Liberal Forum

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 10:21 am

First off, I don't care why Kaplan did what he did.  That is YOUR argument.  My comment was NO JURY FOUND TRUMP GUILTY OR LIABLE FOR RAPE.

I was correct.  The Jury was given it ructions to follow the NY State Law Definition of rape.  They did so.  As the jury indicates they did not find he raped her.

I was correct.  The Jury was given it ructions to follow the NY State Law Definition of rape.  They did so.

brain dead little ****..


Carroll sued Trump for defamation and battery in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (originally filed in the New York Supreme Court). On May 9, 2023, a jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse against Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages




where do you see "rape"?


Tiny,

You are far too stupid to understand. You are not at liberty to ignore relevant facts because you can't read them.

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 10:50 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 10:50 am

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 10:21 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 10:21 am

First off, I don't care why Kaplan did what he did.  That is YOUR argument.  My comment was NO JURY FOUND TRUMP GUILTY OR LIABLE FOR RAPE.

I was correct.  The Jury was given it ructions to follow the NY State Law Definition of rape.  They did so.  As the jury indicates they did not find he raped her.

I was correct.  The Jury was given it ructions to follow the NY State Law Definition of rape.  They did so.

brain dead little ****..


Carroll sued Trump for defamation and battery in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (originally filed in the New York Supreme Court). On May 9, 2023, a jury found Trump liable for defamation and sexual abuse against Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages




where do you see "rape"?


Tiny,

You are far too stupid to understand. You are not at liberty to ignore relevant facts because you can't read them.

 

And here comes the diversion to cover his epic ****.

And his meltdown is at the brim.
 

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 10:53 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 10:53 am

And here comes the diversion

 

And I'm gonna ignore it....in favor of getting back to what obliged Kaplan to opine.

Did you figure it out?

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 10:55 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 10:55 am

And I'm gonna ignore it....in favor of getting back to what obliged Kaplan to opine.

Did you figure it out?

If you would stop editing out key portions of my comments you would understand I don't give a flying **** what Kaplan said.  The Jury, according to the instructions given by Kaplan, did not find him liable for rape.

Unless you can provide compelling evidence that the Jury Verdict Form is fabricated, I am done.

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 10:58 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 10:58 am

If you would stop editing out key portions of my comments you would understand I don't give a flying **** what Kaplan said.  

That's irrelevant..

What IS relevant is what obliged Kaplan to opine.

Have you figured that out from the text you've been provided?

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:11 am

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 10:58 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 10:58 am

If you would stop editing out key portions of my comments you would understand I don't give a flying **** what Kaplan said.  

That's irrelevant..

What IS relevant is what obliged Kaplan to opine.

Have you figured that out from the text you've been provided?

 

 

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 11:30 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:30 am

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 11:25 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:25 am

1.  You haven't trounced ****.  You have diverted.

2.  You are on the wrong thread concerning Kaplan.

1. By citing the judge's opinion, verbatim.
so what makes it "diversion"?

2. You're getting curbstomped again.
 

 

This belongs here.

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 11:35 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:35 am

This belongs here.

Post the rule...

For future reference. 

Then answer the question from which you've been running.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 11:39 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:39 am

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 11:35 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:35 am

This belongs here.

Post the rule...

For future reference. 

Then answer the question from which you've been running.
 

 

Yawn...

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:40 am

Yawn...

I accept your unqualified capitulation.

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 11:41 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:41 am

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 11:40 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:40 am

Yawn...

I accept your unqualified capitulation.

 

I can't capitulate to something I was not talking about.  

 

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:50 am

I can't capitulate to something I was not talking about.

You were talking about it.

You're entirely uninformed and, as a result, completely wrong. 


 

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 11:52 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:52 am

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 11:50 am » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 11:50 am

I can't capitulate to something I was not talking about.

You were talking about it.

You're entirely uninformed and, as a result, completely wrong. 


 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 12:52 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 12:52 pm

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 12:16 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 12:16 pm

Again, I insist, under the instructions given by Kaplan and NY State law at the time, and the Jury Verdict Form which yo have not proved was fabricated, they did not find him guilty of rape.

Digital penetration, the word you are looking for, was not considered rape at the time.  It was considered sexual assault.  And was never found guilty in criminal court of either offense.

they did not find him guilty of rape.

But what you refer to as the "verdict form" is a FINDING, not a VERDICT.
Carrol's complaint didn't seek damages for "rape". Accordingly it couldn't have been a factor explicitly rejected by the verdict. If determining if all he was accused of was "rape", as defined by NY statute, and the jury found otherwise it would have no grounds to award for Sexual.Battery.

But it did.

In the amount of 2 million.

Which is the reason Kaplan was obliged to opine.

Nod.

 
 

 

This belongs here,

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 1:02 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:02 pm

This belongs here,

Nod.

Note the airtight case.

Then post the rule.

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:04 pm

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 1:02 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:02 pm

This belongs here,

Nod.

Note the airtight case.

Then post the rule.

 

You have yet to debunk that on the verdict form the Jury said no, Carroll did not provide evidence of rape.  Let me know when you get it.

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:10 pm

You have yet to debunk that on the verdict form the Jury said no, Carroll did not provide evidence of rape.  Let me know when you get it.

I just did.


 

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:11 pm

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 1:10 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:10 pm

You have yet to debunk that on the verdict form the Jury said no, Carroll did not provide evidence of rape.  Let me know when you get it.

I just did.


 

 

Just to be clear, your new line of argument is the Verdict Form did no say 

Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

1.  Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll?

and the the choice of No was checked?

I expect you will both from that.

Here it is again:


Sure looks like it does to me.  Run, Forrest, Run.
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 1:11 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:11 pm

I just did.

SIMON SAYS....  
"SPEND AS MANY DAYS AS IT TAKES OF WHAT REMAINS OF YOUR  MOST PATHETIC  LIFE ..TO CONVINCE OTHERS THAT TRUMP RAPED JEAN CARROLL...!!!"

 

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:17 pm

Just to be clear, your new line of argument is the Verdict Form did no say 

Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

1.  Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll?

and the the choice of No was checked?

I expect you will both from that.

Here it is again:


Sure looks like it does to me.  Run, Forrest, Run.

 This doesn't require translation. 

But what you refer to as the "verdict form" is a FINDING, not a VERDICT

Carrol's complaint didn't seek damages for "rape". Accordingly it couldn't have been a factor explicitly rejected by the verdict. If determining if all he was accused of was "rape", as defined by NY statute, and the jury found otherwise it would have no grounds to award for Sexual.Battery. 

But it did. 

In the amount of 2 million. 

Which is the reason Kaplan was obliged to opine.

rather than waste time with your version, tell me what you fail to understand...
 
 

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 3:25 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 3:25 pm

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 1:17 pm

Just to be clear, your new line of argument is the Verdict Form did no say 

Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

1.  Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll?

and the the choice of No was checked?

I expect you will both from that.

Here it is again:


Sure looks like it does to me.  Run, Forrest, Run.

 This doesn't require translation. 


But what you refer to as the "verdict form" is a FINDING, not a VERDICT.Carrol's complaint didn't seek damages for "rape". Accordingly it couldn't have been a factor explicitly rejected by the verdict. If determining if all he was accused of was "rape", as defined by NY statute, and the jury found otherwise it would have no grounds to award for Sexual.Battery. But it did. In the amount of 2 million. Which is the reason Kaplan was obliged to opine.



rather than waste time with your version, tell me what you fail to understand...
 

 

Stop right there.  It is not what I refer to to as the Verdict form.  It is named "Verdict From.  Nod.

TO be clear you agree that is DOES IN FACT CONTAIN this:

Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that

1.  Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll?

and the the choice of No was checked?

Meaning no Jury found he raped Carroll.
For the record Digital Penetration (which you referred to as digital rape to muddy the story) was not considered Rape under NY Law.

STFU.  You are too stupid to post here.

Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 3:30 pm

Stop right there.

You are wrong...

I posted the relevant sentences from Judge Kaplan's opinion on Rule 49..

Post the part with which you continue to struggle