Protests at Berkeley

I'm pretty sure the dozen or so women who accused him of sexual battery were accusing him of something more than a "pat on the butt." In any case, unless they just hit a game winning home run, three pointer, or field goal, a "pat on the butt" is still sexual battery.

And

So you're saying TrumpCo says and does things in private that he'd not do or say in public? Would those things include overt sexual acts?

 

If the testimony of an individual is the same thing as physical evidence, pray tell why are there laws against providing false testimony, and lying under oath?

 

As opposed to providing false evidence?

 

You have no source to support your false accusations you are proven wrong.

 

Golly, I I guess you got me there...

Would there also be laws against tampering with evidence? Would those laws serve the same purposes?

Geez.

 

My message had NOTHING to do with Bill Clinton.

 

First I only know of three and none of them tried to take it to criminal court and two of those were so obviously phony that they didn't even risk civil court proceedings.

 

Ahem...

http://nypost.com/2017/01/21/woman-accusing-trump-of-sexual-assault-refuse-to-back-down/

"At least 13 women have accused Trump of forcibly kissing or inappropriately touching them without their consent. Trump has denied every claim."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...mp-child-rape-break-silence-article-1.2855631

You see, Shirley, I never made an accusation. Someone else did. I merely repeated that accusation in response to a post here.

Perhaps, Louise, you should head back over to one of those recommended sites to learn all about "accusation."

- - - Updated - - -

You know Sally, you don't have to feign stupidity with us. The stuff you don't fake is good enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh if we could only count the things you don't know.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/calif-woman-accusing-trump-child-rape-break-silence-article-1.2855631
http://nypost.com/2017/01/21/woman-accusing-trump-of-sexual-assault-refuse-to-back-down/

13-14, who's counting.

 

If evidence can be tampered with, how is the sworn testimony of a person the same thing as evidence? Simply because someone makes a claim, does not mean the claim is legitimate, or has an actual basis in reality.

 

Wow. I guess you're just way to smart for me. But, could it be that altering evidence to no longer represent the truth is not considered different than altering testimony to no longer represent the truth.

I know I'm not as quick as most so maybe you could explain it to me some more?

 

Wow, they all waited a very long time before deciding it was "forced." How do you trust what's nothing more than hooker anyway? Money says they were more than happy with it at the time, that is if even happened in the first place. Then there is Bill Clinton.

 

So you're accusing TrumpCo of soliciting a prostitute? That's a crime too.

 

TrumpCo solicited Michelle Obama?

 

Sounds what you have is a really bad case of player hate.

 

Testimony is nothing more than what someone claims to be the truth. It cannot be examined in the same manner as something that exists in a physical sense, meaning it is of no more credibility than the person who is making the claim and/or accusation for either monetary gain, or some other form of personal enrichment. It is not evidence, it is not proof, it is nothing more than what someone says.

 

For which there is no evidence in any case. It was nothing more than an attempt to use the courts for a fleecing of a famous guy with deep pockets.

 

Perhaps, you forgot the information from the previous posts? I mean, a really smart guy like you wouldn't just ignore the completely accurate information already provided in order to continue making the same false argument, would he. No, I can't imagine it.

Testimony given under oath is, in fact, evidence. Do you know what a deposition is? Did you know that testimony given during a deposition can be used as evidence if, later, conflicting statements are found? Did you know that testimony need not involve any accusation? For example, I could be put under oath right now and swear that it's 2/8/2017. That testimony is admissible as evidence in court AND I don't even need to be there.

This is an argument you've already lost. A specious argument but one you've lost.

More than a dozen women claimed Trump sexually abused them. Something Trump said he could do with impunity. 4 of them are suing him, lawsuits which require sworn statements that become evidence in any trial.

One more thing...

When Clinton was impeached, what were the charges and evidence?

 

Your opinion of why has nothing to do with what.

 

Has anyone figured out yet that people at Berkeley go nuts because that is what they think they are supposed to do when they go to Berkeley? They are like that freshman kid who comes in the first night who thinks he has to go beer bong for beer bong with the seniors because that is what you are supposed to do at college and ends up throwing up on everything before passing out in the middle of the hallway by 10 pm.

 

As opposed to the individual who provided testimony to be sexually assaulted by the Duke lacrosse players?

Information from previous posts has not been forgotten. Is has simply been rejected on the basis of not accepting the notion that testimony and sworn statements is actual evidence of anything. The untied states news media is filled with countless examples of police officers knowingly providing false testimony for the sake of getting convictions, even when the accused committed no crime of any sort.

The debacle pertaining to the FBI and its hair analysis is just one example of such false testimony being treated as if it were genuine evidence, when it is anything but. Not only is it not evidence, but the entire science behind the analyzing of suspect hairs is not based in reality. It is nothing more than a sham, hidden behind complicated scientific jargon to make it seem like a legitimate tool of fighting crime.

 

Hey Nancy. Some advice. Reality Bites. But Reality IS.

You are welcome to reject reality. Your rejection doesn't change reality.

Tell you what. Get in your car and drive 90 MPH through a school zone. Then take your ticket to court.

Tell the judge that the officer's testimony is not "evidence." I'm sure they'll all appreciate the laugh.

 

None of which changes the fact that sworn testimony alone, is not the same thing as actual evidence of a crime being committed. Simply because several women have claimed that Donald Trump was sexually inappropriate with them, is not evidence that any crime was committed.

 

Oh wrong, wrong, wrong!!!

It is PRECISELY evidence of a crime. What you mean to say is THAT evidence ALONE is insufficient to meet the standard of reasonable doubt.

Which, of course, is for a trial to decide.

 

It certainly is evidence if they accused him of a crime and they signed affidavits, which at least some did.

It isn't physical evidence. But testimony is certainly evidence.

Beyond that, Trump bragged about his ability to sexually assault women. What more is needed to know the character of the man?

 

Simply because this has come to be accepted as being truth does not mean it actually is truth. Police officers have knowingly provided false testimony in thousands of cases in the united states, leading to countless false imprisonments in the name of getting convictions. Does the fact that they have testified that a crime was committed by an individual amount to evidence when no crime was committed?

The character of an individual has nothing to do with whether or not they may have committed a crime. Character is not evidence, just as testimony in and of itself is not evidence. Testimony is nothing more than something that someone has said, and contingent upon the credibility of the one delivering it. If one is not regarded as credible, then even if their testimony can be later verified as the absolute truth, it does them no good when compared to someone who is regarded as being more credible simply due to whatever position they may hold.