General Election 2024

Quote:

They did so with the expressed intent of doing something that they had no chance of succeeding at; also, did you miss that they should have all been put down like dogs? If you want to throw the book at them and do all of this to keep it in the news, I guess that's fine, but bullets are much cheaper.

Quote: GenoDRPh

The time for bullets was when the insurrection was occurring. When it was over, we now have to have trials and do it the long way.

Your own words confuse even you. One one hand you say to throw the book at him, and on the other you say not to prosecute as it will only embolden him and increase his political support among the voters. Which is it?

Quote: Mission146

That's what I'm saying; I think we agree more than we disagree. I think you probably sort of agreed with me before, but the part where I really feel like I got it right is that it swung some people to Trump's side who he'd either lost or didn't have in the first place.

The problem is really more with the judges than the prosecutors.

Let's do an experiment: Can you please close your eyes, take three deep breaths and put all thought of Donald Trump out of your mind, if only for a moment?

EXPERIMENT

There's a business owner for a relatively minor city somewhere in Midwest America. In terms of the community, it seems like some people really love him and others really hate him. He owns a car dealership and some customers have felt ripped off by him, in addition to thinking he's an @$$40!3 besides, but other customers think he runs a good business and have enjoyed their social interactions with him.

Suddenly, a woman who has lived in town for a long time accuses this business owner of raping her. She claims that it happened 25 years ago, but she can't specify a date, and, in fact, can only narrow it down to roundabout a nine month window.

The location of the alleged rape is the QuikTrip that just so happens to be half a block from the business owner's house. Naturally, all camera footage of that night is long gone and, for the most part, you'd have trouble knowing who all worked there 25 years ago.

As the allegation goes, it was a relatively quiet night at the gas station/store. The accuser recalls that the attendant on duty was outside smoking a cigarette and, as she recalls, her big mistake was telling him to finish his smoke. The owner of the car dealership came in, clearly intoxicated, but she made the usual pleasantries with him as one would if you see someone you know about town...even if you don't particularly like them.

For whatever reason, the business owner took her general pleasantries as sexual advances and suggested that the two go into the QuikTrip's restroom and, "Get to know each other."

Absolutely baffled that the dealership owner would ever propose such a ridiculous notion, and quite certain he HAD to be joking, she laughed nervously. For some reason, as she claims, the business owner took her laughter as an indication that she'd love to do this, so he grabbed her aggressively and, from her perspective, shoved her into the bathroom.

Shocked beyond belief, she didn't initially fight back or even do very much outwardly that would prevent this. The owner of the car dealership latched the lock on the door and proceeded to remove enough of her clothing to sexually access her. When it finally occurred to her what was happening, she shoved him away and it was at that point that he turned her around and managed to insert himself into her.

After a few seconds, she was able to wriggle around and fight back enough that she successfully unlatched the lock and made a beeline out of the station. She'd also started to make quite a bit of noise, by that point, so the dealership owner decided not to try to force the issue any longer.

When she left the station, the attendant didn't see her go; even if the attendant had, he or she might be difficult to track down anyway. It could be that they don't even still have a record of all employees who worked there 25 years ago, and even if they did have, you'd have to find them and recognize them as the employee who was there that night...and that employee would have to remember seeing the victim leave in a panic in the first place.

Of course, someone running out of the store in a seeming panic would be noticeable, and for a short time, memorable...but, after twenty-five years? Probably not THAT memorable.

In any event, we have zero employees who witnessed any aspect of this altercation.

This is a lady of some means. She's certainly not destitute. After 25 years, she starts going around town alleging to all who will hear it that the owner of the car dealership raped her. In response, the owner of the dealership tells all who will listen that not only is her allegation absolutely untrue, but furthermore, he thinks that she's an ugly B!*** besides. (I mean, it's not a word that I would generally call a woman, but if she accused me of a rape that I didn't commit...that's probably going to be the second word out of my mouth after an even worse word before that)

For denying her unprovable allegation that he raped her, she sues him for slander.

In terms of her case presentation, she offers a nine-month window during which this alleged event, for which there are no witnesses, would have occurred. Also, the event took place only a half mile from the dealership owner's home. Her additional evidence is her two best friends both claiming that she called and told them about it.

-----

First of all, I don't see how a judge doesn't toss that out for insufficient evidence in the first place. Secondly, assuming that the judge doesn't toss it out, if you're on the jury, do you find in her favor that he slandered her by denying that he raped her?

Could this story have been made up to satisfy a vendetta of some kind? I just made it up. I didn't even edit.

Quote: Mission146

RXWine,

I know; the person in my story has a stronger claim:

1. She at least alleges a potential witness. This could result in falsifiability; how? Imagine if the defense found multiple people who were employed during that time; these multiple employees first testify that they never saw anyone running away in such a fashion that they can remember, and secondly, that they don’t remember anyone working there around the time who was a smoker.

2. The bathroom door might have had a twist lock at the time, rather than a latch lock; an employee at the time might remember; it doesn’t have to be the one there that night.

3. Almost by necessity, she’d encounter the dealership owner more than the two times Carroll claims to have been around Trump.

4. The interaction in mine was much shorter; rather than strolling around the store laughing and joking, there’s less time for people to have seen the two together; this would have been an encounter of a minute, or barely over, most of that in the bathroom. It makes more sense that there were no witnesses; we also only need one employee’s attention to be diverted.

I think Blasey-Ford had a stronger claim than Carroll and Blasey-Ford’s claim sucked.

*I tried to quote you, but I’m on my phone and the quotes just became a total disaster, so I deleted that post.

ADDED: 5. The person who the claim is made against was allegedly intoxicated; that gives any denial he makes even less credibility.

Quote: missedhervee

Fools and their money...

https://www.gofundme.com/f/stand-with-trump-raise-the-settlement