Prince Andrew. Not Prince Phillip. Big difference.

There is a difference both in the law and human neurology between lust for a five year old and lust for a sexually developed 15 year old.

Legally, the punishment for molestation of a five year old is life in prison. Molestation of a 15 year old (in California at least) usually results in a sentence of between 1 year and 8 years in prison.

Neurologically, although it may disgust people to acknowledge this fact, psychiatrists confirm that regular, healthy male heterosexual adults INVOLUNTARILY may be aroused by a well developed girl of 15. But no regular healthy male heterosexual is aroused by a five year old girl. Our bodies respond physically to the visual stimuli presented regardless of whether society says it is right or wrong morally. Hopefully this is common sense to most of you.

I can imagine some people who don't like you very much.
That's a tough situation to be in.

#195 | Posted by eberly

In my opinion, when it comes to things that really matter, it is far better to be honest (no matter the consequences) than popular. It is one of the reasons I have become a huge fan of Liz Cheney over the past five years.

"When it requires coincidence after coincidence after coincidence to refute an allegation, then the allegation is almost always accurate"
Has that led your pedophile clients to be convicted?
#190 | Posted by eberly

Not just child molest cases, but most crimes in general. A jury will go with you only so far, Once a lawyer starts arguing a chain of multiple coincidences the jury starts shutting down. I have seen it so often.

Honestly, when it does come specifically to child molest cases, the best way to win is to dig up enough dirt about the surrounding circumstances of the case to cause the prosecutor to lose faith in the certainty of the validity of a prosecution. No prosecutor wants to live with the weight of potentially sending a man to prison for the rest of his life if he/she has a lingering doubt about whether the crime really happened. Such as, a divorce scenario where it starts to seem very possible that the the wife is pressuring the child to make allegations against the father to gain the upper hand in the divorce proceedings. Or when the child turns out to have significant pre-existing mental health problems. Or, my favorite, when as a result of great investigation by my investigator we are able to bring in the girl's school principal to testify that he only really knows about 4% of the students at the school - the best 2% and the worst 2%, and then acknowledges that the alleged victim of the contested child molest case is well known to him because has had to both speak to her and discipline her on multiple occasions for lying and making false complaints about classmates she does not like.

Much (most?) of Latino rejection of Kamala Harris can be attributed to misogyny. Never underestimate the power (both on a conscious and a subconscious level) of macho imagery among Latino culture. It is almost as intense as extreme Islamic misogyny.

The reason it is called a 'totality of the circumstances' analysis is because you don't take each bit of information and analyze it in isolation. If you do that, even the strongest can begin to seem like flimsy building blocks. That is what Johnny Cochran successfully did in the OJ Simpson trial. As a general rule, it is a disingenuous and misleading manner of analyzing an event. That's how you get people buying into conspiracy theories and mass-appeal like such we hear about the JFK assassination and aliens from outer space and even mundane things such as the dangers of getting vaccinated and the 'true' origins of COVID.

What rational people do is look at the big picture. Almost always, the little quirky details that raise doubts among conspiracy theorists fall in place when viewed within the bigger context of the actual event. Currently, MAGgots don't want to do that in relation to the strong case to be made about Trump's history of pedophilia. Misrepresent a detail here. Deflect to a Democrats bad behavior from years ago there. Bring up an unrelated or misreported rumor to deny a bad fact or a particularly disturbing witness such as Epstein himself. Keep blowing that smoke as fast as they can. Maggots are pulling every pathetic defense obfuscation in the book and forcing every detail to be viewed out of the proper (big picture) context.

These newly released emails today should be the final nail in the coffin for honest, truth-oriented observers. But only when placed within the context and totality of all the other undisputed circumstances. Trump is a pedophile. When it requires coincidence after coincidence after coincidence to refute an allegation, then the allegation is almost always accurate. But again, stupid people such as the maggots do not want to and are intellectually unable to handle that.