/2 3. People describing something that happened to them is a form of evidence by any measure.

4. I may not be allowed to argue to a jury "someone who preys on staffers is more likely to disdain consent" but I can absolutely form beliefs based on it.

April 12, 2026 - 00:40 UTC

6
0
979
Politicians aren’t entitled to the preponderance of the evidence let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just a whiff is all I need to hate you as a candidate. That’s why I hate most candidates.
0
0
1
I’m at least going to take a run at calling it habit evidence
0
0
1
4. If you can get them to say something like that on the stand, the jury may feel the same way.
0
0
0
/3 in short, as a career criminal defense attorney who strongly supports due process and the presumption of innocence, I say: stop with your bullshit
13
3
1131
As was famously said, “What we have here, is a failure to communicate.”

In the current context, the difficulty lies in the ambiguity of the word “belief.” 1/
1
0
0
Thank you. Career public defender here, and I say: Stop with your bullshit.
0
0
3
This whole thing is another PTSD episode: Think the Comey revelation that completely sank Hilary.
0
0
0
At the very least he’s demonstrated poor judgment in his interactions with female staffers. And the primary qualification for a leadership position is sound judgment. Why does the conversation ever need to be more complicated than that?
0
1
17
1.
2.
/1
/2 3.
4.
/3

SIR
1
0
12
I get due process, but as of this moment, is the legal system even involved?!? The silence is deafening…maybe that makes your point, but, we have no time to waste. Right/Wrong dude needs to walk from the governor’s race.
1
0
2
Something I don't understand about the denials - the truth is going to come out.

If a person isn't worried about how bullshitting today will impact their reputation tomorrow... to me that indicates a fundamental lack of self respect.
0
0
1
Sir.

🫡
0
0
2
The mountains of bullshit in the last 28 hours is enough to suffocate entire civilizations.
It's so much.
0
0
11
All he had to do was not create situations where women felt it was necessary to go "hey, this guy sexually assaulted/harassed me" & he'd have been fine.

It's like there's a magic "don't be a pile of shit" button you can press to... not be a pile of shit.
2
0
106
Amen.

We are not the Judge or Jury in a criminal proceeding. We can make moral judgments as humans operating in our own lives.
0
0
4
Agree of course with all this, but would only add that his taped statement is in fact admissible under the fre. and that’s all you need to form an opinion.
1
0
1
To put it another way, the presumption of innocence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are trial rights. They don’t even apply to every stage of criminal proceedings. Much less to our regular-ass daily opinions.
1
0
7
All astute observations. And fair enough.
0
0
0
Testimony is evidence.

Testimony is the thing that results in more convictions than any other thing, in fact
0
0
18