You said she lied.They didn't have enough evidence and she couldn't convince them otherwise.
That's the only argument that's required here.
Now you're backing down again.
As usual.
You said she lied.They didn't have enough evidence and she couldn't convince them otherwise.
That's the only argument that's required here.
She did lie. Why would you twist my words and say the opposite of what I've been saying again?You said she lied.
Now you're backing down again.
As usual.
You failed to prove she lied.She did lie. Why would you twist my words and say the opposite of what I've been saying again?
It's chronic with you.
The Failfooter Circle Jerk of Dysfunction and Failure proven once again.
How did I fail to prove she lied if she said he used his penis but the jury didn't believe her?You failed to prove she lied.
Which means you are just slandering her to defend rape.
Because none of that proves she lied.How did I fail to prove she lied if she said he used his penis but the jury didn't believe her?
How did I fail to prove she lied if she couldn't remember the year it happened?
You're saying that if the jury believed her they still would have left the rape checkbox blank?Because none of that proves she lied.
It doesn't even prove that the jury didn't believe her.
Yes.You're saying that if the jury believed her they still would have left the rape checkbox blank?
The judge and jury found that they believed her but there wasn't enough evidence to identify if it was rump's tiny fingers or his fingers and his mushroom shaped dick that he used to rape E Jean Carroll.How did I fail to prove she lied if she said he used his penis but the jury didn't believe her?
How did I fail to prove she lied if she couldn't remember the year it happened?
Why are you saying anyone is guilty when there is an appeal in progress? You are quick to use the "they will appeal" reasoning when it supports your narrative but for people you just don't like, you quickly say they're guilty.
Can to walk us through your hypocrisy on that once you take some time to figure out a way to tap dance around it?
If you and I are alone with no one else around, and you claim after the fact that I stole money from your wallet, and I say I didn't, and you can't prove that I did, that would lean more towards you lying than telling the truth. Or at best, 50%.Yes.
Because you can believe someone and still think they didn't prove it sufficiently as a matter of law.
But that's not what you claimed.
More importantly to what you wrote, you can be unsure if what they say is true without believing the person lied.
That's simple logic.
Them not thinking rape was proven doesn't in any way prove they think she lied, which is what you claimed.
The jury didn't believe her otherwise they would have checked off rape on their report.The judge and jury found that they believed her but there wasn't enough evidence to identify if it was rump's tiny fingers or his fingers and his mushroom shaped dick that he used to rape E Jean Carroll.
They did not believe your rapist hero.
You failed to prove anything.
If they didn't believe her they wouldn't have awarded her $83 million, skoob.The jury didn't believe her otherwise they would have checked off rape on their report.
Civil court requires significantly less proof so she tried her luck and hoped some of it would stick.
Anyway, we can put all of this on pause including saying he's guilty of anything because an appeal is in progress right?
That wasn't for rape.If they didn't believe her they wouldn't have awarded her $83 million, skoob.
that's an idiotic claim.
Three trials and every time they believed Carroll, rump is a notorious liar who bragged about the exact form of rape he committed.That wasn't for rape.
Anyway, it's being appealed so you should reserve judgement right?
Why aren't you waiting for the appeal before declaring judgement?Three trials and every time they believed Carroll, rump is a notorious liar who bragged about the exact form of rape he committed.
Yet you still defend him.
You know he did and are just mad he has to pay for it.
He repeats several times that Kamala Harris is "not a bright person". He stated that he is more "smart than her". Only the righties will take that as his Gospel Truth.Three trials and every time they believed Carroll, rump is a notorious liar who bragged about the exact form of rape he committed.
Yet you still defend him.
You know he did and are just mad he has to pay for it.
Do you think rump is a bright person?
The verdicts stand until and if they are over ruled, skoob.Why aren't you waiting for the appeal before declaring judgement?
Did you conveniently put your hypocrisy on pause perhaps?
But that's not the point you made.If you and I are alone with no one else around, and you claim after the fact that I stole money from your wallet, and I say I didn't, and you can't prove that I did, that would lean more towards you lying than telling the truth. Or at best, 50%.
In criminal court that wouldn't stand a chance.
However, in civil court, you have a greater probability of being successful needing only 51% (or something close to that).
That is my point that you keep missing.
Just like the Federal Libs that violated the charter of rights also sit with that standing verdict then?The verdicts stand until and if they are over ruled, skoob.