Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1451853)	4/12/2024 6:08:53 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By longz Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571446

The legal definition of rape in NY until Jan 31 of this year was "penile penetration", and in fact the law was changed after the Trump trial specifically to address the difference. Trump was not accused of that. (EJC accused him of digital penetration, which was not definitionally rape, it was "Sexual Touching"). Yet, the jury called it "rape". That was simply incorrect. I can't say whose fault it was, but it was false. NY has conveniently, stupidly, changed a law that has worked for years, because of the Trump trial (which implies there was in fact a problem with the definition). Be that as it may, law is about fine details, and this is one. Two people on the jury said there was "sexual touching" which could have included digital penetration, but not rape (penile penetration, under their law at time time) or some other things. They did not vote for Penile Penetration. A jury decision consists of n votes for a given infraction, with very specific instructions. "Do you vote for this infraction or do you vote for that infraction, or for no infraction?" Please see the previously posted verdict form. No jury found liability for digital penetration, which is what she accused him of. There are two members of a jury who voted that was but that is insufficient to find liability. After-the-fact, NY changed the law, which strongly suggests they realized it was inadequate to address the allegation. But you can't just redefine the law to fit the person, after the fact. I don't think there is sufficient evidence to find he so much as saw here, let alone touched her at that time. The question is whether her story is "more likely than not", and I don't see that. It is far too long after the allegation, the story is insane that major department store would leave an entire floor without staff with cash registers sitting there unprotected, it just didn't happen. No way. AND THEN, there is Law & Order, which you really can't just ignore. No one could have dreamed up that precise piece of video before the time in which it is alleged, UNLESS she sold it to them or otherwise gave them the idea. That was NOT explained away at trial, and it should have been. How does a skit from a national TV show get played out in precise detail as happened. Was it "role-play" as set out in the TV show? I doubt that. It is a lie. WATCH THE VIDEO and tell me how you possibly believe such an unlikely coincidence. I would like to hear one person explain that away. So far, I haven't heard ANYONE even try.