I just read where this E. Jean Carroll hag sought $24 million from Trump for defamation for his response to her wholly unproven accusation of rape from 100 years ago...something the details of which she couldn't remember, nor were any witnesses of any kind brought to bear in support of her allegations. Instead, however, the jury awarded her over $83 million. If anyone was defamed here, it was Trump, given her inability to prove her allegations enough to get a guilty verdict in criminal court. This suggests that civil trials held in order to rob a defendant who isn't convicted of an alleged crime is a problem. In short, they should not be allowed. I can see a guilty person being made to compensate monetarily a victim of an actual crime. But to go after somehow judged not guilty seems unjust in a very real and extreme sense.
But hey...so long as Trump is the one made to pay, who cares, right? This is what comes from a nation which has rejected truth and morality. The real assholes of society will presume to "know" that Trump is guilty, simply due to their irrational hatred of the man. I can present Dan Trabue as an example of this perversion of humanity. I personally can't say with any confidence that Trump is either guilty or innocent of raping this person. While his history of adultery and womanizing isn't a newsflash to anyone, none of the provides any reason to suppose he'd rape anyone at all. Yet, the haters accept that notion as all but assured and proven. It's an indictment on so many of their moral corruption. This is particularly true of those who posture as Christian. Actual Christians and real Americans don't assume guilt "just because".
This case is one of the several which should never have seen the inside of a courtroom. They each are no more than personal attacks...political attacks...on a guy who actually Made American Greater than it had been prior to his time in office. I can't understand why that's such a problem to any who pretend to care about this nation. How can anyone who did as well as Trump be so constantly attacked and vilified, especially after so many accusations and allegations against him have turned out to be bullshit?
God save us from the evil who acts this way against a guy who clearly cares more about the nation than his own personal fortunes. God bless him for caring enough to continually suffer so many unjust indignities thrown his way by a segment of our population which has become horribly vile and contemptible.
Trump is a flawed human being. Of this there is no doubt and no argument from anyone. He is nowhere near the degree of flawed human being far worse people continually insist he is. They hate him because he's done what they can't or won't do. They hate the nation, while he loves it and wishes to see it become what it was meant to be, not what his haters and detractors are lowering it to be.
Now he's more likely than ever to be the GOP nominee. He may maintain support for president regardless of whether or not he falls to the bullshit attempts to criminalize him. There's not a single Democrat that fucked up and evil party is willing to put up who would serve the nation anywhere near as well as Trump will. They're all scumbags.
I'll happily support and imperfect Trump over the best of the left any day. They are what's wrong with America right now, and some Republicans are as well. Trump represents those of us who want better than what these assholes have done and will continue to do. And one thing the left represents without question, is the destruction of a just society. May the left get what it deserves. We'll get it, too, if we allow Dems to win in November.
25 comments:
In our legal system, a jury of his peers found him liable - TWICE - for these sorts of attacks on a woman he likely caused harm to. No judges in the process found it problematic and a jury found him liable.
TRUMP is the one who can't shut his mouth up and keeps on attacking and demeaning this woman and women in general. It appears that the jury saw how 1. He has a lifetime of getting away with things because of his wealth, power and race and, 2. He has a lifetime of not living according to the rules and 3. Of being belligerent, as if he SHOULD be treated as above the law. For these reasons, the jury of fellow citizens did what they felt the law called for.
Are you suspecting some great conspiracy of all these disparate people to punish a poor billionaire corrupt white man who has abused the system all his life to enrich himself at the expense of others?
They hate him because he's done what they can't or won't do. They hate the nation, while he loves it
No doubt you believe these nonsense claims, but the fact is, you're just delusional.
We don't "hate" Trump for any irrational reasons. We hate what he's done. The corruption of power, the endless lies, the abuse of women and children, the xenophobic fear-mongering, the overtly stupid/unintelligent way he talks, the way he has mocked people with disabilities, the lack of competency in any areas except for grift and fearmongering and lying, etc, etc. We hate his bad actions that are overtly and obviously bad. This is a reasonable position to take and it's why conservatives with a conscience have denounced him (it's not like it's just liberals making something up out of nothing - ultraconservative rational thinkers have also recognized his overtly bad behavior.
And of course, we don't hate our nation. We love its positive attributes and hate its bad and evil attributes, especially the more malignant ones from the past.
And of course, Trump only loves himself. He's overtly, obviously mentally ill, as with narcissistic and sociopathic traits.
And before you run the inane claim that "anyone seeking power is a bit narcissistic..." Those who run for office are very often confident in themselves and maybe selfishly, overly-so. But narcissism and sociopathy are troubling mental illnesses, not character traits.
Don't be delusional. I know just telling you that doesn't help you overcome this delusion. I'm just marking it here for the record, in the hopes that one day your eyes will be opened and you'll have the decency to be ashamed for how easily you were completely fooled by someone so stupidly inept and corrupt.
This suggests that civil trials held in order to rob a defendant who isn't convicted of an alleged crime is a problem. In short, they should not be allowed. I can see a guilty person being made to compensate monetarily a victim of an actual crime. But to go after somehow judged not guilty seems unjust in a very real and extreme sense.
It is a well-established legal principle that a person may be found civilly liable even when criminal liability has not been established. Remember OJ? This is due to the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases. I love the way someone who imagines himself to be a conservative is happy to trash the rule of law whenever it inconveniences Trump.
January 27, 2024 at 3:19 PM
"In our legal system, a jury of his peers found him liable - TWICE - for these sorts of attacks on a woman he likely caused harm to."
I fully understand the process Dan. It seems you, and later Vinny below, think stating the obvious mitigates the point and premise of my post. It doesn't. Not even close. Let's look at this statement alone:
"A jury of his peers"---Really? They were all extremely wealth real estate moguls? Of course that's not exactly what it means and various legal sources have nuanced differences. But should not the jury at least be mostly comprised of people of the political right or supporters of Trump to at least a marginal degree? Were any of these jurors Republican voters at all? You say this as if you honestly give a crap about the concept.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/01/why_is_no_one_wondering_how_the_trump_trials_have_such_idiotic_jurors.html
The truth is that you simply rejoice in Trump being harmed by the outcome, not that you care about how that outcome came to be. Liar.
"he likely caused harm" to this woman?---on that basis one is justified in trying to soak another for 83 million dollars? That he likely harmed her? There was no evidence provided that he did the deed. The DNA evidence from her dress were never proven to have been from him. And even though he withheld a request for DNA, it was on the basis of having access to the analysis they did. Then, after a time, the withdrew Trump's ability to submit it
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/01/the_e_jean_carroll_case_against_trump_shows_our_morally_corrupt_legal_system.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/05/does_e_jean_carroll_hate_men_or_not.html
"No judges in the process found it problematic and a jury found him liable."
See again the link above regarding "juries of one's peers"...since you didn't read it yet.
"TRUMP is the one who can't shut his mouth up and keeps on attacking and demeaning this woman and women in general."
YOU'RE the one who thinks anyone named "Trump" is without the right to respond to false accusations. The reality is that SHE demeaned HIM by falsely accusing him of having raped her. I can say "falsely" because no evidence proving his guilt had been presented in the criminal trial or after.
"It appears that the jury saw how 1. He has a lifetime of getting away with things because of his wealth, power and race"
Such as...?
"and, 2. He has a lifetime of not living according to the rules"
Examples...?
"and 3. Of being belligerent, as if he SHOULD be treated as above the law."
"Belligerent" for being accused of a heinous crime which allegedly occurred 20 years ago and for which no evidence has been provided to prove it, and you think he's supposed to take it graciously? Yeah, Dan. Only one who hates would make such bullshit arguments like these.
"For these reasons, the jury of fellow citizens did what they felt the law called for."
These aren't "reasons". They're rationalizations for bilking millions of dollars out of Trump on the testimony of a woman with severe credibility problems simply because they hate Trump as much as you do.
"Are you suspecting some great conspiracy of all these disparate people to punish a poor billionaire corrupt white man who has abused the system all his life to enrich himself at the expense of others?"
You're kidding, right? You say this as if there hasn't been constant false attacks on this guy from your kind since 2015 and his announcement to run for president as a Republican! How f**king transparently dishonest!!
And you keep accusing him of all manner of evil ("abusing the system") as if you've ever provided the slightest bit of evidence in support. Again, being the hypocrite you are...making wildly stupid claims without support of any kind.
There's no shortage of modern progressives willing to use the weakest argument and allegation to pretend Trump is evil incarnate...which ironically exposes the evil in you and your kind.
January 27, 2024 at 3:29 PM
"No doubt you believe these nonsense claims, but the fact is, you're just delusional."
That's not a "fact". That's your default accusation when you have no actual support to contradict what I've said. By your measure, it's an unsupported wildly false claim.
"We don't "hate" Trump for any irrational reasons."
You most certainly do.
"We hate what he's done. The corruption of power,..."
Such as...
"the endless lies,..."
Which ones specifically have had any negative impact of any kind on anyone, except to increase your TDS? Did he lie about knowing of his son's criminal behavior? Did he lie about Biden saying there were good nazis? Did he lie about Pelosi saying all Mexicans were criminals? Did he lie about Obama inciting an "insurrection"? Did he lie by having government agencies suppress info about his son's laptop which would have reduced support for his candidacy? Which lie, Dan? You've been puking about Trump's "endless lies" for years and have provided no example of anything more serious than hyperbolic marketing of his brand. YOU lie more often and in worse ways than Trump ever has.
"the abuse of women and children,..."
Evidence. Provide evidence of any of this or apologize for spreading unsupported gossip like some middle school girl.
"the xenophobic fear-mongering,..."
That's how modern progressives lie about his defense of our borders and the danger of allowing without proper vetting hordes of foreigners from a hundred countries flood across them. We honest people call it, "responsible warnings".
"the overtly stupid/unintelligent way he talks,..."
Ah...Dan embracing grace again in hating a guy because he isn't articulate. Dan prefers smooth talking deceivers like Obama.
"the way he has mocked people with disabilities,..."
...is only in your head. This charge has been proven abjectly false, but like Biden and Charlottesville and you and "crotch grabbing", you cling to that which is false because it disparages Trump and validates your irrational gracelessness embracing false Christian hate for the man.
"the lack of competency in any areas..."
This also has been proven wildly and incredibly stupidly proven false by his great record of achievement as president (to say nothing of his business acumen). Obama couldn't hold a candle to Trump in terms of competency, and Biden has been a bad and destructive joke of a choice of the stupid.
"except for grift and fearmongering and lying, etc, etc."
All unsupported claims by a liar with TDS.
"We hate his bad actions that are overtly and obviously bad."
Not a one of which you can seem to identify. It's just shit you say because you're embracing gracelessness.
"This is a reasonable position to take and it's why conservatives with a conscience have denounced him (it's not like it's just liberals making something up out of nothing - ultraconservative rational thinkers have also recognized his overtly bad behavior."
There's not a thing reasonable about the irrational hatred for this man, and citing conservatives who suffer from the same TDS doesn't add the least bit of credence to the false claims about him. And by the way, most of those conservatives you otherwise hate for similarly stupid reasons dislike Trump because of his manner. A guy like him can be so beneficially effective makes it ever worse for them. First, they cringed at Trump even attempting to campaign for president, and then when he won, they had to double down or look like the fools Trump's proven them to be.
"And of course, we don't hate our nation."
Of course you do. It's obvious by the P&Ps you support. The damage resulting from them does not indicate love. With "love" for our nation like that, who needs hate?
"We love its positive attributes and hate its bad and evil attributes, especially the more malignant ones from the past."
You wallow in the sins of our past and attribute to them all blame for the ills of today, when those ills are the result of P&Ps you promote and support as the answer.
"And of course, Trump only loves himself."
Another common and never supported claim made by those who hate like the fake Christians they are. He loves himself so much, he's willing to spend another four years as president without pay, suffering more false claims and allegations and attacks on his character from lesser people like you.
"He's overtly, obviously mentally ill, as with narcissistic and sociopathic traits."
So you so desperately need to believe, but where's your support for this still unsupported claim?
"And before you run the inane claim that "anyone seeking power is a bit narcissistic..." Those who run for office are very often confident in themselves and maybe selfishly, overly-so. But narcissism and sociopathy are troubling mental illnesses, not character traits."
But you are only asserting he's suffering from such mental illness, as if you have any legitimate proof. No shrink who's examined him has rendered such a diagnosis, and the only "experts" who have are themselves sufferers from TDS who have rejected appropriate behavior to suggest they can diagnose from a distance. Again, regardless of the source, if some jackass asserts something negative about Trump, you in your Christ-mocking manner take it as fact because you need validation for your graceless hatred of a better man.
"Don't be delusional."
I'm not and you're delusional to suggest it's possible without the least bit of legitimate support.
"I know just telling you that doesn't help you overcome this delusion."
How could it coming from a fraud like you?
"I'm just marking it here for the record,..."
You didn't need to do that. We have posts and comments going back to 2008 demonstrating what a lying fake Christian you are. It's common knowledge. Self-evident and beyond all debate!
"...in the hopes that one day your eyes will be opened and you'll have the decency to be ashamed for how easily you were completely fooled by someone so stupidly inept and corrupt."
The arrogance of supposing my eyes are closed because I reject your false claims, your unChristian behavior and your petulance is astounding. But that's just Dan being Dan.
Vinny,
"It is a well-established legal principle that a person may be found civilly liable even when criminal liability has not been established."
Wow! Really? What's with you lefties in supposing the obvious is not well understood by your betters?
"Remember OJ? This is due to the higher standard of proof required in criminal cases."
There was actual evidence proving OJ guilty of murdering his wife and her friend. That the prosecution was inept, the judge a goofball and the jury in fear of another Rodney King riot and the common distrust of cops at least in this case justified the outcome of the subsequent civil trial. There's absolutely no parallel here. There was NO evidence to support the claims of Carroll against Trump, here credibility was always suspicious and the civil trial still pretended Trump was liable. That's justice denied, Vinny. Like Dan, you simply like the outcome, not that it was the result of a proper review of facts or truth.
"I love the way someone who imagines himself to be a conservative is happy to trash the rule of law whenever it inconveniences Trump."
I love the way someone who imagines himself honest and intelligent is happy to see Trump victimized whenever he is without regard for whether its deserved. Being as fake as Dan, you are only concerned that everyone believe whatever negative thing is said about him, by whomever says it. Indeed, for you false people, the merest of accusation is fact. Why bother with another sham trial?
Fortunately, the legal system has the ability to deal with this, and hopefully saner heads will prevail on appeal. It's unlikely that this will be reversed, but it's also unlikely that the damages will not be reduced.
My concerns at this point are the MSM who continue to peddle the false claim that Trump raped her, and that this was about him being punished for rape. Also the fact that somehow a left wing mega donor, who's also bankrolling Haley, is the one paying for this. Finally, the fact that the "defamation" seems to be Trump asserting his innocence, which seems like it would be the case that every defendant is now liable for defamation.
Since Trump testified that he has $400,000,000 in cash, and clearly has banks who like doing business with him, it's likely he'll be able to weather this if needed.
Ultimately, it's the fact that so many of mischaracterizing this that I see as the bigger problem.
Obviously it is seriously problematic that the state of NY (run by the DFL) conveniently decided to change the law just so that Trump would be able to be charged with this. The fact that the jury somehow found Carrol credible after her complete inability to prove her claims, and her well documented sexual predilections "rape is sexy" seems to beggar credibility. The fact that the Judge didn't throw it out, isn't a surprise.
But as we've seen, those on the left have such a low regard for proof when a conservative/republican is accused of anything sexual that it's not a surprise.
Two things strike me from Dan's screed.
1. His establishing this new standard of guilt of "likely"
2. Him trying to pretend like this "civil trial" wasn't the result of politicians changing existing law to accommodate this one case, and that this change wasn't facilitated by large donations to DFL politicians.
I suspect that if/when this is overturned, that Dan'll be singing a different tune about the legal system.
Art,
I'm not sure that justice has been "denied" in this case, at least it hasn't yet. At some point, this might be accurate, but right now it seems like hyperbole.
Sure. Hyperbole in a headline isn't uncommon. Though I would argue that while the process is certainly far from complete, at this stage justice has certainly been denied in the sense this charge should never have been given the time of day. Justice was denied when they altered the law to give it the time of day. Justice may indeed prevail in the end, but at this point, "the jury is still out" on whether higher courts will take the case themselves. It will depend entirely on the quality of Trump's legal team. Honorable people will keep Trump in their prayers imploring God to protect him from dishonorable people like Dan and those upon whom those like Dan depend to destroy Trump like the "embracers" of gracelessness they are.
I get that, but as you note, Justice is still playing out.
I also wanted to point out that I had intended to mention that little alteration of the law which was essential in carrying out the plan to destroy Trump with these lame charges. Thanks for mentioning it.
While I have nothing but compassion for actual victims of rape and oppression by the powerful, the left has not been shy about exploiting such sentiments to attack others. Think Duke Lacrosse Team, Jussie Smollett, Christien Blasey Ford and every lying charge of racist police brutality by leftist race-hustlers in defense of thuggery. Without minimizing the level of trauma suffered by actual victims, such victims need to suck it up as best they can to bring charges against their assailants, not just for themselves and the justice they deserve, but for the sake of potential future victims of their assailants. And if they can't do that, then they must accept the consequence of failing to do so within legal time restraints. As horrible as rape is, it isn't murder and as such doesn't necessitate unlimited time to procure justice against the perpetrator.
I think that is the most egregious aspect of this whole episode. Especially as there is a little furor over the Central Park 5 and how they participated in a gang rape and got off scott free because of bullshit. It looks like NY is willing to manipulate their justice system to help or hurt certain people at will.
Indeed. And since you mentioned it, I would say that if I was going to allow a rape victim to prosecute long after the event, it would be someone on the order of a Patricia Meili, whose memory of the attack was diminished due to the brutality of the attack, not because her attackers were running for president or were nominated for the Supreme Court. Meili was near death and that constitutes attempted murder. As to Dems manipulating the justice system, they continue to ignore Tara Reade's allegation against Joe Biden, not even caring to hear her complaint, much less seek $83 million dollars for it.
I'm not really interested in the positions you two are making as you appear to be acting upon frivolous partisan emotions and not justice and legal reasons, but I am curious about this:
Especially as there is a little furor over the Central Park 5 and how they participated in a gang rape and got off scott free because of bullshit.
As far as I can see in the media coverage, five young men were arrested and convicted for a crime they didn't commit. We know they didn't commit it because another person confessed to the rape.
Craig, are you saying you have some secret evidence that DOES implicate the five young black men who were apparently wrongly convicted and spent years in prison before they were cleared?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case
? This sounds a bit like racist conspiracy theories that say, in spite of being cleared, that these five black men WERE actually guilty and we can know because they were black and convicted.
What's the support for your conspiratorial-sounding claim? I mean, I can see that "ann coulter" also doesn't believe they were innocent in spite of being cleared, but it's not like she's a lawyer or familiar with the case or credible or anything.
"I'm not really interested in the positions you two are making as you appear to be acting upon frivolous partisan emotions and not justice and legal reasons,..."
You clearly need to see what you want to see. What "appears" to you to be the case is just you seeing what you want to see. The truth is far different, as our positions are based on facts. My links provide much of it. You provided nothing for numerous stupidly false claims which would compel you to delete me at your blog if I presented them in that manner in my comments. Hypocrite.
"As far as I can see in the media coverage, five young men were arrested and convicted for a crime they didn't commit."
As far as you can see in media coverage you prefer.
"We know they didn't commit it because another person confessed to the rape."
Not surprising you would join with so many other morons to base your position on the testimony of a serial rapist/liar. Being a serial liar yourself, you likely relate. But that his was the only DNA recovered at a time when such evidence gathering was in its infancy doesn't truly exonerate those who admitted attacking the victim.
"Craig, are you saying you have some secret evidence that DOES implicate the five young black men who were apparently wrongly convicted and spent years in prison before they were cleared?"
Evidence and testimony isn't secret. Video taped confessions are still available.
"This sounds a bit like racist conspiracy theories that say, in spite of being cleared, that these five black men WERE actually guilty and we can know because they were black and convicted."
This sounds like a moron accusing of racism better people who don't take the word of race-hustlers and lefties like Ken Burns. It should be noted that among the arresting officers was a black dude and at least one with a hispanic surname. Are they racists?
" What's the support for your conspiratorial-sounding claim?"
Testimonies of both the accused and law enforcement personnel involved in the case.
"I mean, I can see that "ann coulter" also doesn't believe they were innocent in spite of being cleared, but it's not like she's a lawyer or familiar with the case or credible or anything."
First, what's with the parentheses surrounding the non-capitalized name of Ann Coulter, an actual lawyer who is familiar with the case by having researched all facts and information related to it. What's more, she's not the only lawyer who rejects the claim the five were not involved in at least beating this woman, as well as attacking others...the confessions to which none of the five have ever recanted.
Stop the race-baiting, Dan.
Testimonies of both the accused and law enforcement personnel involved in the case.
But presumably, that testimony was evaluated and considered in a legitimate court of law of our fellow citizens and legal experts and, along with the evidence to clear these wrongfully imprisoned me, the legal experts in the matter didn't think it held up.
So, again, do you all have access to some ADDITIONAL data that these experts actually involved in the case didn't have? Or is it the case that you think you're smarter and better able to determine the reality from the safe distance of your house and lack of connection to the place than the actual experts involved? Or is it the case that you suspect some big conspiracy that these experts are a part of to subvert justice?
IF you have no extra secret information (you don't)
and IF you have no special training or expertise in this field not available to the experts involved (you don't)
THEN reasonable people will abide by the actual experts involved and not bow down to outside non-experts who are suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory to keep wrongly imprisoned black men (something that our nation has WAY too long a history of) in prison.
In short, armchair outsider non-experts don't get to make the call over an against actual experts actually involved in the details of the case.
Shame on you both for pretending that you have some superior knowledge and information than actual experts, legal professionals sworn to uphold justice.
Your slander and wrong-headed gossip are simply bad and irrational behavior.
Thanks for answering, though, but it only makes you all look like murderous gossips (killing people's reputations) and as you know, slanderers and gossips will not be part of the realm of God.
And Ann Coulter is a racist nutjob, not an actual expert. Nor is she a good or rational person.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
Also, she's not ever really been a lawyer. She has a law degree, which she barely, briefly used as a lawyer, at least as far as I can tell.
If you want to be taken seriously, you have to cite legitimate, non-clown sources.
February 2, 2024 at 3:56 PM
"Testimonies of both the accused and law enforcement personnel involved in the case."
"But presumably, that testimony was evaluated and considered in a legitimate court of law of our fellow citizens and legal experts and, along with the evidence to clear these wrongfully imprisoned me, the legal experts in the matter didn't think it held up."
Ah...so the latter court is more expert and credible than any that saw these punks as guilty. Got it. The fact is you're the one doing the presuming on all counts, as we'll see more as we proceed with your drivel. Yet, all the evidence of their guilt was not mitigated by the DNA and testimony of the serial rapist who came upon the victim after being beaten by the punks who admitted assaulting her.
"So, again, do you all have access to some ADDITIONAL data that these experts actually involved in the case didn't have?"
Do you have access to some ADDITIONAL data which the actual law enforcement officers who took the punks into custody, as well as the prosecutors of those punks didn't have? No. You don't. You're acting what Ken Burns told you and what the punks said later on. Again, their video taped confessions are still available. There is no evidence they were coerced or treated in any way different than any other suspect of any other crime.
"Or is it the case that you think you're smarter and better able to determine the reality from the safe distance of your house and lack of connection to the place than the actual experts involved?"
I don't need to be "smarter". I only need to be smart enough to weigh the testimonies of the punks and law enforcement personnel involved at the time of arrest and weight against that which came much later, based on the confession of an additional attacker of the victim a serial rapist/liar.
"Or is it the case that you suspect some big conspiracy that these experts are a part of to subvert justice?"
Who are these experts of whom you speak and what makes them more expert and knowledgeable about the fact of the case than those law enforcement personnel to arrested, charged and prosecuted the punks who implicated themselves and each other? I'm well aware of the plethora of leftist assholes like you who are more than willing to enable criminal behavior under the guise of racism and police brutality. There's no evidence of any of that in the initial prosecution of these punks you need to believe are innocent victims of some mythical injustice. Again, they never recanted their admission of attacking others on that night, yet the confession of the Matias Reyes, taken as if gospel preached by St. Paul, was used to exonerate the punks of all criminal behavior in which they perpetrated that night, including the assault on Patricia Meili of which they initially confessed.
Only a race-huslting moron would pretend that the presence of Reyes' DNA means the other five punks didn't assault the woman, leaving her for dead and/or the rapist Reyes to exploit.
"IF you have no extra secret information (you don't)"
You don't have ANY info which mitigates the guilt of the punks. You have only their later recantations, and the efforts by leftist assholes to portray them as victims of a mythical racist system.
"...and IF you have no special training or expertise in this field not available to the experts involved (you don't)"
What's YOUR special training or expertise in this field which justifies your taking one side as opposed to the other? Answer: None whatsoever.
"THEN reasonable people will abide by the actual experts involved and not bow down to outside non-experts who are suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory to keep wrongly imprisoned black men (something that our nation has WAY too long a history of) in prison."
Once again "reasonable" is Dan-speak for "whatever agrees with whatever dumbass position Dan chooses to take". "Actual experts" include those of law enforcement who were involved with the arrest, charging and prosecution of the five punks. Other legal experts agreed with the conclusion that the punks were involved with the assault on the woman.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/central-park-five-still-guilty-jack-kerwick/
https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/when-they-see-us/
"In short, armchair outsider non-experts don't get to make the call over an against actual experts actually involved in the details of the case."
That's exactly what you're doing, you racist POS. Those involved in the case when it happened, not years later on the basis of a confession by a serial rapist/liar, are experts you dismiss simply because five punks of color are presumed innocent after their own testimonies convict them. You're a f**kig joke. "Armchair outsider non-expert" indeed, asshole.
"Shame on you both for pretending that you have some superior knowledge and information than actual experts, legal professionals sworn to uphold justice."
Kiss my ass, condescending bitch, for presuming you have the facts right and I don't with no more or less info than I've seen. Indeed, I'd wager I've seen more than you have, as I haven't simply leaned on what Ken Burns and other knee-jerk race-baiters have said. You dare question the integrity of those on the scene...those who charged, tried and convicted the punks at the time? Where does a sorry ass liar like you get off daring to accuse anybody?
"Your slander and wrong-headed gossip are simply bad and irrational behavior."
"Slander"? Accepting the testimony of the perpetrators who volunteered much of the info which led to their indictments? Again, take a hike, liar! You've provided nothing in the way of supporting evidence for anything you've tried to put forth as truth. You'd have deleted me by now if the roles were reversed, you hypocritical little punk.
"Thanks for answering, though, but it only makes you all look like murderous gossips (killing people's reputations) and as you know, slanderers and gossips will not be part of the realm of God."
Again, a hypocrite who slanders and assaults the reputations of others daring to accuse others of the crime. You slander Trump and now you're slandering the character and reputations of the law enforcement personnel who were involved in the case when it happened because some leftist assholes pretend the punks were wrongfully accused. Note that the prosecutor accepted the judgement of the court when Reyes confessed and his DNA proved he was involved. That's not the same as saying the five punks were guilty as hell of assaulting and almost murdering the victim. But with your head firmly up your ass, you pretend otherwise. Assholes like you are what's wrong with this country.
You Christ-mocking liar.
"February 2, 2024 at 4:06 PM
"And Ann Coulter is a racist nutjob, not an actual expert. Nor is she a good or rational person."
Given you're a proven racist nutjob, not an actual expert in much of anything, nor a good or rational person, your opinion on the character of others is abjectly worthless.
"https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter"
Is this supposed to be supporting evidence rationalizing your hatred for a better person? Really? Couldn't you find one more outrageously determined to smear and disparage? Good gosh, what a mocker of Christ you are!!
"Also, she's not ever really been a lawyer. She has a law degree, which she barely, briefly used as a lawyer, at least as far as I can tell."
What you "can tell" means absolutely nothing. Even your incredibly biased "rationalwiki" affirmed her legal credentials. Doesn't matter how much cases she argued. What matters is her training gives her expertise far, far beyond anything you have.
"If you want to be taken seriously, you have to cite legitimate, non-clown sources."
Says the lying clown who cited "rationalwiki". I guess you just can't help proving what a moron you are.
Note that I haven't deleted a single stupid assed thing you've said in your stupidity filled comments. That's what "grace" actually looks like...that even a lying little punk like you can be allowed to spew bullshit and not get deleted when you don't do a f**king thing to support a single thing you say.
As to Coulter, I don't care if she's a known liar like you are. If you're going to pretend what she reports is flawed, you're obligated to support that charge with evidence. You haven't come within a universe of even attempting to do what you demand of others in that regard.
Post a Comment