Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
not sure how you spun "So I guess we'll never know if it happened or not.." into "believe all women".
In American jurisprudence, there is a concept called "innocent until proven guilty" which forces the accuser to prove her case. It means all presumption is with the accused - he or she is innocent, until the accuser can muster up a convincing case.
Until the accuser can do so - saying well I don't know, maybe he's guilty or maybe not - is not in this spirit. It's weakening American jurisprudence of "innocent until proven guilty" and shifting some of the work to him.
not sure how you spun "So I guess we'll never know if it happened or not.." into "believe all women".
Pretty much....
Where did this happen? I don't when.
When did this happen? I don't know.
how did you get there? I don't know.
How did you get home? I don't know.
How many people at the party? I don't know.
Isn’t kissing on the cheek more common in some of the countries liberals want America to be like.
Well in Saudi, men kiss men and don't touch a woman unless they're married, then she's his to do with as he wishes....the part about men kissing men, that is what our liberals wish we would do, in fact, I think they already do that.
In American jurisprudence, there is a concept called "innocent until proven guilty" which forces the accuser to prove her case. It means all presumption is with the accused - he or she is innocent, until the accuser can muster up a convincing case.
i'm well aware of the fundamentals of US law having served on multiple juries. the burden of proof is on the accuser but that burden has different parameters depending on if it's a criminal trial ( "beyond a reasonable doubt" ) or civil ( "preponderance of the evidence" ).
IF this were to go to trial ( and i doubt it will ) the woman actually has two solid pieces of evidence; her own first hand testimony ( assuming the jury finds her credible ) and the "access hollywood" tape of trump directly admitting to such actions in the past. it's my belief, based on my experience as a juror, that in a civil trial that would meet the requirement for "preponderance of the evidence" but lose in a criminal trial.
I'm not going to read 8 pages of leftist crap, so will just include that Florida AG Pam Bondi and Florida Campaign Director Karen Giorno both said that they were there when this incident was said to have taken place, and both say it didn't happen.
It's nothing more than a bs smear made, yet again, by rabid twits who will not accept their loss.
They gloated so hard, so loudly, that when they lost, it was the biggest smack in the face they've ever received, and they can't get over the embarrassment.
I'm not going to read 8 pages of leftist crap, so will just include that Florida AG Pam Bondi and Florida Campaign Director Karen Giorno both said that they were there when this incident was said to have taken place, and both say it didn't happen.
It's nothing more than a bs smear made, yet again, by rabid twits who will not accept their loss.
They gloated so hard, so loudly, that when they lost, it was the biggest smack in the face they've ever received, and they can't get over the embarrassment.
in many cases here, it's just jealousy. They'd be more than flattered if President Trump showed them some attention.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.