Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[Viri]

Spoiler

Post automatically merged: Aug 25, 2023

Bro, this is his biggest advertising opportunity since 2021. He’s gonna sell so much merch with this exact mugshot on it that Chinese sweatshops will have to start hiring immigrants.

View attachment 390192

Spoiler

He's already way ahead of you.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Haha, it's obvious you have no idea about that court case of you would have read the verdict, which was that he was cleared of raping her. Just because people claim all sorts of crap, doesn't make it true because you want it to be, As for the personal flaming, I suggest you read the forum rules.

He's a rapist. You support a rapist. Nothing else needs to be said.

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

Hope this helps!

 

[mrdude]

He's a rapist. You support a rapist. Nothing else needs to be said.

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

Hope this helps!

Only on your deranged TDS corrupted mind. Reality is a different matter though. I'll stick to the facts and you can continue to wonder around in lala land.

 

[Xzi]

He's a rapist. You support a rapist. Nothing else needs to be said.

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

Hope this helps!

Yeah confirmed "accurate" by two separate judges to call him a rapist. Not that it matters to the people still unwilling to leave the cult, they'll follow him off any cliff, any time.

 

[Foxi4]

By the court of law he's guilty of rape.

Donald Trump is a rapist. This is a fact. This is not up for debate.

People here are still willing to vote for a literal rapist. Says a lot about their character.

This is incorrect. Donald Trump has not been convicted of rape, nor was he found guilty. @Hanafuda is right, he lost a civil lawsuit and was found liable for battery and defamation. Rape would not be pursued in civil proceedings, it’s a criminal matter. Saying that he’s “a convicted rapist” is defamation per se, he has no convictions in regards to this case as civil proceedings have no criminal consequences.

”[The] jury must find that it is more likely than not that the plaintiff's key contentions are true. This is a much lower standard than in criminal trials, in which the prosecution's contentions must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance standard could be satisfied if the jury is only 51 percent confident that the plaintiff's version of events is true, whereas in a criminal trial, the jury must have near certainty that the prosecution is correct.

Liability for sexual assault means that the jury has concluded that the plaintiff has satisfied the preponderance of the evidence standard and that the defendant must pay damages to compensate the victim. There are no criminal consequences to a finding of liability. (…)

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. 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 (…) The most precise way to say it would be something like, 'The jury found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll and therefore was liable for battery.”

- UC Davis School of Law professor Katherine Florey

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-was-donald-trump-found-guilty-rape-1799935

This is the legal standard even if there’s 100% certainty that he did exactly what he was accused of because of the nature of the proceedings. If it was a criminal case and the evidence satisfied the requirements of penal law, he might’ve been found guilty and would’ve been convicted, but this is not the case - he was found liable.

He's already way ahead of you.

Of course, that’s exactly what I expected. These will sell like hot cakes.

 

[Xzi]

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

Calling a rapist a rapist isn't defamation, a judge knows petty semantics when he hears them. Trump did defame Carroll on TV though, which is why he's facing a lawsuit for that, too.

 

[granville]

 

[Viri]

We live in a society!

Post automatically merged: Aug 25, 2023

What a load of tosh - I have to laugh at some of the mental stuff you TDS sufferers come up with on a daily basis,

Spoiler

Trump has a habit of breaking people, just ask Eminem.

 

[Xzi]

Trump has a habit of breaking people, just ask Eminem.

Yet the video is nothing but legitimate criticisms of the bottom-feeders who worship him? His frustration is understandable, I didn't think I'd see Idiocracy realized in my lifetime either.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

He's known for being proud of stuff that really doesn't belong, his mental state is precarious.

Post automatically merged: Aug 25, 2023

Yet the video is nothing but legitimate criticisms of the bottom-feeders who worship him? His frustration is understandable, I didn't think I'd see Idiocracy realized in my lifetime either.

Such optimism

 

[Foxi4]

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

Calling a rapist a rapist isn't defamation, a judge knows petty semantics when he hears them. Trump did defame Carroll on TV though, which is why he's facing a lawsuit for that, too.

You can’t call him a convicted rapist found guilty in a court of law when he isn’t one - that’s defamation. He hasn’t been convicted or found guilty of a crime. I’ve read the article you’re linking, have you? Not once does the judge say that Trump’s been convicted of rape or is guilty of rape, only the author does. He says that it was found that he raped her, with a big asterisk. Let’s read what you’re actually linking.

”The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ (…) Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

Is he a convicted rapist found guilty in the court of law or not? Because if he’s not, and he’s not because you cannot produce a guilty verdict or a conviction, then calling him one is in fact defamation, even if he actually did something untoward to the woman. This is not about what people “commonly understand as rape”, when you’re saying “guilty of” or “convicted of”, it’s about the law. You can call him all sorts of things in common parlance if you really want to, but he wasn’t found guilty nor was he convicted, he was only found liable in a case involving sexual abuse. This makes @Hanafuda correct and you two wrong. If he was found guilty of rape and was convicted of rape, which is a class B felony in NY, he’d be spending a mandatory minimum of 5 years in prison, up to 25 years, as per the NY Penal Law § 130.35. It wouldn’t be a civil suit and he’d be in prison right now.

As a side note, what happened to Bezos owning the Washington Post and thus making the source unreliable? Are we trusting it selectively now, or are you acting hypocritically and hoping I won’t notice? Or maybe the bias only apply to the business and finance section of the publication, and the rest of it is in the clear somehow? Is there some kind of mechanism that’ll tell us which WaPo articles are to be believed and which ones we should dismiss?

For the record, I don’t purport to know (or care) what Trump and Carroll were up to more than 30 years ago. Once again, I care about the truth, and calling Trump guilty or convicted is, simply put, not true. He might be “guilty” in common parlance, because the jury believes that the evidence strongly suggests he did what he was accused of, but it hasn’t been proven in a criminal trial at all - it was a civil suit. He wasn’t found guilty of or convicted for the crime as those were not criminal proceedings, and claiming otherwise is erroneous.

 

[RetroGen]

One has to wonder what motivates all of the effort put into apologetics for such an obviously pathological, criminal, individual. The pursuit of truth angle rings incredibly hollow, considering Trump's extremely loose connection with truth. Why act as an apologist, supposedly in service of the truth, for such a demonstrably untruthful individual?

Yes, it is true. Trump has not been convicted of rape, strictly speaking, only found legally responsible for sexually abusive actions that most people would consider a form of rape. So, a clear win on semantics there. Would love to see how far a defamation case would go against anyone who calls him a convicted rapist... or if it would get laughed out of court. And if the truth is so important, why not do a similarly thorough job at vetting Trump's thousands of false/misleading statements, just to convince others of such obviously altruistic motivation.

 

[Foxi4]

One has to wonder what motivates all of the effort put into apologetics for such an obviously pathological, criminal, individual. The pursuit of truth angle rings incredibly hollow, considering Trump's extremely loose connection with truth. Why act as an apologist, supposedly in service of the truth, for such a demonstrably untruthful individual?

Yes, it is true. Trump has not been convicted of rape, strictly speaking, only found legally responsible for sexually abusive actions that most people would consider a form of rape. So, a clear win on semantics there. Would love to see how far a defamation case would go against anyone who calls him a convicted rapist... or if it would get laughed out of court. And if the truth is so important, why not do a similarly thorough job at vetting Trump's thousands of false/misleading statements, just to convince others of such obviously altruistic motivation.

It likely wouldn’t go anywhere, which doesn’t make it not defamation. That being said, truth is the ultimate piece of evidence in regards to libel and slander - if you’re spreading a rumour that a person is guilty of and has been convicted of a crime, all the other party has to do is produce evidence that they weren’t. The difficulties start when anti-SLAPP measures come into play. Trump is a public figure, for starters - he’s not protected to the same extent as a regular person is. Secondly, you could produce this verdict and feign ignorance saying that you were talking in layman’s terms, and as someone who’s not a lawyer, you use them in a more colloquial manner - this defense is very weak, but might convince some jurors, or colour their judgement at least. Not only that, the claim of not understanding the terms you were using is only valid if nobody corrected you before. Lastly, the person you’ve defamed would have to demonstrate damages in relation to the defamation, which would be very difficult to do in this case. They’d have to be linked to your statement specifically, and translate to some monetary value. Most defamation cases without provable monetary damages are thrown straight in the bin as frivolous - what are you pursuing, an apology and a handshake? That does happen sometimes, sure, but is broadly considered to be a waste of time for both parties involved. Normally only cases involving defamation per se, something that demonstrably damages someone’s public image de facto (like an accusation of a crime) proceed as normal. It’s hard to gauge whether Trump’s public image *could* be damaged in relation to this event any further, and I have seen cases dismissed for that reason alone. If everyone already believes you’ve done something, your case is significantly weakened. The reasoning here is that you haven’t acted before, so if you’re acting now and in regards to a specific person, there could be some kind of ulterior motive involved. You’d have a myriad of ways in which you could defend yourself, and the suit would most likely be dismissed. You’d still be in the wrong though, as I’ve shown above, you just wouldn’t be held liable.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Donald Trump is a rapist. This is a fact and you need to dealt with that.

Anyone who supports him after this is an objectively terrible and/or stupid individual.

Post automatically merged: Aug 25, 2023

For the record, I don’t purport to know (or care) what Trump and Carroll were up to more than 30 years ago.

This is a mod of the GBA temp team. What a frankly disgusting and horrible take on sexual assault.

 

[Foxi4]

This is a mod of the GBA temp team. What a frankly disgusting and horrible take on sexual assault.

I don’t know if it’s disgusting or not, I know Donald Trump was not found guilty in a court of law or convicted of rape though. I’m stepping in here for the same reason why I was stepping in for Biden when everybody kept calling him a child molester on the forums - if there’s no guilty verdict, it’s conjecture at best and defamation at worst.

 

[SeltzerMist]

I don’t know if it’s disgusting or not

What the fuck is wrong with you

 

[RetroGen]

Donald Trump is a rapist. This is a fact and you need to dealt with that.

Anyone who supports him after this is an objectively terrible and/or stupid individual.

Post automatically merged: Aug 25, 2023

This is a mod of the GBA temp team. What a frankly disgusting and horrible take on sexual assault.

Let's see how a rightwing apologist "charitably" interprets these direct quotes from the sexual-offender-in-chief's mouth. Consent is irrelevant for Trump, and also apparently so for his troglodyte acolytes. One thing we know with absolute Trumpian certainty is that Trump never gave any suggestion of any willful intent to sexually assault anyone (unless proven in a court of law):

Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."
Bush: "Whatever you want."
Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

 

[SeltzerMist]

Let's see how a rightwing apologist "charitably" interprets these direct quotes from the sexual-offender-in-chief's mouth. Consent is irrelevant for Trump, and also apparently so for his troglodyte acolytes. One thing we know with absolute Trumpian certainty is that Trump never gave any suggestion of any willful intent to sexually assault anyone (unless proven in a court of law):

Trump: "Yeah that's her with the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."
Bush: "Whatever you want."
Trump: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

The face of the party of family values

 

[Foxi4]

What the fuck is wrong with you

I’m not the one going on an Internet forum posting false information, I’m just correcting it. I wasn’t there, I can’t say if he’s guilty of any criminal wrong-doing or not, I only know that he was found liable and has to pay damages.

 

[SeltzerMist]

I’m not the one going on an Internet forum posting false information, I’m just correcting it. I wasn’t there, I can’t say if he’s guilty of any criminal wrong-doing or not, I only know that he was found liable and has to pay damages.

Corrects "false information" yet continues to carry water for rapist Donald Trump