Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
I Think That Tells You What You Need To Know
I Think That Tells You What You Need To Know
By Blackvegetable
2 Apr 2026 4:22 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
29 Apr 2026 8:05 am
ROG62 » 29 Apr 2026, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑These facts?
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was ... pe-1799935
deposit limbs in garbage on the way out…
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom 
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
29 Apr 2026 8:18 am
Tom's fee fees are inconsistent with the court record....
That you would presume to cite him is a tribute to your credulity.
It is clear that he did not read Team Grifty's petition OR the judge's detailed response.
He spends much of the space drawing a distinction between criminal and civil necessary only for the moron reader.
29 Apr 2026 8:21 am
I'm pleased to see that one of those clowns had to revise his comment...
As Gardner told Newsweek, even if there was no criminal verdict, civil suits "play an important role in vindicating rights or telling important stories."
"Even though this was not a criminal verdict and even though the verdict did not extend to rape, the verdict tells us that a unanimous jury of Trump and Carroll's peers found her credible and found it more likely than not that Trump sexually assaulted her.
"It is also telling that the verdict came quickly. One thing we often forget is that a jury of our peers is so important that we have a constitutional right to such a jury in federal courts not just for criminal trials, but also for civil trials like this one."
In a response to Newsweek, Fell said he added to his post "Edit: They agree that he's a sexual assaulter, at least."
As Gardner told Newsweek, even if there was no criminal verdict, civil suits "play an important role in vindicating rights or telling important stories."
"Even though this was not a criminal verdict and even though the verdict did not extend to rape, the verdict tells us that a unanimous jury of Trump and Carroll's peers found her credible and found it more likely than not that Trump sexually assaulted her.
"It is also telling that the verdict came quickly. One thing we often forget is that a jury of our peers is so important that we have a constitutional right to such a jury in federal courts not just for criminal trials, but also for civil trials like this one."
In a response to Newsweek, Fell said he added to his post "Edit: They agree that he's a sexual assaulter, at least."
29 Apr 2026 8:34 am
Blackvegetable » 29 Apr 2026, 8:21 am » wrote: ↑ I'm pleased to see that one of those clowns had to revise his comment...
As Gardner told Newsweek, even if there was no criminal verdict, civil suits "play an important role in vindicating rights or telling important stories."
"Even though this was not a criminal verdict and even though the verdict did not extend to rape, the verdict tells us that a unanimous jury of Trump and Carroll's peers found her credible and found it more likely than not that Trump sexually assaulted her.
"It is also telling that the verdict came quickly. One thing we often forget is that a jury of our peers is so important that we have a constitutional right to such a jury in federal courts not just for criminal trials, but also for civil trials like this one."
In a response to Newsweek, Fell said he added to his post "Edit: They agree that he's a sexual assaulter, at least."
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was ... pe-1799935"Even though this was not a criminal verdict and even though the verdict did not extend to rape, the verdict tells us that a unanimous jury of Trump and Carroll's peers found her credible and found it more likely than not that Trump sexually assaulted her.
Put that on a sticky and staple it to your forehead.
BV is in question time out indefinitely, until he takes the pledge to answer questions one for one.
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
29 Apr 2026 8:36 am
I cite the court record you are too stupid to read.
29 Apr 2026 8:44 am
Blackvegetable » 29 Apr 2026, 8:36 am » wrote: ↑ I cite the court record you are too stupid to read.
You also cited a scholar of civil procedure and international law that contradicts you, a wannabe legal scholar with no Juris Prudence education. Go argue with her.
Tidmarsh's view was concurred by Cornell Law School professor Maggie Gardner, a scholar of civil procedure and international law
BV is in question time out indefinitely, until he takes the pledge to answer questions one for one.
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
The Pledge viewtopic.php?f=3&t=100927
Popular Vote Totals 2024 viewtopic.php?p=2685476#p2685476
BV's Sporter Losshttps: viewtopic.php?p=2610828#p2610828
BV 33 miles: viewtopic.php?p=2747521#p2747521
Sources viewtopic.php?p=2589152#p2589152
29 Apr 2026 8:47 am
I don't need a disquisition on the difference between civil and criminal.Huey » 29 Apr 2026, 8:44 am » wrote: ↑ You also cited a scholar of civil procedure and international law that contradicts you, a wannabe legal scholar with no Juris Prudence education. Go argue with her.
Tidmarsh's view was concurred by Cornell Law School professor Maggie Gardner, a scholar of civil procedure and international law
Their musings on the question of rape are of no consequence whatsoever.
The opinion of the presiding judge is.
29 Apr 2026 8:49 am
Blackvegetable » 29 Apr 2026, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑ I don't need a disquisition on the difference between civil and criminal.
Their musings on the question of rape are of no consequence whatsoever.
The opinion of the presiding judge is.
key word... OPINION... which has NO legal standing
29 Apr 2026 8:50 am
Duck,
You're an idiot.
29 Apr 2026 8:54 am
I know I am right, so why do you bring this crap up all the time?
29 Apr 2026 8:56 am
People should know.FJB » 29 Apr 2026, 8:54 am » wrote: ↑ I know I am a filthy short eyed pedo, so why do you bring this crap up all the time?
29 Apr 2026 8:57 am
so back to the point... a judges opinion has no legal standing in this particular case.... is that correct?
29 Apr 2026 9:00 am
Tom has nothing to do with it…Blackvegetable » 29 Apr 2026, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑ Tom's fee fees are inconsistent with the court record....
That you would presume to cite him is a tribute to your credulity.
It is clear that he did not read Team Grifty's petition OR the judge's detailed response.
He spends much of the space drawing a distinction between criminal and civil necessary only for the moron reader.
UC Davis School of Law professor Katherine Florey and Notre Dame Law School professor Jay Tidmarsh disagree with Kaplan’s feefees…
Under the law, this covered sexual offenses, as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Code, including rape. However, as Tidmarsh told Newsweek, the civil claim was for battery, not rape or sexual abuse.
"Among the [Article] 130 claims are rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching," he said. "Therefore, in order for Ms. Carroll to prevail on the statute of limitations, she needed to prove [by a preponderance of the evidence] that she was the victim of rape or sexual abuse or forcible touching.
"Any one of the three would have sufficed. The jury found two of the three applied, but not rape."
While Trump was not found liable for rape, Tidmarsh said he attached "limited significance to the jury's decision not to find that rape occurred."
"The civil claim is for battery, not rape," he added. "The jury found that Donald Trump battered E. Jean Carroll. And Ms. Carroll was able to fit within the new statute of limitation even without proving rape."
So, we can establish that Trump was not found "guilty" of rape as he was not criminally charged, nor was he found liable for rape. Further, the civil claim was on a battery tort but brought forward using an extension of the statute of limitations for crimes including rape.
**** YOU, **** YOUR FEEFEES AND ****…
#****
JuCo 5 percenter...72
“Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime” ~ LAVRENTIY BERIA
"Try to get past your passionate ignorance and learn to accept what actually happened." ~ brown's unheeded words of wisdom
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
"Libruls are often fascists on vacation..."
29 Apr 2026 9:05 am
That's your assertion..FJB » 29 Apr 2026, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑ so back to the point... a judges opinion has no legal standing in this particular case.... is that correct?
It is wrong.
29 Apr 2026 9:18 am
Neither do Katherine or Jay..ROG62 » 29 Apr 2026, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑ Tom has nothing to do with it…
UC Davis School of Law professor Katherine Florey and Notre Dame Law School professor Jay Tidmarsh disagree with Kaplan’s feefees…
Under the law, this covered sexual offenses, as defined in Article 130 of the New York Penal Code, including rape. However, as Tidmarsh told Newsweek, the civil claim was for battery, not rape or sexual abuse.
"Among the [Article] 130 claims are rape, sexual abuse and forcible touching," he said. "Therefore, in order for Ms. Carroll to prevail on the statute of limitations, she needed to prove [by a preponderance of the evidence] that she was the victim of rape or sexual abuse or forcible touching.
"Any one of the three would have sufficed. The jury found two of the three applied, but not rape."
While Trump was not found liable for rape, Tidmarsh said he attached "limited significance to the jury's decision not to find that rape occurred."
"The civil claim is for battery, not rape," he added. "The jury found that Donald Trump battered E. Jean Carroll. And Ms. Carroll was able to fit within the new statute of limitation even without proving rape."
So, we can establish that Trump was not found "guilty" of rape as he was not criminally charged, nor was he found liable for rape. Further, the civil claim was on a battery tort but brought forward using an extension of the statute of limitations for crimes including rape.
**** YOU, **** YOUR FEEFEES AND ****…
#****
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=96320&start=240
29 Apr 2026 9:27 am
Can you name one of Trump's peers?Blackvegetable » 29 Apr 2026, 8:21 am » wrote: ↑ I'm pleased to see that one of those clowns had to revise his comment...
As Gardner told Newsweek, even if there was no criminal verdict, civil suits "play an important role in vindicating rights or telling important stories."
"Even though this was not a criminal verdict and even though the verdict did not extend to rape, the verdict tells us that a unanimous jury of Trump and Carroll's peers found her credible and found it more likely than not that Trump sexually assaulted her.
"It is also telling that the verdict came quickly. One thing we often forget is that a jury of our peers is so important that we have a constitutional right to such a jury in federal courts not just for criminal trials, but also for civil trials like this one."
In a response to Newsweek, Fell said he added to his post "Edit: They agree that he's a sexual assaulter, at least."
Didn't think so, which renders your post as garbage.
29 Apr 2026 9:28 am
explain why it is wrong
29 Apr 2026 9:30 am
Jeffrey Epstein.RebelGator » 29 Apr 2026, 9:27 am » wrote: ↑ Can you name one of Trump's peers?
Didn't think so, which renders your post as garbage.
What do I win?
29 Apr 2026 9:33 am
He was on the Jury?
You win dumb *** of the day, narrowly edging out JohnnyYou and 'Shamboner.
29 Apr 2026 9:35 am
You didn't ask that...RebelGator » 29 Apr 2026, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ He was on the Jury?
You win dumb *** of the day, narrowly edging out JohnnyYou and 'Shamboner.
Who is online
In total there are 4313 users online :: 10 registered, 18 bots, and 4285 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Squatchman, ROG62, RebelGator, MR-7, Beekeeper, johnedgarslowhorses, Deezer Shoove, sole
Bots: Bolt, Firefox/7.0, Not, facebookexternalhit, CriteoBot, proximic, ADmantX, Adsbot, Kinza, Yahoo! Slurp, NING, Baiduspider, YandexBot, Mediapartners-Google, bingbot, curl/7, Applebot, Googlebot