Election Do-Over!!!

[moke123]

The "victim" in the case was like "Yeah, I just thought he bumped into me"...it was beyond laughable except not particularly funny

 

[Jon]

If they cleared him of ra** charges, are they also not saying they think she lied? And if they think she lied in court, how can they trust anything she says? I've brought this up before but have as yet not had a satisfactory explanation.

 

[moke123]

It was a civil trial so he was not charged with ra** in the criminal sense. In any ra** case, one of the elements is penetration. The lack of a ra** kit or other physical evidence usually makes this element difficult to prove. First or Fresh complaint witnesses, the first people the victim tells after the incident, are given a great deal of deference in situations where the incident wasn't reported at the time. Trump was found liable (civilly) for sexual abuse, which an argument can be made is a lesser included in a ra** charge as one would be abusing before penetration is made. They are not saying she lied, only that the evidence didn't support the ra** allegation (i.e. lack of penetration) They wouldn't have found him liable if they thought she was lying, and I'm sure his "Locker room" talk didn't help matters either.

 

[Isaac]

It was a civil trial so he was not charged with ra** in the criminal sense. In any ra** case, one of the elements is penetration. The lack of a ra** kit or other physical evidence usually makes this element difficult to prove. First or Fresh complaint witnesses, the first people the victim tells after the incident, are given a great deal of deference in situations where the incident wasn't reported at the time. Trump was found liable (civilly) for sexual abuse, which an argument can be made is a lesser included in a ra** charge as one would be abusing before penetration is made. They are not saying she lied, only that the evidence didn't support the ra** allegation (i.e. lack of penetration) They wouldn't have found him liable if they thought she was lying, and I'm sure his "Locker room" talk didn't help matters either.

Do you think she has been totally truthful?

 

[Pat Hartman]

and I'm sure his "Locker room" talk didn't help matters either.

That is pretty hypocritical I'm sure. Men can be pigs when they get together and think they are not being overheard. I'm sure you have never, ever said anything that any woman or even a prudish man might find offensive. "Locker room" talk is just that. Talk about someone specific can cause harm because others might act on the "she's loose" type of commentary but non-specific talk, while still offensive to the person overhearing it, is otherwise just "boys" trying to determine whose you know what is bigger.

As I've said many times, the problem with this case is the law that was passed in 2022 that allowed Trump to be brought up on charges made by a useful idiot based on a story line from Law & Order.

 

[Jon]

It was a civil trial so he was not charged with ra** in the criminal sense. In any ra** case, one of the elements is penetration. The lack of a ra** kit or other physical evidence usually makes this element difficult to prove. First or Fresh complaint witnesses, the first people the victim tells after the incident, are given a great deal of deference in situations where the incident wasn't reported at the time. Trump was found liable (civilly) for sexual abuse, which an argument can be made is a lesser included in a ra** charge as one would be abusing before penetration is made. They are not saying she lied, only that the evidence didn't support the ra** allegation (i.e. lack of penetration) They wouldn't have found him liable if they thought she was lying, and I'm sure his "Locker room" talk didn't help matters either.

But isn't this a he said she said case? And a balance of probabilities? So, on the balance, they think she lied. As for the sexual assault charges, I don't see how they can say he assaulted her but didn't ra** her. If there was no evidence of ra**, how is there evidence of assault? And how is there evidence of her saying no?

To me, it seems that she made claims, Trump denied, but in New York Trump loses the case. Why? Because it is Trump and New York is liberal. Also, the #metoo movement has scrambled peoples minds into the "believe woman" theme, rather than the "believe the evidence" standard.

 

[moke123]

But isn't this a he said she said case?

Yes and no. There are also corroborating witnesses, her 2 friends she told when the incident occurred. They are generally referred to as First or Fresh complaint witnesses. They can testify as to what the alleged victim told them of the incident and additionally can testify as to the victims demeanor and actions at the time. Sometimes they help the case , sometimes not.

As far as the ra** allegation ( not sure I'd call it a charge as it's civil.) It's my understanding that there was some issue with the legal definition of ra** in NY. For instance some places consider digital penetration as ra** as others don't. The Judge did note that trump indeed raped her using the common definition rather than the narrow legal definition.

 

[Jon]

I know Biden's accuser had corroborating witnesses too.

To me, I just can't see how these cases can get tried fairly, Firstly, there is the obvious political tainting because it is in New York. But secondly, there is huge financial incentive for them to all collaborate. It is impossible for the defence to challenge their story when it happened so long ago. Perhaps that is why there is normally a statue of limitations, since if it was more recent, evidence might be more readily available. Also, memories are fresher.

Edit: Just noticed that the accuser (E. Jean Carroll) is a man-hater, having written a book, "What Do We Need Men For?" In it she creates a list called, “The Most Hideous Men of My Life.” This man-hating feminist just happens to be the Trump accuser. Is this more about her hating men and trying to enrich herself off a case where she can collaborate with friends? It is ranked under Feminist Theory and Genderal Gender Studies categories on Amazon. Says it all.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Perhaps that is why there is normally a statue of limitations, since if it was more recent, evidence might be more readily available. Also, memories are fresher.

Don't lose sight of the fact that this particular statute under which Trump was charged was added to the books in 2022 expressly so the useful idiot could accuse Trump and actually get him into court.

 

[Jon]

The timing sounds similar to the Kavanaugh case.

 

[AccessBlaster]

It could work..

 

[Pat Hartman]

They didn't actually bring a lawsuit against Kavanaugh. They just made unfounded accusations. For Trump, they actually went to the trouble of having the NY State legislature pass a bill that opened up the past for a ONE YEAR period where anyone could sue anyone else for ra** or simple sexual harassment and be sure the case would make it to a courtroom so that "justice" could be done.

 

[Isaac]

It could work..

View attachment 111615

Love it! they couldn't help but fall for it, it mixes something irrefutably logical with getting trump

 

[Steve R.]

The article below is sarcasm. Nevertheless, it points out an obvious truth; that the Democrats are using highly questionable legal tactics to remove Trump from the ballot instead of winning through the voting process. This is moving election rigging into plain sight territory. Democrats are the threat to democracy.

Democrats Disprove Claims They Will Covertly Rig Election By Rigging It In Plain Sight

AUGUSTA, ME — In a move designed to push back against criticism that they have a track record of rigging elections in secret, Democrats have now adopted a policy of rigging elections in broad daylight so everyone in the country can see it.

babylonbee.com

 

[Steve R.]

Iowa Entrance Poll: 68% Believe Biden Didn't Legitimately Win Election

Sixty-eight percent of Iowan caucusgoers do not believe Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election, while 30 percent think he did.

www.breitbart.com

The news article above is biased and quite superficial. Nevertheless, that 68% percent of "Iowan caucusgoers do not believe President Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 election, while 30 percent think he did, a CNN entrance poll found Monday evening." Does speak to the fact, that there still exists (three years later) a lot of healthy skepticism about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. As time progress, we are seeing evermore evidence that the election was "rigged". This belief is also reinforced by the Biden administration blatantly using its police powers in an illegitimate manner to "take-out" Trump and other Republicans in the coming election.

 

[AccessBlaster]

"Florida Man Facing 91 Criminal Counts Wins Iowa Caucuses"

 

[Pat Hartman]

For a while, the "Florida man" was winning in all counties, something that had never happened before. Looks like the Democrats got out the vote for Nikki as they promised they would to make sure that Trump didn't have the honor of sweeping Iowa

Maybe, Iowa will change the rules so that you only get to vote in the primary of the party to which you are registered. In fact, in Connecticut, the rules for voting in a primary are much stricter than for voting in a general election just to keep people from one party from polluting the election of a different party. I think the rule in CT is that you have to be registered with a party for THREE months in order to vote in that party's primary. You can register and vote in the general the same day

 

[AccessBlaster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1747368653203317099

 

[Steve R.]

Marlow: The Corporate Media and Big Tech Interfered in the 2020 Election, and ‘Breaking the News’ Provides Undeniable Proof

Before a single vote was cast, the 2020 election was baked into the cake. America’s political and media establishment were not going to let what happened to them in 2016 happen again.

www.breitbart.com

Yet, the election was manipulated in two critical ways: First, the government dishonestly used the coronavirus pandemic to make wholesale changes to our voting rules that made it easier for Democrats to amass ballots; and second, the establishment media combined with the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe swamped the public with misinformation and impaired voter’s access to true information, leaving them distracted and misinformed. Together, this is what delivered the election for Joe Biden.

Don’t take my word for it. TIME Magazine published an article in February of 2021 called “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election” which describes a vast effort by a network of partisan political operatives, union leaders, and business titans to create a mail ballot “revolution” to oust Trump.

The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election

For more than a year, a loosely organized coalition of operatives scrambled to shore up America’s institutions

time.com

 

[Pat Hartman]

I have been trying since 2020 to get my local election people interested in talking about ballot control. They are simply not interested. CT is so blue that they don't need to cheat to beat Trump. We are not a swing state but in 2020 I really thought Trump might win the state. As you know from the news last fall, we do have voter fraud here. Supporters of the sitting Mayor of Bridgeport stuffed the ballot boxes during the primary causing his challenger to loose.