Rape Charges against Trump moving forward!

yep, lock her up, lock her up, said the party of the right

 

"""Marked classified" can be easily staged."" HHHMMMM.... you don't say

https://media.breitbart.com/media/2022/08/Trump-Documents-FBI-640x335.jpg

 

The title of your thread clearly says otherwise:

Rape Charges against Trump moving forward!

So as I stated originally...

 

But it is weeks before an election… these “gotcha” moments are to distract… we have become a society that is tried in the “court of public opinion”. Kavanaugh… select committee… etc.

 

The way I see it, even they win the case, $$. If they lose, the publicity brings a seat on *name one* talk shows, book deals, maybe even a movie deal. $$$.

How's Christine Ford Blasey doing these days?

 

Educate myself, eh?

Pop, I have to say that you just dug your own grave with this post of yours.

To begin with, the source you quote is Rumble, which is a media that is the most extreme right media one can find



https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rumble/

To finish it off, Patel is talking about the FBI and the Russian connection and none of it has to do with the Jan 6th investigation.

As such, you are just bringing stuff to the table to make your point and not interested in the truth.

 

Yes, E. Jean Carroll is moving forward with the accusation/charge that Trump raped her.

 

You do understand that this document is general in nature "declassified some materials" but it does not specifically quote what materials were declassified.

You document is from January 19, 2021 and yet on September 22, 2022 this came out from judge.

Appeals court to Trump: No, you didn’t actually declassify those documents, there’s no evidence

So tell me how can your document mean anything when an appeals court judge that is overseeing this situation states clearly that there is no evidence that these specific documents were declassified. I am certain that he got to see the document you provided.

Explain that to me!

 

The charge is defamation not rape

Edit: not even a charge really, just a claim

 

When someone at the FBI disagrees with a classification and thinks it should be changed. What do they do?

I’ll go ahead and answer that part for you. They appeal through the office of the president to the president for his final, conclusive and irrefutable declaration of whether or not it should be classified at the level which it is.

So my question to you is. When the president disagrees with the classification of a document that he doesn’t feel should be classified. To whom does he appeal?

 

You keying on that small detail is ridiculous. Bottom line is that Trump is only going to be liable for money and not criminal charges and that is totally clear. His reputation may suffer if he loses but he is not going to jail because of it. These details you are keying on are not important.

Geez!!!

 

I suggest you get a lawyers license and take this up with the judge(s) involved. Bottom line is that so far and from everything stated, Trump did not declassify the documents, no matter what you (or I) believe one way or the other.

 

That's a lot of bunk.
The title of your thread reads,
"Rape Charges against Trump moving forward!"

 

Right. It’s a defamation case. The DOJ attempted to have it moved Federal court substituting the Government as the defendant rather than Trump during his administration. That was rejected and appealed. The appeal accepted the argument but didn’t answer the “acting in a official capacity” issue. The Biden DOJ continued that argument and sought a dismissal. They didn’t get the dismissal and unfortunately Trump blew-up screwing up his defense: repeating the defamation as a private-citizen. Now he’s been deposed but to my knowledge has yet to turn over material sought in the suit.

I haven’t a clue where this goes from here.

 

Respectfully, the degree of difference between "Rape charges against Trump" and a civil suit for defamation (that will probably never go to trial) is more than mere small detail.

I was surprised they made him give a deposition. I will be even more surprised if this goes to trial.

 

Your fake media fact check site is a fake news site

Media Bias Fact Check Literally is a written opinion site by a man with a ""Communications Degree in college"" Dave Van Zandt


The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.

https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest


Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).

MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/


Media Bias Fact Check Is a Major SCAM to Silence the right

https://www.independentsentinel.com/media-bias-fact-checking-scam-silence-right/



Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).

We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?

https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html



Don't trust Fact checkers, especially not this one. It favors fake news on the left, and to true sites that are not on the mainstream media, it labels as conspiracy theory and junk pseudo science, when the truth is just the opposite. This website is as biased and as full of lies as you get.

https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mediabiasfactcheck.com


Conservatives have criticized the liberal "fact-checking" website for being subjective and often outright false.[19][20][21] On their "10 Best Fact Checking Sites," they list several objectively false and generally inaccurate left-wing "fact-checkers," including PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Fact Checker by the Washington Post.[22]

Media Bias Fact Check sources its information from the Anti-Defamation League and the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center in order to inaccurately label right-wing websites and organizations as "questionable" sources according to Robert Spencer, who wrote to Media Bias/Fact Check's editor describing the attacks on his website, Jihad Watch, as "pure libel," afterward claiming he received no response from the editor.[23]

https://conservapedia.com/Media_Bias_Fact_Check


Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.

https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/

Overall, such fallacious attacks on outsider-opinion represent an effort to strangle social discourse from the top down. In this writer’s opinion, sites like Media Bias Fact Check constitute a desperate retaliatory measure in the wake of the legacy media’s loss of collective attention, and seek to reinforce narrative control in the hands of organizations like the Atlantic Council while smearing reliable sources of scientific journalism like WikiLeaks.

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...ikileaks-supports-western-propaganda-machine/


If Media Bias Fact Check were to be given a rating, they would be “Left” with “Mixed” honesty. Interestingly enough, they don’t rate themselves. Not that it matters, they’d certainly put themselves squarely in the middle as “Least Biased” with “High” ratings for honesty, neither of which are even remotely true

https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/topic/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-just-dishonest

 

Prove the documents taken from Mar-a-Lago are not covered by this.... here is my proof, where is yours?

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...to-the-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.go...lated-fbis-crossfire-hurricane-investigation/

 

I already proved it. The appeals court on September 22 2022 has stated "officially" that there is no evidence to show that the documents were declassified. If you have this information, you do not think the judge was presented with it?

Hey, read the data and stop trying to interpret the information. The judge knows more than you do...................100% guaranteed!

 

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It was not something I knew and will make the proper adjustments and not use them in the future. That does not mean the Rumble is not mostly a fake news sources catering to the right. Below are four different sites, including Wikipedia and Pew Research that have found Rumble to be heavily pro-republican and giving false or misleading information.

As such, I will stand on my initial statement that this piece of news is biased to the right. In addition, the Patel story has been verified by many news sources as being about the Russia/Trump investigation and has nothing to do with the Jan 6th committee.

https://adfontesmedia.com/rumble-with-michael-moore-bias-and-reliability/

https://www.wired.com/story/rumble-sends-viewers-tumbling-toward-misinformation/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_(website)



The news consumers on these sites lean heavily Republican. A majority of those who get news from at least one of the seven alternative social media sites (66%) are Republican or lean Republican.

 

Except for one small detail and that is that Carroll is suing Trump for saying that he did not rape her and accuser her of telling lies. If she wins the defamation suit, it will mean that she did not lie, that her testimony about the rape probably occurred and that Trump lied about it.

So, yes, it is about the rape itself in that way.

 

This whole thing is just more of the same, another attempt to further smear Trump's name so that he might not win should he get the nomination in 2024.
Btw, I don't think a "defamation" suit by Carroll is going anywhere anyway.

Get used to it, I doubt we've seen nothing yet should Trump decide to run.... If Trump decides not to run again for the presidency, this and all the other partisan driven witch hunts go by the wayside, where they belong anyway.

 

Your fake fact checker site is fake... get over it.

 

So you are saying that we should believe Rumble, right?

 

One thing that everyone has be agree with. Never has there been any president (or person) with as many investigations, lawsuits and problems facing them than Trump.

Here is an article from Reuters:

Explainer: What legal woes does Trump face?

From Business insider

2022 is shaping up to be a legal nightmare for Trumpworld. Here's a timeline of upcoming court cases and legal obstacles.

From the Economist

How much legal jeopardy is Donald Trump in?

 

If you want to win ANY case against Trump.... just take it to New York.... nothing crooked about this bunch...

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan

Trump can't reveal a previous rape case verdict in the current case.
Donald Trump cannot argue to a jury assessing damages at the writer E. Jean Carroll's upcoming defamation trial that he did not rape her in the mid-1990s, based on another jury having found that he only sexually abused her. The judge said the jury's finding that Trump forcibly and without consent penetrated Carroll's vagina made her rape claim "substantially true under common modern parlance," even if it did not fit the definition of rape under New York law.

Carroll could not even give a date or time it even happened before in her tear jerking testimony...no witnesses... how would the accused build a defense with no time or date to work with...Trump maintains he did not know Carroll, 80, and that she concocted the rape claim to sell her book.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...1&cvid=6e93c1924f8745699fed32b616302dc6&ei=17