ABC news settled with Donnie after accusing him of raping E Jean Carroll

[SpankyMcFarland]

10 minutes ago, User said:

The jury found him liable in a civil trial. 

Real bunch of legal eagle hair splitters here when Trump’s rights are at stake. The jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll. Any decent man would have retired from public life right there.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

How dare you, Sir! He should sue you too because the jury determined he committed ‘sexual abuse’ rather than ‘sexual assault’. Once more a good man is being defamed. 

Sexual abuse is as minor as a swat on the arse. 

Rape includes things like Pakistani militias raping 300,000 women to enact social change. "Systemic genocidal rape".

If someone slapped a girl on the butt, does that make them the same as someone who smashed a woman in the face with the butt of their rifle and then sodomized her? Should we use the same word? I think not, you f'ing dummy.  

Edited December 15, 2024 by WestCanMan

[ironstone]

17 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

This is not a new issue with Trump. Apparently producers of "The Apprentice" were well aware that Trump could not control his bowels, and had to wear diapers. 

I don't believe this story but what kind of person makes fun of others who suffer from incontinence? It's something they can't control that affects a lot of seniors and it's very embarrassing for them.

[User]

16 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Real bunch of legal eagle hair splitters here when Trump’s rights are at stake. The jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll. Any decent man would have retired from public life right there.

There is a reason why folks like you don't want to be accurate with how you present this information, its because you wan't to make it sound worse than it actually is. 

Why should Trump retire from public life because someone sued him over something that happened decades ago and there is literally no evidence for or any way to defend yourself against?

There is a reason why we had these statute of limitation laws in place, there were there for good reason and I think it is wrong that folks are on this kick to repeal them all now. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

50 minutes ago, User said:

There is a reason why folks like you don't want to be accurate with how you present this information, its because you wan't to make it sound worse than it actually is. 

Why should Trump retire from public life because someone sued him over something that happened decades ago and there is literally no evidence for or any way to defend yourself against?

There is a reason why we had these statute of limitation laws in place, there were there for good reason and I think it is wrong that folks are on this kick to repeal them all now. 

 

What is inaccurate in what I put there? Trump is a sociopath. There’s a lifetime of evidence to that effect and we’re about to get a whole lot more. 

[WestCanMan]

24 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

What is inaccurate in what I put there? Trump is a sociopath. There’s a lifetime of evidence to that effect and we’re about to get a whole lot more. 

You're clearly a liar, Spanky, as evidenced right here in this short thread.

You have several posts in this thread saying that there's no major difference between "sexual abuse" and "sexual assault", but the difference is actually night and day.

Do you know the main character traits of a sociopath? 

1. lying
2. manipulation
3. disregard for harm to others
4. breaking rules and laws

You did all of that in this thread. You're slandering/maligning a man without remorse. FYI that's also considered breaking a rule/law. 

Isn't it ironic that you're an actual sociopath yourself, but you're accusing some else of being one? 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

This is largely a semantic debate that I’m surprised ABC didn’t pursue given the numerous completely false QAnon-style allegations made against public figures in the US every day.

Are you always have to remember that when semantics is about trying to sell a message it becomes propaganda. And while people may turn a blind eye to minor semantics debates, americans especially have a general dislike of propaganda.

Quote

Strictly speaking, Trump wasn’t convicted of anything in a civil lawsuit but the jury agreed he did commit ‘sexual abuse’ rather than ‘rape’ in the peculiar legal definitions used by New York State. In common parlance, most people would agree that the jury considered him to have committed at least what one would call sexual assault here, very serious misconduct that one would not expect from a presidential candidate.

But that's not how it was sold. So when people looked into it they found out that what was being said wasn't true and that leads them to dismiss it entirely in their minds. I spoke of this back in January and warned that the democrats would find this was going to be a problem if they didn't change their ways. After all it wasn't just this one thing it was a long litany of examples of overstatements and factually incorrect assertions.

And to be honest the democrats had already set the bar with regards to sexual exploitation of women while in office or even before office very low with kennedy and even worse Clinton. So they really had to step carefully and make this case very specifically and very carefully. Instead they screamed "LEEROOOOYY JENKINS!!!" and dove in swinging at everything and the public turned against them, and WORSE for them this behavior tainted anything else they said so there was no claim they could make about trump that would stick. 

This kind of thing requires a sniper, not an artillery barrage. 

Quote

It’s not like they thought he was completely innocent - in their opinion, he committed a serious act of misconduct. 

Yeah but that doesn't matter by the time the public has already tuned it all out.  "yeah yeah, orange man bad, we get it, whatever, have you seen his policy on the border? That's pretty good right?"

That's basically the election in a nutshell.

[WestCanMan]

26 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Are you always have to remember that when semantics is about trying to sell a message it becomes propaganda. And while people may turn a blind eye to minor semantics debates, americans especially have a general dislike of propaganda.

But that's not how it was sold. So when people looked into it they found out that what was being said wasn't true and that leads them to dismiss it entirely in their minds. I spoke of this back in January and warned that the democrats would find this was going to be a problem if they didn't change their ways. After all it wasn't just this one thing it was a long litany of examples of overstatements and factually incorrect assertions.

And to be honest the democrats had already set the bar with regards to sexual exploitation of women while in office or even before office very low with kennedy and even worse Clinton. So they really had to step carefully and make this case very specifically and very carefully. Instead they screamed "LEEROOOOYY JENKINS!!!" and dove in swinging at everything and the public turned against them, and WORSE for them this behavior tainted anything else they said so there was no claim they could make about trump that would stick. 

This kind of thing requires a sniper, not an artillery barrage. 

Yeah but that doesn't matter by the time the public has already tuned it all out.  "yeah yeah, orange man bad, we get it, whatever, have you seen his policy on the border? That's pretty good right?"

That's basically the election in a nutshell.

Don't play his game. It's not semantics when he's just plain lying.

He knows that there's a huge difference between sexual abuse and sexual assault, but he really really wants to say sexual assault, so he's massaging the truth from every angle to try to squeeze it in there. 

Sexual assault includes forcing a woman to engage in intercourse until you're done, sexual abuse is as minor as smacking a woman on the butt.

Leftists love nothing more than destroying the language by using words like rape, vaccine, woman, etc., improperly to further their vile manipulation and misinformation campaigns. 

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, West said:

ABC news just settled for peddling this LIE ^^^

They settled a nuisance lawsuit for a trivial amount.

NO COMPARISON to the $800M FOS LIES had to pay Dominion. Duh

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Trump wasn't convicted of rape, period.

Trump never raped anyone, dummy. At worst he had a sleazy sexual encounter with a promiscuous tart. 

Grab a dictionary and look u "libel" and "slander", dummy. 

The judge says YOU'RE WRONG, and your OPINION means NOTHING.

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Bill Clinton was an actual rapist. 

You're comparing him to some college kids who never raped anyone, yet were wrongly accused and very publicly shamed by the mainscum media without any actual evidence. 

Bill Clinton was never convicted even of sexual assault. 

[User]

7 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The judge says YOU'RE WRONG, and your OPINION means NOTHING.

It is a simple fact that Trump was not convicted of rape. It was a civil trial. 

 

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Bill Clinton was never convicted even of sexual assault. 

Neither was Trump... 

[WestCanMan]

18 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The judge says YOU'RE WRONG, and your OPINION means NOTHING.

Carroll said she wasn't raped. No one can contradict her on that, dummy. 

[WestCanMan]

17 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Bill Clinton was never convicted even of sexual assault. 

Sexual assault is rape, jackass.

And FYI, you're the one who wants to claim that people are rapists here, despite the fact that they never had a trial. 

The difference in the level of evidence is plain to see:

In the case against Clinton: 

1. a very specific place was given by the alleged victim
2. a very specific date was given by the alleged victim
3. even a very specific time of day was given by the alleged victim
4. the place and time given by the alleged victim coincides perfectly with the itinerary of the accused, down to the minute
5. the alleged victim came out right away with the accusation, but was threatened and so recanted her testimony
6. the alleged victim has a witness to physical injuries sustained in the rape
7. the attack that occurred plainly constitutes a violent rape

In the case against Trump: 

1. a specific place was given by the alleged victim (her only checkmark)
2. no date was given by the alleged victim
3. the alleged victim couldn't name the month it happened
4. the alleged victim couldn't name the year it happened
5. the alleged victim sat on the accusation for 20 years, and never considered it a rape that whole time
6. the alleged victim has no witnesses at all, despite the fact it allegedly happened in a dept store changeroom
7. the encounter described by the alleged victim was 100% consensual until she changed her mind, then he let her leave.

If you want to call an ex-president a rapist, that has to be Bill Clinton. All that Trump did was properly identify a floozy, and stuck his fingers into her willing cooter. 

[User]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

All that Trump did was properly identify a floozy, and stuck his fingers into her willing cooter. 

Trump denied having anything to do with her. 

Do you have any care at all for presenting accurate information here?

[West]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

They settled a nuisance lawsuit for a trivial amount.

NO COMPARISON to the $800M FOS LIES had to pay Dominion. Duh

The judge says YOU'RE WRONG, and your OPINION means NOTHING.

I'm sure these media companies are gonna be sorry for what they've attempted to do over these next four years. They'll be lucky to still be standing when it's all over

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, West said:

I'm sure these media companies are gonna be sorry for what they've attempted to do over these next four years. They'll be lucky to still be standing when it's all over

Wrong. They are PROTECTED from Trump's malicious prosecution by the 1st AMENDMENT.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, User said:

Trump denied having anything to do with her. 

Do you have any care at all for presenting accurate information here?

Maybe he didn't have anything to do with her. I don't know, and I don't care.

All that I know for sure is that, even by her own story, if every single word of it is true, she wasn't raped. He just stuck his fingers in her willing cooter. 

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Wrong. They are PROTECTED from Trump's malicious prosecution by the 1st AMENDMENT.

Wrong. 

There's no free speech law and no freedom of the press law that protects anyone from civil suits for libel and slander. 

[User]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Maybe he didn't have anything to do with her. I don't know, and I don't care.

All that I know for sure is that, even by her own story, if every single word of it is true, she wasn't raped. He just stuck his fingers in her willing cooter. 

What are you even doing in this thread commenting on it then, if you have no care for knowing or understanding what actually happened? You are just spreading your ignorance of this around. 

In her own story, she was not willing. She accused him of rape. 

You can't get any part of this correct. 

 

[WestCanMan]

Just now, User said:

What are you even doing in this thread commenting on it then, if you have no care for knowing or understanding what actually happened? You are just spreading your ignorance of this around. 

In her own story, she was not willing. She accused him of rape. 

You can't get any part of this correct. 

 

Wrong, dummy.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong wrong.

In the actual excerpt from her book,

1. she agreed to model lingerie for him [aka 'green light, go'] 
2. she didn't offer any resistance to him coming into the changeroom with her [aka 'green light, go'] 
3. then he pushed her against the wall and kissed her and she giggled [aka 'green light, go'] 
4. then he managed to get his fingers under her skirt and up into her cooter again and she giggled [aka 'green light, go'] 
5. and then when he went to stick it on her she pushed him away with one arm and left. That would be a 'red light, stop', and he stopped.

She didn't even say "I wrestled with him for 3 seconds and then I got away". 

She was wearing 4" heels and she pushed him off with one arm. FYI that's not how rape works. 

At no point did she ever give a verbal or physical signal for him to stop, until she pushed him with one arm, and then he just let her go without holding her there one second longer. Again, that's not how rape works. 

Read her own book excerpt. Not someone else's account of it, and look for the part where she said or used body language that indicated she didn't want to go any further. 

She even says that it was her friend that suggested to her that it was a rape. She never felt like it was a rape for about 20 years, and she was correct in that assessment. 

If you read second-hand accounts of her story they'll neglect key elements of the story to make it seem more rapey, but her own, unabridged description of her encounter with him describes a scenario that was in no way, shape or form a rape. She was a promiscuous floozy, he was a boorish horndog, they were kinda gross for a while, and then when she called it off he let her go. 

 

Read her excerpt, then come back and tell me what part of it suggests that she used words or body language that showed an unwillingness to go further at some point, where he used undue force to carry on. She admits to giving him a lot of "yes' signals. 

[West]

50 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Wrong. They are PROTECTED from Trump's malicious prosecution by the 1st AMENDMENT.

Not if they are malicious in their coverage 

[User]

34 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

In the actual excerpt from her book,

Which book are you talking about? Let's see the excerpt you are using. 

 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Which book are you talking about? Let's see the excerpt you are using. 

So you don't know the origin of this story, for real? 

This is from a book that Carroll wrote. She describes an incident from the mid '90s - that's literally as close as she could peg it - in which she told her friend this story about her sexy interlude with Trump, and her friend informed her that it was "a rape". Apparently E J C had never considered it a rape in all that time. 

FYI it's not easy to dig up Carroll's actual excerpt. When you try, you'll find a bunch of places where people read it and they re-tell the story in their own words, but they miss key elements like when she says "after the door closed behind him"... meaning that: after she agreed to model lingerie for him, she let him come into the changeroom with her without even considering keeping him outside. He walked into that changeroom with her after she agreed to model lingerie for him, so he was fully expecting her to undress right there in front of him. 

There's a huge element of "implied consent" in agreeing to model lingerie for a guy, and then bringing him into the changeroom with you. 

Try to find te excerpt. It's like swimming through seaweed. I posted it here about 3 months ago. Your best bet might be to search for "Bergdorf's" on this forum. 

[robosmith]

43 minutes ago, West said:

Not if they are malicious in their coverage 

What the judge said PROVES it was NOT "malicious." Duh

[User]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

So you don't know the origin of this story, for real? 

I know the story, you are the one making the claim. Lets see it. Lets see the excerpt you claim to be using. 

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Try to find te excerpt. It's like swimming through seaweed. I posted it here about 3 months ago. Your best bet might be to search for "Bergdorf's" on this forum. 

Your characterization of what happened, as she wrote it, is grossly dishonest. She said she was pushed against the wall, and she struggled with him and pushed him away and then ran out the door. That is not consensual activity. 

At no time does that equal green light go. She was not telling her friend about her sexy interlude. She told two friends, one told her she was raped, the other said to forget it because he has a bunch of lawyers. 

I don't believe any of her BS, but your sitting here trying to say she didn't say it was rape is garbage. That is exactly what she has accused him of. That is exactly what she testified to.