Waltz family members are supporting Trump.

[Argentbear]

Did the jury accept or reject her rape claim?

it was never an option for the jury

Under New York criminal law, an assault constitutes "rape" only if it involves vaginal penetration by a penis. That was the definition the jury was instructed to use in the civil case.

 

[Pogo]

If they were recycling it wouldn't be in a landfill

Just think of the landfill as a giant biodigester. And yes it would be better to recycle them earlier in the stream but food contaminated paper doesn't recycle well,

 

[Argentbear]

If you didn't hate Trump so bad you might accept the truth.

"The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse."

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M

A jury has found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Jurors awarded her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House. The verdict was announced in a federal courtroom in New York City on...

apnews.com

The jury wasn't split. Read the transcripts if you were honest you would acknowledge that the accusation was digital rape but according to New York state law rape is specifically defines vaginal penetration by a penis. Trump raped her with his fingers and according to the law and the instructions by the judge the legal term had to be applied.

 

[We Never Know]

The jury wasn't split. Read the transcripts if you were honest you would acknowledge that the accusation was digital rape but according to New York state law rape is specifically defines vaginal penetration by a penis. Trump raped her with his fingers and according to the law and the instructions by the judge the legal term had to be applied.

What was Trump found liable for?
Be exact!

So he didn't use his penis?

So the I have his DNA on a dress claim was BS?

 

[We Never Know]

The jury wasn't split. Read the transcripts

I gave you a good link. Its up to you to refute it.
Your opinion doesn't refute it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was Trump found liable for?
Be exact!

So he didn't use his penis?

So the I have his DNA on a dress claim was BS?

He could have used his penis. After all you may have heard the exclamation of when a model of it was identified "It's a nubbbin!!" And just sticking it into a women does not mean that his DNA would be on her dress. It sounded as if it was extremely brief. He may not have finished. So the dress may have been saved for naught.

It still does not matter, in many states it still would be "rape". Even if it was just with her fingers.

You should cast yourself as the victim. Let's say for some odd reason Shaq cornered you and tuck something up your behind. You do not know what it was for sure. Would that give you any comfort?

 

[We Never Know]

He could have used his penis. After all you may have heard the exclamation of when a model of it was identified "It's a nubbbin!!" And just sticking it into a women does not mean that his DNA would be on her dress. It sounded as if it was extremely brief. He may not have finished. So the dress may have been saved for naught.

He could have...
He may not have...
The dress may have been...

All solid evidence lol

It still does not matter, in many states it still would be "rape". Even if it was just with her fingers.

You should cast yourself as the victim. Let's say for some odd reason Shaq cornered you and tuck something up your behind. You do not know what it was for sure. Would that give you any comfort?

Irrelevant. Do you have a fantasy of things being stuck in your butt?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He could have...
He may not have...
The dress may have been...

All solid evidence lol

Wow! The dress was not used because it was not evidence either way. Why is that so hard to understand?

Irrelevant. Do you have a fantasy of things being stuck in your butt?

It is very relevant. I tried to lower my explanation to a fifth grade level and it was still beyond your reasoning. That is amazing.

 

[We Never Know]

Wow! The dress was not used because it was not evidence either way. Why is that so hard to understand?

The dress wasn't used because its wasn't evidence as she claimed.

It is very relevant. I tried to lower my explanation to a fifth grade level and it was still beyond your reasoning. That is amazing.

Sorry. Didn't know your butt explorations went back to grade school. You should have spoken up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The dress wasn't used because its wasn't evidence as she claimed.

No, it just was not evidence. There is no need to add anything to that. Why do you keep focusing on the dress?

Sorry. Didn't know your butt explorations went back to grade school. You should have spoken up.

Yes, I guess that you are not even reasoning at that level. I should not have had to have used such a simplified explanation. I do not know how to explain it to a kindergarten student. Perhaps someone that has had children recently can help you out.

 

[McBell]

No, it just was not evidence. There is no need to add anything to that. Why do you keep focusing on the dress?

Yes, I guess that you are not even reasoning at that level. I should not have had to have used such a simplified explanation. I do not know how to explain it to a kindergarten student. Perhaps someone that has had children recently can help you out.

You can not explain something to someone who does not want an explanation.

 

[We Never Know]

No, it just was not evidence. There is no need to add anything to that. Why do you keep focusing on the dress?

Its relevant because she claimed it was.

Yes, I guess that you are not even reasoning at that level. I should not have had to have used such a simplified explanation. I do not know how to explain it to a kindergarten student. Perhaps someone that has had children recently can help you out.

Here's the deal sport.

I have never had anything stuck up my butt so its irrelevant for me to say what would etc if you had something stuck up your butt.

For some reason you find it relevant so I am guessing you are speaking from experience. But who knows.
Its not the first time you brought this up plus your times you brought up porn and masterbation.

Keep it to yourself.

 

[We Never Know]

You can not explain something to someone who does not want an explanation.

Did Carroll claim she has the dress with DNA evidence?

Yes or no?

Now fact is Trump first denied a DNA sample.
But then agreed saying they would provide a DNA sample if Carroll’s lawyers turned over the full DNA report on the dress.

That was denied.

The judge then noted that the report did not find evidence of sperm cells and that reopening the dispute would raise complications so both sides elected not to pursue it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Its relevant because she claimed it was.


Here's the deal sport.

I have never had anything stuck up my butt so its irrelevant for me to say what would etc if you had something stuck up your butt.

For some reason you find it relevant so I am guessing you are speaking from experience. But who knows.
Its not the first time you brought this up plus your times you brought up porn and masterbation.

Keep it to yourself.

LMAO!! Oh my, I touched a nerve. And yet you are still blind to how wrong what Trump tried to do is. Now I am wondering about you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did Carroll claim she has the dress with DNA evidence?

Yes or no?

Now fact is Trump first denied a DNA sample.
But then agreed saying they would provide a DNA sample if Carroll’s lawyers turned over the full DNA report on the dress.

That was denied.

The judge then noted that the report did not find evidence of sperm cells and that reopening the dispute would raise complications so both sides elected not to pursue it.

Yes, it w as a ridiculous demand on Trump's part. It was never even offered as evidence in the trial because Trump refused to supply a DNA. sample. By the time a judge ruled in Trump's favor it was too late anyway because the dress was analyzed and the stain on it had no sperm cells.

Judge rejects Trump DNA offer in E Jean Carroll rape defamation case

Lewis Kaplan says Trump has missed his chance to provide DNA sample to rebut allegations first made by Carroll in 2019 book

www.theguardian.com

So she never claimed the dress as evidence because of Trump's delays. Now this question cannot be raised in court, but if Trump was so sure of himself why did he oppose the DNA sample demand until after it was found that the dress had no male DNA?

 

[We Never Know]

Yes, it w as a ridiculous demand on Trump's part. It was never even offered as evidence in the trial because Trump refused to supply a DNA. sample. By the time a judge ruled in Trump's favor it was too late anyway because the dress was analyzed and the stain on it had no sperm cells.

Judge rejects Trump DNA offer in E Jean Carroll rape defamation case

Lewis Kaplan says Trump has missed his chance to provide DNA sample to rebut allegations first made by Carroll in 2019 book

www.theguardian.com

So she never claimed the dress as evidence because of Trump's delays. Now this question cannot be raised in court, but if Trump was so sure of himself why did he oppose the DNA sample demand until after it was found that the dress had no male DNA?

Yeah the DNA sample lasted for over 25 years but when Trump denied it, then agreed... The DNA sample had disappeared.

Do you really believe that ****?

 

[Copernicus]

So, why not start a new thread on the E. Jean Carroll rape and take all of this discussion there? This thread could then be devoted to discussing Walz and his nonsupportive relatives rather than what Trump loyalists would rather talk about instead of Walz and his relatives.

 

[We Never Know]

So, why not start a new thread on the E. Jean Carroll rape and take all of this discussion there? This thread could then be devoted to discussing Walz and his nonsupportive relatives rather than what Trump loyalists would rather talk about instead of Walz and his relatives.

Yeah its gets annoying doesnt it?

Going off topic happens in every thread by someone.
It used to **** me off but now I just go with the normal.

Too bad the mods(no offence) don't give a three strike rule.

Off topic comments get deletes up to three strikes then the poster is suspended for 24 hours.
Longer if repeated.

But I know the mods are really busy watching over all us crazies in this nut house and can't be every where at all times.

But it would be nice.

 

[We Never Know]

So, why not start a new thread on the E. Jean Carroll rape and take all of this discussion there? This thread could then be devoted to discussing Walz and his nonsupportive relatives rather than what Trump loyalists would rather talk about instead of Walz and his relatives.

For the record. If you look back at the 3rd post, it went off topic to Trump.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They rejected her claim because there wasn't evidence.

Does that mean she lied? Or could she have been telling the truth?

Trump was found liable. Does that mean he really did sexual assault her?

Only two people know the truth. Her and Trump.

In Danish a judge upon sentence will say - Thi kendes for ret - Thus known as (being) correct/right/true.
In the eyes of society this is for society the truth. That is know it works.
What you think, is irrelevant to this as it doesn't in effect render the verdict, the trial does.