No, they don't..
One time and one time only. Jeez, you are **** retarded. They are relevant because they settled a liable case for claiming Trump was civilly liable for rape for 16 million dollars. A guest on a show went down the same road and the host corrected him to spare the network a lawsuit.Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ No, they don't..
As I have explained..
You can't tell me why they matter.
I have explained this several times..Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ One time and one time only. Jeez, you are **** retarded. They are relevant because they settled a liable case for claiming Trump was civilly liable for rape for 16 million dollars. A guest on a show went down the same road and the host corrected him to spare the network a lawsuit.
Now it is your turn to explain why it is not relevant. Acknowledge you were answered.
He was found liable for sexual assualt, NOT RAPE, according to the Jury and NY STATE LAW.Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I have explained this several times..
What Stephanopoulos said is TECHNICALLY false.
Had he said
"...found liable for an act defined as rape. The term used to describe someone who commits such an act is "Rapist"."
There would have been no issue.
As it was, it isn't at all clear whether Grifty would have met the requirements for a defamation or libel claim.
For reasons you don't have the essentials to comprehend.
Were I you, I'd hide out at the other place for a while..
****'s about to get ugly at the Rosen thread...
He was found liable for a SPECIFIC ACT of sexual assault.Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ He was found liable for sexual assualt,
It didn't get ugly for me on the Rosen thread. YOU have nothing but speculation.
Additionally, whenever you start a SECOND THREAD on a topic already under discussion it is a sign you are getting your *** beat and you wish to reframe.
Tiny,It didn't get ugly for me on the Rosen thread. YOU have nothing but speculation.
Yeah, you were so **** up you had to start a second thread.Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ He was found liable for a SPECIFIC ACT of sexual assault.
Unless you read the opinion, you must shut the **** up.
Tiny,
I'm the one with the citations and facts.
And I have nailed every element of it...
But now it will get Unspeakably Cruel.
With receipts..
May call for a dedicated thread..
Another day, another humiliating context.
How much of the citation in the second thread have you read?Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Yeah, you were so **** up you had to start a second thread.
Well, I'm out. If you are going to allow this to degenerate into you usual **** trash talk, bye.
I suggested you do that earlier...Well, I'm out. If you are going to allow this to degenerate into you usual **** trash talk, bye.
Are we gonna talk about the issue?Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ How much of the citation in the second thread have you read?
We know it is less than all.
I suggested you do that earlier...
But it's not as if you can hope to hide from your stupid.
That's why asked how much of the source materials, reporting the facts, you have read.Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Are we gonna talk about the issue?
The answer is all of it. Acknowledge you were answered.
You never do.
The answer is all of it. Acknowledge you were answered.
First, acknowledge you were answered and I will think of a question to ask you while waiting. This way you can't lie any more about me not ever answering questions.Blackvegetable » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ That's why asked how much of the source materials, reporting the facts, you have read.
If so, is there a concession you would like to offer lest you find yourself, once again, bobbing limbless in a pool of your own waste?
Not there yet.Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ First, acknowledge you were answered and I will think of a question to ask you while waiting. This way you can't lie any more about me not ever answering questions.
Oh, and stop talking about what you are gonna do, Tuco. Just do it.
I'm done.Blackvegetable » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ Not there yet.
Can you tell me when you finished reading the article?
I'll be taking care of that shortly.
Nobody can tell you anything that is physically absolute and self evident when you choose to believe anything else is possible socially when people agree to disagree about the same physical absolute self evidently separating each ancestor alive today.Blackvegetable » Today, 6:27 am » wrote: ↑ No, they don't..
As I have explained..
You can't tell me why they matter.
Blackvegetable » Today, 6:27 am » wrote: ↑ No, they don't..
As I have explained..
You can't tell me why they matter.
Serious question, brownie,
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 we have the goods brown…no running necessary…
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 cling, brown…like you always do, putrid stink to ****…Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2026, 7:41 pm » wrote: ↑ So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll.5 Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similarconduct, which is a far cry from rape.”6 And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.
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