Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 8:49 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 8:49 am

No....

I'm not "speculating"....IT'S ALL IN KAPLAN'S RESPONSE TO TEAM GRIFTY'S POST VERDICT MOTION.

You're leaving another snail trail.

you both are reading into something that doesn't exist...

the end...
 

ROG62 » 14 Nov 2024, 8:53 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 8:53 am

you both are reading into something that doesn't exist...

the end...

You haven't even read his filing.

But you yap on because you're a **** moron.

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 8:51 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 8:51 am

Diverty?

2 million.

All in, 95 million.

The date of the article is July 19th 2023.  The amount the Jury awarded, in total, was 5 million.

Here is the link and take your L, Binky Boy.


Judge upholds the $5 million jury verdict against Trump in a writer’s sex abuse and defamation case

 

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 8:20 am

“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's a judge...you're a severely conflicted closet case.

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

Yeah, the JUDGE AGREES that Carroll FAILED TO PROVE RAPE!!

Sucks, huh??

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

See that. READ IT CAREFULLY. IT SAYS TRUMP DID NOT COMMIT RAPE!!

*Huey » 14 Nov 2024, 8:55 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 8:55 am

The date of the article is July 19th 2023.  The amount the Jury awarded, in total, was 5 million.

Here is the link and take your L, Binky Boy.

Judge upholds the $5 million jury verdict against Trump in a writer’s sex abuse and defamation case

Learn to read.

The judge said the section requires vaginal penetration by a penis while forcible penetration without consent of the vagina or other bodily orifices by fingers or anything else is labeled “sexual abuse” rather than “rape.”

 He said the definition of rape was “far narrower” than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere. The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed ... the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

 Trump’s lawyers were correct in arguing that the $2 million award for sexual abuse would have been excessive if the jury based the compensatory award on a conclusion that Trump had groped Carroll’s breasts through her clothing or similar conduct, the judge said. But, he said, that’s not what the jury found

**** moron.
 

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 8:37 am

You STILL haven't read Kaplan's filing.

He didn't do ANYTHING except affirm the jury's award and explain, with UNIMPEACHABLE logic, why.

You can stop whining now.
 

Kaplan's filing IS NOT the verdict...and I have read it.

*Beekeeper » 14 Nov 2024, 9:01 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:01 am

Yeah, the JUDGE AGREES that Carroll FAILED TO PROVE RAPE!!

Sucks, huh??

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

See that. READ IT CAREFULLY. IT SAYS TRUMP DID NOT COMMIT RAPE!!

Not one of you idiots is even marginally literate.
 

ConsRule » 14 Nov 2024, 9:09 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:09 am

Kaplan's filing IS NOT the verdict...and I have read it.

ENOUGH OF YOUR **** STUPID!

What was the purpose of Kaplan's filing?

Remember your rules, Pilgrim.


 

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:07 am

Learn to read.

The judge said the section requires vaginal penetration by a penis while forcible penetration without consent of the vagina or other bodily orifices by fingers or anything else is labeled “sexual abuse” rather than “rape.”

 He said the definition of rape was “far narrower” than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere. The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll “failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed ... the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

 Trump’s lawyers were correct in arguing that the $2 million award for sexual abuse would have been excessive if the jury based the compensatory award on a conclusion that Trump had groped Carroll’s breasts through her clothing or similar conduct, the judge said. But, he said, that’s not what the jury found

**** moron.

This is about the Jury Finding.  Not the Judges retelling.  The Jury did not find Trump liable for rape.  Learn to read, Legacy Admission:

Kaplan wrote that the jury’s unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.”

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 9:11 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:11 am

ENOUGH OF YOUR **** STUPID!

What was the purpose of Kaplan's filing?

Remember your rules, Pilgrim.

I have already answered that question.  Do you understand that Kaplan's filing is not a verdict?
 

*Huey » 14 Nov 2024, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:12 am

This is about the Jury Finding.  Not the Judges retelling.  The Jury did not find Trump liable for rape.  Learn to read, Legacy Admission:

Kaplan wrote that the jury’s unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her “within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law.”

This is about the Jury Finding.  Not the Judges retelling

You have to remember that you are a moron, as illiterate as you are innumerate.

A presiding judge doesn't "retell" in addressing a motion.

He responds to the issues raised in the motion before him.

You are far too stupid to read the motion, or even to distinguish 2 from 5.

You are cherrypicking words from his argument in favor of ignoring the argument.

Because you're a moron.

ConsRule » 14 Nov 2024, 9:12 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:12 am

I have already answered that question.  Do you understand that Kaplan's filing is not a verdict?

Remember your rules.

Kaplan's filing is not a verdict?

So what?

His reading of it governs.

You have no clue how this works.

 
 

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 9:09 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:09 am

Not one of you idiots is even marginally literate.

The JUDGE SAID that UNDER THE NY STATE PENAL CODE, CARROLL FAILED TO PROVE SHE WAS RAPED!!

Kaplan STATED AS MUCH, MONKEYPISS4BRAINS!!

Do you AGREE that in BLACK AND WHITE IN HIS WRITINGS HE SAID THAT??

A SIMPLE YES OR NO is all you can answer with. NONE Of your bloviating and obfuscating. A SIMPLE YES OR NO!!

 

*Beekeeper » 14 Nov 2024, 9:38 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:38 am

The JUDGE SAID that UNDER THE NY STATE PENAL CODE, CARROLL FAILED TO PROVE SHE WAS RAPED!!

Kaplan STATED AS MUCH, MONKEYPISS4BRAINS!!

Do you AGREE that in BLACK AND WHITE IN HIS WRITINGS HE SAID THAT??

A SIMPLE YES OR NO is all you can answer with. NONE Of your bloviating and obfuscating. A SIMPLE YES OR NO!!

You're an idiot.

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 9:40 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:40 am

You're an idiot.

You cant define a woman

FJB » 14 Nov 2024, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:41 am

You cant define a woman

I just did, lying piece of ****.


 

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:18 am

You have to remember that you are a moron, as illiterate as you are innumerate.

A presiding judge doesn't "retell" in addressing a motion.

He responds to the issues raised in the motion before him.

You are far too stupid to read the motion, or even to distinguish 2 from 5.

You are cherrypicking words from his argument in favor of ignoring the argument.

Because you're a moron.

The fact of the matter is the Jury rejected the rape "charge" claiming she did not prove rape occurred.  We are not talking about what the Judge's interpretation was.  The Jury SPECIFICALLY rejected the rape charge.

In your efforts to avoid just admitting you are wrong considering what the jury found you act lie a spoiled, petulant child who is wrong and is demanding she gets her way.
 

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 9:40 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:40 am

You're an idiot.

^^^^ STANDARD ANSWER when his OWN TURDS got shoved down his THROAT!!

Sucks, huh, MONKEYPISS4BRAINS??

                   

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 9:44 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:44 am

I just did, lying piece of ****.

no you didn't

Blackvegetable » 14 Nov 2024, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

14 Nov 2024, 9:24 am

Remember your rules.

So what?

His reading of it governs.

You have no clue how this works.

I forgot, you're a liberal.  As a group, you don't use facts and are science deniers.