State of the Union - watch Amy Coney Barret recoil in disgust at the sight of Trump

[Skoob]

Right, I said she'd have a stronger criminal case.
I did not comment on the verdict at all.
Your argument was that the criminal case would have been thrown out.
Meaning it wouldn't have gone to trial.
But there is no information that you have, that justifies such a determination.
Infact, it casts doubt on your assertion as he was found to have committed rape 30 years after the fact in a civil case.
A criminal case 30 years earlier would have therefore been much stronger, with the plaintiff not having had memory lapses.
Your mental gymnastics here wont help.

"Thrown out" can mean a lot of things...I meant if it went to trial, based on the allegation and absence of proof, it would have been thrown out. ie dismissed.
She had memory lapses because it's harder to remember a lie then remember the truth.

There was no additional evidence available 30 years ago than there was 30 years later. So your theory fails.

 

[Skoob]

Very rarely.
The bar for criminal conviction is very high.
It's why anyone saying something like "he wasn't convicted in a criminal court, therefore he didn't do it" reveals themselves to be deeply stupid.

You answered the question and then called someone stupid for the same answer! Lol!

 

[Valcazar]

You answered the question and then called someone stupid for the same answer! Lol!

Not at all.
My answer is quite different.
But then we've already established that you have difficulty understanding the justice system.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

"Thrown out" can mean a lot of things...I meant if it went to trial, based on the allegation and absence of proof, it would have been thrown out. ie dismissed.
She had memory lapses because it's harder to remember a lie then remember the truth.

There was no additional evidence available 30 years ago than there was 30 years later. So your theory fails.

No, thrown out doesn't mean a lot of things.
Thrown out in the context of a court case means the Judge refuses to proceed the case to a trial.
If it went to trial you'd say that the defendant was acquitted or convicted.
Even considering how you meant it, you do not have any information at all to make any of these determinations.
Your mental gymnastics here defending a rapist makes you look silly and it doesn't seem to bother you.
Maybe you've had too much practice.

 

[Skoob]

Not at all.
My answer is quite different.
But then we've already established that you have difficulty understanding the justice system.

That is the answer someone gives when they really just don't like someone but feel they need to deflect to a more rational reason to justify their bias.

Good work!

 

[Skoob]

No, thrown out doesn't mean a lot of things.
Thrown out in the context of a court case means the Judge refuses to proceed the case to a trial.
If it went to trial you'd say that the defendant was acquitted or convicted.
Even considering how you meant it, you do not have any information at all to make any of these determinations.
Your mental gymnastics here defending a rapist makes you look silly and it doesn't seem to bother you.
Maybe you've had too much practice.

In other words, you prefer to argue semantics, than come to the realization that you know exactly what I mean and that there was zero evidence to support a criminal court conviction today or 30 years ago.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

In other words, you prefer to argue semantics..

No, I prefer to argue facts.
Which you can't seem to produce in support of your claims.

 

[Skoob]

No, I prefer to argue facts.
Which you can't seem to produce in support of your claims.

You argue semantics when cornered. You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Valcazar]

That is the answer someone gives when they really just don't like someone but feel they need to deflect to a more rational reason to justify their bias.

Good work!

Oh dear god, are you really this thick?
You can't tell the difference between "he was not found guilty in a court of law" and "he didn't do it"?

Fuck. It's amazing you can tie your shoes.

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

You argue semantics when cornered. You're not fooling anyone.

You are right am not fooling anyone.
But you are. Atleast trying to and failing miserably at it.
You neither have information to support your conclusions about a hypothetical case. Nor are you a lawyer.
Looks like the repeated face plants have once again resulted in brain fog and brain rot.

 

[Skoob]

Oh dear god, are you really this thick?
You can't tell the difference between "he was not found guilty in a court of law" and "he didn't do it"?

Fuck. It's amazing you can tie your shoes.

"He didn't do it" is opinion and subjective.
"He was found not guilty in a criminal court of law" is fact.

 

[Valcazar]

"He didn't do it" is opinion and subjective.
"He was found not guilty in a criminal court of law" is fact.

And only an idiot would conflate those two things, yet you keep on trying, don't you?