Federal rules of evidence article VI. If a court finds it credible (as the court did here), it is evidence. Not being familiar with the law is no excuse to spread incorrect information about whether or not the former president is a rapist.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+testimony+evidence+us+law
Tangible evidence is what I said. Not evidence. Not testimony. Tangible.
It’s testimony, not evidence. No one has to believe it. And suddenly I’m an idiot and pounding the table? You wanted to know why the media is talking about Joe Biden and not Donald Trump and I gave you answer. The fact that “people are actively dismantling our constitution” is actually completely irrelevant to the facts. Trump is a known piece of trash and Biden should also know where he is. Both things can be true and the new dementia information is actually far more interesting to people and the media.
I did not want to know about the media coverage.
Testimony under oath is evidence. Federal rules of evidence article VI. If a court finds it credible (as the court did here), it is evidence. Not being familiar with the law is no excuse to spread incorrect information about whether or not the former president is a rapist.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=is+testimony+evidence+us+law
Say it with me - there is substantiated evidence that Donald Trump is a rapist.
This entire comment thread was about media coverage. Find yourself another strawman.