Judge's Ruling says Trump is a Rapist!!!

P

Poor Richard Saunders

Well-known member
Contributor
In a ruling in the Carroll v Trump case in federal court released today, Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan states that Trump committed rape as the word is commonly understood.

As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law
is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some
dictionaries,2 in some federal and state criminal statutes,3 and elsewhere.4 The finding that Ms
Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does
not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand
the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that
Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.
Click to expand...

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/65895581/212/carroll-v-trump/

Trump's lawsuit for defamation against Carroll will be quickly thrown out since clearly she can legally say Trump raped her.


Feel free to call Trump a rapist. The court says he is one.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
I don't see a judge's ruling there. The media isn't a judge.
Click to expand...

oooh, a partisan douchbag sees nothing wrong

derp derp derp derp

first sentence tardo

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Biden administration must cease contacting social media companies about a broad range of online content, including the administration's efforts to flag misinformation.
 
zymurgy said:
oooh, a partisan douchbag sees nothing wrong

derp derp derp derp

first sentence tardo

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the Biden administration must cease contacting social media companies about a broad range of online content, including the administration's efforts to flag misinformation.
Click to expand...

Duh..
The judge's injunction (it wasn't a ruling on merits) was quickly overturned by the appeals court.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.34.2.pdf

Not only that. Nowhere in the injunction is the word "fascist" or "fascism" mentioned.
In the ruling about Trump, the word rape is mentioned 78 times.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Duh..
The judge's injunction (it wasn't a ruling on merits) was quickly overturned by the appeals court.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640/gov.uscourts.ca5.214640.34.2.pdf

Not only that. Nowhere in the injunction is the word "fascist" or "fascism" mentioned.
In the ruling about Trump, the word rape is mentioned 78 times.
Click to expand...

rape discussion in a civil trial that does not require a preponderance of the evidence

yawn retardo. big yawn.


and yes, Biden challenged a court order that he can't be a fascist blocking people from disagreeing. you shit stains approve. because you are shit stains
 
when we had slavery - the GOP knew it was wrong and fought against it. the democrats fought to preserve it

right now we have a sitting president that thinks he can prevent Americans from sharing their views.

and once again - the democrats all around me sit by and allow it. even defend it

the fascists party. the party of slavery becomes the party of big brother 1984 style censorship
 
zymurgy said:
rape discussion in a civil trial that does not require a preponderance of the evidence

yawn retardo. big yawn.


and yes, Biden challenged a court order that he can't be a fascist blocking people from disagreeing. you shit stains approve. because you are shit stains
Click to expand...

You still need proof of something in a civil trial.

You can't just walk in there and claim something and expect the jury to agree with you.

If that were the case I would be suing you for rape.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
You still need proof of something in a civil trial.

You can't just walk in there and claim something and expect the jury to agree with you.

If that were the case I would be suing you for rape.
Click to expand...

yes you can. in a he said she said civil trial, that is often all you need
 
Tinkerpeach said:
You still need proof of something in a civil trial.

You can't just walk in there and claim something and expect the jury to agree with you.

If that were the case I would be suing you for rape.
Click to expand...

LOL. The civil trial is over. This was a ruling on a motion to reduce the amount awarded by the jury.

The jury found that Trump committed rape as defined by many dictionaries.

One dictionary, for example, defines rape as “unlawful sexual intercourse or any other
sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force,
by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the person
subjected to such penetration.”
Click to expand...

It is not entirely surprising that the jury did not find penile penetration but, as discussed
below, implicitly found digital penetration.
Click to expand...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf
 
zymurgy said:
yes you can. in a he said she said civil trial, that is often all you need
Click to expand...

The requirement in a civil trial is to prove by the preponderance of evidence.
You can't simply walk in and claim something. You require evidence and testimony.
Carroll testified. Trump refused to testify.
 
What i love the most about this was Trump admitting the jury found him liable but saying 'the jury said they could not determine ifI penetrated her with my finger or my penis... thus i win!!'


FLOL. Either way he raped her as the term is common used and is defined in almost all other States, but in NY it just means he is found liable for Sexually assaulting her by using his finger, at a minimum.


If Trump wants to admit to that call that a Court Victory for him, I'll allow it.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The requirement in a civil trial is to prove by the preponderance of evidence.
You can't simply walk in and claim something. You require evidence and testimony.
Carroll testified. Trump refused to testify.
Click to expand...

so?

in a he said she said, it comes down to if she is believable or he is.

more likely than not is not a high burden, which is why it only involves financial compensation. no real justice was sought, just a money grab. big woop

I will never be that person that uses a civil trial to point to someone's guilt ion a crime. that is shit stain activity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top