This should bother you more than it will

[HvilleHokie]

I'm not the one that made a comment about this trial being asymmetrc application of justice.

You don't have an example. No big deal.

Do you have an example of another "similar case" (your words)?
You don't. No big deal.

This trial is an example of asymmetric application of justice.

I am sure there have been many civil jury trials where a guilty verdict of sexual assault was the result.....

Here's another famous guy, losing a civil suit on sexual assault. I mean, it's not exactly the same, because they actually found him guilty of rape, in addition to sexual assault.

https://www.abc7chicago.com/amp/harvey- ... /12801274/

You keep repeating the same thing with nothing to back up your claim.

You keep coming up w/ nothing and are going in circles in this thread.
Weinstein's wasn't a similar case. At all.

But keep digging.
Parse away, DC. Parse away.

You are criticizing someone for parsing after this?

viewtopic.php?p=367651#p367651

Several of you (yes, you too) were assuming I had a problem with the verdict.

I have a problem with the asymmetric application of justice. I've clarified this many times now.

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

[RiverguyVT]

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

What has been laid out is that there was a civil court case. Okay. The judge & jury found what it found -guilt. Okay. Some here have implied that maybe I have an issue with procedures of the trial itself -it's framework. I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to assume (as another said) that the laws of NY were followed. Fine. Still no problem.

Some put words in my mouth saying I was upset with the "guilty" verdict. I've never said any such thing. People then argued against something I'd never said. (whaaaat???)

My "asymmetric application of justice" comment is no different from what I've been saying here for years. Some here mock the very idea of there being "two sets of laws." DC often makes a point of discarding the notion wholesale. Leftists here tend to.

If the system of justice was not asymmetrical, we would have seen other similar trials; but we don't. DC called for comparison to a "similar case" or some such phrasing. There is no similar case to this one. LOL. Never has been.

Right now, the left's approach is to kill dRuMpF~! by a thousand cuts. He will never get out of court. Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case. He will be in court from now until the next election and probably past that too. Probably for the rest of his life, the Jacobins hate him so.

But while we are at it, how about we apply the same exact (blind?) justice to others?

There was way more evidence that Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brodderick. There were corroborating acquaintances that Brodederick had told. Date, time, place are all in order. The man bit her face to bleeding and said "better get some ice for that." Where's the trial? Joe Biden raped his staffer. Again, date time and place are all known. Again, the victim told others (corroborated by her mom calling in to Larry King even). Where's the trial? Biden pedophiled his own daughter. Where is the trial and social services involvement? What he did was a crime.

There is almost zero appetite to prosecute those on the left, by a system so thoroughly manned by other leftists.

In this case, the woman didn't even know what YEAR this supposedly happened. So, spike the football. Ding-dong the wicked witch oRaNgEmAn is dead! Okay. Fine.

What about all the others?

Two sets of laws.
What about our system of justice?

[HokieHam]

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

What has been laid out is that there was a civil court case. Okay. The judge & jury found what it found -guilt. Okay. Some here have implied that maybe I have an issue with procedures of the trial itself -it's framework. I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to assume (as another said) that the laws of NY were followed. Fine. Still no problem.

Some put words in my mouth saying I was upset with the "guilty" verdict. I've never said any such thing. People then argued against something I'd never said. (whaaaat???)

My "asymmetric application of justice" comment is no different from what I've been saying here for years. Some here mock the very idea of there being "two sets of laws." DC often makes a point of discarding the notion wholesale. Leftists here tend to.

If the system of justice was not asymmetrical, we would have seen other similar trials; but we don't. DC called for comparison to a "similar case" or some such phrasing. There is no similar case to this one. LOL. Never has been.

Right now, the left's approach is to kill dRuMpF~! by a thousand cuts. He will never get out of court. Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case. He will be in court from now until the next election and probably past that too. Probably for the rest of his life, the Jacobins hate him so.

But while we are at it, how about we apply the same exact (blind?) justice to others?

There was way more evidence that Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brodderick. There were corroborating acquaintances that Brodederick had told. Date, time, place are all in order. The man bit her face to bleeding and said "better get some ice for that." Where's the trial? Joe Biden raped his staffer. Again, date time and place are all known. Again, the victim told others (corroborated by her mom calling in to Larry King even). Where's the trial? Biden pedophiled his own daughter. Where is the trial and social services involvement? What he did was a crime.

There is almost zero appetite to prosecute those on the left, by a system so thoroughly manned by other leftists.

In this case, the woman didn't even know what YEAR this supposedly happened. So, spike the football. Ding-dong the wicked witch oRaNgEmAn is dead! Okay. Fine.

What about all the others?

Two sets of laws.
What about our system of justice?

Don’t forget what XiDing did to Ripley!

[RiverguyVT]

Don’t forget what XiDing did to Ripley!

Creepy effer left a dead dog on a woman's front steps (if he told the truth about that...)
Seems actionable.

[HokieFanDC]

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

What has been laid out is that there was a civil court case. Okay. The judge & jury found what it found -guilt. Okay. Some here have implied that maybe I have an issue with procedures of the trial itself -it's framework. I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to assume (as another said) that the laws of NY were followed. Fine. Still no problem.

Some put words in my mouth saying I was upset with the "guilty" verdict. I've never said any such thing. People then argued against something I'd never said. (whaaaat???)

My "asymmetric application of justice" comment is no different from what I've been saying here for years. Some here mock the very idea of there being "two sets of laws." DC often makes a point of discarding the notion wholesale. Leftists here tend to.

If the system of justice was not asymmetrical, we would have seen other similar trials; but we don't. DC called for comparison to a "similar case" or some such phrasing. There is no similar case to this one. LOL. Never has been.

Right now, the left's approach is to kill dRuMpF~! by a thousand cuts. He will never get out of court. Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case. He will be in court from now until the next election and probably past that too. Probably for the rest of his life, the Jacobins hate him so.

But while we are at it, how about we apply the same exact (blind?) justice to others?

There was way more evidence that Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brodderick. There were corroborating acquaintances that Brodederick had told. Date, time, place are all in order. The man bit her face to bleeding and said "better get some ice for that." Where's the trial? Joe Biden raped his staffer. Again, date time and place are all known. Again, the victim told others (corroborated by her mom calling in to Larry King even). Where's the trial? Biden pedophiled his own daughter. Where is the trial and social services involvement? What he did was a crime.

There is almost zero appetite to prosecute those on the left, by a system so thoroughly manned by other leftists.

In this case, the woman didn't even know what YEAR this supposedly happened. So, spike the football. Ding-dong the wicked witch oRaNgEmAn is dead! Okay. Fine.

What about all the others?

Two sets of laws.
What about our system of justice?

I don't think your comparison is accurate.

Clinton and Trump both accused of sexual assault and rape. Neither charged with criminal charges - the allegations came after statute of limitations expired.
Carroll can't remember day, month, or year.
Broderick can't remember day or month.

Carroll's story has remained consistent.
Broderick has both accused Clinton of sexual assault and filed an affadavit saying she was not assaulted. There are lots of reasons why a woman would take the accusation back when it's related to accusing the POTUS who may be impeached.

Trump lost the civil case by Carroll.
Broderick never filed a civil case.

Politicians, political activists, and campaign experts have used accusations against both as political weapons.

Trump and Clinton have both had multiple claims of sexual assault.

Paula Jones filed a civil suit against Clinton. He didn't "lose" in the sense that Trump did, because he settled with Jones.

Clinton, like Trump (but for different reasons) was impeached for flimsy reasons, and neither were found guilty and removed from office.

There's nothing asymmetric about any of those.

Both of them are creepy as hell and most likely
have assaulted multiple women.

Insinuating that there is separate treatment is a pretty flimsy stance.

And you and others always say this,

"Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case.",

and when that happens, you say it wasn't fair and cry "two sets of laws".

In this case, this sounds like a pretty strong insuation that the judge had a hand in determining the verdict.

Joe, "Clinton-appointed judge in Manhattan finds Trump guilty of allegedly defaming a gold digging whore. In a civil suit based on 30 year old allegations.

DC, "The judge didn't find anyone guilty, Joe."

RGVT, "Holy non-seq batman.
Did the judge run the trial?"

Biden? He's a whole different story.

He's extra creepy on many levels and likely has assaulted lots of women.
Tara Reade isn't the best witness, she has changed her story and lied, but what she is accusing Biden of doing, seems perfectly plausible and likely.

[RiverguyVT]

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

What has been laid out is that there was a civil court case. Okay. The judge & jury found what it found -guilt. Okay. Some here have implied that maybe I have an issue with procedures of the trial itself -it's framework. I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to assume (as another said) that the laws of NY were followed. Fine. Still no problem.

Some put words in my mouth saying I was upset with the "guilty" verdict. I've never said any such thing. People then argued against something I'd never said. (whaaaat???)

My "asymmetric application of justice" comment is no different from what I've been saying here for years. Some here mock the very idea of there being "two sets of laws." DC often makes a point of discarding the notion wholesale. Leftists here tend to.

If the system of justice was not asymmetrical, we would have seen other similar trials; but we don't. DC called for comparison to a "similar case" or some such phrasing. There is no similar case to this one. LOL. Never has been.

Right now, the left's approach is to kill dRuMpF~! by a thousand cuts. He will never get out of court. Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case. He will be in court from now until the next election and probably past that too. Probably for the rest of his life, the Jacobins hate him so.

But while we are at it, how about we apply the same exact (blind?) justice to others?

There was way more evidence that Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brodderick. There were corroborating acquaintances that Brodederick had told. Date, time, place are all in order. The man bit her face to bleeding and said "better get some ice for that." Where's the trial? Joe Biden raped his staffer. Again, date time and place are all known. Again, the victim told others (corroborated by her mom calling in to Larry King even). Where's the trial? Biden pedophiled his own daughter. Where is the trial and social services involvement? What he did was a crime.

There is almost zero appetite to prosecute those on the left, by a system so thoroughly manned by other leftists.

In this case, the woman didn't even know what YEAR this supposedly happened. So, spike the football. Ding-dong the wicked witch oRaNgEmAn is dead! Okay. Fine.

What about all the others?

Two sets of laws.
What about our system of justice?

I don't think your comparison is accurate.

Clinton and Trump both accused of sexual assault and rape. Neither charged with criminal charges - the allegations came after statute of limitations expired.
Carroll can't remember day, month, or year.
Broderick can't remember day or month.
(etc... deleted out)

And here I stopped reading.
That's just false.
Broderick knows the year, month, day and time as well as place and circumstances. She could probably recollect the weather that day.

Of course you don't think my comparison is accurate;* you've posted here many times to the effect that you do not believe there to be any bifurcation in our legal system. That's fine. (Reminds me a lot of one of our old UWS posters that used to insist that there was no media bias...)



*there may be suspicion, though, that if I was on UWS preaching that today we have blind equality under the law, you'd be ardently taking the position that I take now... because.

[HokieFanDC]

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

What has been laid out is that there was a civil court case. Okay. The judge & jury found what it found -guilt. Okay. Some here have implied that maybe I have an issue with procedures of the trial itself -it's framework. I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to assume (as another said) that the laws of NY were followed. Fine. Still no problem.

Some put words in my mouth saying I was upset with the "guilty" verdict. I've never said any such thing. People then argued against something I'd never said. (whaaaat???)

My "asymmetric application of justice" comment is no different from what I've been saying here for years. Some here mock the very idea of there being "two sets of laws." DC often makes a point of discarding the notion wholesale. Leftists here tend to.

If the system of justice was not asymmetrical, we would have seen other similar trials; but we don't. DC called for comparison to a "similar case" or some such phrasing. There is no similar case to this one. LOL. Never has been.

Right now, the left's approach is to kill dRuMpF~! by a thousand cuts. He will never get out of court. Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case. He will be in court from now until the next election and probably past that too. Probably for the rest of his life, the Jacobins hate him so.

But while we are at it, how about we apply the same exact (blind?) justice to others?

There was way more evidence that Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brodderick. There were corroborating acquaintances that Brodederick had told. Date, time, place are all in order. The man bit her face to bleeding and said "better get some ice for that." Where's the trial? Joe Biden raped his staffer. Again, date time and place are all known. Again, the victim told others (corroborated by her mom calling in to Larry King even). Where's the trial? Biden pedophiled his own daughter. Where is the trial and social services involvement? What he did was a crime.

There is almost zero appetite to prosecute those on the left, by a system so thoroughly manned by other leftists.

In this case, the woman didn't even know what YEAR this supposedly happened. So, spike the football. Ding-dong the wicked witch oRaNgEmAn is dead! Okay. Fine.

What about all the others?

Two sets of laws.
What about our system of justice?

I don't think your comparison is accurate.

Clinton and Trump both accused of sexual assault and rape. Neither charged with criminal charges - the allegations came after statute of limitations expired.
Carroll can't remember day, month, or year.
Broderick can't remember day or month.
(etc... deleted out)

And here I stopped reading.
That's just false.
Broderick knows the year, month, day and time as well as place and circumstances. She could probably recollect the weather that day.

Of course you don't think my comparison is accurate;* you've posted here many times to the effect that you do not believe there to be any bifurcation in our legal system. That's fine. (Reminds me a lot of one of our old UWS posters that used to insist that there was no media bias...)



*there may be suspicion, though, that if I was on UWS preaching that today we have blind equality under the law, you'd be ardently taking the position that I take now... because.

At the time of her accusation, Broderick did not know the date or month. She remembered it was spring of 1978. It was later that she was able to piece together the day based on hotel records and campaign dates.

"The Details

Broaddrick did not remember the date of the rape, though she did supply the name of the hotel (Camelot) and the reason she was visiting Little Rock (a nursing home seminar). She also says that Clinton pointed to a ramshackle prison outside the hotel room window before he raped her and said he planned to renovate it. NBC News found a date when a nursing home seminar was held in the Camelot Hotel and records show that Broaddrick attended. Newspaper reports suggest that Clinton was in the area and had no official commitments in the early morning, when the rape is supposed to have occurred. There was a prison outside the hotel window."

Not surprising that you stopped reading. It's a common ingenuous tactic that you take. Ignorance is bliss.

What I posted above is an example that goes against your two sets of laws claims.
The current Congress is another example that disproves your two sets of laws claims.
You, personally, are an example, especially in this thread.

What you miss, or ignore, in my response to those claims, is that my belief is that the GOP treats Dems the same way the Dems treat Pubs.

[HokieJoe]

8 Reasons Why E. Jean Carroll Won Her Sexual Abuse and Defamation Lawsuit Against Trump
It is not hard to see why the jury concluded that the incident she described probably happened.

Fifth, Trump did himself no favors during a deposition in which Carroll's lead lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, asked him about those remarks. "Well, historically that's true with stars," he said. "It's true with stars that they can grab women by the pussy?" Kaplan asked. "If you look over the last million years," Trump replied, "I guess that's been largely true, not always, but largely true—unfortunately or fortunately." When Kaplan asked if Trump considered himself "a star," he said, "I think you can say that, yeah."

Sixth, Trump insisted that he did not know Carroll, despite photographic evidence that they had met, and his denial of her charges hinged largely on his claim that "she's not my type"—as if he could imagine behaving as Carroll claimed he had with a woman he found more attractive. Kaplan noted that when she showed Trump a picture of Carroll greeting him at a social event in the 1980s, he mistook her for Marla Maples, his second wife. "The truth is that E. Jean Carroll, a former cheerleader and Miss Indiana, was exactly Donald Trump's type," Kaplan told the jury.

His own big mouth tiny dick did him in.

https://reason.com/2023/05/10/8-reason ... nst-trump/

There never would have been a trial at all if he hadn't shot off his big stupid mouth raped a woman.

FTFY

Who did he rape?

Not this woman. Maybe someone at another time, another place. This one? Most highly unlikely.

But hey, Joe. They got their bAd oRaNgEmAn~! Let them have this; it is all that matters.

They don't have sh!t on a shingle. And they know they don't.

[RiverguyVT]

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

What has been laid out is that there was a civil court case. Okay. The judge & jury found what it found -guilt. Okay. Some here have implied that maybe I have an issue with procedures of the trial itself -it's framework. I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to assume (as another said) that the laws of NY were followed. Fine. Still no problem.

Some put words in my mouth saying I was upset with the "guilty" verdict. I've never said any such thing. People then argued against something I'd never said. (whaaaat???)

My "asymmetric application of justice" comment is no different from what I've been saying here for years. Some here mock the very idea of there being "two sets of laws." DC often makes a point of discarding the notion wholesale. Leftists here tend to.

If the system of justice was not asymmetrical, we would have seen other similar trials; but we don't. DC called for comparison to a "similar case" or some such phrasing. There is no similar case to this one. LOL. Never has been.

Right now, the left's approach is to kill dRuMpF~! by a thousand cuts. He will never get out of court. Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case. He will be in court from now until the next election and probably past that too. Probably for the rest of his life, the Jacobins hate him so.

But while we are at it, how about we apply the same exact (blind?) justice to others?

There was way more evidence that Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brodderick. There were corroborating acquaintances that Brodederick had told. Date, time, place are all in order. The man bit her face to bleeding and said "better get some ice for that." Where's the trial? Joe Biden raped his staffer. Again, date time and place are all known. Again, the victim told others (corroborated by her mom calling in to Larry King even). Where's the trial? Biden pedophiled his own daughter. Where is the trial and social services involvement? What he did was a crime.

There is almost zero appetite to prosecute those on the left, by a system so thoroughly manned by other leftists.

In this case, the woman didn't even know what YEAR this supposedly happened. So, spike the football. Ding-dong the wicked witch oRaNgEmAn is dead! Okay. Fine.

What about all the others?

Two sets of laws.
What about our system of justice?

I don't think your comparison is accurate.

Clinton and Trump both accused of sexual assault and rape. Neither charged with criminal charges - the allegations came after statute of limitations expired.
Carroll can't remember day, month, or year.
Broderick can't remember day or month.
(etc... deleted out)

And here I stopped reading.
That's just false.
Broderick knows the year, month, day and time as well as place and circumstances. She could probably recollect the weather that day.

Of course you don't think my comparison is accurate;* you've posted here many times to the effect that you do not believe there to be any bifurcation in our legal system. That's fine. (Reminds me a lot of one of our old UWS posters that used to insist that there was no media bias...)



*there may be suspicion, though, that if I was on UWS preaching that today we have blind equality under the law, you'd be ardently taking the position that I take now... because.

At the time of her accusation, Broderick did not know the date or month. She remembered it was spring of 1978. It was later that she was able to piece together the day based on hotel records and campaign dates.

"The Details

Broaddrick did not remember the date of the rape, though she did supply the name of the hotel (Camelot) and the reason she was visiting Little Rock (a nursing home seminar). She also says that Clinton pointed to a ramshackle prison outside the hotel room window before he raped her and said he planned to renovate it. NBC News found a date when a nursing home seminar was held in the Camelot Hotel and records show that Broaddrick attended. Newspaper reports suggest that Clinton was in the area and had no official commitments in the early morning, when the rape is supposed to have occurred. There was a prison outside the hotel window."

Not surprising that you stopped reading. It's a common ingenuous tactic that you take. Ignorance is bliss.

What I posted above is an example that goes against your two sets of laws claims.
The current Congress is another example that disproves your two sets of laws claims.
You, personally, are an example, especially in this thread.

What you miss, or ignore, in my response to those claims, is that my belief is that the GOP treats Dems the same way the Dems treat Pubs.

Watch your verb tense parses, DC

DC: Broderick can't remember day or month… (present tense)

RG: Broderick knows the year, month, day and time… (present tense)

DC pivot: (paraphrase- at one time she didn’t know…) Broderick did not know the date or month…. (Past tense)

Some unidentified copy paste of yours: Broaddrick did not remember the date (past tense)

What makes your position silly is that you claim on the one hand that Broderick is clueless about date and time BUT somehow Clinton’s specific schedule that day IS known. LOL

The current Trump accuser (as I said) present-tense knows none of that.

This trail against dRuMpF~! remains unprecedented.

We have two sets of laws

Any casual observer can see it. It takes super hyper vigilance and dedication to being bALaNcEd and uNbiAsEd to purposefully not see what is clear as day. I know I know… day isn’t always clear. Dust storms. Got it.

[HokieFanDC]

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

What has been laid out is that there was a civil court case. Okay. The judge & jury found what it found -guilt. Okay. Some here have implied that maybe I have an issue with procedures of the trial itself -it's framework. I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to assume (as another said) that the laws of NY were followed. Fine. Still no problem.

Some put words in my mouth saying I was upset with the "guilty" verdict. I've never said any such thing. People then argued against something I'd never said. (whaaaat???)

My "asymmetric application of justice" comment is no different from what I've been saying here for years. Some here mock the very idea of there being "two sets of laws." DC often makes a point of discarding the notion wholesale. Leftists here tend to.

If the system of justice was not asymmetrical, we would have seen other similar trials; but we don't. DC called for comparison to a "similar case" or some such phrasing. There is no similar case to this one. LOL. Never has been.

Right now, the left's approach is to kill dRuMpF~! by a thousand cuts. He will never get out of court. Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case. He will be in court from now until the next election and probably past that too. Probably for the rest of his life, the Jacobins hate him so.

But while we are at it, how about we apply the same exact (blind?) justice to others?

There was way more evidence that Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brodderick. There were corroborating acquaintances that Brodederick had told. Date, time, place are all in order. The man bit her face to bleeding and said "better get some ice for that." Where's the trial? Joe Biden raped his staffer. Again, date time and place are all known. Again, the victim told others (corroborated by her mom calling in to Larry King even). Where's the trial? Biden pedophiled his own daughter. Where is the trial and social services involvement? What he did was a crime.

There is almost zero appetite to prosecute those on the left, by a system so thoroughly manned by other leftists.

In this case, the woman didn't even know what YEAR this supposedly happened. So, spike the football. Ding-dong the wicked witch oRaNgEmAn is dead! Okay. Fine.

What about all the others?

Two sets of laws.
What about our system of justice?

I don't think your comparison is accurate.

Clinton and Trump both accused of sexual assault and rape. Neither charged with criminal charges - the allegations came after statute of limitations expired.
Carroll can't remember day, month, or year.
Broderick can't remember day or month.
(etc... deleted out)

And here I stopped reading.
That's just false.
Broderick knows the year, month, day and time as well as place and circumstances. She could probably recollect the weather that day.

Of course you don't think my comparison is accurate;* you've posted here many times to the effect that you do not believe there to be any bifurcation in our legal system. That's fine. (Reminds me a lot of one of our old UWS posters that used to insist that there was no media bias...)



*there may be suspicion, though, that if I was on UWS preaching that today we have blind equality under the law, you'd be ardently taking the position that I take now... because.

At the time of her accusation, Broderick did not know the date or month. She remembered it was spring of 1978. It was later that she was able to piece together the day based on hotel records and campaign dates.

"The Details

Broaddrick did not remember the date of the rape, though she did supply the name of the hotel (Camelot) and the reason she was visiting Little Rock (a nursing home seminar). She also says that Clinton pointed to a ramshackle prison outside the hotel room window before he raped her and said he planned to renovate it. NBC News found a date when a nursing home seminar was held in the Camelot Hotel and records show that Broaddrick attended. Newspaper reports suggest that Clinton was in the area and had no official commitments in the early morning, when the rape is supposed to have occurred. There was a prison outside the hotel window."

Not surprising that you stopped reading. It's a common ingenuous tactic that you take. Ignorance is bliss.

What I posted above is an example that goes against your two sets of laws claims.
The current Congress is another example that disproves your two sets of laws claims.
You, personally, are an example, especially in this thread.

What you miss, or ignore, in my response to those claims, is that my belief is that the GOP treats Dems the same way the Dems treat Pubs.

Watch your verb tense parses, DC

DC: Broderick can't remember day or month… (present tense)

RG: Broderick knows the year, month, day and time… (present tense)

DC pivot: (paraphrase- at one time she didn’t know…) Broderick did not know the date or month…. (Past tense)

Some unidentified copy paste of yours: Broaddrick did not remember the date (past tense)

What makes your position silly is that you claim on the one hand that Broderick is clueless about date and time BUT somehow Clinton’s specific schedule that day IS known. LOL

The current Trump accuser (as I said) present-tense knows none of that.

This trail against dRuMpF~! remains unprecedented.

We have two sets of laws

Any casual observer can see it. It takes super hyper vigilance and dedication to being bALaNcEd and uNbiAsEd to purposefully not see what is clear as day. I know I know… day isn’t always clear. Dust storms. Got it.

TS: DFR

Your first line is comedy gold, RG.

Yes, Broderick was able to put together the date that she was raped, and Carroll couldn't. You win the irrelevant point of the day.

The only thing that's unprecedented between Clinton and Trump, is that Trump went to trial instead of settling the case like Clinton did.
Your dogged assertion that Trump can't be guilty of sexual assault, and certainly not against Carroll, is just ridiculous knowing what we know about Trump.

[HokieJoe]

Something familiar about the Kavanaugh hearings thread and this thread...Oh yeah, it's practically the same UWS cast of ignorami arguing for the liar, Blahzy Ford, as those arguing for this bimbo.

This is lawfare. You idiots.

[RiverguyVT]

TS: DFR

Your first line is comedy gold, RG.

Yes, Broderick was able to put together the date that she was raped, and Carroll couldn't. You win the irrelevant point of the day.

The only thing that's unprecedented between Clinton and Trump, is that Trump went to trial instead of settling the case like Clinton did.
Your dogged assertion that Trump can't be guilty of sexual assault, and certainly not against Carroll, is just ridiculous knowing what we know about Trump.

Your dogged assertion that Trump can't be guilty of sexual assault, a - again, more arguing against something I'd not said. How many times is that in this thread alone, now?

Dogged assertion. LOL

[RiverguyVT]

Something familiar about the Kavanaugh hearings thread and this thread...Oh yeah, it's practically the same UWS cast of ignorami arguing for the liar, Blahzy Ford, as those arguing for this bimbo.

This is lawfare. You idiots.

And like in the past, the "same UWS cast of ignorami" must make things up and then argue against their own fabrications.

[HooFighter]

So you find this to be an asymmetric application of justice but you don’t disagree with it? That’s an odd position.

(At best it’s an extreme case of parsing that you accuse hokiefandc of)

What has been laid out is that there was a civil court case. Okay. The judge & jury found what it found -guilt. Okay. Some here have implied that maybe I have an issue with procedures of the trial itself -it's framework. I'm not a lawyer. I'd have to assume (as another said) that the laws of NY were followed. Fine. Still no problem.

Some put words in my mouth saying I was upset with the "guilty" verdict. I've never said any such thing. People then argued against something I'd never said. (whaaaat???)

My "asymmetric application of justice" comment is no different from what I've been saying here for years. Some here mock the very idea of there being "two sets of laws." DC often makes a point of discarding the notion wholesale. Leftists here tend to.

If the system of justice was not asymmetrical, we would have seen other similar trials; but we don't. DC called for comparison to a "similar case" or some such phrasing. There is no similar case to this one. LOL. Never has been.

Right now, the left's approach is to kill dRuMpF~! by a thousand cuts. He will never get out of court. Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case. He will be in court from now until the next election and probably past that too. Probably for the rest of his life, the Jacobins hate him so.

But while we are at it, how about we apply the same exact (blind?) justice to others?

There was way more evidence that Bill Clinton actually raped Juanita Brodderick. There were corroborating acquaintances that Brodederick had told. Date, time, place are all in order. The man bit her face to bleeding and said "better get some ice for that." Where's the trial? Joe Biden raped his staffer. Again, date time and place are all known. Again, the victim told others (corroborated by her mom calling in to Larry King even). Where's the trial? Biden pedophiled his own daughter. Where is the trial and social services involvement? What he did was a crime.

There is almost zero appetite to prosecute those on the left, by a system so thoroughly manned by other leftists.

In this case, the woman didn't even know what YEAR this supposedly happened. So, spike the football. Ding-dong the wicked witch oRaNgEmAn is dead! Okay. Fine.

What about all the others?

Two sets of laws.
What about our system of justice?

I don't think your comparison is accurate.

Clinton and Trump both accused of sexual assault and rape. Neither charged with criminal charges - the allegations came after statute of limitations expired.
Carroll can't remember day, month, or year.
Broderick can't remember day or month.

Carroll's story has remained consistent.
Broderick has both accused Clinton of sexual assault and filed an affadavit saying she was not assaulted. There are lots of reasons why a woman would take the accusation back when it's related to accusing the POTUS who may be impeached.

Trump lost the civil case by Carroll.
Broderick never filed a civil case.

Politicians, political activists, and campaign experts have used accusations against both as political weapons.

Trump and Clinton have both had multiple claims of sexual assault.

Paula Jones filed a civil suit against Clinton. He didn't "lose" in the sense that Trump did, because he settled with Jones.

Clinton, like Trump (but for different reasons) was impeached for flimsy reasons, and neither were found guilty and removed from office.

There's nothing asymmetric about any of those.

Both of them are creepy as hell and most likely
have assaulted multiple women.

Insinuating that there is separate treatment is a pretty flimsy stance.

And you and others always say this,

"Well, okay, if he's done things and needs to be tried, I have (and I think every single other conservative on this board has) said go ahead and try him and find him guilty if that's the case.",

and when that happens, you say it wasn't fair and cry "two sets of laws".

In this case, this sounds like a pretty strong insuation that the judge had a hand in determining the verdict.

Joe, "Clinton-appointed judge in Manhattan finds Trump guilty of allegedly defaming a gold digging whore. In a civil suit based on 30 year old allegations.

DC, "The judge didn't find anyone guilty, Joe."

RGVT, "Holy non-seq batman.
Did the judge run the trial?"

Biden? He's a whole different story.

He's extra creepy on many levels and likely has assaulted lots of women.
Tara Reade isn't the best witness, she has changed her story and lied, but what she is accusing Biden of doing, seems perfectly plausible and likely.

Well, imagine that. Suppose she has to go there to collect her payment in person.

[RiverguyVT]

Well, imagine that. Suppose she has to go there to collect her payment in person.

Oh man. LOL

Don't do it, Hoo Fight! Don't do it~!

The Russian spy thing is a tar pit of embarrassment. LOL
(You should know that...)

[HooFighter]

[HooFighter]

[RiverguyVT]

A CSI episode.

LOL

Yeah,, no bifurcated legal system here...

[HokieHam]

A CSI episode.

LOL

Yeah,, no bifurcated legal system here...

Rape is sexy!

[UpstateSCHokie]

Anyone that believes a damn thing E. Jean Carroll says is a GD retard.

[RiverguyVT]

[UpstateSCHokie]

VDH weighs in on this banana republic bullshit.

[HokieJoe]

And the verdict/judgment will get destroyed on appeal. Believe me when I tell you this hoofight, far worse is yet to come for this country if this is the new legal standard. You should be worried, but I wonder if you have the requisite intellect to abstract the reasons why this is bad.

So here, let me help you out:


Person A said you raped their 5 year old little boy. They have no proof that you raped the little boy, just unsupported allegations.

You say, I don't know this woman or her child and you did not rape her little boy.

The court says: Okay, there is no evidence that you raped a little boy, but, she can sue you for defamation because you said you did not rape her little boy.

Is that the legal system you want?

[RiverguyVT]

VDH weighs in on this banana republic bullshit.

Yeah, but he's an idiot.
LOL

[HokieHam]

Something familiar about the Kavanaugh hearings thread and this thread...Oh yeah, it's practically the same UWS cast of ignorami arguing for the liar, Blahzy Ford, as those arguing for this bimbo.

This is lawfare. You idiots.

BINGO!

And DC wonders why we don’t see the sarcasm in the other thread….