33% approval rating lmao. Turns out people don't like gas at $8/gallon, who would've thunk?
Didn't happen, is your source 4chan? And "nullifying his innocence" would translate to finding him guilty anyway.
You’re mixing up the Carroll civil suit with the New York financial records case. Trump was never convicted of any sex crimes in any court. Civil proceedings don’t end in a guilty verdict.
Yes, you keep saying this as if somehow it means that Trump did not rape her. It's a falsehood.
Remember, that's the revisionist saying that hitler was left wing because the party was called "national socialist" when hitler himself says he used the name to trick people in his Mein Kampf
Yes, that's how it works. Innocent until proven guilty. He was proven guilty, and the jury "nullified" his innocence.
At this point if people cant vote for politicians that properly represent them, why have a fucking government in the first place? The United States is done. Just shut this shit down and start fresh. 250 years of garbage. it's time for something new.
Yep, 100%.
The funny thing is that the snippet you provided proves two things - that Trump was never convicted of rape (because that’s not what civil court does, it establishes liability, and it has a far lower evidentiary standard compared to “beyond a shadow of doubt” used in criminal proceedings), it also proves that what was alleged didn’t classify as rape either per NY penal code. I’ll treat that as you posting an errata.
Treat it as whatever you want, your (involuntary?) attempt to be obtuse isn't fooling anybody since the judge says, in no uncertain terms, that Trump is a rapist. Putting to bed all your excuses. Unless you think to know more than the judge?
This distinction between sexual assault and rape is getting tired. You'd be equally enraged if someone took a family member into a changeroom and molested them vs stuck their dick in them. You can split hairs on how angry you'd be between the two, but it's completely missing the forest for the trees at that point.
It's a weak attempt to split hairs over a label when in reality it doesn't make any difference in real terms.
In other states, the charge would have been rape over sexual assault. But the usually suspects always love to "ackshully" this one.
And that's the problem. These people don't care about what happens to other people because it's not happening to them (or their loved ones and associates). But as we see time and time again in news, articles, etc, an increasing number of people who voted for Trump, thinking he was going to fix things because "he said so", are coming out now to cry about how he's made their lives worse. Like duh. We've known this even before his first term.
Except we don’t know if it happened at all since there is no guilty verdict. The matter was never prosecuted in a criminal court of law to establish, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the alleged crime happened as described. As for what “the judge is saying”, that’s an opinion. It has no bearing on whether Trump has been found guilty or not (he hasn’t). You confused two completely separate court cases, which is fine, human error.
I am not convinced that the two even met as described, or that the event ever happened. I see no concrete, indisputable material evidence that it did, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. What was presented in court may have been enough to convince a jury as far as civil liability is concerned (after all, it’s only money we’re talking about) but it would be completely insufficient in any kind of criminal proceeding, and it’s insufficient to me. As it stands, Trump hasn’t been found guilty of rape *or* sexual assault, so the distinction is indeed meaningless, especially to me since I don’t think it happened as described, if at all. I’m entitled to have a different opinion than the jury, especially when guilt is not established beyond reasonable doubt.
I only care about things that actually happened, not unproven allegations.
the only "human" error is yours, even if you sound like a NPC
