- 19 Nov 2017 06:09
#14863948
I had nothing to do with any of the pizzagate posts, and I'm not a Republican.
Anybody can file any complaint they want. That doesn't mean it will go anywhere. When judges serve on the bench, they are typically required to withdraw from bar membership.
Yeah, we really don't have any provable sexual contact.
People should bring forth their complaints in a timely manner.
Pedophiles target pre-pubescent children. None of these alleged targets were pre-pubescent.
The media didn't pay for the Trump dossier either. That was the DNC, Hillary Clinton and an Obama PAC. These aren't all coming out now for nothing. It's political timing pure and simple.
Godstud doesn't believe in innocent-until-proven-guilty that is the cornerstone of the Canadian legal system, as well as the American legal system.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty or Guilty Until Printed Innocent?
Godstud is apparently un-Canadian in his judicial outlook.
The defendant has the right to deny both the facts and the law. They are allowed to remain silent too. However, they are not allowed to provide false testimony.
Why didn't it come out before the results of the run-off? Basically, it's just hard to believe anything the media says anymore. It's clear they coordinate with the Democratic party.
There is irrefutable evidence that Hillary broke the law. She's just being given favorable treatment; and, it isn't passed the statute of limitations. Clearly, Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met on Lynch's plane in Arizona days before Hillary's case was going to be passed over for prosecution. Clearly, Comey began writing that Hillary would be given a pass before the investigation was complete. She is still presumed innocent, but people don't just delete 30k emails for no reason. Many have been recovered, been determined to be official (meaning deleting them was illegal), and that some contained classified information (meaning it was mishandled).
He hasn't lost any argument. These stories are perishable. People don't just sit on these stories for decades and then come out with them three weeks before a general election. If they were passionate about it, they'd have come out much sooner. It would have been easy for Luther Strange to beat Moore if he had put out these stories, but apparently that information was not available to him.
You can't make a criminal defendant prove they are not lying, with the possible exception of income tax filings.
Maybe that's true under a military junta, but your sentiments clearly violate that Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
You obviously don't understand the term "pedophile" or "pedophilia." Dating minors isn't pedophilia, per se. Pubescent and post-pubescent minors aren't the target of pedophiles by definition. A famous person who might fit that description would be someone like Michael Jackson, who was accused of inappropriate conduct with pre-pubescent children.
You don't have proof. All you have are allegations.
jimjam wrote:It is amusing to see Republican lemmings (the same ones who accused Hillary of running a child porn operation out of a pizza parlor) contorting themselves into knots to defend Roy "The Alabama Groper" Moore.
I had nothing to do with any of the pizzagate posts, and I'm not a Republican.
redcarpet wrote:It keeps coming;
Anybody can file any complaint they want. That doesn't mean it will go anywhere. When judges serve on the bench, they are typically required to withdraw from bar membership.
Hindsite wrote:What I heard was the woman was 16 when that incident happened. The other one that alleged he undressed her down to bra and panties was 14. But I heard a legal expert on MSNBC say today that there was no law in Alabama at that time that made these allegations a crime even if they could be proved.
Yeah, we really don't have any provable sexual contact.
Godstud wrote:So you assume every woman who has ever been sexually assaulted should STFU, since they are all obviously lying.
People should bring forth their complaints in a timely manner.
Godstud wrote:Even if just ONE of these women who came froward is telling the truth, Roy Moore is a piece of shit pedophile, and you've been defending him this whole time. Think on that, a minute.
Pedophiles target pre-pubescent children. None of these alleged targets were pre-pubescent.
jimjam wrote:Leaving aside the low esteem that many Alabamians hold the national media in, no mainstream outlet is paying women for dirt on Mr. Moore, and no one is promising to publish half-baked uncorroborated allegations. But whoever recorded the call thought voters in deep-red Alabama would swallow such aspersions on the profession of journalism, especially if they came from a Yankee Jew.
The media didn't pay for the Trump dossier either. That was the DNC, Hillary Clinton and an Obama PAC. These aren't all coming out now for nothing. It's political timing pure and simple.
Hindsite wrote:I am only defending his right to claim innocence until proven guilty.
Godstud doesn't believe in innocent-until-proven-guilty that is the cornerstone of the Canadian legal system, as well as the American legal system.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty or Guilty Until Printed Innocent?
The Presumption of Innocence
Under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, any person detained and/or charged with an offence has “the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.”[1] With this in mind, nobody should be labelled a criminal until they’ve had their day in court, regardless of whether they’ve been accused of shoplifting, sexual assault or first-degree murder. Section 11(d) is an absolutely essential part of the Canadian constitution and of the Canadian criminal justice system. There is, perhaps, no greater injustice than deeming someone guilty before they’ve had a fair trial and this provision offers constitutional protection against exactly that.
Godstud is apparently un-Canadian in his judicial outlook.
Godstud wrote:When you think that all the women are lying, and that it's a conspiracy, you aren't simply protecting his right to innocent until proven guilty.
The defendant has the right to deny both the facts and the law. They are allowed to remain silent too. However, they are not allowed to provide false testimony.
Hindsite wrote:Why didn't any of this come out before, in the many decades Roy Moore has held public office?
Why didn't it come out before the results of the run-off? Basically, it's just hard to believe anything the media says anymore. It's clear they coordinate with the Democratic party.
redcarpet wrote:He's refused to accept Hillary Clinton has the right to innocence, so he's full of shit. A right is held by ALL, okay? He's really referring to a privilege. For him it is a privilege he selectively applies. 'Crooked Hillary' doesn't get it.
There is irrefutable evidence that Hillary broke the law. She's just being given favorable treatment; and, it isn't passed the statute of limitations. Clearly, Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met on Lynch's plane in Arizona days before Hillary's case was going to be passed over for prosecution. Clearly, Comey began writing that Hillary would be given a pass before the investigation was complete. She is still presumed innocent, but people don't just delete 30k emails for no reason. Many have been recovered, been determined to be official (meaning deleting them was illegal), and that some contained classified information (meaning it was mishandled).
redcarpet wrote:It what he does when he loses an argument. Or uses political swear words like 'liberal' or 'I don't trust that source', etc.
He hasn't lost any argument. These stories are perishable. People don't just sit on these stories for decades and then come out with them three weeks before a general election. If they were passionate about it, they'd have come out much sooner. It would have been easy for Luther Strange to beat Moore if he had put out these stories, but apparently that information was not available to him.
redcarpet wrote:Men do too, when are you going to make the same demand on Trump & this fellow?
You can't make a criminal defendant prove they are not lying, with the possible exception of income tax filings.
Godstud wrote:Better an innocent man needs to be proven innocent, than a victim has to prove they aren't lying.
Maybe that's true under a military junta, but your sentiments clearly violate that Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Godstud wrote:If even ONE of these women has a legitimate claim, then your whole argument is bullshit, and you're openly defending a pedophile.
You obviously don't understand the term "pedophile" or "pedophilia." Dating minors isn't pedophilia, per se. Pubescent and post-pubescent minors aren't the target of pedophiles by definition. A famous person who might fit that description would be someone like Michael Jackson, who was accused of inappropriate conduct with pre-pubescent children.
Godstud wrote:That won't change the fact that HE DID IT.
You don't have proof. All you have are allegations.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
-- Joe Biden