|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 1, 2024 16:56:08 GMT
Are you saying both verdicts that found that Trump raped Carroll were a joke or rape is funny? I'm clearly saying that both verdicts are a joke. There was no real evidence but civil law cases work on balance of probability rather than the reasonable doubt premise of criminal cases against the state. That plus Manhattan jury and Bill Clinton judge...he was never going to win was he? A civil court does decide on matters on the balance of probability based on the evidence provided in court. The decision was made by a jury, not by a judge. You have not seen the evidence. You have decided the court got it wrong based on no evidence whatsoever. So if E Jean Carroll were to say to you that Trump raped her would you tell her to her face that she was a liar? |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Nov 1, 2024 17:29:05 GMT
I'm clearly saying that both verdicts are a joke. There was no real evidence but civil law cases work on balance of probability rather than the reasonable doubt premise of criminal cases against the state. That plus Manhattan jury and Bill Clinton judge...he was never going to win was he? A civil court does decide on matters on the balance of probability based on the evidence provided in court. The decision was made by a jury, not by a judge. You have not seen the evidence. You have decided the court got it wrong based on no evidence whatsoever. So if E Jean Carroll were to say to you that Trump raped her would you tell her to her face that she was a liar? I know it was decided by a jury but the approach of the judge, who is seen to be the wisest and highest authority in the room, could certainly have an impact on that verdict. Regarding evidence, it isn't a secret. The evidence is testimony of Carroll, and that of her two friends, who report only that she had reported the event to them. Everything else is just stuff Trump has said about women in general or other womens' accusations about him. The timing of her allegation, coinciding with a book release, also raises questions. It seems to me that they thought, well this guy has been accused by so many women and there's no smoke without fire, so if he didn't do this then he would probably have been guilty with one of the others. I can see the logic of that and with the number of accusations, I would be stupid to say that he definitely never acted badly with women. The thing I find ridiculous is that some of you guys are using this case as some sort of gold standard when I think it is very far from that. Would I call her a liar? Probably not. I imagine you work with and know people that lie about all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons and I daresay on most occasions you don't walk up to them and shout bullshit like Karl Pilkington! |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 1, 2024 17:47:47 GMT
A civil court does decide on matters on the balance of probability based on the evidence provided in court. The decision was made by a jury, not by a judge. You have not seen the evidence. You have decided the court got it wrong based on no evidence whatsoever. So if E Jean Carroll were to say to you that Trump raped her would you tell her to her face that she was a liar? I know it was decided by a jury but the approach of the judge, who is seen to be the wisest and highest authority in the room, could certainly have an impact on that verdict. Regarding evidence, it isn't a secret. The evidence is testimony of Carroll, and that of her two friends, who report only that she had reported the event to them. Everything else is just stuff Trump has said about women in general or other womens' accusations about him. The timing of her allegation, coinciding with a book release, also raises questions. It seems to me that they thought, well this guy has been accused by so many women and there's no smoke without fire, so if he didn't do this then he would probably have been guilty with one of the others. I can see the logic of that and with the number of accusations, I would be stupid to say that he definitely never acted badly with women. The thing I find ridiculous is that some of you guys are using this case as some sort of gold standard when I think it is very far from that. Would I call her a liar? Probably not. I imagine you work with and know people that lie about all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons and I daresay on most occasions you don't walk up to them and shout bullshit like Karl Pilkington! A farce of a case. They all know it but have TDS 😆 Watch the vitriol now 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by Tom_stokiepmre89 on Nov 1, 2024 19:19:42 GMT
You're beginning to lose me now. In the post of yours that I replied to, you made zero mention of the gaff Trump made by vetting somebody, then inviting them up on to the podium and allowing them to slag off a whole swath of voters. Which was actually WORSE for Trump than Biden's comments were for Harris. All I was doing, was pointing out, that Biden's comments didn't happen in a vaccuum and if you want to actually be critical of both, then probably better, not to mention just the one incident and ignore the other. Why am I required to mention it? 1. It's already there for everyone to see and has been commented on in this thread, as well as being circulated around the world. 2. I don't have a duty of impartiality whereby I can't post what I see as a huge misstep by the president without also providing detailed context + quotations of all the horrid shit trump has said. You aren't nailing me for something here. I lean strongly conservative but I've made trump critical posts (if I had a vote I'm not even sure I would use it) and I certainly won't be here celebrating regardless of who wins. |
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 1, 2024 19:21:34 GMT
You're beginning to lose me now. In the post of yours that I replied to, you made zero mention of the gaff Trump made by vetting somebody, then inviting them up on to the podium and allowing them to slag off a whole swath of voters. Which was actually WORSE for Trump than Biden's comments were for Harris. All I was doing, was pointing out, that Biden's comments didn't happen in a vaccuum and if you want to actually be critical of both, then probably better, not to mention just the one incident and ignore the other. Why am I required to mention it? 1. It's already there for everyone to see and has been commented on in this thread, as well as being circulated around the world. 2. I don't have a duty of impartiality whereby I can't post what I see as a huge misstep by the president without also providing detailed context + quotations of all the horrid shit trump has said. You aren't nailing me for something here. I lean strongly conservative but I've made trump critical posts (if I had a vote I'm not even sure I would use it) and I certainly won't be here celebrating regardless of who wins. Because he told you not to?🤷🏻♂️ |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 1, 2024 19:47:01 GMT
You're beginning to lose me now. In the post of yours that I replied to, you made zero mention of the gaff Trump made by vetting somebody, then inviting them up on to the podium and allowing them to slag off a whole swath of voters. Which was actually WORSE for Trump than Biden's comments were for Harris. All I was doing, was pointing out, that Biden's comments didn't happen in a vaccuum and if you want to actually be critical of both, then probably better, not to mention just the one incident and ignore the other. Why am I required to mention it? 1. It's already there for everyone to see and has been commented on in this thread, as well as being circulated around the world. 2. I don't have a duty of impartiality whereby I can't post what I see as a huge misstep by the president without also providing detailed context + quotations of all the horrid shit trump has said. You aren't nailing me for something here. I lean strongly conservative but I've made trump critical posts (if I had a vote I'm not even sure I would use it) and I certainly won't be here celebrating regardless of who wins. But I DIDN'T say you that you WERE required to mention it originally did I? That only occurred as a result of YOU saying ... "I don't understand the relevance, seeing as my entire point is that you don't counter strategic errors by making strategic errors." |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 1, 2024 19:59:09 GMT
Why would anyone back this racist fuck nugget?
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Nov 1, 2024 20:04:56 GMT
Why would anyone back this racist fuck nugget? Well all the racist fuck nuggets will But millions of non racist fuck nuggets vote for him too ☹️ |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Nov 1, 2024 20:08:47 GMT
Why hasn’t he been arrested for his Liz Cheney comments? Have you watched the actual clip? It's an anti Neo-con, Michael Moore style foreign policy position. He is not wishing her dead. It's amazing that people on the left are flocking to support the Cheney family though. The enemy of my enemy I suppose! |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 1, 2024 20:21:38 GMT
Why hasn’t he been arrested for his Liz Cheney comments? Have you watched the actual clip? It's an anti Neo-con, Michael Moore style foreign policy position. He is not wishing her dead. It's amazing that people on the left are flocking to support the Cheney family though. The enemy of my enemy I suppose! He literally wants her lined up. He says out loud what he wants. So stupid 🤣 |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 1, 2024 20:22:00 GMT
Why would anyone back this racist fuck nugget? Well all the racist fuck nuggets will But millions of non racist fuck nuggets vote for him too ☹️ Those millions are racists. |
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Nov 1, 2024 20:26:37 GMT
Have you watched the actual clip? It's an anti Neo-con, Michael Moore style foreign policy position. He is not wishing her dead. It's amazing that people on the left are flocking to support the Cheney family though. The enemy of my enemy I suppose! He literally wants her lined up. He says out loud what he wants. So stupid 🤣 That's the stupidest comment I've read for a while - congratulations! |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 1, 2024 21:22:26 GMT
He literally wants her lined up. He says out loud what he wants. So stupid 🤣 That's the stupidest comment I've read for a while - congratulations! Fair do's, it is Bayern. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom_stokiepmre89 on Nov 1, 2024 21:36:19 GMT
Why am I required to mention it? 1. It's already there for everyone to see and has been commented on in this thread, as well as being circulated around the world. 2. I don't have a duty of impartiality whereby I can't post what I see as a huge misstep by the president without also providing detailed context + quotations of all the horrid shit trump has said. You aren't nailing me for something here. I lean strongly conservative but I've made trump critical posts (if I had a vote I'm not even sure I would use it) and I certainly won't be here celebrating regardless of who wins. But I DIDN'T say you that you WERE required to mention it originally did I? That only occurred as a result of YOU saying ... "I don't understand the relevance, seeing as my entire point is that you don't counter strategic errors by making strategic errors." Here's the chain of events sparking this tedious exchange. 1. I post the biden gaffe video in isolation 2. A few anti-trump posters respond, downplaying biden's role in this election as well as engaging in whataboutery 3. I respond explaining why I don't think it should be downplayed (he's the bloody president!) and why I don't think it can be palmed away with whataboutery 4. You reply to me "you appear to have missed this" with a video of the kill tony set 5. I respond that I didn't miss it, acknowledge that I think it was a dumb move by trump having this guy perform, but further clarify points made in #3 (counter to dumb move isn't dumb move) Erm well ye you basically did by replying to #3 with "you appear to have missed this" and those kill tony links... Ok semantics, above quote I should've written "I don't understand the relevance, seeing as my entire point in reply to those guys is that you don't counter strategic errors by making strategic errors." But regardless, it was you (or should that be "YOU"?) who replied to #3 with "you appear to have missed this" and the kill tony links...which surely means you're telling me I was obliged to mention that stuff before (BEFORE) I wrote "I don't understand the relevance, seeing as my entire point is that you don't counter strategic errors by making strategic errors." Feel free to take the last word because I've had enough of this nonsense. "You're beginning to lose me" indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by riverman on Nov 1, 2024 22:36:02 GMT
Have you watched the actual clip? It's an anti Neo-con, Michael Moore style foreign policy position. He is not wishing her dead. It's amazing that people on the left are flocking to support the Cheney family though. The enemy of my enemy I suppose! He literally wants her lined up. He says out loud what he wants. So stupid 🤣 Here we go. Have a gander at this. |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Nov 1, 2024 22:54:33 GMT
He literally wants her lined up. He says out loud what he wants. So stupid 🤣 Here we go. Have a gander at this. Same as when they said trump told us all to drink bleach and that he said all Mexicans are murderers and rapists. They over play their hand. When it's not really required. Its odd really... I hope they both lose to be honest and just make Tom Brady the prezz |
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 1, 2024 23:18:27 GMT
He literally wants her lined up. He says out loud what he wants. So stupid 🤣 Here we go. Have a gander at this. How are the Bone Spurs in Trump's heels, have they all cleared up? |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 1, 2024 23:29:31 GMT
But I DIDN'T say you that you WERE required to mention it originally did I? That only occurred as a result of YOU saying ... "I don't understand the relevance, seeing as my entire point is that you don't counter strategic errors by making strategic errors." Here's the chain of events sparking this tedious exchange. 1. I post the biden gaffe video in isolation 2. A few anti-trump posters respond, downplaying biden's role in this election as well as engaging in whataboutery 3. I respond explaining why I don't think it should be downplayed (he's the bloody president!) and why I don't think it can be palmed away with whataboutery 4. You reply to me "you appear to have missed this" with a video of the kill tony set 5. I respond that I didn't miss it, acknowledge that I think it was a dumb move by trump having this guy perform, but further clarify points made in #3 (counter to dumb move isn't dumb move) Erm well ye you basically did by replying to #3 with "you appear to have missed this" and those kill tony links... Ok semantics, above quote I should've written "I don't understand the relevance, seeing as my entire point in reply to those guys is that you don't counter strategic errors by making strategic errors." But regardless, it was you (or should that be "YOU"?) who replied to #3 with "you appear to have missed this" and the kill tony links...which surely means you're telling me I was obliged to mention that stuff before (BEFORE) I wrote "I don't understand the relevance, seeing as my entire point is that you don't counter strategic errors by making strategic errors." Feel free to take the last word because I've had enough of this nonsense. "You're beginning to lose me" indeed. Well I still don't understand what your point was then, you started by claiming that it was US who was actually missing it. I thought you had clarified it by saying ... "You don’t counter a dumb move with a dumb move." and then later "my entire point is that you don't counter strategic errors by making strategic errors." You obviously know what you meant and it would appear I've misunderstood it, apologies if that's the case. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 1, 2024 23:38:29 GMT
Late news on Sweden text-tv
The justice minister of Arizona Kris Mayes (Dem) will investigate if Donald Trump's speech about the former congress member Liz Cheney might be a death threat, according to NBC.
In an interview with the former news reporter at Fox, Tucker Carlson, he said "she's a radical war hawk, let her stand in front of nine rifles". But then he made a pause ...
Trump replies "all I say about Liz Cheney is that she is a war hawk and a stupid one, but she wouldn't have the guts to fight herself".
Yeah, I actually saw the whole clip and there is no way Kris Mayes can accuse Trump about anything here. First he said what he said and then he gave an explanation why he'd said it. This is not a death threat at all. In his mind he was just thinking what her reaction would have been if she faced nine rifles. He said she wants to send innocent youngsters right into the enemy's mouth, but isn't brave and won't participate sitting safe in Washington.
|
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Nov 2, 2024 0:36:24 GMT
Here we go. Have a gander at this. How are the Bone Spurs in Trump's heels, have they all cleared up? They're bound to have, we saw how quickly his gunshot wound healed, not even a scar now, quite remarkable. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Nov 2, 2024 0:42:03 GMT
And yet the MAGA's simply don't care ...
|
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Nov 2, 2024 3:36:17 GMT
And yet the MAGA's simply don't care ... They see things like elections as a hindrance. Trump doesn't understand the underlying principles of democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Nov 2, 2024 7:41:04 GMT
Trump doesn't understand the underlying principles of democracy. There might be another reason. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 2, 2024 8:49:46 GMT
A civil court does decide on matters on the balance of probability based on the evidence provided in court. The decision was made by a jury, not by a judge. You have not seen the evidence. You have decided the court got it wrong based on no evidence whatsoever. So if E Jean Carroll were to say to you that Trump raped her would you tell her to her face that she was a liar? I know it was decided by a jury but the approach of the judge, who is seen to be the wisest and highest authority in the room, could certainly have an impact on that verdict. Regarding evidence, it isn't a secret. The evidence is testimony of Carroll, and that of her two friends, who report only that she had reported the event to them. Everything else is just stuff Trump has said about women in general or other womens' accusations about him. The timing of her allegation, coinciding with a book release, also raises questions. It seems to me that they thought, well this guy has been accused by so many women and there's no smoke without fire, so if he didn't do this then he would probably have been guilty with one of the others. I can see the logic of that and with the number of accusations, I would be stupid to say that he definitely never acted badly with women. The thing I find ridiculous is that some of you guys are using this case as some sort of gold standard when I think it is very far from that. Would I call her a liar? Probably not. I imagine you work with and know people that lie about all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons and I daresay on most occasions you don't walk up to them and shout bullshit like Karl Pilkington! Either Trump is lying or Carroll is lying. So effectively you are calling Carroll a liar even if not to her face. And you even made up a reason - she was trying to bump up book sales and risk ruining her reputation and losing shed loads of money based on a jury buying a no smoke without fire defence. That is just desperate. The only people who really know what happened are Carroll and Trump. However two juries having seem the evidence have decided in favour of Carroll. So to believe Trump you have to believe Carroll is a a liar and two juries got it wrong which is what you've done based on speculation, your political affiliations and no actual evidence. No one is setting up those particular trials as a gold standard. It just means that anyone from the outside looking at whether Trump raped Carroll has to provide some evidence or sound reason as to why Carroll lied and two juries got it wrong. All you have done is demonstrate a trait common to the majority of Trump supporters- they will refuse to believe anything that paints him a bad light because if some of the things are true they would have to acknowledge they support a complete arsehole. In this case arsehole who also happens to be a rapist. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 2, 2024 8:52:00 GMT
He literally wants her lined up. He says out loud what he wants. So stupid 🤣 Here we go. Have a gander at this. He said it. Stop defending the rapist. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 2, 2024 10:28:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Gabrielzakuaniandjuliet on Nov 2, 2024 10:43:27 GMT
I know it was decided by a jury but the approach of the judge, who is seen to be the wisest and highest authority in the room, could certainly have an impact on that verdict. Regarding evidence, it isn't a secret. The evidence is testimony of Carroll, and that of her two friends, who report only that she had reported the event to them. Everything else is just stuff Trump has said about women in general or other womens' accusations about him. The timing of her allegation, coinciding with a book release, also raises questions. It seems to me that they thought, well this guy has been accused by so many women and there's no smoke without fire, so if he didn't do this then he would probably have been guilty with one of the others. I can see the logic of that and with the number of accusations, I would be stupid to say that he definitely never acted badly with women. The thing I find ridiculous is that some of you guys are using this case as some sort of gold standard when I think it is very far from that. Would I call her a liar? Probably not. I imagine you work with and know people that lie about all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons and I daresay on most occasions you don't walk up to them and shout bullshit like Karl Pilkington! Either Trump is lying or Carroll is lying. So effectively you are calling Carroll a liar even if not to her face. And you even made up a reason - she was trying to bump up book sales and risk ruining her reputation and losing shed loads of money based on a jury buying a no smoke without fire defence. That is just desperate. The only people who really know what happened are Carroll and Trump. However two juries having seem the evidence have decided in favour of Carroll. So to believe Trump you have to believe Carroll is a a liar and two juries got it wrong which is what you've done based on speculation, your political affiliations and no actual evidence. No one is setting up those particular trials as a gold standard. It just means that anyone from the outside looking at whether Trump raped Carroll has to provide some evidence or sound reason as to why Carroll lied and two juries got it wrong. All you have done is demonstrate a trait common to the majority of Trump supporters- they will refuse to believe anything that paints him a bad light because if some of the things are true they would have to acknowledge they support a complete arsehole. In this case arsehole who also happens to be a rapist. So you admit that it's just a case of his word against hers. Hers might be true and he could be lying. I don't believe that the legal case, for reasons I described, is sufficient to make a solid conclusion. I'm not saying that she lied because of her book, but when trying to understand who is lying in a 50/50 toss up, it might be relevant to consider any possible incentives people might have. The reasons for Trump wanting to cover it up are self evident. Are you saying it's impossible that she is lying? The second case of is hardly revealing because Trump went scorched earth and of course she would win a case for defamation. If I was a rich guy wrongly accused, I would likely go scorched earth too. I'm not saying he definitely didn't, just that this second case doesn't reveal very much. I'm not even a fan of Trump. I actually hate a lot of things he says and does. I would have voted for Ron Desantis in the primary if I was American. If it was Desantis, half the people on this thread would be calling him a fascist too. There are genuine concerns about Trump being in power and, as much I think they're overblown and misrepresented in a lot of the media, I can concede that the concerns are real. I would definitely choose a centre/left Bill Clinton type option over Trump, to mitigate that risk, yet that isn't the situation. We've got the world on fire Biden/Harris circus. I think the Taliban have done more harm to more women that Donald Trump, for example, and I see him as less of a risk to humanity than four more years of this current administration. |
|
|
|
Post by Tom_stokiepmre89 on Nov 2, 2024 10:46:38 GMT
Here we go. Have a gander at this. He said it. Stop defending the rapist. He didn’t though. He made the point that politicians warmonger because there is 0 personal threat, and if hypothetically there was then they wouldn’t warmonger. It’s exactly the point many on this board have made regardless of political persuasion. It’s an excellent point and exactly what I want to hear from more politicians, because it’s exactly how us plebs see it. You can nail trump on many quotes but, as another posted alluded to above, when you’re so blinded by your bias that you try to nail him on soundbites (and don’t even acknowledge that you’re wrong) is it any wonder people become disinterested in all critique, whether valid or not? Ever heard the one about the boy who cried wolf? |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 2, 2024 10:49:36 GMT
He said it. Stop defending the rapist. He didn’t though. He made the point that politicians warmonger because there is 0 personal threat, and if hypothetically there was then they wouldn’t warmonger. It’s exactly the point many on this board have made regardless of political persuasion. It’s an excellent point and exactly what I want to hear from more politicians, because it’s exactly how us plebs see it. You can nail trump on many quotes but, as another posted alluded to above, when you’re so blinded by your bias that you try to nail him on soundbites (and don’t even acknowledge that you’re wrong) is it any wonder people become disinterested in all critique, whether valid or not? Ever heard the one about the boy who cried wolf? He threatened her. He says that and the people that follow him know exactly what it means. It’s an incitement. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 2, 2024 13:07:49 GMT
Either Trump is lying or Carroll is lying. So effectively you are calling Carroll a liar even if not to her face. And you even made up a reason - she was trying to bump up book sales and risk ruining her reputation and losing shed loads of money based on a jury buying a no smoke without fire defence. That is just desperate. The only people who really know what happened are Carroll and Trump. However two juries having seem the evidence have decided in favour of Carroll. So to believe Trump you have to believe Carroll is a a liar and two juries got it wrong which is what you've done based on speculation, your political affiliations and no actual evidence. No one is setting up those particular trials as a gold standard. It just means that anyone from the outside looking at whether Trump raped Carroll has to provide some evidence or sound reason as to why Carroll lied and two juries got it wrong. All you have done is demonstrate a trait common to the majority of Trump supporters- they will refuse to believe anything that paints him a bad light because if some of the things are true they would have to acknowledge they support a complete arsehole. In this case arsehole who also happens to be a rapist. So you admit that it's just a case of his word against hers. Hers might be true and he could be lying. I don't believe that the legal case, for reasons I described, is sufficient to make a solid conclusion. I'm not saying that she lied because of her book, but when trying to understand who is lying in a 50/50 toss up, it might be relevant to consider any possible incentives people might have. The reasons for Trump wanting to cover it up are self evident. Are you saying it's impossible that she is lying? The second case of is hardly revealing because Trump went scorched earth and of course she would win a case for defamation. If I was a rich guy wrongly accused, I would likely go scorched earth too. I'm not saying he definitely didn't, just that this second case doesn't reveal very much. I'm not even a fan of Trump. I actually hate a lot of things he says and does. I would have voted for Ron Desantis in the primary if I was American. If it was Desantis, half the people on this thread would be calling him a fascist too. There are genuine concerns about Trump being in power and, as much I think they're overblown and misrepresented in a lot of the media, I can concede that the concerns are real. I would definitely choose a centre/left Bill Clinton type option over Trump, to mitigate that risk, yet that isn't the situation. We've got the world on fire Biden/Harris circus. I think the Taliban have done more harm to more women that Donald Trump, for example, and I see him as less of a risk to humanity than four more years of this current administration. Well yes of course it is possible she lied but its hard to see what motivation she would have and (unlike Trump) she does not have a track record for lying - in fact her reputation is for unflinching honesty. She's made no bones about being quite promiscuous and she has been open about having some bad experiences with men but she has never played the victim and has no record of being litigious. Her reputation is built on her honesty about herself and her experience and one of the motivations for taking the case against Trump was because he was accusing her of lying. If you look into Trump's MO with respect to lying the "scorched earth" policy you talk about is totally consistent with his established behaviour. He not only lies but even when caught out he just repeats the lie ad nauseum - see en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_or_misleading_statements_by_Donald_Trump. In effect you are saying when judging who to believe you want me to believe a man with a track record for lying over a woman with a reputation for unflinching honesty and completely ignore the judgement of two juries who studied the available evidence. Why on earth should I do that? You literally want me to believe a known liar. |
|
