Trump does not answer questions. He goes off on tangents finishing with name calling and insults.He is the farthest from presidential than we have ever had to endure.
Moral Question after Latest Bombshell - Support Platner or Not?
- Thread starter LurchAddams
- Start date
Poor lonely incel is bombing JPP.
I know better than to wait for you, lurch.
1) A kangaroo court was held, and all of Trump's testimony was limited to yes and no answers.
2) What evidence, QPI?
- Can you tell me what year it happened?
- Who saw anything in that dept store?
- Who heard anything in that dept store?
- Did she visit the police?
- Did she visit a hospital?
And do you even know her OWN story, QPI? I read herbook excerpt. Did you? Here are the Coles Notes:
- They met outside Bergdorf's "in the winter of the end 1995 or the beginning of '96". But she was wearing 4" stilettos and a miniskirt.
- She asked if he was the real estate guy, he asked if she was the advice columnist
- Soon after they entered the dept store together, he asked her to model some lingerie that he was intending to buy for a GF
- She didn't reply in the affirmative, but eventually they found something and she went into the changeroom
- By her own words "he closed the door behind him". Not, "he came in uninvited", or "barged in", or "pushed his way in". By her own wording of the story he simply came in and closed the door behind him.
- At ^that point^, the deal appeared to be "I will take off my clothes with you here, and put on this lingerie"
- but, by her words: "he pushed me against the wall and kissed me, and I giggled". Now, at this point, she had allowed him into the changeroom to strip and then put on lingerie, so a bit of slap and tickle doesn't seem the least bit unwarranted... They were HEAVILY involved in sexual playtime by then.
- After the kiss-giggle, she says "you'll find this next part hard to believe, but he put [an unspecified number of] his fingers inside of me and I giggled again". HER. OWN. WORDS. Not only is there no mention of any form of struggle, just note that it is NOT easy to put your fingers into the cooter of a girl who is standing in front of you. In fact, it's a very involved and intentional process on his part, and not all that quick. It happened in much longer than it took for one quick kiss, and that action requires at least some effort on her part to make it work. It's not like she had eight children and you could throw a smokey into it from across the room... If her legs were together, or she resisted even slightly, it would have taken a very mentionable struggle, not just "he put them in and I giggled". You understand that his fingers did NOT just 'get there', right? He had to go under the skirt, move her panties over or pull them down, and then go up and in. It's impossible for that to be a struggle-free process unless the woman is very amenable to it. And it doesn't really work "dry". Yet she mentioned no struggle.
- Then she said that she wasn't sure if his penis went in. Those are her own words. Guess what QPI: it is impossible to get it into a woman who is standing in front of you without her full support. 100% impossible. Either she was actively participating, even if that was through some kind of force or coercion, or it never went in, period, and she would know that. So how could she not know? But she never mentioned any force or coercion in her book. Just "it might have been in there." Her story a) doesn't describe a r4p and B) is stupid.
- Bottom line: at the point where she gave her very first verbal or physical signal that she didn't want to go any further, that small woman, in 4" stiletto heels, pushed him off with one arm and left. Again, no "struggle" was mentioned in her book. She pushed him with one arm and left. No one in the store heard it. All of that happened quietly.
- "Implied Consent is an agreement inferred from a person's actions, inaction, or surrounding circumstances rather than explicitly stated. It functions on the premise that a reasonable person would interpret the situation as consent."
EJ Caroll was NOT r4ped, of that there is no question. And FYI there would never be a criminal of an incident from "an unspecified year".
Go read her book excerpt (not someone else's interpretation of it) and tell me where you think my story parted from her own version of the truth, QPI.
QP!
Verified User
i can tell you something far more important.
A jury sat and assessed all of this and Trump and his lawyers made all the arguments you say above and that jury found Trump did it and was liable.
Ergo Trump is a adjudicated RAPIST and nothing you say changes that.
Although to nitpick you can say the jury was unable to distinguish if the forcible penetration by Trump was his finger or something else and not his penis so the legal distinction is 'sexual assualt' and not 'rape' in NYS at that time. It is rape almost everywhere else and federally and a judge later clarified and ruled when Trump tried to sue E Jean for defamation that "sexual assault = rape" in this instance and there is no real difference between them.
So if you think that is a win you can have that one.
Wrong.
You can tell me what you want to believe, but you can't discuss the facts of her case because you're dumb and afraid.
Let's just focus on "when did it happen?"
There's a big difference between "late 1995 and early 1996", and it's basically impossible to have no recollection of that.
Did it happen before Christmas? Not only is that an easy thing to recollect, it would also be really easy to remember "Christmas, a couple weeks after I got rpd."
Did it happen between Christmas and New Year's Eve? Again, an easy thing to recollect... it would be really easy to remember "getting rpd between Christmas and New Year's."
So maybe early '96 makes more sense.... But then he was buying a gift...
The thing about making a r4p accusation with a specific date is that it's really dangerous, because someone might have been in a different city, state, or even country at that time, and have proof of it. Especially a public figure like Trump. But "one of these two years" is almost impossible to disprove.
Did you r4p E J Caroll in 2015 or 2016? What if she accuses you? Are you automatically guilty at that point?
Gaslighting may go away.
QP!
Verified User
Except it is not what i "want to believe" and is the FACT of the case.
The jury sat through all the arguments. You are not making any arguments Trumps lawyers did not make or consider that were viable to the case.
The jury made a find Trump did rape her and the best you can say is 'nuh huh, due to the weird way NYS defined rape and sexual assault and since the jury was not sure if Trump used his finger, penis or other when he FORCIBLY penetrated E Jean, they had to call it "sexual assault"... so if you think that is some form of win' for Trump you be you boo.
Trump raped her in the EXACT way he admitted in an interview was his normal way to rape women who were his type by "Grabbing her by the pussy".
SHOCK, i know. The guy who admits to grabbing women by the pussy without their consent magically gets accused of grabbing a woman by her pussy without her consent, and a jury examines the case and finds he did it.
Oh well. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
There were no "arguments", QPI.
Trump said that there was no such encounter, that was his whole argument, and she provided absolutely no evidence of an encounter.
She also couldn't venture to name a date or even a year that it allegedly happened... she just told a story, and her friends said that she told them the same story. That was the entirety of the evidence that the court accepted from her. She tried to provide a dress, but listen to this:
- The dress was not presented as physical evidence during the trials. DNA testing conducted on the garment found traces of male DNA, but it was a mixture of genetic material from multiple individuals
LMAO. Remember when I said it was a mutually sleazy encounter?
Remember when I wondered what kind of woman would be walking around in NY in wintertime in 4" stillettos and a skirt?
And like I told you earlier: her own book excerpt described a mutually sleazy encounter, not a r4p. Go find the excerpt from her book and see for yourself.
- She provided no objection to him coming into the changeroom, where she was going to undress and then model lingerie for him, then he pushed her against the wall and kissed her and she giggled, he stuck an undisclosed number of fingers in her snatch and she giggled, then he may or may not have put his dick in her, she pushed him with one arm and left. Not a r4p.
If your wife did all that, would you say that she was r4pd? Would you say "that guy did that to her!"? Or would you say: "It seems like she went in there expecting a sexual encounter?
If Trump was a black guy who worked at a local garage there would never have been a r4p trial, or if there was, there would be 5,000 leftists protesting outside.
Just remember that Jaunita Broaderick named the hour of the day and the hotel room where Bill Clinton r4pd her, which coincided with a blank space where he was without his secret service guards on his itinerary for that day, she showed evidence of physical abuse to her friend, there was a recording of a call that she made to report it, and leftists insist that she was never rpd.
The level of evidence against Bill Clinton was more than enough to get an actual criminal trial started. No judge would have ever allowed a criminal r4p case to brought against a defendant when the accuser couldn't even guess what year it happened.
QP!
Verified User
ahahahahahaha,
So you believe the guy who has said for so long that he would never have done that to E Jean as she was "not his type", and then in deposition for the case sees a picture of E Jean and immediately says "that is Marla" his ex wife, and his best looking of all his wives, WHO WAS HIS TYPE.
Do you understand when you argue you did not 'do the thing' because 'she is not my type' you are tacitly admitting that if she was your type you might do that thing?
And YES there were arguments in the court. Lots of them by Trump and his lawyers. There is a full court transcript you can google to help your with your TDS that makes you deny FACT and REALITY for when you cannot cope with Trump being FOUND to have raped E Jean.
That's the reaction that a lot of leftards have to facts, and by "a lot of" I mean all.
It's not about "believing one person over the other", it's about the accuser proving her case.
That's it. She needs to have some sort of compelling evidence, and her story - which is all about implied consent and never about "running a stop sign" - starts out with "my friend told me that my story constitutes a r4p" is not compelling. Here's the thing about r4p victims: they all know that they were r4pd. No one has to tell them, just like no one should have had to tell Karmelo Anthony if his stabbing constituted self-defence. If it was, he would have known.
Do you understand that:
- that is flawed logic
- you're using the word "because" incorrectly to be misleading. And FYI "misleading" someone is lying. Heres the quote you worthless piece of dogshit: ""I'll say it with great respect: Number one, she's not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?" That's nothing like "The only reason that I didn't do it is because she's not my type", which is what you said right there.
You're talking about "he said, she said", 100 times.
On one side of the argument was "There was no such interaction at all, ever", and on the other side was:
- Caroll: "I told my friends a story about something that happened in 1995 or 1996. Maybe before Christmas, maybe between Christmas and New Year's, maybe after New Year's. Who would remember such a thing? And when I told one of my friends, she said "that might have been a r4p". I never thought of it like that until she said it."
- Caroll's friends: "She told me that story"
EJ Caroll is just an alleged witness who can only guess what year she was allegedly r4pd, and her friends are just people regurgitating the story of an alleged witness. Why don't her friends know? If she has so many witnesses, why don't any of them remember if she was r4pd before or after Christmas? New Year's? Because it's bullshit.
FYI that level of certainty is not determined in a civil suit, idjit, even with a legitimate, impartial judge and jury.
The standard that is met in civil cases is "the balance of probabilities", so basically 51% chance.
You could legitimately say that: "a very biased court, comprised of a Democrat judge and a jury chosen from a region where 87% of voters are Demonrats, found that Trump is at least 51% likely to have r4pd Caroll."
But for you to say that "Trump r4pd caroll" is a lie, because that has never been determined.
QP!
Verified User
Agreed.
And the ones to determine that are the Jury of her and Trump's peers. Not me and certainly not you.
We can both piss in the wind saying any jury is wrong, but they sat in the room and Trump and his lawyer had every chance to make the case you think you make better now. The jury heard it and they failed. The jury found he did do it.
They found Trump to BE A RAPIST.
Just as other Juries have found him and his family members and various Trump orgs from his Charities, to his University to his core business and core employees ALL TO BE REGULARLY ENGAGING IN FRAUD.
So that you hand wave away Trumps life of RAPE and FRAUD saying you know better. no one cares that you are not convinced as that is not what matters.
What matters is Trump has been adjudicated, had the best defenses and yet is found ot have RAPED E Jean and committed numerous FRAUDS.
You're pretending to be accurate by limiting your post to a few cherry-picked facts, but what you're actually doing is stripping this subject of all of the key facts required to put it into proper focus.
IOW, you're just lying, by exaggerating the legitimacy of the trial.
- It wasn't really just "a jury" per se, it was "a jury selected from a region that has 87% Demonrat support, to make a decision against a Republican president, after seeing that president being called a Nazi for 10 years by Demonrat-run media outlets." To say that it was a highly partisan jury is an understatement. Netanyahu couldn't face a more biased jury in Gaza.
- the partisan jury listened to the accuser's allegations, with zero evidence provided, and some people who could offer nothing more than to repeat the accuser's story. A who theoretically "knew" about the incident, not even one of them could guess what year it allegedly occurred.
A highly partisan jury, from a courtroom that was presided over by a democrat judge, found Trump to be 51% or more likely to have committed a really low-level r4p, based on a story that didn't even describe an actual r4p.
That's not the same as "A jury found him to be a rapist", because your version of the story implies normal circumstances, and the circumstances were the exact opposite of normal. You could say, in all fairness, that the conditions that the trial was held in stretched the idea of credibility far beyond what's reasonable.
The jury ruled that he was 51% likely to have committed a low-lvl rape, but the jury and the trial in general were, by any reasonable assessment, 90% partisan.
Aside from the bogus nature of the trial itself: the decision of a jury in a civil suit does not determine "what actually happened". They can only determine what they feel is - 51% or more - likely to have happened.
QP!
Verified User
FALSE!
I am citing what MATTERS in our society.
You and i can look at and reassess 100 murder guilty verdicts and what DOES NOT MATTER is that i disagree with you or you disagree with me and whether we support the verdicts or not. We can both cherry pick or emphasize what we do and do not want to make our case.
What does matter is that Jury sat and listened to the best lawyers Trump could put in front of them and they still found that HE RAPED E JEAN.
You saying 'nuh huh... i don't agree' is you pissing in the wind, when you are the only one down wind. It only matters to you.
QP!
Verified User
What you are trying to argue here is that every single murder verdict and pedophilia verdict that was disputed by the defendent but they were found guilty by a jury is just opinion and has no value.
I disagree with you premise.
Do you think every single person in a prison for those charges who disputed the charges but was found guilty by a jury, should be released?
Tell me how you would justify keeping them in jail, if you find jury verdicts, which are determined by what they "feel" happened as explained to the them by opposing lawyers, to not be of any consequence.
No gas lighting there. Only fact.