No, it does and we can observe why.
Only through a funhouse mirror.
So the real world is very scary to you.
You are giving some evidence right now, but said there was no evidence. Some evidence is more than zero.
No real evidence.
It's real evidence but you think you have arguments against it. That doesn't make it not real.
No disinterested witnesses. No physical evidence.
But you didn't say no physical evidence, you said no evidence.
Only claims by her friends that she told them about it decades earlier.
It would be unreasonable to have expected her to confide in her enemies, instead of a couple of close friends.
What is some of the evidence? I mean, there's EJC herself. She's the victim.
She is the accuser. Just like Tawana Brawley, Crystal Magnum, Jackie Coakley and countless others.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean an accuser's testimony is not evidence. The fact that it is evidence does not mean you have to support it. While you did not snip what I wrote following this, you didn't address it. See below: "Of course, it's evidence in a similar fashion to Trump saying he didn't do it." Statements under oath, including out of court or in court are all part of the collection of evidence. So EJC's statements under oath as well as Trump's are both evidence.
So that's evidence. Of course, it's evidence in a similar fashion to Trump saying he didn't do it. But then you also have Trump himself who said he used to grab women by the pussy.
Accusation itself is not evidence.
All accusations of this nature are not necessarily evidence. BUT under oath, they are.
Especially when the accusation was originally made in order to sell her book.
The accusation was originally made to her close friends.
And even if Trump's claims are anything but idle talk that does not mean he assaulted EJC herself.
I didn't write that Trump's claims of sexually assaulting people without their prior agreement amounted to a definite conclusion he assaulted EJC. What I wrote is "That's evidence of his character that is consistent with her claim but inconsistent with his claim." In other words, it isn't too different from the concept of a character witness or character evidence. Neither of which PROVES a thing. Evidence doesn't have to PROVE a thing by itself but it ought to tend to do so with a burden of proof in mind when taken in concert with other evidence. So, Trump's claims that he engaged in sexual misconduct, even criminally is evidence.
He said "they let you do it."
Seems consensual.
No, and speaking of scary funhouse mirrors, the fact that you said that is horrific.
More than two dozen women have come forward publicly to talk about sexual misconduct by Trump.
And EJC would have known about these accusations and would have seen it as an easy way to make a buck by jumping on that gravy train.
You seem to be under the impression we are arguing about the innocence or guilt of Trump. We are talking about evidence of which you said there is none. No, her testimony under oath is evidence, even if you are suspicious of financial motivations.
Of course, that certainly isn't enough to be convincing
This is where the case should have been dismissed. EJC has no evidence that anything happened at Bergdorf. Trump being the kind of person who would do something like this is not evidence.
Well, yes, it is. It's not overwhelming evidence by itself but his public statement is in contradiction to other things he has said. Since you think his public statement is completely good, a perfectly good statement, the best statement, and everything is consensual with women he sexually assaulted, one can see why you are so confused by this.
EJC's testimony and Trump's public comments.
That's not evidence.
Testimony under oath is evidence. Trump's public comments are evidence of his character. Evidence of character isn't a proof. It's just a fact that he said this and more--that it is consistent with criminal behaviors.
How about physical evidence?
There was no physical evidence, sure, but it isn't what we're discussing--you said there was no evidence and that is different from saying there is no physical evidence.
How about disinterested witnesses?
How biased people are is you opining again. Again, EJC wouldn't have confided in her enemies. Testimony under oath is evidence. You said there was no evidence. Whether you want to argue for the innocence of Trump is a separate question from your inaccurate claim that there is no evidence....that now you have reworded to say no REAL evidence or no physical evidence. We're discussing what you originally stated and that I responded to, not your goalpost shifting.
Then, you have Lisa Birnbach who testified she got a phone call from EJC minutes after it happened. So, so far we have 3 bits of evidence.
Is there any corroboration for that?
Again, I don't care about a discussion of Trump's innocence or guilt because that is going to be an endless discussion with a person like you. This is about whether or not there was evidence and there was. You may not like it and may want even more evidence, but that doesn't mean there was no evidence.
Like a recorded message that can be authenticated as being from 1996 or whenever this could have happened?
How many answering machine messages do you have from 1996? Come on, really. That doesn't make her testimony not evidence.
Otherwise, statements by the friend of the accuser are not evidence.
No, testimony under oath is evidence. It's evidence she said it at the time.
No idea who that is offhand anyway and don't care.
You have an employee who said that the lingerie dept was often not staffed in those times, another bit of evidence--that's 5.
How is that evidence of anything happening?
That isn't what evidence means. It's all evidence taken in concert that leads to conclusions. If Carroll was making up random lies then there is a good chance it can be disproved by examining such close questions as this. Instead, those things were consistent with her claim and so they are accepted facts.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it also is not evidence of presence. It's just nothing.
It isn't nothing. It's a small bit of a test that failed to invalidate Carroll's testimony.
You have another employee who said there were no security cameras there--that's 6.
Same as your claimed evidence 5. No evidence is no evidence.
Same. It's a small bit of a test that could have invalidated Carroll's testimony, but doesn't.
Then, you DO actually have another woman testifying to Trump's character of criminal sexual misconduct. Jesica Leeds--that's 7. Natasha Stoynoff--that's 8.
Being the person who would do stuff like that, even if true, is not evidence of EJC's particular claims. Or otherwise any woman could claim Trump raped her and would be believed sans evidence because he is the type of person who would do that. I believe EJC did just that.
No one said that this bit of data in and of itself alone is proof of EJC's claim. It's character evidence that is taken in concert with other data. Surely, if you wanted to prove by preponderance of evidence that Trump did this, somewhere in there you would include a fact that he is the type of person to do it. Character evidence is still evidence.
A psychologist who testified EJC has psychological symptoms of being raped--that's 9 pieces of evidence.
EJC in her book accused a number of men of attacking her. I agree she has psychological issues but I do not think they stem from being raped.
Your opinion is an example of an opinion with no evidence.
Rather, I think her mental health issues caused her to make up stories.
You don't "think" but instead you are guessing and doing so based on faith that is contrary to this bit of evidence. We can conclude you are exhibiting faith-based guessing because the psychologist is making a particular diagnosis and then you are generalizing that to ALL mental health issues and then coming back down to zoom in on a DIFFERENT mental health issue. This is like, for example, a psychologist who finds that an IDF soldier suffers from PTSD. Then, you say, "ahah! he has mental health issues! Therefore, I think he is a psychopathic serial killer!" Would you do that, too? Or it's like looking at an occupation, say a lab tech who worked at a bio lab, and saying "Ah, they worked in biotech, therefore they can do biotech computer programming!" Or it's like having 7 kittens. Then, saying, "Ahah, I have a prime number of kittens. Therefore, I think I have 11 kittens!" Needless to say, you are still trying to argue for Hair Furor's innocence, instead of arguing your point that there was no evidence. But this is evidence, it just isn't proof in and of itself. It works with other evidence in a civil trial where the burden of proof is preponderance of evidence.
You may not LIKE the evidence, but that does not mean it doesn't exist.
I would not consider any of this evidence. You have a very low standard of what evidence is.
I do not have a low standard of what evidence is. This is like saying that I have a low standard of what prime numbers are because I say 7 is a prime number. You might not like the number 7 for some reason or you might like BIG prime numbers, but 7 is still a prime number.
Lack of employees or cameras around a changing room is NOT evidence that a rape happened in a changing room in the 90s.
This is exactly my problem with the US tort system. Very little if any evidence is actually required, the juries treat it more as a popularity contest (which side do they like more?) and the juries can make up any dollar amount as "damages". The whole system needs to be reformed from the ground up.
Even if you want to redefine terminology, disbelieve the evidence, or operate in a different country's tort system, there still was evidence in the civil case.
www.commondreams.org
