Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If he actually got to the point where he put his finger in her pussy, you know damned well that she was complaint and willing.
I can't count how many women I've put mine in, and none of them have ever said "no" or sued me afterward.
There are several issues under discussion.That's weird it isn't really all that confusing. At least not to an intellectual honest person.
Sure. How does that help your claim she didn't "win the sex case"? The sex part was already decided and didn't need relitigating.Let me help you back.
NEW YORK — A jury ordered Donald Trump on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll over defamatory remarks he made about her while he was president in response to her rape accusation.
The bulk of the damages award is meant to punish Trump for repeatedly using his public platform to denigrate Carroll in defiance of prior court rulings that his verbal attacks are false and defamatory.
Trump ordered to pay $83.3M for defaming E. Jean Carroll
Trump has repeatedly disparaged Carroll after she accused him of raping her.www.politico.com
Do you ever look at the words you type and ask yourself if they make sense?She got the massive award over her claim he defamed her. When you defame me, are you raping me? Do you sexually assault posters here when you fight us?
People like you can’t be taken seriously. It’s almost sad to see how TDS has has effected you.Hah, a partisan Trumphumper never gets it right
Well, I am not a member of any BAR. I am not legally able to represent people who are involved in trials. Still you would be shocked how many Americans actually have legal backgrounds. In College I had to argue many legal cases during class time.Why aren't you representing any of the Trump Humpers from Jan 6 pro bono?
No. What's happening here is that you Bingos seem to think that criminal conviction is the objective determining factor of whether or not you're a rapist. That's stupid logic. Logically you have to commit rape before you can be charged, prosecuted and found guilty of it. Therefore, logically, being a rapist comes before being convicted of rape. That's simple enough logic that even irreparably crippled Bingos like yourself should be able to sus it out. What being convicted of rape objectively proves isn't that you're a rapist (innocent people can be convicted as well), but that objectively, you were convicted of rape. That's it.That is correct. But don't you notice Democrats posting here act like it is a criminal trial?
I would judge more than you do.Do you ever look at the words you type and ask yourself if they make sense?
I didn't. I'm afraid Robert has. Please read what I'm replying to.
Noone has ever wondered? I don't think that's true. In fact, that particular point was addressed by Carrol's lawyer.Not to mention that no one has ever wondered why, if she was being raped or sexually assaulted, she did not fight back or scream. They were in a fucking public dressing room for God's sake, it's not like help wasn't just feet away from where it supposedly took place. Our country and its justice system is nothing but a sham at this point, along with bought out government.
www.politico.com
When one leaves court, one has what the Court handed over to one. She went after Trump for defaming her. She would have gone to criminal court over raping her.No. What's happening here is that you Bingos seem to think that criminal conviction is the objective determining factor of whether or not you're a rapist. That's stupid logic. Logically you have to commit rape before you can be charged, prosecuted and found guilty of it. Therefore, logically, being a rapist comes before being convicted of rape. That's simple enough logic that even irreparably crippled Bingos like yourself should be able to sus it out. What being convicted of rape objectively proves isn't that you're a rapist (innocent people can be convicted as well), but that objectively, you were convicted of rape. That's it.
No problemSorry about that. I thought it was him I was replying to.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Assuming the reason she didn't go after Trump criminally, in the past, is because it didn't happen is also illogical.When one leaves court, one has what the Court handed over to one. She went after Trump for defaming her. She would have gone to criminal court over raping her.
One way to clear it up is do you understand where rape trials happen? The charge is criminal by the way and not monetary to the victim. Rape trials take place in criminal courts. I bet you really do know that. She wanted money. She so far was awarded money. For defaming her.Sorry about that. I thought it was him I was replying to.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I believe in criminal court she had no chance to win. So she went for the money.Assuming the reason she didn't go after Trump criminally, in the past, is because it didn't happen is also illogical.
Well there you go. You clearly designate it as a belief, like faith, rather than a logical point you're making. I accept that conclusion. The conclusion of your argument resting on faith. Just to be clear.I believe in criminal court she had no chance to win. So she went for the money.
I will do my own job of defining. Do you want me to do your defining for you?Well there you go. You clearly designate it as a belief, like faith, rather than a logical point you're making. I accept that conclusion. The conclusion of your argument resting on faith. Just to be clear.
Well you could try but I feel confident in my ability to counter any of your arguments with reason and logic.I will do my own job of defining. Do you want me to do your defining for you?
And I accept that fact. What I don't accept is the notion that a criminal conviction is what objectively makes one a rapist rather than the act of rape itself which logically comes before arrest, trial and conviction.I have posted plenty showing she won a defamation case. Not a criminal case.
Because in my case I have studied law when going to College. We were trained how to evaluate cases. A sex case on her behalf would be found in a criminal court. A Defamation case is a civil case.Sure. How does that help your claim she didn't "win the sex case"? The sex part was already decided and didn't need relitigating.
I honestly don't know what you are even attempting to claim.
She had no chance in a criminal court because of the statute of limitations. It says NOTHING about the merits of a case.I believe in criminal court she had no chance to win. So she went for the money.
