Proof: MAGA Means Liar

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

You can really see how afraid they are of the guy.

Everything's just MAGA, MAGA, MAGA!

Sore afraid...

 

You think it's bad now - we're still 10 months away.  Talk to me in august, they'll sound like a full on machine gun....   MAGAMAGAMAGAMAGA (reloads) MAGAMAGAMAGAMAGA

I suspect about august we'll see the "has already signed a deal to sell texas to the russians" theories, followed by the  "Has actually been convicted of raping baby jezus" by around september, a little over 5231 women will appear in early october claiming that a) he raped them and b) he's not very good and they were very disappointed, and finally wrapping up with the conspiracy theory we've all been waiting for: he plans to nuke the gay unborn whales for god and china.

[Deluge]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

ftfy...

No, you don't; YOU ARE A LIAR. 

robowelcome says there's nothing to see here. lol

 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

LEEEFFFFFFtaaaarrrds, come out to PLA-ayyyyyyyy.

You worthless little losers all ran your mouths, and now it's put up or shut up time.

I have E. Jean Carroll's own unprompted, unabridged story there, along with the lying leftard media's garbage interpretation of it. I guess it would be more accurate to refer to Newsweek's story as "disinformation", "slander", "smear", "false witness" or "libel", etc, but I'm too nice.

Ahhh, what the hell... I'll say it in no uncertain terms here: Newsweek are absolutely, positively lying pieces of sh1t. The words, the cites, they're all there for you to read your-stupid-selves. Prove me wrong and get me sued for libel by Newsweek if you think you can.

Now ask yourselves this, @Rebound @Hodad @robosmith, if she published a story like that about Obama would you suddenly notice the massive gap between her original story and what's getting floated around by garbage alt-left now? Would Newsweek and other leftard rags print that same disinformation to incriminate Obama? 

This is the part where you either say some words in your own defence or we just file another one of your id10tic threads in the lying garbage file....

 

Go ahead, ignore this and start another one of your silly threads to change the topic, but while you're at it, you might as well just go get a willow switch and meet me out behind the woodshed again. 

I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I have no clue what you're on about with this gibberish. You linked to two factually consistent accounts of a rape--which, by the way, is also consistent with Trump's boastful "grab 'em by the p*ssy" monologue--and you think you're doing him favors?

As usual, you're eager to defend the indefensible. If only you'd been there to help hold her down, perhaps she wouldn't have gotten away!🙄

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

LEEEFFFFFFtaaaarrrds, come out to PLA-ayyyyyyyy.

You worthless little losers all ran your mouths, and now it's put up or shut up time.

I have E. Jean Carroll's own unprompted, unabridged story there, along with the lying leftard media's garbage interpretation of it. I guess it would be more accurate to refer to Newsweek's story as "disinformation", "slander", "smear", "false witness" or "libel", etc, but I'm too nice.

Ahhh, what the hell... I'll say it in no uncertain terms here: Newsweek are absolutely, positively lying pieces of sh1t. The words, the cites, they're all there for you to read your-stupid-selves. Prove me wrong and get me sued for libel by Newsweek if you think you can.

Now ask yourselves this, @Rebound @Hodad @robosmith, if she published a story like that about Obama would you suddenly notice the massive gap between her original story and what's getting floated around by garbage alt-left now? Would Newsweek and other leftard rags print that same disinformation to incriminate Obama? 

This is the part where you either say some words in your own defence or we just file another one of your id10tic threads in the lying garbage file....

 

Go ahead, ignore this and start another one of your silly threads to change the topic, but while you're at it, you might as well just go get a willow switch and meet me out behind the woodshed again. 

LOL - there's a flashback I loved the warriors My friend had it on beta. 

And there is a correlation here.  In the movie, even tho everyone was supposed to hate the warriors the longer they survived and kept going the more people were rooting for them and respecting them.  And they came after them with everything, tricks, muscle, numbers, cops etc and they just kept seeing to dodge and fight their way through.

Trump is tapping into that same kind of story line and riding it to success - the more they accuse him off the more popular he becomes and the closer he gets to 'home'.  Even the few losses along the way just make you empathize and root for him harder, just like the movie warriors.

The dems just don't get this. They are for the most part elitists who just don't live in the same world and they can't understand that every time they open their mouths now they help him more.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I have no clue what you're on about with this gibberish. You linked to two factually consistent accounts of a rape--which, by the way, is also consistent with Trump's boastful "grab 'em by the p*ssy" monologue--and you think you're doing him favors?

As usual, you're eager to defend the indefensible. If only you'd been there to help hold her down, perhaps she wouldn't have gotten away!🙄

But they're not factually consistent. They're factually deficient.  That's why they can't be tried as criminal cases.  That's why we don't normally allow civil cases that are that old. Even the jury wasn't willing to ding him with rape, just defaming her while he defended himself from the accusation.

But as usual here you are telling lies because apperently the truth about trump isn't bad enough so you have to invent crap.

And you wonder why the rest of America is slowly tuning all of this out .

 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Hodad said:

You linked to two factually consistent accounts of a rape--

I don't know if you're lying or if your reading comprehension is that bad, but:

in the first account they were inside the change room, and then after the door was closed, she laughed while he was sexually aggressive with her. 

There was no mention of her saying "no" at any point before his penis was inside of her. She was just laughing. 

• The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips. I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.

  I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.

Can you point to the spot there where she said no?

Can you point to the spot where this woman in 4" heels, that allowed him into the change room to model lingerie for him, communicated in any way - verbally, non-verbally, physically - that she didn't want sex?

She gave him a shove, but she laughed while she did it. 

Then she laughed when he groped her **** and shoved his dick into it. 

Sorry dude, but that's not a "me too" moment. There are soooo many times where a woman who wasn't a ho would say "Nah". She took him into the change room.

If your wife took a guy into a change room to model lingerie for him, but a security guard caught them and told them to come out, what would you think? Was she gonna do the nasty?

I'd die if my wife did anything of the sort with someone. When the mention of modelling lingerie came up she'd tell him to f-off. 

If I got caught doing that with another woman my relationship with my wife would be over. Done like dinner. 

Granted, the fact that she's a bit of ho doesn't mean that she should be raped, or could legally be raped, but that doesn't appear to be what happened at all. By her own admission it appears to be a case of implied consent. 

• The legal term implied consent refers to situations in which it is assumed a person consented to something by his actions. This means that, although the person has not given verbal or written consent, circumstances exist that would cause a reasonable person to believe the other had consented. Questions of implied consent arise in a variety of situations, including medical care, contracts, and even actions that may be considered criminal if no consent is given, such as rape. To explore this concept, consider the following implied consent definition.

She went along with the plan of modelling lingerie for him, went willingly into the change room with him, just laughed while he was being rough with her... 

That's by her own words. 

Here's the libellous version of the exact same story:

• Trump suggested that Carroll try on some lingerie. She testified that she joked with him, saying he should try it on instead because it was his color. When the two approached a fitting room, Trump allegedly shut the door behind them and then proceeded to rape her.

  "He put his hand inside my vagina and curved his fingers," she said in her testimony, according to a report in The Daily Beast. "As I'm sitting here today, I can still feel it."

  Carroll also described what happened next when Trump allegedly raped her. After a few minutes, she testified, she was able to escape and immediately exited the store.

  "I didn't want to make a scene. I didn't want to make him angry at me.... I don't remember screaming," Carroll testified. "I'm not a screamer. I'm a fighter."

"Approached a fitting room"? That's not what she said before. She said "The moment the door closed".

In the first story she went in willingly and didn't object to him coming in with her. In the second story they didn't even enter together - they merely approached the door and yet somehow they were inside when he "shut the door and proceeded to rape her".

It makes no sense at all, that's just an obvious indication that Newsweek is telling a lie.

Newsweek's lie strips away the part where she acknowledges that he was inside the room, with no objection from herself, and then he just closed the door behind them. 

In the first story she mentioned that when he did things to her/with her, she just laughed. In no less than two different places she mentioned that her reaction was to laugh. Doesn't that sound completely different from "he shut the door and then proceeded to rape her"?

This is the exact opposite of "two factually consistent accounts of a rape". You're lying or you're stupid AF.

It sounds like they definitely coulda gone all the way, but he just didn't do it the way she wanted to do it, so it ended abruptly. 

She was "able to escape"...

Just note that in both the first and second story, there's no mention of a period of time where she was actively saying no or showing signs of seriously stopping and he was forcing her to stay.

It went from giggling to this:

• It turns into a colossal struggle. I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, [start of actual struggle is described right here...] and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.

That's it. The whole struggle. What is that, two seconds?

Just remember that he's already at the part where his penis is smelly and it only takes two seconds to end it. 

A girl who is 5'9 pushes him off with one hand while she holds her purse in the other and runs out, and does all that in 4" heels.

Dude, Trump is 6'2, and was a competitive athlete in college. Not just any college, a military college where he would have been doing a lot of sit-ups, push-ups, calisthenics, etc. By reliable accounts he was on the radar of the Red Sox and Phillies. 

If a large collegiate athlete was trying to rape a 5'9 unathletic girl, she couldn't have pushed him off with one hand. End of story. What happened was, she finally showed that she wasn't consenting, and that was that. And that's by her own account, not his.

The credibility given to these liars, whether it's her or Newsweek, is ridiculous. 

[Hodad]

31 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't know if you're lying or if your reading comprehension is that bad, but:

in the first account they were inside the change room, and then after the door was closed, she laughed while he was sexually aggressive with her. 

There was no mention of her saying "no" at any point before his penis was inside of her. She was just laughing. 

• The moment the dressing-room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, and puts his mouth against my lips. I am so shocked I shove him back and start laughing again. He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time, and, as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.

  I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.

Can you point to the spot there where she said no?

Can you point to the spot where this woman in 4" heels, that allowed him into the change room to model lingerie for him, communicated in any way - verbally, non-verbally, physically - that she didn't want sex?

She gave him a shove, but she laughed while she did it. 

Then she laughed when he groped her **** and shoved his dick into it. 

Sorry dude, but that's not a "me too" moment. There are soooo many times where a woman who wasn't a ho would say "Nah". She took him into the change room.

If your wife took a guy into a change room to model lingerie for him, but a security guard caught them and told them to come out, what would you think? Was she gonna do the nasty?

I'd die if my wife did anything of the sort with someone. When the mention of modelling lingerie came up she'd tell him to f-off. 

If I got caught doing that with another woman my relationship with my wife would be over. Done like dinner. 

Granted, the fact that she's a bit of ho doesn't mean that she should be raped, or could legally be raped, but that doesn't appear to be what happened at all. By her own admission it appears to be a case of implied consent. 

• The legal term implied consent refers to situations in which it is assumed a person consented to something by his actions. This means that, although the person has not given verbal or written consent, circumstances exist that would cause a reasonable person to believe the other had consented. Questions of implied consent arise in a variety of situations, including medical care, contracts, and even actions that may be considered criminal if no consent is given, such as rape. To explore this concept, consider the following implied consent definition.

She went along with the plan of modelling lingerie for him, went willingly into the change room with him, just laughed while he was being rough with her... 

That's by her own words. 

Here's the libellous version of the exact same story:

• Trump suggested that Carroll try on some lingerie. She testified that she joked with him, saying he should try it on instead because it was his color. When the two approached a fitting room, Trump allegedly shut the door behind them and then proceeded to rape her.

  "He put his hand inside my vagina and curved his fingers," she said in her testimony, according to a report in The Daily Beast. "As I'm sitting here today, I can still feel it."

  Carroll also described what happened next when Trump allegedly raped her. After a few minutes, she testified, she was able to escape and immediately exited the store.

  "I didn't want to make a scene. I didn't want to make him angry at me.... I don't remember screaming," Carroll testified. "I'm not a screamer. I'm a fighter."

"Approached a fitting room"? That's not what she said before. She said "The moment the door closed".

In the first story she went in willingly and didn't object to him coming in with her. In the second story they didn't even enter together - they merely approached the door and yet somehow they were inside when he "shut the door and proceeded to rape her".

It makes no sense at all, that's just an obvious in XDdication that Newsweek is telling a lie.

Newsweek's lie strips away the part where she acknowledges that he was inside the room, with no objection from herself, and then he just closed the door behind them. 

In the first story she mentioned that when he did things to her/with her, she just laughed. In no less than two different places she mentioned that her reaction was to laugh. Doesn't that sound completely different from "he shut the door and then proceeded to rape her"?

This is the exact opposite of "two factually consistent accounts of a rape". You're lying or you're stupid AF.

It sounds like they definitely coulda gone all the way, but he just didn't do it the way she wanted to do it, so it ended abruptly. 

She was "able to escape"...

Just note that in both the first and second story, there's no mention of a period of time where she was actively saying no or showing signs of seriously stopping and he was forcing her to stay.

It went from giggling to this:

• It turns into a colossal struggle. I am wearing a pair of sturdy black patent-leather four-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around six-one, [start of actual struggle is described right here...] and I try to stomp his foot. I try to push him off with my one free hand — for some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other — and I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.

That's it. The whole struggle. What is that, two seconds?

Just remember that he's already at the part where his penis is smelly and it only takes two seconds to end it. 

A girl who is 5'9 pushes him off with one hand while she holds her purse in the other and runs out, and does all that in 4" heels.

Dude, Trump is 6'2, and was a competitive athlete in college. Not just any college, a military college where he would have been doing a lot of sit-ups, push-ups, calisthenics, etc. By reliable accounts he was on the radar of the Red Sox and Phillies. 

If a large collegiate athlete was trying to rape a 5'9 unathletic girl, she couldn't have pushed him off with one hand. End of story. What happened was, she finally showed that she wasn't consenting, and that was that. And that's by her own account, not his.

The credibility given to these liars, whether it's her or Newsweek, is ridiculous. 

Jeebus, dimwit, the fact that the Newsweek article didn't repeat every lurid detail does not make it factually inconsistent. Nor does a bit of clumsy prose. No one imagines they teleported through the doorway.

I know you're cool with some casual sexual assault from your favorite orange dom, but the two juries so far haven't been rape enthusiasts and they've tagged him with about $90 million in damages for lying about what he did. 

So go pound sand and throw your fit because a random news article wasn't written the way you'd have liked. Tough titties. (But ask before you grab 'em.)

 

 

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus, dimwit, the fact that the Newsweek article didn't repeat every lurid detail does not make it factually inconsistent. Nor does a bit of clumsy prose. No one imagines they teleported through the doorway.

I know you're cool with some casual sexual assault from your favorite orange dom, but the two juries so far haven't been rape enthusiasts and they've tagged him with about $90 million in damages for lying about what he did. 

So go pound sand and throw your fit because a random news article wasn't written the way you'd have liked. Tough titties. (But ask before you grab 'em.)

 

 

So your argument is that if he didn't open the door in her testimony he's guilty of rape.

Or that if she didn't say that she said no then she must have.

Do you know why they couldnt' get a criminal conviction?

[robosmith]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Is that proof of your id10tic claim, or proof of America's broken justice system?

Making findings you don't agree with does not mean ANYTHING is broken except perhaps your sense of JUSTICE.

6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Oh yeah? She filed a police report at the time, did she? No?

Just told a few friends about it, is that it? 🤷‍♂️

Tell you what fella. You go and say Don Trump buggered you as a child, and I'll say I was your friend and will back you up. After you clear a cool 100 Mill, you cut me a nice check. 

Am not greedy, just a couple Mill will do.

 

GPS. I'm not going to LIE for YOUR SCAM. 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

Not every billionaire.

Just the billionaires the multi billionaires want to get rid of.

Just the ones who were caught ON TAPE bragging about sexual assault which matches the allegation by Carol.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

By your own admission, the jury only "heard" evidence.

Sworn testimony was all that was necessary to convince the JURY of "more likely than not."

Also Trump being caught ON TAPE bragging about doing exactly what was alleged.

AKA, he is a PROUD sexual assaulter.

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

LEEEFFFFFFtaaaarrrds, come out to PLA-ayyyyyyyy.

You worthless little losers all ran your mouths, and now it's put up or shut up time.

I have E. Jean Carroll's own unprompted, unabridged story there, along with the lying leftard media's garbage interpretation of it. I guess it would be more accurate to refer to Newsweek's story as "disinformation", "slander", "smear", "false witness" or "libel", etc, but I'm too nice.

Ahhh, what the hell... I'll say it in no uncertain terms here: Newsweek are absolutely, positively lying pieces of sh1t. The words, the cites, they're all there for you to read your-stupid-selves. Prove me wrong and get me sued for libel by Newsweek if you think you can.

Now ask yourselves this, @Rebound @Hodad @robosmith, if she published a story like that about Obama would you suddenly notice the massive gap between her original story and what's getting floated around by garbage alt-left now? Would Newsweek and other leftard rags print that same disinformation to incriminate Obama? 

This is the part where you either say some words in your own defence or we just file another one of your id10tic threads in the lying garbage file....

 

Go ahead, ignore this and start another one of your silly threads to change the topic, but while you're at it, you might as well just go get a willow switch and meet me out behind the woodshed again. 

Obama was never caught ON TAPE bragging about sexual assault. 

[Rebound]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

LEEEFFFFFFtaaaarrrds, come out to PLA-ayyyyyyyy.

You worthless little losers all ran your mouths, and now it's put up or shut up time.

I have E. Jean Carroll's own unprompted, unabridged story there, along with the lying leftard media's garbage interpretation of it. I guess it would be more accurate to refer to Newsweek's story as "disinformation", "slander", "smear", "false witness" or "libel", etc, but I'm too nice.

Ahhh, what the hell... I'll say it in no uncertain terms here: Newsweek are absolutely, positively lying pieces of sh1t. The words, the cites, they're all there for you to read your-stupid-selves. Prove me wrong and get me sued for libel by Newsweek if you think you can.

Now ask yourselves this, @Rebound @Hodad @robosmith, if she published a story like that about Obama would you suddenly notice the massive gap between her original story and what's getting floated around by garbage alt-left now? Would Newsweek and other leftard rags print that same disinformation to incriminate Obama? 

This is the part where you either say some words in your own defence or we just file another one of your id10tic threads in the lying garbage file....

 

Go ahead, ignore this and start another one of your silly threads to change the topic, but while you're at it, you might as well just go get a willow switch and meet me out behind the woodshed again. 

You can listen to all the right-wing fake news lies you want.

In a courtroom, only facts and the law matter. That’s why Donald Trump hates judges. It’s not corruption, it’s truth.

Donald Trump lost these lawsuits, and he will lose another $100 - $500 million this week alone. 

If you think he’s such a smart guy, tell us: Why does he insult judges and court staff during a trial? Who the F is that stupid?

[CdnFox]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

Obama was never caught ON TAPE bragging about sexual assault. 

He was caught on tape colluding with russians.  You don't seem bothered by THAT.

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, Hodad said:

Jeebus, dimwit, the fact that the Newsweek article didn't repeat every lurid detail does not make it factually inconsistent. Nor does a bit of clumsy prose. No one imagines they teleported through the doorway.

I know you're cool with some casual sexual assault from your favorite orange dom, but the two juries so far haven't been rape enthusiasts and they've tagged him with about $90 million in damages for lying about what he did. 

So go pound sand and throw your fit because a random news article wasn't written the way you'd have liked. Tough titties. (But ask before you grab 'em.)

 

 

Jeesus, dimwit. They completely altered her testimony.

They changed her story from "I was giggling and going along wth everything, and then when I showed resistance he let me go" to "It was just a pretty clear-cut rape". 

It's not just Newsweek, they are one part of the problem. The larger problem is that every member of TNI operates like that and people like you accept it. You'll look at a story like that and walk around pretending that E. Jean Caroll was raped just because it fits your "Twumpy bad" narrative. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

You can listen to all the right-wing fake news lies you want.

It was her own words, stupid. Unprompted, unedited, unfiltered. Her own words.

By what interpretation is that "right-wing fake news", stupid?

Quote

In a courtroom, only facts and the law matter. That’s why Donald Trump hates judges. It’s not corruption, it’s truth.

Not at all. Chutkan is a perfect example of a judge who says things like "The US gov't was almost overthrown on Jan 6th". That's from a CNN article no less. 

There's no truth in that statement and it has nothing to do with any laws anywhere.

Quote

Donald Trump lost these lawsuits, and he will lose another $100 - $500 million this week alone. 

If that's a legitimate thing then Hilly will lose hundreds of millions for calling Bill's victims names. 

Do you think that's gonna happen? 

Quote

If you think he’s such a smart guy, tell us: Why does he insult judges and court staff during a trial? Who the F is that stupid?

Because he doesn't respect them and he doesn't pretend to. Because he has his brand that's worth money and that ba\rand isn't "I'm a little b1tch who's gonna let this judge run his/her mouth about me". 

I can't afford a $10K fine. That would hurt like a mofo. I'd have no choice but to play nice if I had some activist loser judge in power over me for a while. I guess Trump feels like he can afford his fines. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Jeesus, dimwit. They completely altered her testimony.

They changed her story from "I was giggling and going along wth everything, and then when I showed resistance he let me go" to "It was just a pretty clear-cut rape". 

It's not just Newsweek, they are one part of the problem. The larger problem is that every member of TNI operates like that and people like you accept it. You'll look at a story like that and walk around pretending that E. Jean Caroll was raped just because it fits your "Twumpy bad" narrative. 

You're correct, they do it with everything. I've seen many many times people say trump was "convicted of rape" when it was a civil trial, not criminal, and it was for defamation, not rape.

And i've seen many times including on this forum people say he was "Convicted" of Fraud, and that's not remotely even a little bit true either - it was a court case to determine penalities in a civil fraud ticket that he didn't even get to dispute.

And on it goes. If he was up for jaywalking they'd call it goose-stepping.

At this point it's so continuous that nobody even listens any more. It's like "yeah yeah rape collusion fraud, what's his plan for the economy?"

And i guarantee this gets worse - there's going to be some accusation or the like that they'll pull out as a 'gotcha' during the campaign (Trump has sex with chinese president's wife in exchange for Alaska!).  And they're going to be horrified when it has NO EFFECT AT ALL. 

They just want to not talk about biden and his track record.

[Rebound]

14 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So your argument is that if he didn't open the door in her testimony he's guilty of rape.

Or that if she didn't say that she said no then she must have.

Do you know why they couldnt' get a criminal conviction?

The argument is that the omissions in these summaries are not proof that she’s lying. 

[WestCanMan]

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You're correct, they do it with everything. I've seen many many times people say trump was "convicted of rape" when it was a civil trial, not criminal, and it was for defamation, not rape.

And i've seen many times including on this forum people say he was "Convicted" of Fraud, and that's not remotely even a little bit true either - it was a court case to determine penalities in a civil fraud ticket that he didn't even get to dispute.

And on it goes. If he was up for jaywalking they'd call it goose-stepping.

At this point it's so continuous that nobody even listens any more. It's like "yeah yeah rape collusion fraud, what's his plan for the economy?"

And i guarantee this gets worse - there's going to be some accusation or the like that they'll pull out as a 'gotcha' during the campaign (Trump has sex with chinese president's wife in exchange for Alaska!).  And they're going to be horrified when it has NO EFFECT AT ALL. 

They just want to not talk about biden and his track record.

They did it with collusion too. They handed a slew of indictments to a bunch of Russians who'll never set foot in America, plus some to Americans for old tax filings plus a few collusion-related charges, all of the collusion charges that went to trial lost, but then they'd turn around and say: "The collusion investigation had a billion indictments! So-and-so was convicted!" 

The only person convicted of anything related to collusion with Russians was Kevin Clinesmith of the FBI, for pretending that Carter Page was colluding with Russians. 

 

Leftists really are banking on a horde of IQ<80's to get them across the finish line.

I get that those people are out there, but I'm surprised how resistant they are to facts and cites once they've been given their shiny new opinions.

I have no respect for CNN but I'll admit that their brainwashing ability is top notch. 

Edited January 29, 2024 by WestCanMan

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

It was her own words, stupid. Unprompted, unedited, unfiltered. Her own words.

By what interpretation is that "right-wing fake news", stupid?

Not at all. Chutkan is a perfect example of a judge who says things like "The US gov't was almost overthrown on Jan 6th". That's from a CNN article no less. 

There's no truth in that statement and it has nothing to do with any laws anywhere.

If that's a legitimate thing then Hilly will lose hundreds of millions for calling Bill's victims names. 

Do you think that's gonna happen? 

Because he doesn't respect them and he doesn't pretend to. Because he has his brand that's worth money and that ba\rand isn't "I'm a little b1tch who's gonna let this judge run his/her mouth about me". 

I can't afford a $10K fine. That would hurt like a mofo. I'd have no choice but to play nice if I had some activist loser judge in power over me for a while. I guess Trump feels like he can afford his fines. 

Carroll claimed that Trump raped her in 2019, and he responded by defaming her. He could have merely denied it, but instead he insulted her and attacked her.  
 

So she fought back, initially saying him for defamation. Trump’s butt-buddy AG defended him on the government’s dime, claiming that insulting an American citizen is part of a President’s job.  Once he was out of office, she was free to sue him, and this is how long the trials have taken. 

[godzilla]

On 1/27/2024 at 11:35 PM, Rebound said:

Defamation is false information which harms a person, organization or business. It is a lie. 
 

Here’s the MAGA defamation scorecard:

• Trump: $88.3 million
• Giuliani: $148 million
• Fox News: $787 million
• Alex Jones: $1 billion

Legally Proven: MAGA Means Liar. 

you forgot... guilty pleas:

• Kenneth Chesebro
• Sidney Powell
• Jenna Ellis
• Scott Hall

why doesn't MAGA go after these people? are they liars? you'd think that Trump would be roasting them every chance he got... hmmm... interesting.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Rebound said:

Carroll claimed that Trump raped her in 2019, and he responded by defaming her. He could have merely denied it, but instead he insulted her and attacked her.  

Caroll said exactly what I cited for you, and it clearly did not rise to the level of rape.

She wasn't forced to have sex at all. She wasn't overpowered and used at all. They were playing a sleazy, rough game and by her own admission she was communicating to him that she was a willing participant until the pint where she wasn't, and at that point it was over. No strong objection by him to her leaving. It was just a saaaww-wing-an-a-miss.

She was just insulted because his moves showed no respect for her, but in all fairness, she was walking around in 4" heels and then agreed to model lingerie for a guy she met ten minutes earlier. No reasonable person would conclude that she was looking for respect, just sex. He treated her the way he thought she wanted to be treated, by her own words. 

What do you think is worse, stupid? Being called a rapist, or being called crazy? 

[CdnFox]

45 minutes ago, Rebound said:

The argument is that the omissions in these summaries are not proof that she’s lying. 

It's not proof she's telling the truth either and it IS cause for serious doubt. I would agree it's not PROOF of lying but it certainly calls her testimony into question.

Which is one of the reasons they couldnt' get a criminal conviction

While you're correct and it doesn't prove she was being deliberately dishonest or the like i think you'll have to concede that without additional evidence this is largely useless.  maybe he did maybe he didn't the testimony does not promote clarity either way.

[Hodad]

29 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Caroll said exactly what I cited for you, and it clearly did not rise to the level of rape.

She wasn't forced to have sex at all. She wasn't overpowered and used at all. They were playing a sleazy, rough game and by her own admission she was communicating to him that she was a willing participant until the pint where she wasn't, and at that point it was over. No strong objection by him to her leaving. It was just a saaaww-wing-an-a-miss.

She was just insulted because his moves showed no respect for her, but in all fairness, she was walking around in 4" heels and then agreed to model lingerie for a guy she met ten minutes earlier. No reasonable person would conclude that she was looking for respect, just sex. He treated her the way he thought she wanted to be treated, by her own words. 

What do you think is worse, stupid? Being called a rapist, or being called crazy? 

If you think what she described is a "game" you're likely to get yourself convicted. What's described there is not just "kinda rapey" it's plain rape. If someone is pushing you away and you don't know that person or have a safe word you can't just jam the P in the V. And nonconsensual fingers are digital rape. Which, again, is a behavior Trump is on tape boasting about.

The jury was pretty generous to call it sexual abuse. 

 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Caroll said exactly what I cited for you, and it clearly did not rise to the level of rape.

She wasn't forced to have sex at all. She wasn't overpowered and used at all. They were playing a sleazy, rough game and by her own admission she was communicating to him that she was a willing participant until the pint where she wasn't, and at that point it was over. No strong objection by him to her leaving. It was just a saaaww-wing-an-a-miss.

She was just insulted because his moves showed no respect for her, but in all fairness, she was walking around in 4" heels and then agreed to model lingerie for a guy she met ten minutes earlier. No reasonable person would conclude that she was looking for respect, just sex. He treated her the way he thought she wanted to be treated, by her own words. 

What do you think is worse, stupid? Being called a rapist, or being called crazy? 

A jury, operating under the laws of the State of New York, unanimously ruled that rape occurred.  

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, Rebound said:

A jury, operating under the laws of the State of New York, unanimously ruled that rape occurred.  

Don't you just 'love' all the right wing Canucks on this site who believe they know NYS Law better than NYS JUDGES?

Talk about ARROGANCE. Usually in the US you need to add the caveat "I'm not an attorney" to avoid being charged with practicing law without a license. Lawyers here just love to go after those cases.