Trump's Crude Sexual Attacks on Harris Spark Republican Frustration Amid Poll Gains

[candide]

And some people wonder why Kamala doesn't talk much! She just needs to let Trump deliver his daily B.S. load!

 

Come on Trump! Don't listen to your advisers! Be yourself!

Go go TrumpDon! 🤣

[Cameroni]

46 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

It is obvious that you do not. New York has a limited definition of rape, that  has yet to be updated.

Judge Kaplan in his ruling that dismissed Trump's counterclaim of defamation against his sexual assault victim said that when Carroll repeated her allegation that Trump raped her, she was truthful.  Judge Kaplan also set out in detail why it may be said that Trump raped Carroll. 

 “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.  “The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis.

“It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”

 

The jury found in favour of the victim and that is the key issue.  Your argument is of the  position that  molesting someone is acceptable so long as it does not  involve penile penetration. 

 

 

 

So lying and misrepresentation is all you can resort to, not a surprise.

 

The jury DID NOT find in favour of Carrol's allegation that Trumped raped her. That is the key issue. If you look at the court documents you will clearly see that she alleges not just sexual abuse or "digital penetration", she alleges rape in the sense of penile penetration. This is what the jury precisely refuted. So Carroll is a liar.

 

And the Kaplan ruling you referred to is NOT from the actual Caroll trials, the background to it is that Caroll repeated in a press conference that Trump had raped her. Trump, having been found NOT GUILTY of rape then sued Caroll for defamation, ie for the statement that she made that he raped her.

 

Even though Kaplan of course had to admit that under New York law indeed Trump had NOT raped Caroll, he decided to make some legal contortions that because outside of New York digital rape includes fingering, and since the jury did find that Trump had sexually abused Caroll that meant he most likely fingered her, that was sufficient to state that "substantially" Caroll's statements were true.

 

Kaplan has NEVER stated that the jury in the Caroll trials found Trump guilty of rape, or that Trump engaged in penile penetration of Caroll's vagina. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.200.0.pdf

[PREM-R]

[bubblegum]

Oh my, oh my to be a right wing social media influencer these days. Sitting in this sweat room with all your buddies trying the darn hardest to come up with ways to defend the Turd. You guys most hate him actually more than I do making your work so difficult with all the stupid things he says.

[bubblegum]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

So lying and misrepresentation is all you can resort, not a surprise.

 

The jury DID NOT find in favour of Carrol's allegation that Trumped raped her. That is the key issue. If you look at the court documents you will clearly see that she alleges not just sexual abuse or "digital penetration", she alleges rape in the sense of penile penetration. This is what the jury precisely refuted. So Carroll is a liar.

 

And the Kaplan ruling you referred to is NOT from the actual Caroll trials, the background to it is that Caroll repeated in a press conference that Trump had raped her. Trump, having been found NOT GUILTY of rape then sued Caroll for defamation, ie for the statement that she made that he raped her.

 

Even though Kaplan of course had to admit that under New York law indeed Trump had NOT raped Caroll, he decided to make some legal contortions that because outside of New York digital rape includes fingering, and since the jury did find that Trump had sexually abused Caroll that meant he most likely fingered her, that was sufficient to state that "substantially" Caroll's statements were true.

 

Kaplan has NEVER stated that the jury in the Caroll trials found Trump guilty of rape, or that Trump engaged in penile penetration of Caroll's vagina. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.200.0.pdf

Don't mean a thing, penis or finger. She did not asked him to do it but he did it anyway. And that is your ex president. Proud to be an American?

[Cameroni]

4 minutes ago, bubblegum said:

Don't mean a thing, penis or finger. She did not asked him to do it but he did it anyway. And that is your ex president. Proud to be an American?

 

The jury in the Carrol case relied on "outcry witnesses". In other words because Caroll supposedly told her girlfriends and those friends supported her story, but Trump had no evidence to buttress his denial, the jury decided to believe Caroll was sexually abused.

 

But when it came to her claim that she was raped under New York law, even that jury refused to believe her. 

 

Remember, this woman penned a treatise  "What do we need men for?".

[JCauto]

1 hour ago, frank83628 said:

cruel attacks, F'me, he's been called every name under the sun the last 7+ years, 

 

It's so sad! He's just a swell guy saying nice things about other people and yet these meanies come back after his well-intentioned and gentle criticisms with vitriolic bombast! So cruel! Why are they so mean to the nice Orange man? 

 

LOL. What a snowflake!

[frank83628]

2 minutes ago, JCauto said:

 

It's so sad! He's just a swell guy saying nice things about other people and yet these meanies come back after his well-intentioned and gentle criticisms with vitriolic bombast! So cruel! Why are they so mean to the nice Orange man? 

 

LOL. What a snowflake!

i think you might have misread the comment. 

[FritsSikkink]

6 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

The jury in the Carrol case relied on "outcry witnesses". In other words because Caroll supposedly told her girlfriends and those friends supported her story, but Trump had no evidence to buttress his denial, the jury decided to believe Caroll was sexually abused.

 

But when it came to her claim that she was raped under New York law, even that jury refused to believe her. 

 

Remember, this woman penned a treatise  "What do we need men for?".

Forgot this tape? 

 

[Cameroni]

Just locker room banter.

 

As everyone knows.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, mdr224 said:

its limited because theres no reason to think much when speaking to libs. Doesnt take much to set them off, just the truth

But you should at least give it a try.

[Chomper Higgot]

33 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

So lying and misrepresentation is all you can resort to, not a surprise.

 

The jury DID NOT find in favour of Carrol's allegation that Trumped raped her. That is the key issue. If you look at the court documents you will clearly see that she alleges not just sexual abuse or "digital penetration", she alleges rape in the sense of penile penetration. This is what the jury precisely refuted. So Carroll is a liar.

 

And the Kaplan ruling you referred to is NOT from the actual Caroll trials, the background to it is that Caroll repeated in a press conference that Trump had raped her. Trump, having been found NOT GUILTY of rape then sued Caroll for defamation, ie for the statement that she made that he raped her.

 

Even though Kaplan of course had to admit that under New York law indeed Trump had NOT raped Caroll, he decided to make some legal contortions that because outside of New York digital rape includes fingering, and since the jury did find that Trump had sexually abused Caroll that meant he most likely fingered her, that was sufficient to state that "substantially" Caroll's statements were true.

 

Kaplan has NEVER stated that the jury in the Caroll trials found Trump guilty of rape, or that Trump engaged in penile penetration of Caroll's vagina. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

 

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.200.0.pdf

I’d be careful calling Carrol a liar, your idol did and it cost him dearly.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’d be careful calling Carrol a liar, your idol did and it cost him dearly.

 

Trump is appealing the case. He is so sure he will win that he posted 83 million USD in bond so that he can proceed with the appeal.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Cameroni said:

 

Trump is appealing the case. He is so sure he will win that he posted 83 million USD in bond so that he can proceed with the appeal.

Of course he’s appealing the case. 
 

He gets his rubes to fund his costs.

 

In the meantime the verdict stands and the settlement is accruing interest.

 

Here’s some friendly advice, don’t send him any of your money, he’s supposed to be a billionaire, if he’s asking for money he’s grifting and if he needs to grift he’s not a billionaire.

 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trumps-use-campaign-funds-pay-legal-bills

[Cameroni]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He gets his rubes to fund his costs.

 

No, his insurance funded it.

 

Quote

 if he’s asking for money he’s grifting and if he needs to grift he’s not a billionaire.

 

Oh he's a billionaire allright. In fact people like you, Democrat supporters made him even richer, since his media co provided him with a money rain of around 5 to 4 billion USD.

 

And if he can use other sources to pay exorbitant legal costs for politically motivated trials, why not? It's the smart thing to do.

[cjinchiangrai]

38 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Remember, this woman penned a treatise  "What do we need men for?".

So that makes sexual assault OK? She does not need men so Donald needs to put her in her place?

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

No, his insurance funded it.

 

 

Oh he's a billionaire allright. In fact people like you, Democrat supporters made him even richer, since his media co provided him with a money rain of around 5 to 4 billion USD.

 

And if he can use other sources to pay exorbitant legal costs for politically motivated trials, why not? It's the smart thing to do.

I’ve given you the best friendly advice I have for you.

 

His habit of grifting of his supporters ought to be all the warning anyone needs.

 

 

[Cameroni]

8 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

So that makes sexual assault OK? She does not need men so Donald needs to put her in her place?

 

In her column in a women's magazine Caroll was conspicuous for highly anti-men and ultra feminist advice, for example saying women should  "never structure their lives around men".

 

When she was fired by the magazine she bizarelly blamed Trump for this, something which the magazine vehemently denied.

 

Caroll was also obsessed with sex, at one point chronicling the lives of basketball groupies.

 

She set up a website with a friend where men were traded like playing cards.

 

Both of her previous two marriages fell apart.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, Tug said:

Ahhhh there’s that court case he got CONVICTED on you know the one were he assaulted Mrs Carrol remember that?btw the judge thinks it qualifies as rape …….as far as trumps gutter comment what did you expect from a guy that has a tryst with a porn actress as his wife (a beautiful woman I might add) stays home taking care of his new born….the dudes a dirt bag pure and simple .he is what he is

 

Anybody actually ever see this repost? It seems to be rather elusive.

[bubblegum]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

In her column in a women's magazine Caroll was conspicuous for highly anti-men and ultra feminist advice, for example saying women should  "never structure their lives around men".

 

When she was fired by the magazine she bizarelly blamed Trump for this, something which the magazine vehemently denied.

 

Caroll was also obsessed with sex, at one point chronicling the lives of basketball groupies.

 

She set up a website with a friend where men were traded like playing cards.

 

Both of her previous two marriages fell apart.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll

Jeez man give it up, he was convicted.

[cjinchiangrai]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

In her column in a women's magazine Caroll was conspicuous for highly anti-men and ultra feminist advice, for example saying women should  "never structure their lives around men".

 

When she was fired by the magazine she bizarelly blamed Trump for this, something which the magazine vehemently denied.

 

Caroll was also obsessed with sex, at one point chronicling the lives of basketball groupies.

 

She set up a website with a friend where men were traded like playing cards.

 

Both of her previous two marriages fell apart.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll

All of which justifies Donald's sexual assault how?

[Gobbler]

No link to the Trump comment?  Does it have anything to do with how she serviced Willie Brown and how she climbed the government ladder on her knees? 

 

Her antics with Willie Brown is well known in America.

[Gobbler]

5 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

That grotesque thing referred to as "Trump" is a total trainwreck...uneducated, un-American, unappealing and uncouth bloviating buffoon. 

Invective only alert.  Warning: invective without any substantiation. 

 

 

[bubblegum]

1 minute ago, Gobbler said:

No link to the Trump comment?  Does it have anything to do with how she serviced Willie Brown and how she climbed the government ladder on her knees? 

 

Her antics with Willie Brown is well known in America.

Lie. Made up story by Fox. All you can do is follow a lie and a liar.

[Cameroni]

1 minute ago, bubblegum said:

Jeez man give it up, he was convicted.

 

Well, it was a "she said- he said". And Caroll was allowed to rely on "outcry witnesses", ie her friends, who claimed Caroll had complained after the event, were allowed to provide evidence. Trump did not provide sufficent evidence he did not sexually assault Caroll, very hard to  prove a negative in such a scenario.

 

Anyone who has ever conducted litigation in court,  as I have, knows that it is not the guilty or innocent party that wins, it is the party which can document the most evidence. Quite often a lot of document evidence can make it appear something has happened when the reality was quite different.

 

[Gobbler]

Just now, bubblegum said:

Lie. Made up story by Fox. All you can do is follow a lie and a liar.

Thousands of articles written by reputable news organizations does not make a lie. It's news. Americans know how she climbed the ranks.

[Gobbler]

Long before anyone heard the name Trump, her antics with Willie Brown were well known. 

[cjinchiangrai]

5 minutes ago, Gobbler said:

No link to the Trump comment?  Does it have anything to do with how she serviced Willie Brown and how she climbed the government ladder on her knees? 

 

Her antics with Willie Brown is well known in America.

Defamation! She was elected to her posts by the citizens of California and later by the American people.

[Gobbler]

Kamala's latest interview was a disaster. She said nothing but she did her trademark cackling. 

 

She is bereft of any political acumen and comes across as a smacked ass, stupid, and without the wherewithal to properly answer a question. 

 

She belongs on the Jerry Springer Show or Maury Povitch.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Well, it was a "she said- he said". And Caroll was allowed to rely on "outcry witnesses", ie her friends, who claimed Caroll had complained after the event, were allowed to provide evidence. Trump did not provide sufficent evidence he did not sexually assault Caroll, very hard to  prove a negative in such a scenario.

 

Anyone who has ever conducted litigation in court,  as I have, knows that it is not the guilty or innocent party that wins, it is the party which can document the most evidence. Quite often a lot of document evidence can make it appear something has happened when the reality was quite different.

 

It was a ‘verdict’ from a court trial.