Trump loses 6% in the polls since his fake ear injury

[Skoob]

Wrong again.
I made a mistake and corrected it.

You intentionally lie repeatedly.
Like claiming that Carroll lied with zero evidence, you know its a lie but you keep repeating it.
Like knowing rump is an adjudicated rapist and its legally correct to call him a rapist yet you keep lying about what the judge and jury said.

That's funny!
Not a week goes by where you don't lie and then need to be called out. Just because ever lie to peddle isn't called out doesn't mean it's actually the truth. It means people get tired of having to constantly call you out and prove it to you like I did.

If Carroll had evidence, the jury would have checked rape on their report. They didn't.
I'm willing to bet that at some point in the future she will be caught admitting that she made the whole thing up.

 

[Frankfooter]

They didn't have enough evidence and she couldn't convince them otherwise.
That's the only argument that's required here.

You said she lied.
Now you're backing down again.

As usual.

 

[Skoob]

You said she lied.
Now you're backing down again.

As usual.

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

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.

You failed to prove she lied.
Which means you are just slandering her to defend rape.

 

[Skoob]

You failed to prove she lied.
Which means you are just slandering her to defend rape.

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?

 

[Valcazar]

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?

Because none of that proves she lied.
It doesn't even prove that the jury didn't believe her.

 

[Skoob]

Because none of that proves she lied.
It doesn't even prove that the jury didn't believe her.

You're saying that if the jury believed her they still would have left the rape checkbox blank?

 

[Valcazar]

You're saying that if the jury believed her they still would have left the rape checkbox blank?

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.

 

[Frankfooter]

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?

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.

 

[squeezer]

Facts and a little fiction from Crenshaw. Although as a Repug he isn't as bad as the full-blown Maga Twats, he's only a baby twat.

Overtime: James Carville, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, Kaitlan Collins | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

 

[Insidious Von]

Dan Krenshaw is a retired Navy SEAL who fought in The Battle of Fallujah and lost an eye in Kandahar.

On the flipside, JD Vance was campaigning in Philadelphia, he went to Geno's Cheesesteak and complained, he couldn't get Swiss Cheese.

 

[Skoob]

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.

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.

 

[Skoob]

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.

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?

 

[Frankfooter]

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?

If they didn't believe her they wouldn't have awarded her $83 million, skoob.
that's an idiotic claim.

 

[Skoob]

If they didn't believe her they wouldn't have awarded her $83 million, skoob.
that's an idiotic claim.

That wasn't for rape.
Anyway, it's being appealed so you should reserve judgement right?

 

[Frankfooter]

That wasn't for rape.
Anyway, it's being appealed so you should reserve judgement right?

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?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825859317569863768

 

[Skoob]

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.

Why aren't you waiting for the appeal before declaring judgement?
Did you conveniently put your hypocrisy on pause perhaps?

 

[bver_hunter]

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?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1825859317569863768

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.
They are really brainwashed by this dummy of an individual who is really a laughing stock around the Globe!!

 

[Frankfooter]

Why aren't you waiting for the appeal before declaring judgement?
Did you conveniently put your hypocrisy on pause perhaps?

The verdicts stand until and if they are over ruled, skoob.
3 judges think that rump is a rapist so far.

Why would you believe anything rump says?

 

[Valcazar]

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.

But that's not the point you made.

You said that them not voting for rape proved they think she lied.

That's just obviously not true as a matter of simple logic.