Leticia James is a loser!!

[Skoob]

The only reason she's making money is cuz rump keeps slandering her and denying he raped her.
What about the other 20 women who accused rump and made nothing, you think they were all in it for the cash?
What about that 13 year old he diddled with Epstein, was she in it for the money?

He has the right to defend himself and tell the truth. Why should he be punished for that?
The other women made nothing because they were making shit up as well and had even less of a case to try and mislead people with.

 

[Frankfooter]

He has the right to defend himself and tell the truth. Why should he be punished for that?
The other women made nothing because they were making shit up as well and had even less of a case to try and mislead people with.

If he told the truth and didn't slander his rape victim he wouldn't be paying $83 million, skoob.
rump can't stop himself from lying and you buy it every single time.
You are being played.

 

[Skoob]

If he told the truth and didn't slander his rape victim he wouldn't be paying $83 million, skoob.
rump can't stop himself from lying and you buy it every single time.
You are being played.

Someone being accused of something they didn't do has every right to speak out about it. It's not slander.

You would be saying he was guilty if he didn't say anything about it so who are you trying to fool here, yourself?

 

[Frankfooter]

Someone being accused of something they didn't do has every right to speak out about it. It's not slander.

You would be saying he was guilty if he didn't say anything about it so who are you trying to fool here, yourself?

Tell that to the jury, they said it was slander worth an $83 million fine.
As usual, you are making shit up to defend your love of rapists.

 

[Skoob]

Tell that to the jury, they said it was slander worth an $83 million fine.
As usual, you are making shit up to defend your love of rapists.

The biased judge ruled on the 2nd lawsuit for defamation even before the 2nd trial took place.
Total con job.
You know when I say the Dems have weaponized the justice system? There's an example for you.

 

[Frankfooter]

The biased judge ruled on the 2nd lawsuit for defamation even before the 2nd trial took place.
Total con job.
You know when I say the Dems have weaponized the justice system? There's an example for you.

This was decided by jurors, skoob.
Jurors believe Carroll, not your lying rapey idol.
The judge was just upping the fine when your rapey hero couldn't stop slandering his rape victim.

 

[Skoob]

This was decided by jurors, skoob.
Jurors believe Carroll, not your lying rapey idol.
The judge was just upping the fine when your rapey hero couldn't stop slandering his rape victim.

Juries are not always right. And judges are not always biased based on their political leanings.
Like I said, if he didn't defend himself you would be arguing he must be guilty.

You see, that's how confirmation bias works...you will twist everything to suit your purpose.

 

[Frankfooter]

Juries are not always right. And judges are not always biased based on their political leanings.
Like I said, if he didn't defend himself you would be arguing he must be guilty.

You see, that's how confirmation bias works...you will twist everything to suit your purpose.

Skoob, you are the one that thinks rump is innocent despite his confession and the multiple guilty charges and tons of court cases.
Your belief he is innocent is based entirely on a story you admitted you made up to support your own confirmation bias.

I'm just reporting the results of the legal system, which says your hero is a rapist.

 

[Skoob]

Skoob, you are the one that thinks rump is innocent despite his confession and the multiple guilty charges and tons of court cases.
Your belief he is innocent is based entirely on a story you admitted you made up to support your own confirmation bias.

I'm just reporting the results of the legal system, which says your hero is a rapist.

If you are "simply reporting the results of the legal system" then that's actually not what you're doing because he was not charged with rape.

So if you want to use "by the book" logic to back up your argument, then you failed immediately.

 

[Frankfooter]

If you are "simply reporting the results of the legal system" then that's actually not what you're doing because he was not charged with rape.

So if you want to use "by the book" logic to back up your argument, then you failed immediately.

You sure do a lot of squirming to try to justify backing rape and rapists, skoob.

Judge in E. Jean Carroll Case: Yes, Donald Trump Is a Rapist

A judge rejected Trump’s semantic attempt to throw out the case.

newrepublic.com

 

[Valcazar]

Juries in criminal cases get it wrong, statistically 1/8 times. That's criminal cases where the burden of proof is much higher.

Citation please.

Could you sit on a jury and find Trump (or anyone else you don't already dislike) innocent of any witch hunt charges?

I would never have to.
I would only have to find him not guilty.

 

[Skoob]

Citation please.



I would never have to.
I would only have to find him not guilty.

Is this where you ask for a citation and after I provide it, create another argument?

btw Finding a judgment for the plaintiff only requires 51% certainty in civil court. You may as well flip a coin.

 

[Valcazar]

If that was her motive, she would have taken him to criminal court.

How, exactly, would she have done that?
There is a thing called the statute of limitations.

 

[Valcazar]

Rapists bragging or becoming public figures holding themselves out to be virtuous is often THE reason their previous victims speak up.

And by Skooby logic, that shows how it is always because they are gold-diggers or they wouldn't do that.

Because... reasons.

So I looked up why Steven Seagal fled the USA and found refuge in, of all places... Russia. He was faster than another Hollywood serial rapist Harvey Weinstein and got out before he got charged.

There are tons of stories about him that keep coming out once other women have spoken out. And sorry @Skoob , but he is gone for good and so the victims aren't motivated by money like you claim Ms. Carrol was and is.

Seagal's schtick was to invite women to auditions, parties.... where they were the only ones there. Weinstein was promises to make them big (or ruin their careers) Trump has said he takes women on shopping sprees. Furniture, lingerie etc to get into their pants.

See the "freeze" response comment I bolded and coloured red below. The freeze sounds like what Ms. Carroll experienced too.

Never paid enough attention to Seagal to hear about this.
Ick.

"I still went to the audition the next day and I got the part," said Margulies. "And I had some shame about that. You know, I had shame about the fact that I had gone to his hotel room. I felt so stupid, even though nothing had happened to me. I didn't tell anyone about it for a long, long time because I didn't want anyone to think I got the part because I went to his hotel room."

In Skooby world this proves she was trying to use sex to get ahead, I presume.

 

[Skoob]

How, exactly, would she have done that?
There is a thing called the statute of limitations.

Plenty of time to bring criminal charges...she didn't. Because it was based on a lie and she knew it would fail.
So years later, she gets the idea to write a book and include more lies (to sell more books of course) and then to further promote herself, she files a civil suit. She realized civil court is an option because the proof required is essentially non-existent. Just had to persuade the jury that her story was more convincing than his. Considering the biased hatred out there, it didn't take too much to sway the jury.

So write a book.
Make up lies about an encounter that she couldn't even remember the year in which it happened.
Leverage civil court for publicity.
Sell more books.
Fool more people.

Pretty crafty eh?

 

[Valcazar]

Is this where you ask for a citation and after I provide it, create another argument?

No.
I'm just genuinely surprised there is a solid "1/8 are wrong" number.
I'm not even sure how it would be measured with any certainty.

I'm sure there is some kind of "1/8 of X judgments" are wrong or "are contradicted by Y" or something.

I just find your original statement very surprising and would like to know what it is based on.

btw Finding a judgment for the plaintiff only requires 51% certainty in civil court. You may as well flip a coin.

No, that isn't the same as flipping a coin.
You seem to have very little faith in the justice system.

 

[SchlongConery]

Is this where you ask for a citation and after I provide it, create another argument?

btw Finding a judgment for the plaintiff only requires 51% certainty in civil court. You may as well flip a coin.

An $83 million dollar coin!

 

[SchlongConery]

Speaking of bets and coin flips.

Anyone have any idea who skoob used to be? Trolls like this don't just pop up outta nowhere.