We can speculate all we want...all it boils down to is rough sex from Donald happened...She didn't like where it was heading...Donald in the heat of the moment made a mistake and grab her pussy...was it rape? well it wasn't proven...can't be proven...we can hop on every state...but that's the bottom line... waiting decades to come out didn't help her cause...Well no, that's not right at all.
Yes, people can have their opinion.
But he didn't serve a day in jail for his actions against E Jean Carroll because the statute of limitations had expired.
There was never any chance for him to serve jail time for it, no matter what the outcome of the trial.
We can speculate all we want...all it boils down to is rough sex from Donald happened...She didn't like where it was heading...Donald in the heat of the moment made a mistake and grab her pussy...
was it rape? well it wasn't proven...can't be proven...we can hop on every state...but that's the bottom line...
Really? Says the guy who believed the assassination attempt was a hoax.Some MAGA wacko thinks that I'm the one backing conspiracy theories?
Dunning Kruger champion work there, skoob.
Wrong. You're lying again just like she did.Carroll said she couldn't tell if it was his tiny penis or his finger, you are the one lying.
She just said rump penetrated her against her will, or as the judge and jury found, he raped her.
Why are you working so hard to defend rape?
We can speculate all we want...all it boils down to is rough sex from Donald happened...She didn't like where it was heading...Donald in the heat of the moment made a mistake and grab her pussy...was it rape? well it wasn't proven...can't be proven...we can hop on every state...but that's the bottom line... waiting decades to come out didn't help her cause...
Really? Says the guy who believed the assassination attempt was a hoax.
That's funny!
Wrong. You're lying again just like she did.
Carroll told jurors last week that Trump put his fingers into her vagina, which she called "extremely painful," and then inserted his penis.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/e-jea...egedly-raped-her-friend-testifies-2023-05-02/
She has no idea because she made the whole thing up. Couldn't even remember the year. You've been played.
I wasn't in the room, were you?Rough, non-consensual sex is rape.
Considering she lied about him using his finger AND penis and the fact she couldn't even remember the year it happened, that should be your first clue that she was making it all up.What does that have anything to do with what I said?
Right, but you're the only person seeming to claim that the definition of rape is entirely dependent on what jurisdiction you are in.
No argument.
They did not think he stuck his penis in her vagina, which is the definition of rape in New York.
You either believe that definition is the only valid definition of rape, or you believe that criminal court is the only thing that defines rape jurisdiction by jurisdiction (which gets us back to "it is impossible to rape someone in Canada").
I know neither of those is actually true, of course, since you have said repeatedly that you just don't believe court cases you don't think reached the right decision.
I wasn't in the room, were you?
Considering she lied about him using his finger AND penis and the fact she couldn't even remember the year it happened, that should be your first clue that she was making it all up.
Considering she lied about him using his finger AND penis and the fact she couldn't even remember the year it happened, that should be your first clue that she was making it all up.
If she said he used both his fingers and penis, but it was determined that wasn't the case by the jury (otherwise they would have also selected rape based on NY law), then why would that be if she was telling the truth?Prove she was lying, skoob.
That's an $83 million question.
You don't see the big picture here.Your belief she was making it all up is one you are allowed to have. But that's just back to you don't believe her.
Which has nothing to do with your insistence for so long that the lack of a checkbox on the civil trial form means no one can call him a rapist by definition.
If she said he used both his fingers and penis, but it was determined that wasn't the case by the jury (otherwise they would have also selected rape based on NY law), then why would that be if she was telling the truth?
You've been played by a biased judge.
You don't see the big picture here.
Tell me how anyone would believe her other than a biased judge, when she said he used his finger & penis, but the jury did not find that otherwise based on NY law they would have checked off rape as well?
The answer is most likely that she, and the judge's prosecutor friend, couldn't prove it. So they accepted "probability" about everything else that didn't require as much proof. i.e. he said/she said using a much lower burden of proof for civil court.
Total sham that would have been laughed out of criminal court if it was tried there instead.