no, the point is that you and your gang or orange man bad banditos don’t like reality so you either make up facts or bastardize the English language. You don’ like me calling you out for it. The judicial system from one of the most liberal places in our country determined Trump didn’t rape the woman. All the word salad, spin and /or smoke and mirrors bs you guys want to throw out make you look pathetic. Just like claiming a man can get pregnant. If your argument is predicated on bastardizing the English language, you lost the argument before you even opened your mouth.
As a reminder, all this is from a thread in which a judge outright says he raped her based upon the dictionary definition of the word, a finding that you find too complicated because it expects you to understand the difference between the dictionary definition of the word "rape" and the more concisely defined term in New York criminal law. You just don't like that because it goes against your actual goal, excusing his actions, while maintaining deniability that is what you are doing. Which is how you end up claiming that it is too complicated to read a law and a dictionary, when you are a lawyer.
..and yet that damn jury, with its contemplated verdict..proclaimed from the mountain top "F.U. Judge! We decide if the woman is a lier " and the birds sang...amen
No, they decide whether the plaintiff proved her case that he jammed something in her against her will (they found he did) and whether that something was his penis (they didn't know whether it was or not). Thus, the guilt for sexual abuse, which involves jamming something inside a woman's vagina against her will that is not a penis. That also fits the dictionary but not New York statute definition of rape. BTW, they did not decide that she was a "lier" (sic). They did decide Donald Trump was. That is why Trump was appealing to this judge in the first place. Because the jury found that he violated the New York statute for sexual abuse by jamming some indeterminate part of his body I to her body against her will and then lied about it.
I liked George Bush Jr and Obama. Guys who seemed faithful or at the very least knew what no and appropriate meant.
let me see if I can break down your argument here. Woman sues Trump for rape in civil court. She presents her evidence and the judge submits a jury form to the 12 jurors and the jury says no rape. But they really meant to say yes rape. And you go on to conclude Trump committed rape, because even though the Jury said he didn’t commit rape, they actually really meant he did because they said he committed a sexual assault, which you erroneously assert requires “penetration” (which it does not). Did I miss something or is that pretty much your position. Sounds like the appeal for Trump is a sure thing.
False. She sued him for defamation, which required her to provide evidence of rape, sexual abuse, or forcible touching. That is why the jury voted on each charge. And yes to sexual abuse. The reason that they said that was because she testified that she wasn't sure what he inserted in her against her will, requiring them to vote for sexual abuse rather than rape, based on New York law. Do you consider somebody who throws down another person and forcibly puts their fingers inside of them against their will as somebody who just committed rape? New York state law would say that person engaged in sexual abuse. The dictionary says that they committed rape. False. They said he committed sexual abuse, not sexual assault. No, it does not require penetration to be charged with that. But if you penetrate somebody with an object other than a penis, you are guilty of that crime. Good luck. We will be here to laugh when he loses again, and you are forced to attack the judge again.
Trump is not a rapist as defined by the New York criminal code, which was how the jury was instructed. He is liable for sexual assault under New York law, as the jury was instructed. Different elements. Under New York law, more likely than not.
Trump is not a rapist as defined by the New York criminal code, which was how the jury was instructed. He is liable for sexual assault under New York law, as the jury was instructed. Different elements. Under New York law, more likely than not. And there is nothing inconsistent about the findings of the elements are different. And they are. And are easily explainable. The jury did not conclude that Plaijtodf proved that want was inserted into her against her will was a penis. Something was. The distinction means nothing as far as the disgust that people feel for him. So, spare us the “Orange man bad” garbage. Based on the verdict, Trump deserves the disgust.
It's one of the typical rectocranial acrobatic movements necessary to defend their beloved orange god.
Same skill set to understand what a jury verdict decides based on instructions of the elements of a claim.
I saw what you did there. WOW. Turned it into the "it's the gold digging women" who are at fault. And by doing so, yes, you are defending Trump. He's such a poor misunderstood dude. WOW.
I have not seen any posters try to make this argument that you make now. I don’t speak for anyone else on this message board but me, but my problem with this whole sexual assault crap is that it all allegedly happened 30 years ago (or whatever). The woman filed a civil suit against a man who is so hated by the left there have been calls for his execution. The suit was filed in one of the most liberal cities in the United States. For those reasons I have zero confidence in this verdict. Let’s see how honest you liberals actually are. If you took Joe Biden or Hunter Biden to trial on the allegations against them (Joe Bribery or rape) (Hunter tax fraud, gun violation, bribery) , and the trial were to take place in Jackson Mississippi, which is considered the most conservative city in the USA…do you think either would get a favorable verdict? Any honest person would laugh at even the suggestion. So maybe approach the Trump verdict with a little grain of salt??
