I Really Want to Know.

a reply to: JinMI
Justice is blind.

a reply to: JinMI

It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

I know. I said that in my first post in this thread.

Even testimony, or a deposition needs some corroboration with other evidence.

Like multiple similar accusations and patterns of behavior? Or personalized inscriptions? Circumstantial, but telling and damning to a well selected jury? Who knows. But no real evidence, hence, again the main point. :/

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JinMI
Justice is blind.

I wish.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Um. It's not exactly election time. Except for Alabama.
What did Ailes have to do with it? O'reilly? Weinstein?

Maybe I don’t understand your questions, but that’s the glaring difference between your choices anyways.

a reply to: Liquesence

I really don't know what your point is.

I've said that they should get their day in court.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Maybe I don’t understand your questions,

Yeah. Probly so.

a reply to: JinMI

You don't agree with Trump's attorneys?

a reply to: Phage


No, given the SC decision. I would defer to the judge to decide if the case has enough validity to move forward.

a reply to: JinMI

I really don't know what your point is.

It's been made several times.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: JinMI

I really don't know what your point is.

It's been made several times.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Maybe I don’t understand your questions,

Yeah. Probly so.

5 out of 6 of anything that can be considered a clause has a question mark behind it. Probly so.

a reply to: Phage

I Really Want to Know. "What goes on?

Why did something cause you to reach the breaking point...surprised ya lasted this long. We live in an Oligarchy, Now get over it...

a reply to: JinMI

No, given the SC decision.

Which decision would that be?

a reply to: Phage

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.[1]

In the unanimous opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that separation of powers does not mandate that federal courts delay all private civil lawsuits against the President until the end of his term of office.[1]

In his concurring opinion, Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally assigned duties.

en.wikipedia.org...

It's not up to the lawyer to decide, it's up to the judge. To that, do you think that the sitting PotUS should, at this time, be allotted the time to settle a civil suit?

a reply to: JinMI

To that, do you think that the sitting PotUS should, at this time, be allotted the time to settle a civil suit?

Yes. Unless it interferes with his tee times, of course.

originally posted by: Phage
Are all of the women lying?

Unlikely

originally posted by: Phage
Are any of them?

Possibly

originally posted by: Phage
Does any of it matter?

Yes

originally posted by: Phage
To whom?

To anyone concerned about the integrity of government officials and the media.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

4 out of 4.

Pretty good.

a reply to: Phage

You asked if all the women were lying. I don't know. Do you? Is it even possible to make a distinction?

From a legal standpoint, is it possible to build a case based on nothing more than unsubstantiated allegation? I wouldn't think so, but I'm not a trial lawyer.

The way things seem to be heading, at least from a civil standpoint, is that lives and/or careers can be virtually destroyed based on just that. Unsubstantiated allegations. Is that justified?

I know this much, human beings, regardless of sex or gender, can be vindictive and vengeful to a damn near limitless degree. I've met men that I considered to be absolute evil when it comes to payback or revenge when they believe that they have been treated like crap, but I've met just as many women that were the same way.

When pretty much anyone can make public allegations like this about anyone else, and have it simply taken as fact, without ANY evidence at all, it has the potential to rapidly turn into a slippery slope, that just keeps getting steeper and more slippery with time.

At least until some type of critical mass is reached. Then what? Is it even possible to answer THAT question? I don't know, but it gives me a really cold sinking feeling deep in my gut that it's gonna get a hell of a lot worse, before it gets better. If it ever actually GETS better.

My gut also tells me that it's quite possible, and maybe even probable that "Real Bad Thangs" are coming.

Sooner rather than later.

On the other hand, I'm just an asshole who's normal job on ATS is to read other peopls's posts, and provide much needed sarcasm.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make such a long post.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: VictorVonDoom

4 out of 4.

Pretty good.

If only I could do that well picking lottery numbers.

a reply to: MteWamp
There is a concept known as the rebound effect, whereby one extreme is countered by its opposite. A pendulum, as it were. The thing is a pendulum will eventually, by entropic forces, reach a median.

That might not be a bad thing. For some time now being labeled a moderate has been an epithet.