Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » Today, 12:48 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:48 pm

You demanded it.

I produced it.

Now you're trying to make reference to text you haven't read.

Now it is your turn...

(                       )

Why was Kaplan obliged to opine?

He says so.

he has a big ego?
 

ROG62 » 29 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

29 minutes ago

 “jury unanimously concluded Sexually abused” Kaplan re-clarifies July 2026

“Awarded her damages accordingly” Kaplan re-clarifies July 2026

No...it isn't "re-clarifying"....

You're a moron.

Why was he obliged to clarify?


Amazing how easy it is...
 

ROG62 » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

he has a big ego?

You must have scrolled past the link.

Show everyone you aren't too stupid to understand what is written.
 

ROG62 » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr.Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New YorkPenal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in NewYork applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of thevagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is notcalled “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.”

F-U-C-K-O-F-F…

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.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:13 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:13 am

That is the public statement of an experienced attorney.

I understand that, being MAGAts, you are all far too **** stupid to grasp the gravity of it.

what does gravity have to do with it?

BuckNaked » Today, 12:54 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:54 am

what does gravity have to do with it?

Meet a phor man..
 

BuckNaked » Today, 12:54 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:54 am

what does gravity have to do with it?

That's what pins his *** to the earth.....he'll jump into the air and deny it, though.

RebelGator » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

That's what pins his *** to the earth.....he'll jump into the air and deny it, though.

Duct Tape the unruly MAGAnootz to his seat..

https://youtu.be/LciKfZ4PPLE?is=ugDItUgwYWgqIKIP

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:41 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:41 pm

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.

clinger, it can’t be more black and white… mince all you want, you dumb **** twat, but it doesn’t change the FACTS…
 

BuckNaked » Today, 12:54 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:54 am

what does gravity have to do with it?

 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:38 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:38 pm

You must have scrolled past the link.

Show everyone you aren't too stupid to understand what is written.

I fully understand what was written, a judges’ feefee based post verdict / award OPINION…
 

ROG62 » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

clinger, it can’t be more black and white… 

That's right...it can't 

If you were only capable of reading it.

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

ROG62 » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

I fully understand what was written, a judges’ 

Why was Judge Kaplan obliged to opine?

You will forgive me, I intend to deal only with the ISSUES, not the rhetoric.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:02 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:02 am

Cobb, who served in Trump’s first administration, blasted his former boss, calling him a “malignant narcissist, convicted felon, rapist, and somebody who was really out to feather his own nest.”

This is where you people get away with the breezy drive-by, getting away with throwing labels that people are conditioned to respond-to negatively, in lieu of substance.

Can you break each and every one of those phrases down, and show that they are actually "bad things" in a leader?

The man's candle simply burns brighter.

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 6:02 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 6:02 am

“You’re absolutely right. He has not been convicted of it,” Cobb responded. “But the federal judge who oversaw the [E. Jean Carroll] trial said on the record that he was guilty of rape.”

“No, no, no, sexual assault,” Capehart insisted.

Until we universally[/], as men of good will and proven character, distinguish between rape and sexual assault, I think this is one of the more important drill-down-and-litigate issues facing the interwebs. I can totally support and respect a leader who has been convicted of sexual assault. But I draw the line at rape.

Dammit, Jim! I'm a (sorry, early morning, haven't had my coffee), not a (something brilliant, or at least clever, that plays off the first one).

Cannonpointer » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

You will forgive me, I intend to deal only with the ISSUES, not the rhetoric.

This is where you people get away with the breezy drive-by, cavalierly throwing labels that people are conditioned to respond-to negatively, in lieu of substance.

Can you break each and every one of those phrases down, and show that they are actually "bad things" in a leader?

The man's candle simply burns brighter.

Until we universally[/], as men of good will and proven character, distinguish between rape and sexual assault, I think this is one of the more important drill-down-and-litigate issues facing the interwebs. I can totally support and respect a leader who has been convicted of sexual assault. But I draw the line at rape.

Dammit, Jim! I'm a (sorry, early morning, haven't had my coffee), not a (something brilliant, or at least clever, that plays off the first one).

The grave for Rebecca, age 15, mother of three from the 1700s was an eye opener.

But yeah the average life span was 35 then..

I do consider these young girls know what they are doing..  But some sound like they get sucked into a horrible  place...

 

JohnnyYou » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

The grave for Rebecca, age 15, mother of three from the 1700s was an eye opener.

But yeah the average life span was 35 then..

I do consider these young girls know what they are doing..  But some sound like they get sucked into a horrible  place...

The average lifespan in the 1700s is a bit misleading. Yes, the AVERAGE was low. But this was due to early deaths and calamitous conditions - not to people being middle-aged at 25. 25 was still the early spring. 
 
In the 1960s, in the third world, people were genuinely aged and withered at 40. In the US in the 1700s, Ben Franklin's generation was in fine fettle in their 80s. People were not getting old early. They were dying early.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 7:36 am » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 7:36 am

Duck, please..

You're omninonpetent...

YOU ARE A POS LIBERAL SHILL

FJB » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

YOU ARE A POS LIBERAL SHILL

Fat Job blows..

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 3:42 pm

This was a civil procedure...

The finding was irrelevant..

To understand why, run from the following question...

"Had the jury voted yes, would Grifty have gone to jail?"

Another day of running....in sheer terror.

Dum dum, in the jury instructions the idiot told them to follow NY State law on the definition of rape.  Even in a civil procedure, moron, you have to have guidelines.

AI OverviewIn the 1990s, New York State penal law strictly defined rape as vaginal sexual intercourse involving penile penetration committed by force or with a person incapable of consent, while categorizing other nonconsensual forms of penetration or contact under different offenses like "sexual abuse" or "criminal sexual act". [1, 2]
Key Elements of the 1990s Definition

• Penile-Vaginal Requirement: The legal charge of "rape" specifically required contact between the penis and the vagina. Penetration of the vagina or other orifices using fingers, objects, or any body part other than a penis was legally prosecuted under separate statutes (such as sexual abuse or sodomy/criminal sexual acts), rather than rape.

Nope, not according to the instructions he gave the jury and NY State law until recently.

You lose.
 I will keep reposting every time you post that crap.

The gravity of corruption is rape..