This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Bias against Trump
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Matov  10 May 23 5.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace99
I'll try to help a little. The main part of the case was the defamation element - Trump accused her of lying. He could have said it was consensual, he did not, he said it never happened. As 'evidence' she brought in 3 friends who backed up her story as she told them over 20 years ago. There was also evidence from other woman who claimed Trump did similar to them e.g. woman sitting next to Trump on a flight. Trump claimed he never meet her and she was not his type. A photo showed them together which he also confused with one of his former wives. So much for not being his type. In terms of the rape element i think under cross examination she claimed whilst something penetrated her she didn't actually see his dick - guess he pushed her against the wall and did it from behind. Trump chose not to offer any witnesses or attend. Historic claims are always one word against another, there is usually no 'evidence'. Do you think Barry Bennell, Jimmy Saville, Harvey Weinstein are sex offenders? Edited by palace99 (10 May 2023 4.05pm) LOL. A perfect example of the cope. The Trump 2024 campaign team thanks you.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 10 May 23 5.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
The cope from many on the left is beyond bizarre about this. Because the contradiction contained within this verdict is simply more and more difficult to comprehend as time goes on. A victim claims rape. The jury decide not to believe her (because the case is simply a case of her word v his) but say that she was sexually assaulted. You cannot even make an argument about weighing up the evidence because there is none. Nada. Just her word about it. So it all boils down to if you believe her claim about the rape or not. Everything else is merely secondary. Trump is either guilty of raping her or he is not. There is nothing else on the line here. Bloody strange turn of events. I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this. The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was. You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself. Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we? JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 10 May 23 5.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this. The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was. You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself. Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we? JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault. That is possibly because the CIA were covering up his dirty secrets while the FBI were watching his every move. That might have had a direct relationship to his assassination. I suppose you think that the highly suspicious death of Marilyn Monroe was also just another conspiracy theory. Maybe be it was maybe not, but I know this for sure. Trump is the victim of a witch hunt, just like he says. Only a blind moron can't see that.
|
|
| georgenorman 10 May 23 5.43pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this. The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was. You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself. Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we? JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault. Bill Clinton didn't actually get charged with rape either ...
|
|
| palace99 New Mills 10 May 23 5.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
LOL. A perfect example of the cope. The Trump 2024 campaign team thanks you. I bet you voted for Brexit - how is that going? I presume you mean coup? Based on your logic the Savilles and Weinsteins of this world were perfectly innocent too as there was no physical evident or eye witnesses. Bizarrely that's how rape/sexual assault is committed.
|
|
| Stirlingsays 10 May 23 6.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace99
I bet you voted for Brexit - how is that going? I presume you mean coup? Based on your logic the Savilles and Weinsteins of this world were perfectly innocent too as there was no physical evident or eye witnesses. Bizarrely that's how rape/sexual assault is committed. That is rarely the case with rape. This is a case based entirely on 'believe me bro' which has succeeded.....it shows precisely where the US are now. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 May 2023 6.07pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 10 May 23 6.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by palace99
I bet you voted for Brexit - how is that going? I presume you mean coup? Based on your logic the Savilles and Weinsteins of this world were perfectly innocent too as there was no physical evident or eye witnesses. Bizarrely that's how rape/sexual assault is committed. I hope you never do jury service. You have just denied the first rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 10 May 23 6.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Donald, steely for once supports you I think its b****x.
|
|
| Matov 10 May 23 7.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I hope you never do jury service. You have just denied the first rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty.
Remember these are people who want you to believe that people can change their gender at the drop of the hat and the onus is on everybody else to just take them at their word. And to be fair, maybe Trump did sexually assault this woman? Of course there is no evidence beyond some woman claiming he did so so last century but surely that is all that is required? Of course the woman said she was raped but it was a long time ago and how could she remember ALL the details? Hence why Trump was found not guilty of rape. Logic really.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
Ouzo Dan  Behind you 11 May 23 7.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this. The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was. You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself. Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we? JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault.
The mountains are calling & I must go. |
|
 becky over the moon 11 May 23 8.08am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I have no idea why you and your right-wing bed-fellows here are so puzzled about this. The jury found him guilty. Not of rape, because the necessary burden of truth wasn't passed, but of sexual assault, which was. You suggest there was no evidence, but there was. There were statements made, under oath by those she confided in. Those statements would have been cross-examined but the jury chose to believe them. There was also the evidence of Trump's own statement which contradicted itself. Wanting to spin this as some kind of Democratic Party witch hunt is simply a Trump tactic. His base might be fooled. They are all the time by him but we are better than that. Aren't we? JFK had, by all accounts, a larger-than-normal sexual appetite and a series of ladies willing to share it. He didn't though make unwanted advances, get accused of rape or be found guilty of sexual assault. Which is very strange, as hearsay evidence is no more acceptable in a US court that a UK one - there are very few exceptions where it may be, but they are rarely applied...
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.16am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
That is possibly because the CIA were covering up his dirty secrets while the FBI were watching his every move. That might have had a direct relationship to his assassination. I suppose you think that the highly suspicious death of Marilyn Monroe was also just another conspiracy theory. Maybe be it was maybe not, but I know this for sure. Trump is the victim of a witch hunt, just like he says. Only a blind moron can't see that. That's the logic of every conspiracy theorist. Ultimately such things are decided in a Court, where evidence is tested and independent jurors decide. Trump's team have lost every case in which they tried to establish a "witch-hunt" exists. You either trust a justice system, or you don't. If you don't you may as well take to the hills or leave the country because a functioning democracy depends upon it. Only a moron can't see that. In this age of equality, you cannot exclude the sighted.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Bill Clinton didn't actually get charged with rape either ... Perhaps because he didn't commit rape?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 11 May 23 8.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Perhaps because he didn't commit rape? Yeah funny that. Several women made allegations against Clinton over the years and they were not believed as it was only their word.
One more point |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
That is rarely the case with rape. This is a case based entirely on 'believe me bro' which has succeeded.....it shows precisely where the US are now. Edited by Stirlingsays (10 May 2023 6.07pm) Have you heard all the evidence then? I haven't, but I understand there was a lot more than simply one word against another. Some of the words spoken by Trump were used by the prosecution to prove the case, alongside corroborating statements from confidants. Sufficient for a "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold to be passed.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
I hope you never do jury service. You have just denied the first rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty! That's what the jury determined. They heard the whole case. You have just read some tittle-tattle, read what Trump says, added it to your prejudices and decided it wasn't proven. You are wrong. You don't decide. The jury did.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Remember these are people who want you to believe that people can change their gender at the drop of the hat and the onus is on everybody else to just take them at their word. And to be fair, maybe Trump did sexually assault this woman? Of course there is no evidence beyond some woman claiming he did so so last century but surely that is all that is required? Of course the woman said she was raped but it was a long time ago and how could she remember ALL the details? Hence why Trump was found not guilty of rape. Logic really. Once again, that's untrue. There was other evidence, sufficient to convict. Why wasn't he found guilty of rape? Because there was not sufficient evidence to convict of the act that constitutes rape, but enough to convict of sexual assault. It's not complicated.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ouzo Dan
I cannot recall my words or the context but, so far as I am aware, no case has been brought and the evidence tested in court. Did she describe being molested or is that an interpretation of the event by others?
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
Which is very strange, as hearsay evidence is no more acceptable in a US court that a UK one - there are very few exceptions where it may be, but they are rarely applied... We didn't hear the evidence, or know how much weight was put upon any part of it. It would have been subjected to cross-examination and probed for inconsistencies. I don't know but I suspect it was only a way of establishing credibility.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 11 May 23 8.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Yeah funny that. Several women made allegations against Clinton over the years and they were not believed as it was only their word. Were they taken to Court and the evidence tested? Unless they were they are not comparable.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.