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.
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.