21 hours ago, Credo said:

So, you support rape or you just want to blame Democrats for everything?

So you don't support the justice system?  Who's been found guilty of rape and whose accusations have been proven to be true in this case?  

19 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

You'd need to have proof that she didn't enjoy being sexually assaulted.  It doesn't sound like they have that.

I don't think the case is going to turn on that question. In fact I doubt that it will even be mentioned. This is a rape case.

20 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

You'd need to have proof that she didn't enjoy being sexually assaulted.  It doesn't sound like they have that.

Please. When someone makes an outlandish statement like that, it incumbent upon them to prove it. As is often pointed out to right wingers, it's impossible to prove a negative. If Trump claimed she enjoyed watching snuff films, would she have to prove that wrong? Very dubious that a jury is going to swallow the kind of guff that Truff spouts.

7 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

I don't think the case is going to turn on that question. In fact I doubt that it will even be mentioned. This is a rape case.

Absolutely.

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Please. When someone makes an outlandish statement like that, it incumbent upon them to prove it.

The point is, without evidence to refute it, the newspaper cannot know that it is a false claim.

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As is often pointed out to right wingers, it's impossible to prove a negative.

I'm sure left-wingers equally need to have this pointed out to them.

 

All the more reason not to make the claim.

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

If Trump claimed she enjoyed watching snuff films, would she have to prove that wrong?

I think they would need to prove she didn't if they wanted to say that it was a false claim.

 

A false claim is different to a false belief.  It implies deliberate deception, which is difficult to prove.

 

7 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Very dubious that a jury is going to swallow the kind of guff that Truff spouts.

Hopefully they will just look at the evidence and will have been screened for Trump Derangement Syndrome during selection.

2 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

The point is, without evidence to refute it, the newspaper cannot know that it is a false claim.

 

I'm sure left-wingers equally need to have this pointed out to them.

 

All the more reason not to make the claim.

 

I think they would need to prove she didn't if they wanted to say that it was a false claim.

 

A false claim is different to a false belief.  It implies deliberate deception, which is difficult to prove.

 

Hopefully they will just look at the evidence and will have been screened for Trump Derangement Syndrome during selection.

As I quoted to you, Trump explicitly based his allegation on a colossal misunderstand of what Carroll said in an interview. That's more than enough information to note his allegation was false.

25 minutes ago, placeholder said:

As I quoted to you, Trump explicitly based his allegation on a colossal misunderstand of what Carroll said in an interview. That's more than enough information to note his allegation was false.

Are you a judge now? You have no idea what really happened.

8 minutes ago, bignok said:

Are you a judge now? You have no idea what really happened.

Trump specifically cited and misrerpresented what Carroll had said in an interview. What could be plainer than simpler than that?

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Trump specifically cited and misrerpresented what Carroll had said in an interview. What could be plainer than simpler than that?

Lucky you aren't a judge. 

Trump is pissed cuz she did not piss on him

20 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Ah, you found him guilty already! LOL.

 

 

All these Democrat supporters do. They have judges and juries for a reason.

Please keep it civil and on topic:

 

A Trump Civil Trial Is About to Start. It’s a Nightmare for Him.

 

Don't be surprised to have your post removed if you ignore the above.

7 minutes ago, bignok said:

Lucky you aren't a judge. 

Actually, it's going to be a jury that's going to render a verdict. Do you think that they should all be judges? And it's utterly ridiculous to invoke the need for a judge on  a simple matter of fact. What don't you understand about the fact that Trump cited a specific interview and got the facts about it wrong?

If Trump wins it's a huge win. Adds to his claim it's all political.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Actually, it's going to be a jury that's going to render a verdict. Do you think that they should all be judges? And it's utterly ridiculous to invoke the need for a judge on  a simple matter of fact. What don't you understand about the fact that Trump cited a specific interview and got the facts about it wrong?

Either way it's not people on the web taking rough guesses.

1 minute ago, bignok said:

Either way it's not people on the web taking rough guesses.

What guesses are being taken? Trump explicitly an interview with Carroll to justify has claim that she enjoyed being raped. In the interview itself she said exactly the opposite.

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

What guesses are being taken? Trump explicitly an interview with Carroll to justify has claim that she enjoyed being raped. In the interview itself she said exactly the opposite.

Post a link.

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

Post a link.

Actually, the link was already posted by someone else and then I extracted a quote from it. Right here in this thread.

"Now 79, Carroll has said Trump raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in midtown Manhattan in late 1995 or early 1996"

 

Her claims sound weak. She can't even remember the date!

 

I'd throw it out if court if she can't get the date right.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-carroll-trial-1.6816374

1 minute ago, bignok said:

"Now 79, Carroll has said Trump raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in midtown Manhattan in late 1995 or early 1996"

 

Her claims sound weak. She can't even remember the date!

 

I'd throw it out if court if she can't get the date right.

 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-carroll-trial-1.6816374

She saved a dress from the incident which supposedly has semen stains on it. Trump claims he never met her.

Baiting troll post removed. Carry on and receive a warning

Just now, placeholder said:

She saved a dress from the incident which supposedly has semen stains on it. Trump claims he never met her.

But can't remember which month. I can remember what month I flew to Samui the first time. Her case sounds weak to me.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

As I quoted to you, Trump explicitly based his allegation on a colossal misunderstand of what Carroll said in an interview. That's more than enough information to note his allegation was false.

No.  If he misunderstood then it isn't false, it's simply incorrect.  He has to be knowingly lying for it to be a false claim.

1 minute ago, BangkokReady said:

No.  If he misunderstood then it isn't false, it's simply incorrect.  He has to be knowingly lying for it to be a false claim.

Given the woman is unsure of both month and year I don't know why people expect Trump to remember everything. T is 100x more busy than her. An alleged crime without precise date or location doesn't sound strong to me. I can remember stuff from 1991, band, night and what happened.

34 minutes ago, bignok said:

But can't remember which month. I can remember what month I flew to Samui the first time. Her case sounds weak to me.

Your reasoning looks weak to me. And if the DNA confirms a sexual encounter with Trump? Which he has vehemently and repeatedly denied. Of course, he still denies that anything happened between him and Stormy Daniels.

31 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

No.  If he misunderstood then it isn't false, it's simply incorrect.  He has to be knowingly lying for it to be a false claim.

What can I say to that but FALSE!

First definition of false:

not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+false&oq=definition+of+false&aqs=chrome..69i57.2502j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Nothing to do with intent.

And for public figures the standard is either malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Your reasoning looks weak to me. And if the DNA confirms a sexual encounter with Trump? Which he has vehemently and repeatedly denied. Of course, he still denies that anything happened between him and Stormy Daniels.

So if this or that. Not much of case.

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What can I say to that but FALSE!

First definition of false:

not according with truth or fact; incorrect.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+false&oq=definition+of+false&aqs=chrome..69i57.2502j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Nothing to do with intent.

And for public figures the standard is either malice or reckless disregard for the truth.

 

 

 

What is the truth?

1 minute ago, bignok said:

So if this or that. Not much of case.

What defamation case, or far that matter any legal case in dispute, is there in which "if this or that" doesn't play a key role?

2 minutes ago, bignok said:

What is the truth?

Well, it's certainly not about irrelevance which is what characterizes your comment here.