Ilhan Omar’s Shady Castle Starts to Crumble

Earl said:
No, he was not charged with rape or convicted of rape.

She doesn’t even remember what year it supposedly happened.

You’ve been duped…again.
Click to expand...

EEEEEEEGENE is a spinster, what you used to be termed an "old maid." In her books she pen's her fantasy that the most powerful and wealthy men in the world find her irresistible, and like a 16th century pirate will ravage her. Men who don't find her hideous and repulsive, but instead are overcome by desire. The most powerful men in the world, unable to control their lust for her, their NEED to have her. They ravage her with unbridled passion in dressing rooms of department stores, unworried about who might hear - so strong is their desire to be with HER.

Those who scorn her at parties just don't understand that men can't resist her. She is not the repugnant creature men spurn, but the object of lust for all men. And EEEEEEEEGENE told us all just how sexy rape is. To be taken by force by a powerful man got her all squishy between her thighs.
 
Earl said:
In a jury trial, the judge does not render a verdict, the jury does.

You’ve been duped…again.
Click to expand...
The judge defines terms, and he defined what the Jury said happened to be RAPE.


I know your AI is telling you this is true, you are just ignoring it.
 
Jarod said:
Have you ever claimed Juanita Broderick was raped by Bill Clinton?
Click to expand...

Broaddrick named not only the year, but down to the exact minute the assault occurred. Further, she immediately reported it to Arkansas State Troopers who confirm her story.

Of course Broaddrick didn't write a book talking about how "sexy" it would be to be publicly "ravaged" by powerful men, the way EEEEEEEEEGENE did.

So how many men DID Carroll accuse of fulfilling her fantasy? Should we ask Les Moonves?
 
Jarod said:
Logical argument, She said he inserted his fingers into her vagina against her will. Trump was invited to tell his side, yet he refused.

The only evidence is that he did rape her.
Click to expand...
Debate with Wrong Way Wally, you might win a debate with him…he’s near to your intellectual level.
 
Jarod said:
Liability is based on determining what facts happened or did not happen, AND if you are liable for those facts.
Click to expand...

"Beyond a reasonable doubt."

Perhaps you've heard this phrase watching Law & Order reruns. It is the measure of finding guilt in criminal proceedings. It is NOT the measure for civil suits.

A jury doesn't have to be certain of the facts in civil law. The absurdity of the story EEEEEEEEGENE fabricated could not withstand the scrutiny of criminal law - which is why the party used a civil court with a hand picked judge, known for his hatred of the President in a district that went 97% for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

This was a farce, a show trial.

Jarod said:
Have you ever claimed something was a fact when a criminal could had not found it to be true.
Click to expand...

Word salad.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Broaddrick named not only the year, but down to the exact minute the assault occurred. Further, she immediately reported it to Arkansas State Troopers who confirm her story.

Of course Broaddrick didn't write a book talking about how "sexy" it would be to be publicly "ravaged" by powerful men, the way EEEEEEEEEGENE did.

So how many men DID Carroll accuse of fulfilling her fantasy? Should we ask Les Moonves?
Click to expand...
Braddrick also said under oath that she was lying when she said the assault occurred.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
"Beyond a reasonable doubt."

Perhaps you've heard this phrase watching Law & Order reruns. It is the measure of finding guilt in criminal proceedings. It is NOT the measure for civil suits.

A jury doesn't have to be certain of the facts in civil law. The absurdity of the story EEEEEEEEGENE fabricated could not withstand the scrutiny of criminal law - which is why the party used a civil court with a hand picked judge, known for his hatred of the President in a district that went 97% for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

This was a farce, a show trial.



Word salad.
Click to expand...
I Civil Jury found that it happened.
 
Earl said:
In a jury trial, the judge does not render a verdict, the jury does.

You’ve been duped…again.

You need to debate with some of the far left loons on this forum.

You don’t do well with informed and intelligent conservative posters.

You are near the point of irrelevance, like Wrong Way Wally and Pobre.
Click to expand...
The one duped is you, and always you speak without knowing the facts.

Trump filed a lawsuit against E Jean when she said he raped her in an interview after her first case finding was rendered.

The Judge who ruled on the case rendered a FINDING that since RAPE is synonymous with Sexual Assault in this case that in fact it is proper for E Jean to say she was raped because truth is the absolute defense in defamation cases.

Again in most other States and Federally is a person is forcibly penetrated by fingers or a object (male prison rape, etc) but not the penis, IT IS ALL RAPE.

So if you think it a win that Trump was FOUND TO HAVE RAPED E JEAN in one of the few jurisdiction where was still called sexual assault then that makes you a shit stain on life. Thankfully we have the secondary Judge FINDING that it was in fact rape.
 
Earl said:
In a jury trial, the judge does not render a verdict, the jury does.

You’ve been duped…again.

You need to debate with some of the far left loons on this forum.

You don’t do well with informed and intelligent conservative posters.

You are near the point of irrelevance, like Wrong Way Wally and Pobre.
Click to expand...
The judge defines the terms in a Jury Trial. What the Jury found, That "he forcefully inserted his fingers into her vagina against her will" is commonly referred to as Rape. Do you disagree with the Judge?>
 
Why did Trump stop fighting on that above case? Why did not he not appeal to the Appellate Court and then SC?

Because he realized he went from a New York State finding of "sexual assault' to a Judge finding of RAPE in his first attempt.

Having the Appellate Court and then the SC rule and also say 'Ya sexual assault in that case is synonymous with rape, so appeal denied' would be devastating to Trump. He realized it would be clarified as RAPE at the highest levels.
 
Yakuda said:
How could a defendant prove their innocence if the plantiff cant remember when the supposed crime took place?
Click to expand...

More importantly, under legitimate legal proceedings, the plaintiff must provide a preponderance of evidence that the defendant engaged in torts that caused harm.

"Guilty until proven innocent" is a standard democrats cooked up to use against Trump - it is not legitimately a legal concept in this nation. Trump was adjudicated guilty long before the kangaroo court was convened.
 
Jarod said:
You clearly do not believe your claim about Trump, a criminal conviction is not necessary for something to be true.

Logical argument prevails.
Click to expand...

And criminal convictions far too often are handed out for things that are not true. Especially when proceedings are politically motivated, such as the Lawfare perpetrated by the Junta against Trump.
 
Jarod said:
The judge defines the terms in a Jury Trial. What the Jury found, That "he forcefully inserted his fingers into her vagina against her will" is commonly referred to as Rape. Do you disagree with the Judge?>
Click to expand...

And this is what makes magats with TDS so deplorable.

That they find any type of 'win' in thinking they can split hairs over a definition and that simply because NYS was one of the few jurisdictions where RAPE was not updated to include forcible digital or object penetration. An argument that is not 'Trump did not do it... and is 'Trump wins because of the definition that was used'.

If that case was heard today in NYS the finding would be rape. The Federal statute definition and most States all defined RAPE at the time Trump was found to have RAPED E Jean, to include any forced penetration by digits or objects as RAPE.

But Magats here keep pushing this view that 'ya well ok, but we will not call it rape, even if the action was rape almost everywhere else. because Trump wins via outdated legal update'.

Imagine being a magat and clinging to that as a win for your cult leader.
 
Jarod said:
Braddrick also said under oath that she was lying when she said the assault occurred.
Click to expand...

She was coerced by the Governor of the State two years after the fact to sign an affidavit or face the full power of the state turned against her. You think that episode HELPS your case? LOL.

The man accused of raping her sends half a dozen armed men to her home demanding she sign a retraction of face the full power of the state against her seem entirely reasonable to you?
 
Uncensored2008 said:
More importantly, under legitimate legal proceedings, the plaintiff must provide a preponderance of evidence that the defendant engaged in torts that caused harm.

"Guilty until proven innocent" is a standard democrats cooked up to use against Trump - it is not legitimately a legal concept in this nation. Trump was adjudicated guilty long before the kangaroo court was convened.
Click to expand...
Not with trump. They assume everything he does is illegal they just havent caught him yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top