Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Get over yourself?!!!

I have no words, or any more time for you.

End.Of.

Yet, you do, again and again and again.


I don't hold myself in very high regard.


...but you certainly do.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: JinMI

Get over yourself?!!!

I have no words, or any more time for you.

End.Of.

Yet, you do, again and again and again.


I don't hold myself in very high regard.


...but you certainly do.

Is that what you believe? We were only on this thread trying to make you understand what happened in that court room, to no avail. I found another dead horse BTW.

a reply to: quintessentone

We were only on this thread trying to make you understand what happened in that court room, to no avail.

No. Your perspective on what happened in that court room.

Remember when I gave you a star for having your own opinion even though I didn't agree with it?

That was awesome.......


(This dead horse of mine certainly has gotten more mileage dead than alive!)

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

We were only on this thread trying to make you understand what happened in that court room, to no avail.

No. Your perspective on what happened in that court room.

Remember when I gave you a star for having your own opinion even though I didn't agree with it?

That was awesome.......


(This dead horse of mine certainly has gotten more mileage dead than alive!)

No. The perspectives of one judge (who is an expert of the law) and two juries of 'the people' (who were actually there and heard all testimony).

(Two dead horses being beaten are worth more than 13X JinMi's doth protests too much).

a reply to: quintessentone

No. The perspectives of one judge (who is an expert of the law) and two juries of 'the people' (who were actually there and heard all testimony).

(Two dead horses being beaten are worth more than 13X JinMi's doth protests too much).

So the fact that the jury did not find that Trump raped her is something you support?

Cool, me too.

That means what he said is true and that defamation cannot by definition apply.


But now you're going to keep on with this dead horse projection......

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

No. The perspectives of one judge (who is an expert of the law) and two juries of 'the people' (who were actually there and heard all testimony).

(Two dead horses being beaten are worth more than 13X JinMi's doth protests too much).

So the fact that the jury did not find that Trump raped her is something you support?

Cool, me too.

That means what he said is true and that defamation cannot by definition apply.


But now you're going to keep on with this dead horse projection......

So the fact that the two juries found that Trump did sexually assault her is something that keeps going over your head?

a reply to: quintessentone

The complaint was for rape. The defamation was for the claim of rape.


This is obviously above yours which we could have sorted awhile ago if you didn't rely on confirmation bias for your opinions.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

The complaint was for rape. The defamation was for the claim of rape.


This is obviously above yours which we could have sorted awhile ago if you didn't rely on confirmation bias for your opinions.

Rape is a form of sexual assault - there is one umbrella with varying degrees under that all encompassing term.

It only took the 9 member jury a few hours to reach a verdict - cut and dried, IMO.

a reply to: quintessentone

Rape is a form of sexual assault - there is one umbrella with varying degrees under that all encompassing term.

Yet, rape was the accusation on which defamation was based on.

You're gonna have to face that fact sooner or later.

It only took the 9 member jury a few hours to reach a verdict - cut and dried, IMO.

Good for them?

If the rape didn't happen, then how can the defamation apply?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Rape is a form of sexual assault - there is one umbrella with varying degrees under that all encompassing term.

Yet, rape was the accusation on which defamation was based on.

You're gonna have to face that fact sooner or later.

It only took the 9 member jury a few hours to reach a verdict - cut and dried, IMO.

Good for them?

If the rape didn't happen, then how can the defamation apply?

You are not getting it.

A forced sexual act took place without consent and if the accuser and the judge decided on what they and the legal definition it applies to, which it does, and the people of the jury thought it a lesser degree, which they did - the fact still remains Trump is liable for a forced sexual act without consent and defamation.

a reply to: quintessentone

You are not getting it.

No sir, you're not getting it.

Rape was the claim.

Rape didn't happen.

Therefore Trumps defense of himself is true and defamation doesn't apply. It's really, REALLY that simple. The legal definition of rape applies, and the jury says they did not find that.

a reply to: JinMI

Yet, rape was the accusation on which defamation was based on.

There was a whole story. Not just a "rape". There was lingerie shopping, and there was back and forth bantering and flirting. There was a dare, "Try it on", "No, you try it on". They went to the dressing room....He got handsie, pushed her against the wall and starting kissing her, hard, and grabbing at her crotch and pulling her pantyhose down. He stuck his finger in there.

That's the accusation that the defamation was based on.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

There was a whole story. Not just a "rape".

The defamation complaint was for Trump saying he didn't rape Carroll.....

The unconfirmed hearsay doesn't address the issue at all but serves the point that it is just that, hearsay.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

Yet, rape was the accusation on which defamation was based on.

There was a whole story. Not just a "rape". There was lingerie shopping, and there was back and forth bantering and flirting. There was a dare, "Try it on", "No, you try it on". They went to the dressing room....He got handsie, pushed her against the wall and starting kissing her, hard, and grabbing at her crotch and pulling her pantyhose down. He stuck his finger in there.

That's the accusation that the defamation was based on.

How many times have you watched the Law & Order SVU episode that Carroll got the scam plan from?
You can probably recite the script from memory.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

There was a whole story. Not just a "rape".

The defamation complaint was for Trump saying he didn't rape Carroll.....

The unconfirmed hearsay doesn't address the issue at all but serves the point that it is just that, hearsay.

I am so confused, are these guys the night shift deflectors or are they still the day shift?

a reply to: JinMI

The defamation complaint was for Trump saying he didn't rape Carroll.....

No it wasn't. It was for calling her a liar, and more.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

The defamation complaint was for Trump saying he didn't rape Carroll.....

No it wasn't. It was for calling her a liar, and more.

Right. Calling her a liar for her claiming that he raped her.

Her article came before he said anything.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

There was a whole story. Not just a "rape".

The defamation complaint was for Trump saying he didn't rape Carroll.....

The unconfirmed hearsay doesn't address the issue at all but serves the point that it is just that, hearsay.

I am so confused, are these guys the night shift deflectors or are they still the day shift?

I too am confused.

They at the same time believe and don't believe the jury that they are basing their unarticulated positions on.

I think it's going well myself.

a reply to: JinMI

Right. Calling her a liar for her claiming that he raped her.

E Jean Carroll did not use the word rape in her book to describe what she thought Trump had done to her. She detailed the event, others called it rape, a word which she demurred from.

Trump went out of his way to defame her, as crazy, a whack job, sick, a political hack, gold digger, etc. It's a matter of public record.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The 2019 complaint:

1.

Nobody in this nation is above the law. Nobody is entitled to conceal acts of sexualassault behind a wall of defamatory falsehoods and deflections. The rape of a woman is a violentcrime; compounding that crime with acts of malicious libel is abhorrent. Yet that is what DefendantDonald J. Trump did to Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll.

2.

Roughly 23 years ago, playful banter at the luxury department store BergdorfGoodman on Fifth Avenue in New York City took a dark turn when Trump seized Carroll, forcedher up against a dressing room wall, pinned her in place with his shoulder, and raped her

11.

When Carroll’s account was published, Trump lashed out with a series of false anddefamatory statements. He denied the rape. But there was more: he also denied ever having metCarroll or even knowing who she was. Through express statements and deliberate implications, heaccused Carroll of lying about the rape in order to increase book sales, carry out a political agenda,advance a conspiracy with the Democratic Party, and make money. He also deliberately impliedthat she had falsely accused other men of rape. For good measure, he insulted her physicalappearance.

Link

The term is used more than 30 times...