Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 4:22 pm » wrote: ↑

08 Feb 2026, 4:22 pm

Stop telling me what you will, or will not, do.

No....that case has been made...

Why was Judge Kaplan obliged to opine?

Stop telling me what you will, or will not, do.

LMAO!

Huey » 09 Feb 2026, 6:06 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 6:06 am

LMAO!

Why was Judge Kaplan obliged to opine?

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 8:00 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:00 am

Why was Judge Kaplan obliged to opine?


 

Ok, here ya go.  This will be the only answer to that question you will receive from me.  Keep in mind I am not under any obligation to answer your diversion:

Because the Jury, following is instructions, did not find she was proved she was rape by a preponderance of the evidence as indicated on the verdict form.

Dismissing the counterclaim, Judge Kaplan provided an unsparing analysis of the legal issues that informed the New York verdict. He wrote: “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.

 “The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis.

 “It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”Kaplan had already outlined why it was not defamation for Carroll to say Trump raped her.

 “As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... %20denying
 

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 8:00 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:00 am

Why was Judge Kaplan obliged to opine?

Same reason as you.....left-wing commie queer.

RebelGator » 09 Feb 2026, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:13 am

Same 

A salient fact which will put an immediate end to the yapping..

Hence all the yapping. 

Huey » 09 Feb 2026, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:11 am

Ok, here ya go.  This will be the only answer to that question you will receive from me.  Keep in mind I am not under any obligation to answer your diversion:


 

If that is your "stand" (your "answer" insofar as I can decode it is completely wrong, of course), you will have to explain.why the reason Kaplan opined is not relevant. 

Huey » 09 Feb 2026, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:11 am

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 8:00 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:00 am

Why was Judge Kaplan obliged to opine?



 

Ok, here ya go.  This will be the only answer to that question you will receive from me.  Keep in mind I am not under any obligation to answer your diversion:

Because the Jury, following is instructions, did not find she was proved she was rape by a preponderance of the evidence as indicated on the verdict form.

Dismissing the counterclaim, Judge Kaplan provided an unsparing analysis of the legal issues that informed the New York verdict. He wrote: “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.

 “The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis.

 “It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”Kaplan had already outlined why it was not defamation for Carroll to say Trump raped her.

 “As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... %20denying
 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 8:42 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:42 am

Huey » 09 Feb 2026, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:11 am

Ok, here ya go.  This will be the only answer to that question you will receive from me.  Keep in mind I am not under any obligation to answer your diversion:



 

If that is your "stand" (your "answer" insofar as I can decode it is completely wrong, of course), you will have to explain.why the reason Kaplan opined is not relevant. 

 

Done

Huey » 09 Feb 2026, 8:44 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:44 am

Done

It's "done" when you acknowledge the facts.


Why Kaplan opined is the reason your "theory" is masturbation.

And that is the reason you run from the question. 
 

RebelGator » 09 Feb 2026, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:13 am

Same reason as 

Why don't you and the other queen of one-liners amuse each other? 


@ROG62  

Huey » 09 Feb 2026, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:11 am

Ok, here ya go.  This will be the only answer to that question you will receive from me.  Keep in mind I am not under any obligation to answer your diversion:

Because the Jury, following is instructions, did not find she was proved she was rape by a preponderance of the evidence as indicated on the verdict form.

Dismissing the counterclaim, Judge Kaplan provided an unsparing analysis of the legal issues that informed the New York verdict. He wrote: “The only issue on which the jury did not find in Ms Carroll’s favour was whether she proved that Mr Trump ‘raped’ her within the narrow, technical meaning of that term in the New York penal law.

 “The jury … was instructed that it could find that Mr Trump ‘raped’ Ms Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s vagina with his penis.

 “It could not find that he ‘raped’ her if it determined that Mr Trump forcibly penetrated Ms Carroll’s private sexual parts with his fingers – which commonly is considered ‘rape’ in other contexts – because the New York penal law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration.”Kaplan had already outlined why it was not defamation for Carroll to say Trump raped her.

 “As the court explained in its recent decision denying Mr Trump’s motion for a new trial on damages and other relief [in the New York case] … based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury’s verdict as a whole, the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... %20denying

To give you an idea of how stupid you are...


Dismissing the counterclaim



Therein is the answer to my question. 


Judges aren't free to opine on cases under their review for media consumption, ya *******.

Now we need to move on to the substance of the "counterclaim" - technically the Petition.

About which you know absolutely squat.


 

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:58 am

To give you an idea of how stupid you are...


Dismissing the counterclaim



Therein is the answer to my question. 


Judges aren't free to opine on cases under their review for media consumption, ya *******.

Now we need to move on to the substance of the "counterclaim" - technically the Petition.

About which you know absolutely squat.


 

 

Dismissing the counterclaim

No ****...I posted it twice.  We are done here.

Fitting thing...

Charlie Kirk shooters furry boyfriend just got himself some new dick

another useful idiots falls of the "useful idiot" list and winds up on the "just an idiot" list...lost his usefulness

Huey » 09 Feb 2026, 9:06 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 9:06 am

Dismissing the counterclaim

No ****...I posted it twice.  We are done here.

Incidentally.
Never in answer to the question 

We are done here.

Not quite...

Because the only way to understand Kaplan's opinion (which you dedicated an entire threat to demonstrate that you don't) is to know to what he was responding.

Specifically Team Grifty's petition. 

This is true whether or not you understand it.

RebelGator » 09 Feb 2026, 8:13 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 8:13 am

Same reason as 

Boring.

California....Illinois....New York....New Jersey

all floating wealth taxes

all creating tax trap if you try to move

why?

these are all blue states that coddle illegals for voting purposes aren't they?

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 9:14 am » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 9:14 am

Boring.

Use the quote function correctly or go **** yourself, moron.

RebelGator » 09 Feb 2026, 12:45 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 12:45 pm

Use the quote function correctly 

Is there a rule?

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 2:39 pm

Is there a rule?

You don't know how to be civil without civic minded social protocols. you cannot explain your personal time evolving without reciting every theory imagined possible?

Blackvegetable » 09 Feb 2026, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Feb 2026, 2:39 pm

Is there a rule?

My rule, you won't get the attention you crave unless you follow it.
 

Blackvegetable » 03 Jun 2025, 5:38 am » wrote: ↑

03 Jun 2025, 5:38 am

https://julieroys.com/televangelist-mar ... in-church/

A Wisconsin church gifted a gold-plated rifle engraved with a MAGA-themed quote to controversial televangelist Mark Barclay earlier this year, in a video that recently surfaced. During a Wednesday night service at Living Word Christian Church in La Crosse, Wisconsin, on February 26, Pastor Mark Clements gifted an AR-15 with gold metallic finish to televangelist Mark Barclay. Clements introduced Barclay, a visiting guest speaker recently mired in scandal at his own church, as “my pastor.”

  The custom rifle, engraved with President Donald Trump’s words, “Fight! Fight! Fight!”, came about after a recent lunch shared by the two ministers. Clements said Barclay told him he admired how then candidate Trump responded after the assassination attempt reported last year.

  “So we went out, and we got him a gold-plated AR-15,” said Clements. “(It’s) inscribed right on the mag, ‘Fight, fight, fight!’—the MAGA special edition! . . . We bought it specifically for you, it’s got his picture engraved (and) the president’s seal on it.”

And on the stock is carved "Grabbing ****** for the Lord"

it's like a merit badge....

Come take mine ya dick sucking *** *** pedo!