Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

a reply to: quintessentone

The difference where I'm concerned is what Trump was alleged of in an article, book and most importantly the civil complaint as well as denying it.


To which he was not found liable for.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JinMI

Going round in circles again, so again Trump would found liable for sexual assault and defamation by people of two juries...he can run but he can't hide.

I fully admit I do not understand legalize.

Reading/understanding actual legal documents can be taxing without a law background.

We seem to have a lot of armchair lawyers in the crowd.

What I consider rape and what the law considers rape -- is not necessarily the same thing.

AGAIN -- all Trump had to do is keep his mouth shut and let his lawyers handle it.

THE PLOT THICKENS

Carroll’s suit and allegations against Trump are part of a broader series of sexual misconduct allegations against him, with more than 20 women publicly alleging Trump in some way assaulted or harassed them. www.forbes.com...

MAKES PERFECT SENSE - RIGHT?

"So it is accurate to say that Donald Trump was liable for battery and defamation, but not that he was found guilty of battery and defamation."

The jury could have found Trump liable of battery based on the preponderance of evidence for rape, sexual abuse or forcible touching, of which they found Trump was liable for sexual abuse, Florey explained.

"All three possible findings [rape, sexual abuse, forcible touching] are forms of battery, so a finding that Mr. Trump had engaged in any of these would be sufficient to hold him liable for battery," she said. www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: Annee

I fully admit I do not understand legalize.

Or legalese.

What I consider rape and what the law considers rape -- is not necessarily the same thing.

In this case, what the law considers and doesn't is the only consideration.

GAIN -- all Trump had to do is keep his mouth shut and let his lawyers handle it.

We know, we know. You hate someone with so much fervor that you would deny them their basic rights to sate your own twisted emotions.

It's irrelevant. (but highly entertaining)

originally posted by: JinMI

We know, we know. You hate someone with so much fervor that you would deny them their basic rights to sate your own twisted emotions.

It's irrelevant. (but highly entertaining)

Hate is an emotion (your emotion - not mine) used by the Right to attach to anyone not pro-Trump.

Why would I put energy into an emotion toward someone I have no interest in?

Trump is a Carnival Barker moron that never should have been president. I just want him gone. POOF

And he will be.

I don’t find you entertaining at all.

a reply to: Annee

Hate is an emotion (your emotion - not mine) used by the Right to attach to anyone not pro-Trump.

That's hilarious. Also not factual but still worthy of a laugh.

Why would I put energy into an emotion toward someone I have no interest in?

Oh, lets see what the next sentence is....

Trump is a Carnival Barker moron that never should have been president. I just want him gone. POOF

Is this you not putting emotion toward someone you have no interest in? How fascinating.

I don’t find you entertaining at all.

That's fine. You entertain me quite often.

originally posted by: yuppa
Thats your opinion.

It isn't 'my opinion' that your first link was about juries in Canada and your second link was an opinion piece by an 18 year old that you didn't fully read.

I'd say 'nice try' but it wasn't.

a reply to: Annee

Trump is a Carnival Barker moron that never should have been president. I just want him gone. POOF

Not our circus, not our monkey(s).

Thank you for the factual source explaining it for JinMi, although we know it won't do much good posting facts.