10 ms·
If the evidence supports that conclusion then how come he wasn't convicted? Is it all a big conspiracy and the judges are in on it?
by slowmotiony 10y ago
If the evidence supports that conclusion then how come he wasn't convicted? Is it all a big conspiracy and the judges are in on it?
- dgacmu 10y agoOK, I conclude with the other posters in this thread. You're being deliberately obtuse. Please come back when you're interested in having a good-faith discussion. plonk.
- slowmotiony 10y agoOh I see, it's because we have no evidence. But it has happened for sure so who needs evidence? :-D
- yequalsx 10y agoHmmmm...isn't him saying he did this pretty good evidence. You are trying to defend the indefensible.
- slowmotiony 10y agoI don't believe so, and clearly America doesnt believe so.
- yequalsx 10y agoIt would benefit you greatly to study logic. The clearly part of your sentence is not supported by the evidence. A majority of voters did not vote for him. His voters did not care about this issue.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- yequalsx 10y agoI think you truly don't understand how the American justice system works. There are lots of crimes that go unpunished. Sometimes even when the evidence is overwhelming. Prosectors have a budget, have political considerations to make, have to make decisions on what crimes to prosecute and which ones not to prosecute. There was overwhelming evidence that OJ killed Nicole. He wasn't convicted. Lack of conviction does not indicate lack of evidence or lack of occurrence. In the case of Trump and his sexual assault of women they didn't report it to the police. Try hard and you might be able to wrap your head around the fact that many victims don't report the crime.
- slowmotiony 10y agoBut the crime was committed for sure. I trust you. But the thing is apparently the voters would need evidence. Tough luck.