Remember that picture of Trumps fist in the air and blood on his face?

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You blatantly lying is despicable.

Not being able to admit it is exponentially worse.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You blatantly lying is despicable.

Not being able to admit it is exponentially worse.

I believe Carroll's account of what happened, and that is not lying.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You blatantly lying is despicable.

Not being able to admit it is exponentially worse.

I believe Carroll's account of what happened, and that is not lying.

Your lie was claiming that Trump raped Carroll.

My next question is why do you believe Carroll. What piece of information lead you to this conclusion.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

We aren't talking about my opinion but in the opinion of the jury - the jury that came to a split decision.
That there was a SPLIT decision sort of suggests there was SOME evidence at least, enough to convince some jury members of Trump's guilt.

What is hard to understand about that?

I'm not saying there was a mountain of evidence or quite a lot....just SOME evidence.
It seems not strong and compelling enough to bring a guilty verdict but certainly SOME evidence.

a reply to: Freeborn

What is hard to understand about that?

I don't find it difficult to understand. I followed the case pretty closely.

I was really hoping that you would actually do a cursory search as your post history doesn't indicate an individual who talks out of their hind end.

What you will find is that there wasn't any tangible evidence. There was only a story.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You made the unsubstantiated claim that Trump was a convicted rapist. More libelous tripe from the peanut gallery.

Pulling out the sympathy for an alleged victim card is disingenuous at best, par for you.

You do better

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

We aren't talking about my opinion but in the opinion of the jury - the jury that came to a split decision.
That there was a SPLIT decision sort of suggests there was SOME evidence at least, enough to convince some jury members of Trump's guilt.

What is hard to understand about that?

I'm not saying there was a mountain of evidence or quite a lot....just SOME evidence.
It seems not strong and compelling enough to bring a guilty verdict but certainly SOME evidence.

that one comes down to TDS, more than factual evidence. The only evidence was her word, and her friend whom she allegedly told about the event years ago. She didn't know the date or time it happened. And the entire case had to have a special law created to even bring it to court. It was 100% manufactured to smear Trump. None of that is to say that Trump is great or never did anything wrong, just that this particular case was complete and total bullsh!t, like the hush money case. Political theater.

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You made the unsubstantiated claim that Trump was a convicted rapist. More libelous tripe from the peanut gallery.

Pulling out the sympathy for an alleged victim card is disingenuous at best, par for you.

You do better

It is not sympathy, it is believing in the victim and her witnesses.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

We aren't talking about my opinion but in the opinion of the jury - the jury that came to a split decision.
That there was a SPLIT decision sort of suggests there was SOME evidence at least, enough to convince some jury members of Trump's guilt.

What is hard to understand about that?

I'm not saying there was a mountain of evidence or quite a lot....just SOME evidence.
It seems not strong and compelling enough to bring a guilty verdict but certainly SOME evidence.

The case was literally a she said/he said case. Holdover #metoo fanatics took her side, the rest realized there was zero supporting evidence.

a reply to: quintessentone

Again, what made her story believable in your estimation?

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You made the unsubstantiated claim that Trump was a convicted rapist. More libelous tripe from the peanut gallery.

Pulling out the sympathy for an alleged victim card is disingenuous at best, par for you.

You do better

I have about had enough of someone telling me to "do better'. I do whatever the # I want, and I don't need anyone to admonish me. Especially someone whom I have no respect for. If I or anyone does something here that is deemed "wrong", then use the alert button to tattle to a moderator.

a reply to: matafuchs

If there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all then surely it would be impossible for there to be a guilty verdict.
Regardless of this being a civil case a Judge would instantly dismiss it.

I don't know if Trump raped or sexually assaulted Carroll or not - I didn't follow the case closely enough to give a truly informed opinion, not that that has always stopped me in the past.

But the guilty verdict certainly suggests that something untoward happened.

Anyone found guilty of sexual assault should be lifed off in my opinion - no if's or but's or maybe's - sex offenders of all kinds tend to be incapable of rehabilitation and have a very high frequency of re-offending.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You made the unsubstantiated claim that Trump was a convicted rapist. More libelous tripe from the peanut gallery.

Pulling out the sympathy for an alleged victim card is disingenuous at best, par for you.

You do better

I have about had enough of someone telling me to "do better'. I do whatever the # I want, and I don't need anyone to admonish me. Especially someone whom I have no respect for. If I or anyone does something here that is deemed "wrong", then use the alert button to tattle to a moderator.

Amen ND

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You made the unsubstantiated claim that Trump was a convicted rapist. More libelous tripe from the peanut gallery.

Pulling out the sympathy for an alleged victim card is disingenuous at best, par for you.

You do better

I have about had enough of someone telling me to "do better'. I do whatever the # I want, and I don't need anyone to admonish me. Especially someone whom I have no respect for. If I or anyone does something here that is deemed "wrong", then use the alert button to tattle to a moderator.

News flash, I do not tattle to the mods for nonsense, just ask you know who Do better, Dude.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: matafuchs

If there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all then surely it would be impossible for there to be a guilty verdict.
Regardless of this being a civil case a Judge would instantly dismiss it.

I don't know if Trump raped or sexually assaulted Carroll or not - I didn't follow the case closely enough to give a truly informed opinion, not that that has always stopped me in the past.

But the guilty verdict certainly suggests that something untoward happened.

Anyone found guilty of sexual assault should be lifed off in my opinion - no if's or but's or maybe's - sex offenders of all kinds tend to be incapable of rehabilitation and have a very high frequency of re-offending.

A civil trial in the States don't come down to a guilt or innocence verdict. It's generally a percentage of culpability, She was going around saying he raped her, he denied it and she claimed slander. It was a slander case that nutball liberals use to try claim Trump is a rapist.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Moon68

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

I didn't say "convicted"?

Isn't Trump a 'convicted' rapist if he was convicted of rape. I am not a legal beagle, so I need clarification.

Trump was convicted of rape? Really? You need to show your work on that claim.

You need to learn how to use google.

Implied sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carroll case is not rape.

Do better.

Dismissing the victim and their witnesses does not make it a lesser despicable act. You do better.

You made the unsubstantiated claim that Trump was a convicted rapist. More libelous tripe from the peanut gallery.

Pulling out the sympathy for an alleged victim card is disingenuous at best, par for you.

You do better

I have about had enough of someone telling me to "do better'. I do whatever the # I want, and I don't need anyone to admonish me. Especially someone whom I have no respect for. If I or anyone does something here that is deemed "wrong", then use the alert button to tattle to a moderator.

News flash, I do not tattle to the mods for nonsense, just ask you know who Do better, Dude.

Sure thing. You're as believable as E. Jean Carroll

a reply to: network dude

But her word is EVIDENCE.....as indeed is Trump's.
And we all know there was at least some other evidence presented to the court....by both sides.

So are you saying that because the jury believed Carroll's version of events over Trump's that they were somehow governed by TDS or a dislike of Trump?

If they had believed Trump's version over her's would the inevitable claims of the jury allowing their pro-Trump feelings cloud their judgement be justified?

Seems to me that some people allow their political affiliations determine their take on things like this.

a reply to: Freeborn

If there was absolutely NO EVIDENCE at all then surely it would be impossible for there to be a guilty verdict.
Regardless of this being a civil case a Judge would instantly dismiss it.

You would think.....

Would you please just go look for yourself or are you worried that you would be irreparably troubled by being incorrect in your assertion?

ETA

And we all know there was at least some other evidence presented to the court....by both sides.

Then by all means, show us. I told you I watched pretty closely. You said you hardly followed it.

I've found nothing, and you've found...what exactly?

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: network dude

But her word is EVIDENCE.....as indeed is Trump's.
And we all know there was at least some other evidence presented to the court....by both sides.

So are you saying that because the jury believed Carroll's version of events over Trump's that they were somehow governed by TDS or a dislike of Trump?

If they had believed Trump's version over her's would the inevitable claims of the jury allowing their pro-Trump feelings cloud their judgement be justified?

Seems to me that some people allow their political affiliations determine their take on things like this.

That's exactly what it means Freeborn. To sit on jury one avows to be impartial but, having been on a few juries, that is rarely the case.

a reply to: Moon68

Surely a purely he said/she said should never be allowed anywhere near a court of law regardless of it being a civil case or not?
To give any sort of informed judgement there has to be some sort of supportive evidence on both sides.....hasn't there?