Liberal Forum

R.Suave » 13 Mar 2024, 11:22 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:22 am

What makes you believe you know better than the judge?


 

The judge in the case is on record stating Trump was not found guilty of rape as defined by the State of NY.

What makes you believe you know better than the judge?


 

maineman » 13 Mar 2024, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:40 am

https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics ... index.html

Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case, awards her $5 million

But no rape..

26 years later this woman says she was raped?

 Sounds like that other woman that claimed the Supreme Court judge raped her 40 years ago,
 
 

ConsRule » 13 Mar 2024, 11:44 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:44 am

But not rape.  If would be slander/libel to call him a rapist as no jury, anywhere on the planet, has found he committed rape.

Just not by the legal definition of rape in New York.  

Let me ask you a question:  If YOU were in the men's changing room at a department store and a man forced his way into your changing booth, pulled your pants down and rammed a broomstick up your ***, would you think to yourself that you had been raped?  Yes or no?
 

ConsRule » 13 Mar 2024, 11:46 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:46 am

The judge in the case is on record stating Trump was not found guilty of rape as defined by the State of NY.

What makes you believe you know better than the judge?

Don't presume fo interpret for me.

R.Suave » 13 Mar 2024, 11:38 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:38 am

No citations.

No need.

Do you dispute any of the facts I've relayed?
Then tell me, nitwit.  What was the date of her assault she now claims happened AROUND 30 **** YEARS AGO?
Was it during the day or at night?
Who did she ever tell about the incident for many years?  Friends?  Family?  Police?  NOPE!  She waited OVER 20 YEARS until 2019 TO TELL A SOUL!
How is it that the Democrat-run state can suddenly change the statute of limitation laws just so they could proceed with such a phony prosecution specifically so they could charge Trump?
Have YOU ever been in the NYC Bergdorf Goodman and seen the crowds there as I have?
If you had, you'd know how incredibly absurd this case is, and how dumb you'd have to be to believe it!
The case should have NEVER gone to trial, and should have been thrown out the minute this whore couldn't provide the exact date and time of the alleged attack!
 

ConsRule » 13 Mar 2024, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:41 am

I quoted the JUDGE THAT PRESIDED OVER THE CASE.  If you don't like what he said...take it up with him.

Team Grifty tried...

“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,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... udge-rape/
 

Zeets2 » 13 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm

Do you dispute any of the facts I've relayed?
Then tell me, nitwit.  What was the date of her assault she now claims happened AROUND 30 **** YEARS AGO?
Was it during the day or at night?
Who did she ever tell about the incident for many years?  Friends?  Family?  Police?  NOPE!  She waited OVER 20 YEARS until 2019 TO TELL A SOUL!
How is it that the Democrat-run state can suddenly change the statute of limitation laws just so they could proceed with such a phony prosecution specifically so they could charge Trump?
Have YOU ever been in the NYC Bergdorf Goodman and seen the crowds there as I have?
If you had, you'd know how incredibly absurd this case is, and how dumb you'd have to be to believe it!
The case should have NEVER gone to trial, and should have been thrown out the minute this whore couldn't provide the exact date and time of the alleged attack!

Zeet,

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/0 ... r-00095179
 
 

BooRadley » 13 Mar 2024, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:40 am

She allegedly named her cat vagina. He apparently believes that doing that tends to establish that she has a pathological preoccupation centering around sex. He thought his attorney should have been allowed to question her about it. The judge allegedly held that it was irrelevant and barred it from cross examination.Was that correct? I dont know. Maybe maybe not.Carolle waited about 26 years before bringing the claim. She never told anyone at the time except her friend who placed this occurrence as Spring 1996. Carroll herself did not remember what year it occurred but maintained it had a dramatic effect on her even though she didnt know when it happened. She did allegedly ask not to be assigned to interview Trump but I dont know what value that would have. The rules of evidence were substantially relaxed here. Generally prompt outcries and reports of a sexual assault incident like are admissible when they are made at the first available opportunity. In this case the report to her friend was a telephone call allegedly made shortly after the incident while she was still hyperventilating. She did not make a report of the incident at the Department Store. She did not inform the Security personnel and she did not cry out for assistance or alert anyone near the dressing room she and Trump were allegedly in. Instead, she telephone her friend told the friend that she did not want to report the incident to the police.

Where are the links, Hole?

You know how you're inclined to lie...

ConsRule » 13 Mar 2024, 11:24 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:24 am

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll - The Washington Post

"Despite Carroll’s claims that Trump had raped her, they noted, the jury stopped short of saying he committed that particular offense. Instead, jurors opted for a second option: sexual abuse."

Per the liberal judge that presided over the case;

“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,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

The former requires forcible, unconsented-to penetration with one’s penis. But he said that the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape.

------

Basically, he knows Trump didn't commit rape according to the law but he thinks everyone should use the whiny *** liberal butt-hurt definition.

“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,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

And I ask you again, if you were in a department store in New York and a man forcibly rammed a broomstick up YOUR ***, would you consider that rape?

maineman » 13 Mar 2024, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 11:59 am

Just not by the legal definition of rape in New York.  

Let me ask you a question:  If YOU were in the men's changing room at a department store and a man forced his way into your changing booth, pulled your pants down and rammed a broomstick up your ***, would you think to yourself that you had been raped?  Yes or no?

No...because words have meanings, and there are legal definitions for offenses.  That would be sexual assault.

Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean it isn't a law.

R.Suave » 13 Mar 2024, 12:14 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 12:14 pm

Team Grifty tried...

“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,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... udge-rape/

Not as defined by the laws of the State of NY.  I understand you don't like that fact and, apparently refuse to accept it, but it remains fact.

Under the laws of the State of NY, you are committing slander/libel if you refer to him as a rapist.

 

maineman » 13 Mar 2024, 12:22 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 12:22 pm

“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,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

And I ask you again, if you were in a department store in New York and a man forcibly rammed a broomstick up YOUR ***, would you consider that rape?

Already answered.  Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean I have to repeat it.
 

ConsRule » 13 Mar 2024, 1:02 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 1:02 pm

No...because words have meanings, and there are legal definitions for offenses.  That would be sexual assault.

Just because you don't like a law, doesn't mean it isn't a law.

I didn't ask you whether or not you think that the man who did it to you should be indicted for the crime of rape under New York Statute.  

I asked you if someone forcibly shoved a broomstick up your *** would you feel as if you had been raped.  

Many words have definitions for their common usage that are much broader than the legal definition in the statutes.  Rape is one of those words 

ConsRule » 13 Mar 2024, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 1:04 pm

Not as defined by the laws of the State of NY.  I understand you don't like that fact and, apparently refuse to accept it, but it remains fact.

Under the laws of the State of NY, you are committing slander/libel if you refer to him as a rapist.

I agree with your first and second sentence, but totally disagree with your third and would ask that you show me the New York statute you are referring to that says that calling someone a rapist is a form of slander or libel

I'll wait.

Is calling someone a "son of a bitch" also slander?   I mean, we both know that, the legal definition of the word "bitch" makes that epithet a legal and biological impossibility... right?

maineman » 13 Mar 2024, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 1:18 pm

I agree with your first and second sentence, but totally disagree with your third and would ask that you show me the New York statute you are referring to that says that calling someone a rapist is a form of slander or libel

I'll wait.

Is calling someone a "son of a bitch" also slander?   I mean, we both know that, the legal definition of the word "bitch" makes that epithet a legal and biological impossibility... right?

In every state in the union...and under federal law...there are five elements to those forms of defamation;
- A false communication (there is no finding of rape by any court in the land and NY Law specifically...you know it to be false)
- Unprivileged statement (not an opinion, you are clearly not adding "in my opinion")
- Made about a person
- Published to a third party
- Caused damages (damages do not need to be monetary)

The judge presiding over the case is on record stating it wasn't rape as defined by the law.  Will Trump sue your scrawny liberal ***...probably not, but he could.
 

maineman » 13 Mar 2024, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 1:11 pm

I didn't ask you whether or not you think that the man who did it to you should be indicted for the crime of rape under New York Statute.  

I asked you if someone forcibly shoved a broomstick up your *** would you feel as if you had been raped.  

Many words have definitions for their common usage that are much broader than the legal definition in the statutes.  Rape is one of those words

And I answered the question.  It's not my fault you have difficulty comprehending what you read.

 

Zeets2 » 13 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 12:13 pm

Do you dispute any of the facts I've relayed?
Then tell me, nitwit.  What was the date of her assault she now claims happened AROUND 30 **** YEARS AGO?
Was it during the day or at night?
Who did she ever tell about the incident for many years?  Friends?  Family?  Police?  NOPE!  She waited OVER 20 YEARS until 2019 TO TELL A SOUL!
How is it that the Democrat-run state can suddenly change the statute of limitation laws just so they could proceed with such a phony prosecution specifically so they could charge Trump?
Have YOU ever been in the NYC Bergdorf Goodman and seen the crowds there as I have?
If you had, you'd know how incredibly absurd this case is, and how dumb you'd have to be to believe it!
The case should have NEVER gone to trial, and should have been thrown out the minute this whore couldn't provide the exact date and time of the alleged attack!

EXACTLY!!! How can ANY jury find guilt in a story with NO DATE that can be recalled, and NO ONE was told and it was over 20 years ago????

ONLY in a State where "punish Trump" is all they want to do because he became President and they wanted to DESTROY HIM because of that one simple fact. HOW DARE HE run again.

ConsRule » 13 Mar 2024, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 1:04 pm

Not as defined by the laws of the State of NY.  I understand you don't like that fact and, apparently refuse to accept it, but it remains fact.

Under the laws of the State of NY, you are committing slander/libel if you refer to him as a rapist.

You're wrong, on many counts..

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-rap ... 16a787b45a

Beekeeper » 13 Mar 2024, 2:35 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 2:35 pm

EXACTLY!!! How can ANY jury find guilt in a story with NO DATE that can be recalled, and NO ONE was told and it was over 20 years ago????

ONLY in a State where "punish Trump" is all they want to do because he became President and they wanted to DESTROY HIM because of that one simple fact. HOW DARE HE run again.

Same thing about the Kavanaugh "rape"...

Victim had no idea when it happened 
​
 

R.Suave » 13 Mar 2024, 2:51 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2024, 2:51 pm

You're wrong, on many counts..

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-rap ... 16a787b45a

Maybe you are too stupid to understand the US Constitution...or just too lazy to use an internet search engine.

Article I | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

Article I, Section 9, Clause 3;

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

If it wasn't a crime at the time it happened, it doesn't matter what laws are passed or changed...it will NEVER be a crime.

Further explained;Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
 No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
 Separate provisions of the Constitution ban enactment of ex post facto laws by the Federal Government and the states, respectively.1 The Supreme Court has cited cases interpreting the federal Ex Post Facto Clause in challenges under the state clause, and vice versa, implying that the two clauses have the same scope.2 The Court has construed both clauses to ban legislatures from enacting laws that impose criminal liability or increase criminal punishment retroactively.3 The constitutional prohibitions of ex post facto laws are closely related to the prohibitions of bills of attainder—legislative actions that determine guilt or impose criminal punishment on specific persons or groups without a judicial trial.4 In some cases, the Court has held that a single legislative action may violate both the ex post facto and bill of attainder prohibitions.5
Overview of Ex Post Facto Laws | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
 So Trump will NEVER be a "rapist" as it relates to the incident in question.  Again, from the judge who presided over the court case;

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law..."

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll - The Washington Post

Oh...by the way...from YOUR LINK:

"The current law defines rape as vaginal penetration by a penis. "

Just admit you're a whiny as liberal who cannot accept legal facts and move on.