Just to be clear, are you and Skoob asking for the court ruling saying it is legally correct to say that Trump raped Carroll?
That would be this one.
should trump drop out after the NABJ interview
- Thread starter Frankfooter
- Start date
That would be this one.
A judge ruled that rump raped Carroll and another judge ruled that it is legally correct to say rump is a rapist.
Nope.
There were no ruling by the judge or jury that he committed rape.
Getting a judges opinion after the fact is meaningless.
btw don't you think it's neat how the judge and prosecutor were work buddies in the past and he was a mentor to her? Kinda cool for a mentor to see their junior win a case eh? He must be so proud!
Maybe in your own mind.
Just keep it in there so you don't get caught spreading misinformation again.
It was posted earlier in the thread, the first judge said 'rape'.
You keep posting the same debunked nonsense.
You keep posting the same debunked nonsense.
You admitted rump is guilty of sexual assault but won't admit that means he's a rapist.
Why would you want to put a rapist in charge of the country?
What "debunked" nonsense? I posted the same jury report that all mainstream media shared.
Everyone knows the case was a sham and the allegations were false. If it was anyone else other than Trump it would have been thrown out. The public doesn't buy it especially after Carroll started bragging about spending her money. She played everyone.
btw Interesting to see how Kaplan rewarded the prosecutor, his former co-worker and mentee. Funny how that worked eh?
rump is an adjudicated rapist.
You're doing the pretzel twist to hide the fact that you think its cool he's a rapist.
How could I be doing a twist if there was never a conviction for rape?
You are desperate.
I miss when you would just use homophobes as your moral compass and fall on your face for posting fake Xitter info.
Can we go back to that?
When a judge says rump raped Carroll and has to pay $85 million for slandering his rape victim you just cheer it on.
You really do love rapists, don't you?
Why do you want a rapist to lead the country?
Do you think he's going to change the laws to let you rape too?
for injuries and pain inflicted....Donnie got a little too rough with E. Jean....E. Jean forgot the safe word...Rape without jail time? probably not rape then... you want documentation from the verdict that it wasn't rape? I can give you that if you want...
Meanwhile...
Kamala tells Pro-Palestinian protesters to pound sand...which I mean...I can't blame her for hijacking her rally.
Never convicted of rape despite your fantasy thoughts.
Coming from someone who supports homophobes and terrorists you should be the last person attacking others.
I would say the worst is when he insulted decorated war hero John McCain and called the military suckers and losers. What's even worse is the cuckolded republican party still stood behind him
The better question even yet is why would any Canadian want to see Trump get back in when there is no question he will hurt our economy with more illegal trade wars?
I don't believe that is correct.
A jury found that the evidence showed Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and penetrated her.
They also found that they could not conclude he used his penis.
No judge "ruled" there. In fact, even in a criminal case, it wouldn't be the judge ruling.
That same judge did find that the jury's conclusion means you can't sue someone for defamation for calling Trump a rapist, since he only isn't one according to the strict definition of "rape" in New York State Law as it applied at the time.
The conduct he was found to have done qualifies as "rape" in common parlance and in numerous jurisdictions.
In fact, it would qualify as "rape" in New York State next month.
Yes. Excellent.
That is the trial the judge was referring to.
That decision is what makes it that you can't defame Trump by calling him a rapist, since that jury verdict supports it.
document that says...he didn't rape...clear as day...this was rough sex gone wrong....e jean is happy with her $$$ lets put it that way.
That document is the verdict from the assault trial.
That they found him guilty on count 2 is why you can call him a rapist.
Did you even read the judge's decision I posted?
Unless you are saying you believe the New York Penal code definition of rape is the valid and correct one and would also object to anyone else being called a rapist who doesn't fulfill that exact definition?
Then, while I think that's a terrible definition, at least you would be consistent.
