[Vincentsdream]

Hey you can find her allegations unreliable. A jury didnt.

[DegoLocc]

That's fair enough.

But I also have ears and eyes, and watched the civil case coverage intensely. It just didn't pass the smell test for me at all, she's obviously full of shit and in it for the fame, and wanting to be some heroine of the resistance or some shit.

But no disrespect, if you believe her, that is totally your prerogative. I don't look down on ppl for different opinions. I respect them.

[Faust]

Originally Posted by Massacreman ↗

https://archive.org/details/ashley-biden-diary



Here's Trump about his daughter's, to cut you off at the pass about that.



I dont see anything about raping anyone, but you know, some would say there's a bit more likelihood of Biden getting a bit handsy than Trump, especially given Trump's predilection towards kicking epstein out of his club that one time. Or epstein saying Trump was bad. You think he was bad to epstein because he DID take him up on the offer, or because he DIDN'T and probably threatened to out him?

Who am I kidding, you're in it for the troll. Nothing changes anybodies mind except a bullet these days.

Edit: I didn't realize the vids would pop straight up from YouTube. Sorry if that breaks any rules. Vedderman WonderMomma

A friend of mine washed my wintercoat recently, I don't know which laundry stuff she uses but it smells amazing and I catch myself smelling it once or twice a day when I'm wearing it, there is nothing sexual about that, it just smells great to me?

I am not a fan of Biden (at all) but what if he just likes the smell of little kids, same way as I like the current smell of my winter coat?

You can hate his immigration policies or his general functioning or cognitive abilities, but who cares if Biden likes to sniff kids? To me that just sounds like unnecessary hate. Even Trump never mentioned it, so he understands also that there is probably nothing sexual about it

[Faust]

Originally Posted by Vincentsdream ↗

Hey you can find her allegations unreliable. A jury didnt.

they did though, she sued for Rape and even the jury didn't buy that

[tyroneslothrop]

Originally Posted by DegoLocc ↗

But I also have ears and eyes, and watched...

Believe what you want, but outside observers often say things like, "How could the jury possibly decide that? They’re clearly guilty/not guilty!" But one's gut isn't very reliable when one has only seen TV clips or online highlights. You miss most of the actual evidence: hours of cross-examination, documents, additional witnesses, and other key details that jurors heard and evaluated directly under established legal standards. Confirmation bias means that our minds also tend to favor information that aligns with what we already believe for instance, interpreting someone as seeking fame if we’re already skeptical. The most sensational moments from media coverage can overshadow the spectrum of evidence the jury reviewed and discussed together. Legally, jurors are required to disregard outside opinions, base their decision only on what’s presented in court, and discuss as a group to balance out individual biases. It's not a perfect system but it is our system for the last 858 years since the Assize of Clarendon.

[DegoLocc]

Originally Posted by tyroneslothrop ↗

Believe what you want, but outside observers often say things like, "How could the jury possibly decide that? They’re clearly guilty/not guilty!" But one's gut isn't very reliable when one has only seen TV clips or online highlights. You miss most of the actual evidence: hours of cross-examination, documents, additional witnesses, and other key details that jurors heard and evaluated directly under established legal standards. Confirmation bias means that our minds also tend to favor information that aligns with what we already believe for instance, interpreting someone as seeking fame if we’re already skeptical. The most sensational moments from media coverage can overshadow the spectrum of evidence the jury reviewed and discussed together. Legally, jurors are required to disregard outside opinions, base their decision only on what’s presented in court, and discuss as a group to balance out individual biases. It's not a perfect system but it is our system for the last 858 years since the Assize of Clarendon.

That's a fair assessment, under normal circumstances. But when you have a corrupt DA, who literally ran and campaigned on "getting Trump", it's hard for me to think that someone as hated and despised in NYC as Trump could get a fair trial or unbiased jury pool, especially in civil, not criminal court.

But then you dig into simple undisputed facts like she can't even say when this happened. Like come on, some local celebrity rapes you in broad daylight in an empty department store with no workers or anyone around, and you can't remember when, even what YEAR it happened? Give me a break. You don't tell anyone, and wait until that same celebrity is running for office to make the claim. You have no physical evidence, you didn't save the clothes like Monica L. did. It's literally your word against his. And your story has too many holes and is too hard to believe. But there is more than enough Trump hate to get the ball rolling on a civil (not criminal) prosecution that is so far past the statute of limitations, and the state of NY has already changed the laws on statute of limitations laws to go after Trump for 34 felonies that basically amount to a filing error....

I'm sorry, I hate Trump too, but what NYC did was considered "lawfare", and I think it's a big part of the reason how he got re-elected, honestly. Ppl hate corruption, even more than they hate a corrupt person like Trump. They basically made him a martyr with this shit, and I hate them for that and making ppl doubt the court process, because they absolutely weaponized the laws and the courts to pursue him.

Just my opinion but there's plenty of moderate independent like myself and even some Democrats that hate Trump but also think the NYC cases were abuse of lawfare. I wanted to see him beat at the ballot box, not jailed for shit that was bogus.



Some ppl will believe ANYTHING negative accused against Trump though. It's called confirmation bias.

I prefer to look at things more critically.

[akyan]

Originally Posted by Vincentsdream ↗

Trump was literally found liable of rape you weab. Lmao.

Welcome to USA's totally unbiased and flawless Judicial System of trial by Jury or 12 retards who's retarded opinions decide your fate. OJ Simson definitely did not murder his wife and it was definitly not about race, Pdiddy was definitly innocent of being a piece of shit woman beating rapist and not the fact they got an Indian uncle on the Jury who thinks that bitch deserved it because she was in it for the money, and Trump's convictions was not completely one sided liberal trial stacked with liberal judges, liberal prosecutors, and liberal juries, totally not political in nature at all.

[giovanni0359]

Originally Posted by overcusser ↗

White liberals at it again. They're the problem with this country. If she would have been at work instead of out harassing ICE, she might be alive.

She lived on that street, dumbass. God you people are so fucking STUPID.

[Nitro187]

Originally Posted by giovanni0359 ↗

She lived on that street, dumbass. God you people are so fucking STUPID.

Maybe you should get your facts straight. She did not live on Portland Ave.; she lived 'close by'... which actually, turns out to be a 20 minute drive. There are no publicly confirmed address of her, but her vehicle was registered to an address 20 minutes away from the shooting. That's like driving from Time Square to New Jersey.... was not the same street buddy.

[Rikbikboo]

Stupid announces itself.

Dont complain at the government doing what the public asked of it -Stop all illegal immigration, remove all illegal immigrants. stop and detain them wherever they are- remove all illegal immigrants.

You are getting what you asked and voted for. And now you dont like it?.