Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

You've undermined the law in favor of your personal opinion. Pre crime for instance

You agreed with punitive deterrence in a prior post did you not?

Well, yes. That's what happened. The question is was it lawful and just. In your opinion.

Fully lawful, thus the verdict.

What was unlawful in your opinion?

Verdicts reached in court cases by default demonstrate that a case was lawful and just?

In the history of the world there has never been a unjust or unlawful verdict?

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: RazorV66

I did answer your question. Will you answer mine, if you will accept this loss for DJT?

Why do I need to accept it? What’s it got to do with me?

He will win on appeal and she won’t get dick, no pun intended.

She was bankrolled by rich anti-Trumpers to concoct this story and it will all come out in the end.

a reply to: RazorV66

Let’s see…

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

You've undermined the law in favor of your personal opinion. Pre crime for instance

You agreed with punitive deterrence in a prior post did you not?

Well, yes. That's what happened. The question is was it lawful and just. In your opinion.

Fully lawful, thus the verdict.

What was unlawful in your opinion?

Verdicts reached in court cases by default demonstrate that a case was lawful and just?

In the history of the world there has never been a unjust or unlawful verdict?

Red herring.

What was unlawful in this case?

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

You've undermined the law in favor of your personal opinion. Pre crime for instance

You agreed with punitive deterrence in a prior post did you not?

Well, yes. That's what happened. The question is was it lawful and just. In your opinion.

Fully lawful, thus the verdict.

What was unlawful in your opinion?

Verdicts reached in court cases by default demonstrate that a case was lawful and just?

In the history of the world there has never been a unjust or unlawful verdict?

Red herring.

What was unlawful in this case?

I don't know; thats for an appeals court to decide.

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

You've undermined the law in favor of your personal opinion. Pre crime for instance

You agreed with punitive deterrence in a prior post did you not?

Well, yes. That's what happened. The question is was it lawful and just. In your opinion.

Fully lawful, thus the verdict.

What was unlawful in your opinion?

Verdicts reached in court cases by default demonstrate that a case was lawful and just?

In the history of the world there has never been a unjust or unlawful verdict?

Red herring.

What was unlawful in this case?

I don't know; thats for an appeals court to decide.

Thank you for playing,

These clown verdicts are just as greasy as the OJ verdict.

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: Dandandat3

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

You've undermined the law in favor of your personal opinion. Pre crime for instance

You agreed with punitive deterrence in a prior post did you not?

Well, yes. That's what happened. The question is was it lawful and just. In your opinion.

Fully lawful, thus the verdict.

What was unlawful in your opinion?

Verdicts reached in court cases by default demonstrate that a case was lawful and just?

In the history of the world there has never been a unjust or unlawful verdict?

Red herring.

What was unlawful in this case?

I don't know; thats for an appeals court to decide.

Thank you for playing,

What exactly are we playing?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: RazorV66

Remember your Liberal Queen Kamala Harris accused Biden in the debates of being a rapist?

LOL No.

How #ing convenient of you to forget that tidbit.

Neer happened!
During a debate you say? It should be all over YouTube. Post it! Otherwise...LOL

I looked for it but it appears I made a mistake.
Harris only made a comment that Tara Reade “has a right to say she was raped by Biden and a right to be heard”
Or something to that effect in an interview before the debates.

I was wrong.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: RazorV66

Let’s see…

Let’s see what?

a reply to: RazorV66


No problem

a reply to: EndTime

ou agreed with punitive deterrence in a prior post did you not?

I agreed it was a fair argument, the best one so far even.

Problem being with deterrence, it has to be clear what they are deterring, thus why I scoff at the defamation claims and ask for some quotes or sourcing. Because from where I'm sitting, merely affirming your innocence is equal to defamation.

And that's not to get to the part of the amount from where the losses Carroll suffered are equitable to 80million.

Fully lawful, thus the verdict.

What was unlawful in your opinion?

Denial of civil rights, denial of material evidence, denial of a defense. Just to name a few.

But enough about me, why won't you or anyone else answer the questions?

We all know why, it's because the answer proves your inability to think past your noses in regards to Trump. You know it's wrong, you just don't care. IMO.....

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: JinMI

It is about the accusation against him, and how much money he has.

You can’t prove the accusation is wrong, like I said.

Innocent until proven guilty , sound familiar?

a reply to: JinMI


Gotta quote that he ain't? Does the amount matter if he is going to be upset with it? He sure is hollering a lot. Let's just see how how his posting goes this weekend.

a reply to: BingoMcGoof

You sure you want to take the position of proving innocence?


I don't care what he posts this weekend.

I'm merely asking posters what convinced them that they 80 million is just in their views.......



Sadly, there's yet to be one.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: BingoMcGoof

You sure you want to take the position of proving innocence?


I don't care what he posts this weekend.

I'm merely asking posters what convinced them that they 80 million is just in their views.......



Sadly, there's yet to be one.

I bet all the people who are cheering this on wouldn't feel so giddy if Monica Lewenski took Clinton to the cleaners for 80 million.

He'll probably have some Rapist insurance policy thing going on. Trumplethickskin will be fine.


His wife might want to leave him now, unless he's got another insurance policy out on her if she does.

Remember, this is the guy millions of Americans believe is their savior?

These past 30 years have proven one thing, The human species is becoming dumber and Dumber with each passing day. We truly have run our course.

The question I would like to know is the alleged offence took place in the 1990s, why did it take till 2019 for her to report it? Why didn't she claim defamation before 2019? For her to accuse Trump and to virtually ensure a rebuttal and then to call that rebuttal defamatory should be grounds for dismissal.

They will try anything and everything to stop Trump from running for President, they fear him so much.

PS. Which journalist (which MS Carrol is) earns more that $20 odd million a year because that's what $83.3 million equates to. Could I ask some millionaire to defame me for that pay check.

originally posted by: crayzeed
The question I would like to know is the alleged offence took place in the 1990s, why did it take till 2019 for her to report it? Why didn't she claim defamation before 2019? For her to accuse Trump and to virtually ensure a rebuttal and then to call that rebuttal defamatory should be grounds for dismissal.

They will try anything and everything to stop Trump from running for President, they fear him so much.

Prior to 2016 Donald Trump was a media darling and on excellent terms with all the same institutions and people that are now harassing and attacking him.

Had Carroll come out with her accusations prior to 2016 she would have been the one the system attacked as it sought to protect someone from its downer class.

Unfortunately for Carroll by the time Donald Trump was no longer a protected member of society the statuette of limitations for her aligations had elapsed

Fortunately for Carroll once Donald Trump persecution became the only real campaign strategy for Democrats they changed the law and encouraged Carroll to bring her suit.