Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

You mean, the opinions that you don't like, and incessantly try to belittle?

Pot...kettle.



Not to mention the reason I post my opinions. It's not to make me feel right or correct, it's so they can be challenged.


Can you say the same?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Oh? Do explain. Proof and testimony are two different things, but I'm ready to explore this novel notion of yours.

Uh, no. The evidence and testimony I'm referring to in this scintillating case are two different things. I never mentioned proof.

The physical evidence the brilliant Alina Hobba failed to properly provide is entered into the record in a specified manner, testimony is something a witness provides.

This specified manner. Like credibility of say the accuser?

Agreed. You can differentiate all you wish, point is and continues to be is that the only evidence in this case is testimony.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Do you understand that if someone says something that they believe to be true that it cannot be defamation?

The problem is, the right people didn't believe Trump wasn't lying. He got caught in lies too many times. Too bad he refused to submit his DNA, which would have proved he wasn't there, right?

Wait, you keep changing your story Sookie.

Yesterday you told me it was the courts fault.

Two weeks or so ago, you told me it wasn't allowed.


I see a some projection happening here....

originally posted by: JinMI
This specified manner. Like credibility of say the accuser?

Uh, no, in the manner that the Judge had to mansplain to her because she obviously didn't know how to do it.

You can differentiate all you wish, point is and continues to be is that the only evidence in this case is testimony.

Which the jury found sufficient to convict on. Too bad the defendant didn't participate in the first trial or provide his exonerating (AHAHAHAHA) DNA.

This defense has the fingerprints of multiple idiots all over it. Now, ask yourself, which of them was the biggest idiot?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You see?

You didn't mention "proof".

Your posts are being twisted and misrepresented.

It's their MO.

No, he did not mention proof nor did I claim he did. I'm offering perhaps there may be some confusion.


It is funny, and in your prolific nature, that you accuse others of what you yourself do.

a reply to: JinMI

Pretty sure that you are obsessed with having to be "right' all the time.

Me? Happy to have my opinions challenged.

I can and have admitted to being wrong on occasions.

It's just that when my opinions are totally misrepresented and then challenged falsely, I grow tired of such tedious games.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Uh, no, in the manner that the Judge had to mansplain to her because she obviously didn't know how to do it.

I noticed you're just repeating yourself now? Sucks when you can't find the factual nature to your opinions, doesn't it?

Which the jury found sufficient to convict on. Too bad the defendant didn't participate in the first trial or provide his exonerating (AHAHAHAHA) DNA.

This defense has the fingerprints of multiple idiots all over it. Now, ask yourself, which of them was the biggest idiot?

I see you also fell into the same trap Sookie did, that happens when you don't apply any critical thinking Auggie.

Trump offers DNA to compare to accusers dress.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Pretty sure that you are obsessed with having to be "right' all the time.

Lets pretend that's the case.


Why do I not only own when I'm wrong, but insist on putting my opinions out for the site to tear apart?

Logic can be your guide here if you chose to utilize it....

a reply to: JinMI

www.rev.com...

www.rev.com... edDeeplink&ts=2375.04

Have at it.

a reply to: quintessentone

Broken. It's titled "all released transcripts" so I'm assuming there's not much new there but thanks for looking.

originally posted by: JinMI
I noticed you're just repeating yourself now? Sucks when you can't find the factual nature to your opinions, doesn't it?

It is 100% factual that the judge had to explain to her how to enter evidence, among other courtroom admonishments. Are you not aware this occurred? Do you need to see it from the court reporting or what you call 'transcripts'?

I see you also fell into the same trap Sookie did, that happens when you don't apply any critical thinking Auggie.

Too bad either him, his legal team or both of them are too stupid to have done this at the FIRST TRIAL where it would have been admitted into evidence.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

What a bunch of dolts they are. Hobba is Sidney Powell level stupid.

Here, read how amazing of an attorney she is:

Habba: Many people called you a liar before the President made his statement -

Carroll's lawyer: She's not asking a question.

Habba: I wasn't finished. It says, "You're a pathetic old hag"

Judge Kaplan: It's not in evidence.

Habba: I'm trying to get it in.

Judge Kaplan: No, we are not going to read out loud a document not yet in evidence. We are going to take a break right here to 3:30 and you're going to refresh your memory about how you get a document in.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It is 100% factual that the judge had to explain to her how to enter evidence, among other courtroom admonishments. Are you not aware this occurred? Do you need to see it from the court reporting or what you call 'transcripts'?

I saw a judge that used every opportunity to keep evidence out of this trial and demean the defense at every turn, yes.

What's your point again?

Too bad either him, his legal team or both of them are too stupid to have done this at the FIRST TRIAL where it would have been admitted into evidence.

Oh, so they did try then....in February of 2023 (gotta check those dates Auggie!).


ETA to your ETA:

You realize this was in response to a "door that was opened" by the petitioners..right?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No. Sorry. I'm not having that. Habba is just put of her depth. Sydney (and Rudi) took stupid to a whole new level.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Broken. It's titled "all released transcripts" so I'm assuming there's not much new there but thanks for looking.

I don't think all are released yet. It's all we have so far.

Mark: 35:56 - the expert on grabbing p**sy speaks

originally posted by: JinMI
I saw a judge that used every opportunity to keep evidence out of this trial and demean the defense at every turn, yes.

What's your point again?

My point is read the exchange between Trump's awesome attorney and the judge that I put above.

Oh, so they did try then....in February of 2023 (gotta check those dates Auggie!).

The date is irrelevant as he never provided it at the FIRST TRIAL. Him mouthing about it is not providing it. I know for sure if I didn't have my lovely DNA all over some rape accuser's dress, I'd provide it post haste, unlike Trump. Sucks to be him.

a reply to: quintessentone

Good, catch up.

There doesn't seem to be anything new here man.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

My point is read the exchange between Trump's awesome attorney and the judge that I put above.

And? I thought it was much worse that Habba couldn't bring in Carrolls character and history since he also didn't allow physical evidence.

You want to take digs on all the lawyers, have at it.

The date is irrelevant as he never provided it at the FIRST TRIAL. Him mouthing about it is not providing it. I know for sure if I didn't have my lovely DNA all over some rape accuser's dress, I'd provide it post haste, unlike Trump. Sucks to be him.

Me too. Mostly because I do not possess the resources to defend myself in this case. As well as you have done I doubt you do as well.


Do you take issue with the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Oh? Do explain. Proof and testimony are two different things, but I'm ready to explore this novel notion of yours.

Uh, no. The evidence and testimony I'm referring to in this scintillating case are two different things. I never mentioned proof.

The physical evidence the brilliant Alina Hobba failed to properly provide is entered into the record in a specified manner, testimony is something a witness provides.

This specified manner. Like credibility of say the accuser?

Agreed. You can differentiate all you wish, point is and continues to be is that the only evidence in this case is testimony.

We need to hear from jury members as to exactly what tipped them over to Carroll's side, there's a lot more going on than just testimony.

originally posted by: JinMI
And? I thought it was much worse that Habba couldn't bring in Carrolls character and history since he also didn't allow physical evidence.

Probably because you haven't come to grips with the fact that Trump and his legal team missed the chance to contest the evidence and testimony. Maybe one day it will sink in.

You want to take digs on all the lawyers, have at it.

Not all, just Habba, and I don't need your permission to make fun of that dolt.

Me too. Mostly because I do not possess the resources to defend myself in this case. As well as you have done I doubt you do as well.

It may have never even gone to trial if Trump provided his DNA without stipulation, but he didn't, too bad, so sad.

Do you take issue with the notion of innocent until proven guilty?

Not at all, but it appears you take issue with people being find guilty by a jury.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Oh? Do explain. Proof and testimony are two different things, but I'm ready to explore this novel notion of yours.

Uh, no. The evidence and testimony I'm referring to in this scintillating case are two different things. I never mentioned proof.

The physical evidence the brilliant Alina Hobba failed to properly provide is entered into the record in a specified manner, testimony is something a witness provides.

This specified manner. Like credibility of say the accuser?

Agreed. You can differentiate all you wish, point is and continues to be is that the only evidence in this case is testimony.

We need to hear from jury members as to exactly what tipped them over to Carroll's side, there's a lot more going on than just testimony.

That's almost impossible I think you'd agree.

What else besides testimony? Even speculating, lets hear it.