Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

a reply to: JinMI

Absolutely. Do we consider the source as a matter of principal when evaluating testimony?

HAHA..."Absolutely, but also, subjectively", (I paraphrase)

But that's likely to change depending on who is the target and what the news tells you to feel that day.

See, this is where your hypothesis, that reality must have tangible evidence, gets tricky. Now we're out of the realm of what's tangible, and we find ourselves right back where we started, in the subjective realm of opinion.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Where did you read this? i didnt get ANYTHING of what you are talking about. The article I posted was from a AMERICAN courts system describing how a american system chooses jurors. No you are using the wrong link if you are saying canadian or its linking you to the wrong information. What browser you using?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

HAHA..."Absolutely, but also, subjectively", (I paraphrase)

Not subjectively. Subject to scrutiny. You do know the difference...right?

See, this is where your hypothesis, that reality must have tangible evidence, gets tricky. Now we're out of the realm of what's tangible, and we find ourselves right back where we started, in the subjective realm of opinion.

That is this entire case.

But, lets play your game where all three exist and are the manner of proof.

Trump was accused of rape, which he denied.
A jury found that he did not rape her.
Defamation doesn't exist if the statements made are true.

So, based on your own logic, then Trump is absolved.

But now you're gonna say "nuh-uh" because you are a hypocrite and can not remain consistent.

Why can't you be consistent?

a reply to: JinMI

Not subjectively. Subject to scrutiny. You do know the difference...right?

There's no difference. Scrutiny is subjective. It's not tangible. Scrutiny suggests an outcome that is a non-tangible subjective opinion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Not subjectively. Subject to scrutiny. You do know the difference...right?

There's no difference. Scrutiny is subjective. It's not tangible. Scrutiny suggests an outcome that is a non-tangible subjective opinion.

By that logic, then testimony is not tangible therefore not evidence.

Remember that thing I said about consistency?

a reply to: JinMI

Trump was accused of rape, which he denied.
A jury found that he did not rape her.
Defamation doesn't exist if the statements made are true.

Lets' scrutinize that.

Trump was accused of sexually assaulting E Jean Carroll. She says that he pulled down her panty hose and digitally penetrated her.

The state’s law says that a person is liable for rape when a person forces sexual intercourse with another person without their consent. For the purposes of this law, “sexual intercourse” means “any penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vaginal opening.”

Legally, Trump didn't rape E Jean Carroll. But the jury didn't find she lied, either.
They believed her.
Defamation occurred.

a reply to: JinMI

By that logic, then testimony is not tangible therefore not evidence.

No. Logically, reality doesn't require tangible evidence to exist.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Trump was accused of sexually assaulting E Jean Carroll. She says that he pulled down her panty hose and digitally penetrated her.

False.

Thus why I showed you the document filed where he was accused of...rape.

The same thing he was found not liable for by a jury....

Therefore what he said was true and can't be defamation.

Scrutinize away.

Legally, Trump didn't rape E Jean Carroll.

Nor was he liable.

Thus what he said was true and can't by definition be defamation.

Thanks for playing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

By that logic, then testimony is not tangible therefore not evidence.

No. Logically, reality doesn't require tangible evidence to exist.

Those religious folks you are always disparaging will be happy to hear this from you.

a reply to: JinMI

Rapes happen every day, and most of the time there is no tangible evidence. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape.

Thus what he said was true and can't by definition be defamation.

There is no tangible evidence that what Trump said was true (reality).
If Trump would have merely denied raping her, he wouldn't have been sued for defamation.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Rapes happen every day, and most of the time there is no tangible evidence. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape.

Agreed.

So lets find ways to make sure our law enforcement is solving those and not spending finite resources on this eh?

There is no tangible evidence that what Trump said was true (reality).

Sure. Yet a jury said he didn't rape her and that was her claim.

If Trump would have merely denied raping her, he wouldn't have been sued for defamation.

You're gonna wanna read that document again. Your facts are off the mark.

a reply to: JinMI

So lets find ways to make sure our law enforcement is solving those and not spending finite resources on this eh?

Again, rape happens every day, and there's no tangible evidence. That's not to say a rape didn't happen. Accused rapists that actually did it, get away with rape all the time.

Sure. Yet a jury said he didn't rape her and that was her claim.

And, turns out, to the jury, the difference between sexual assault and rape were a few inches. The jury's findings were not because he didn't try. They found that he did.

Your facts are off the mark.

Trump remarks about E Jean Carroll went so far off the mark of simply denying the rape, that they added $65 million just in punitive damages.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Now you're just throwing crap at the wall.


Simply put, no rape, therefore no defamation.

It really is that cut and dry.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Now you're just throwing crap at the wall.


Simply put, no rape, therefore no defamation.

It really is that cut and dry.

No you're over simplyfying and taking things out of context in a poor reductio ad absurdum attempt

He didn't rape her but he was found guilty of sexual assault by digitally penetrating her so defamation occured. Hence the findings of the jury and ruling by the judge.

Trump claimed she was a liar, that he never met her (despite all their pictures together) and claimed he never sexually assaulted her despite having been found guilty of sexually assaulting her and he still claimed she had made everything up and the whole thing was fiction

If he'd have kept his mouth shut intead of going out of his way to libel and slander her then this trial would never have happened.

The issue here is that Carrol accused Trump of raping her and there is literally no evidence that happened.
Trump response to her accusing him of rape is entirely understandable. If anything, it is Carroll that should be facing serious consequences for a false accusation, but in the crazy and corrupt world of the USA's new banana republic, what now matters is who is accusing who and who is complaining about the accusation. Justice no longer exists, only politics.
The courts have been totally corrupted and I think it is too late to remedy.
Americans lost their country, basically, because they were too slow to realise what was happening.

a reply to: bastion

He didn't rape her

Exactly

No rape, no defamation.

a reply to: UKTruth

Did she make those claims before or after the initial trial where he was found guilty of sexual assault but not guity of raping her in a court of law.

If she continued to claim he raped her after the initial trial then she would be liable and an easy defamation case for Trump.

Trump continued to claim he never met her and never sexually assaulted her after the court ruling, hence why he's guilty of defamation. The ammount is still eccesive though and three times the ammount Carols lawyers had asked for so he could appeal and get the ammount reduced to $27m if my limited understanding of US courts is correct.

(qualified in UK libel laws but have a poor understanding of US defamation laws apart from they're far less strict than UK law and doesn't work on the guilty until proven innocent system used in the UK.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: bastion

He didn't rape her

Exactly

No rape, no defamation.

That's not how defamation laws work, hence the courts ruling.

You're ignoring the fact he claimed he never met her or sexually abused her after the court findings and plenty of pictures of them together.

It's clear defamation with Trump libelling and slandering her after being found guilty in a court of law - hence the really easy win for Carrol's lawyers.

If he'd have kept his mouth shut and accepted the initial court ruling he wouldn't have been in this situation.

a reply to: bastion

So we can defame people when they say true things.

Solid logic.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: bastion

So we can defame people when they say true things.

Solid logic.

Again you're ignoring the fact Trump claimed he never met her after the court ruling, multiple pictures of them together and he claimed never to have sexually assaulted her despite being found guilty of digitally penetrating her in court.

Both are lies by Trump about a situation that has been establihed as fact in court - hence why he was found guilty of defamation.

If he'd have stuck to thing that were true or things he had a reasonable suspicion were true then he'd never have been on trial - instead he continued to lie and defame her, against prior court rulings hence why he was found guilty of defamation.

You're using poor logic attempts at reductio ad aburdum while ignoring what actually happened in the court cases. Its worth studying the laws of logic before claiming other people have poor logic, that way you'll understand what logic laws are relevant to the subject at handy and why the one you''re trying to use isn't applicable to this case.


# in = # out in logic. The input needs to relevant to the court case and its finding otherwise you''ll always get a false answer using logical methodology. By ignoring what actually happened in court and why the final ruling was made you're always going to get a wrong answer as the initial input is false.

Sham case set in place by the liberal agenda.
The lady is a nut ball who’s own actions an memories call it all into question.