re: Women believe the women. Men believe in due process.

quote:

---

Bringing in a group of women who each claim President Trump sexually assaulted or harassed them in a separate incident is not evidence that proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "more likely than unlikely" that President Trump sexually assaulted or harassed any of them.

That's why a defendant's past crimes aren't allowed to be used as evidence that the defendant committed the crime they are charged with committing.

---

quote:

---

You know how I know you're either not a lawyer or a real shitty one?

Because you are equating what is generally admissible evidence in a sexual harassment claim with what is generally admissible in a criminal case.

("More likely than unlikely"?)

---

Meh, some of the women are accusing President Trump or other heterosexual men of sexually assaulting them including in some cases raping them which is a criminal crime.

Then those women and/or their attorney (Allcommiered or her clone daughter) get a bunch of other women to step forward who claim that they were also sexually assaulted by the man being accused and that is proof the man committed the sexual assault in the particular case.

Even if the man was found guilty of sexually assaulting the women in all of the other cases, it can not be used as evidence that proves the man committed the sexual assault in the particular case.

If those women want to file a civil suit against the man then DO IT and let the man have due process before he is condemned and his life is ruined.

Geez, one of the woman claiming Matt Lauer sexually harassed or abused her is saying she had a secret affair with Lauer which she fully consented to but now she is saying, "I ultimately felt like a victim because of the power dynamic."
LINK

The only woman victim in Lauer's case is his wife.

quote:

---

They have thrown out due process and Franken and Conyors in their attempt to force President Trump out of office.

I say every time they demand President Trump resign, we demand to see the actual evidence before President Trump resigns.

If the only "evidence" they have is their own personal testimony then they have not met the burden of proof and they should STFU!

---

quote:

---

I agree and I ain't no guy

---

Because you are a woman who is not a man hater, you are cordially invited to join the Pro Men Society (PMS).

quote:

---

Meh, if "believing the woman" doesn't mean "believing the woman" based on her testimony alone when she has no evidence to prove her accusation and even when the supposed incident occurred decades ago then what are you "believing the women" based on besides their personal testimony?

---

quote:

---

As stated before, in most civil rights case, a court "believes" all of the claimants claims as that claimant is establishing a prima facie case.

THEN the defendant tells his or her side of the story.

AND then, if the claimant can't show pretext, then the defendant wins.

Believe the women means that you don't just discount the claim. It means you hear what she has to say, and then listen to what the defense is.

If the woman can't counter the defense, then you believe the man.


You either "believe the woman" or you do what these dumb shite defenders of the clown Moore did. You say that the claims are too old, or that the Dems paid for the testimony. You out of hand don't believe them.

---

In other words, you are saying that in a civil case as well as a criminal case, the woman must produce some evidence besides her own testimony that she was sexually assaulted by the defendant in order to win the case.

So you are agreeing with me about what "believing the woman" means.

quote:

---

In other words, you are saying that in a civil case as well as a criminal case, the woman must produce some evidence besides her own testimony that she was sexually assaulted by the defendant in order to win the case.

---

No. Not at all.

There is no requirement in a civil case for harassment for anything other than testimony.

I can't speak to individual states requiring some additional proof in an assault case. I would assume that some prosecutors wouldn't prosecute without some physical evidence.

[

quote:

---

So you are agreeing with me about what "believing the woman" means.

---

frick no. You're confused about the law and you are getting hysterical about simple, easy to understand phrase. You believe the claim until there is reason not to.

I am constantly debating whether the 19th or 17th Amendment has caused the most trouble.

quote:

---

The fact is a lot of women want to throw due process out the window. They are just using this BS about believing the women in order to get rid of all those heterosexual Alpha males who are in office so they can be replaced by women or pussy worshippers who will do everything a woman wants them to do. 

---

This is like something out the TheRedPill on Reddit.

I mostly agree. With the caveat that women who ARE ACTUALLY ABUSED go get all the help and legal protections due to them.

quote:

---

Numbers are irrelevant to the truth.

You can have a million people believe a lie and only one person believe the truth and that one person is correct and those million people are incorrect.

---

one person= street corner with a megaphone

Million people- the full force of our media

quote:

---

Criminal crime?

---

I say "criminal crime" to empathize that it is a crime the police can arrest someone for committing as opposed to a non-criminal act which someone has to file a civil suit in order to get justice.

quote:

---

More likely than unlikely?

---

It may be more likely than unlikely that the defendant committed the act but it isn't evidence that proves the defendant actually committed the act.

As another poster just said, a million people can believe the defendant committed the sexual assault but that isn't evidence that proves the defendant committed the sexual assault.

The truth isn't dependent on how many people believe it's the truth.

In fact, even if everyone on the planet believes the defendant committed the sexual assault, that isn't evidence which proves the defendant actually committed the sexual assault.

quote:

---

Million people- the full force of our media

---

It's still a lie even if the full force of the MSM says it's the truth.

quote:

---

You read all of that and come to the exact wrong conclusion.

---

What do you think this means?

quote:

---

(1) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

---

Don't bother answering.

It means that because the defendant is accused of sexually assaulting other women on other occasions, that can't be used as evidence that proves the defendant sexually assaulted the claimant in the case before the court.