Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape

What crimes? Is locker room talk" a crime? You have to have a fair hearing and full due process to establish that crime has been committed.

Focus: "they let you..." Consensual sex is not a crime.

Keep working on it though.

 

Its personal because we're having a nice discussion and you want to insult my intelligence with amateurish attempts to deflect. Its rude dude. And if you're not lying that you've ALWAYS ONLY EVER asked directly for explicit consent for each act, then you should've simply said so. The fact you didn't when simply asked, had to be pressed, and now protest its all too personal, leads me to give you a low level of credibility in this answer.

I guess you've never been to a festival man. Maybe get out more? Maybe hit the gym? Maybe just understand that woman get a bit turned off by the whole ask for everything thing. They like a man who can read nonverbal cues and doesn't need to mother may I. That doesn't mean grope people willy nilly, that means understand that consent is not always "may I touch your puss puss" and "yes you may touch my puss puss". At times, especially with sluts who are cheating on their spouses as Trump is apparently discussing in that clip, there's not a lot of talking and romance. Its just animals rutting.
You've never had a girl give you a look at a party? Seriously? Dude even I experienced that and I'm no prize pig.


Snark doesn't make an argument, the points do that. The snark is for my own personal amusement, which is why I post in the first place. Deal with it.

I don't care what you think dude.

 

Rape and sexual assault are not legal. Can we agree on that?

Nothing Trump has said implies that he had prior consent.

He's had years to clarify his position on sexual assault. For example, he could clarify how he got prior consent - to rebut the far more obvious implication that he meant that the women didn't raise a stink after having been grabbed like that.

 

Not even a credible story. Could not even say when it happened.
Not even one corroborating witness even though corroborating witnesses seem to be a penny a peck these days.

It was an absurd political trial that will only serve to expand Trump's base of support.

 

See the thing here is she says she tried to stop him and he continued. That's sexual assault.

 

No clarification is needed. Just another empty election cycle smear that Americans have learned to dismiss.
The DP needs to find better advisors.

 

The jury found it credible, mostly because Trump wasn't present and wouldn't testify.
Not one character witness in his defense. Nor the bergdorf's custodian of records he says wrote him to inform him there was no footage. Or a manager at bergdorfs to testify "empty floor? At bergdorfs? In the 90's? During Business hours? Are you HIGH right now?" or "OPEN dressing room? That NEVER happened, simply not policy" etc etc etc etc etc.
Yet he had none such.
Dumb as ****.

 

So, how as the jury selected?

 

If I had a pretty girl pressed up against the door in the dressing room and she is "Amused and flirting" "laughing", Id take it as consent to move onto the next step.


"She testified that she suggested a hat, but he pivoted to lingerie, and soon they were bantering about the bodysuit. Amused and flirting with him, she went along, laughing even as he closed the door to the dressing room, perhaps even as he pushed her against a wall.

 

With the standard process. Are you raising some objection to the selection process? Did the defense attorney raise a timely and specific objection?

 

I'm not so sure that those who vote Republican are that ready to totally ignore sexual assault by candidates.

And, there is NO way to tie this to some political investigation.

The victim sued. The jury agreed that Trump sexually assaulted her.

 

She pushed him away as he tried to kiss her, and then he pulled her tights down and forcibly fingered her.
If your daughter flirted with a man who did that to her despite her drawing a line, would you kill him?

 

Well according to her he stuck his penis into her vagina. Jury didnt believe that part probably because they realize that a woman can simply rotate her hips and prevent penetration in the standing position.
Thats the internal inconsistency in this case. Trumps denial of her accusation isnt defamation if there wasnt penetration by penis, even if he did as the jury believes fingered her.

 

According to her she couldn't be sure there was penetration because he was so small. That was the report I heard on the radio at least.

Jury believed he forcibly fingered her though, and that's what they found.

Trump did more than deny a rape. He said she was 1) a liar when she had described the entire encounter including the assault that was found to have occurred 2) that it was a hoax; 3) that HED NEVER MET HER OR BEEN IN THE SAME ROOM WITH HER.
He can sure as **** get defamation for all that. And he did.


Further: I note you dodged my very simple question. If your daughter came to you and told you this had occurred, that she had flirted but told him no and he STILL forcibly fingerblasted her, are you saying you wouldn't consider that assault?

 

And they did not believe her accusation that he raped her.

And they didnt believe her accusation of rape, which would make her a liar. Truth is a defense to defamation.

Would seem the rape allegation was a hoax according to the jury. Cant defame someone with a false rape allegation, and then sue them for defamation when they defame you in response.

No, you asked if I would kill the guy in response to fingering my daughter. No I wouldnt. Certainly not 25 years after the fact. And I certainly wouldnt argue she is due $5 million 25 years after the fact. Stupid law in New York. Me too virtue signaling in the form of law.

 

Who wouldn't object to jury tampering by the minions of the state?

 

Better never set foot in Australia then.


https://wlsnsw.org.au/resources/sexual-assault/what-is-sexual-assault/

Unless the request is specifically answered by a “yes” then it can be classified as rape

 

No

There just was not sufficient evidence - there WAS, however sufficient evidence of sexual assault and that is as bad

 

No she couldn’t prove that part. They believed the assault because of his responses, note HIS responses to the “access Hollywood” tape. In short she did not win the lawsuit as much as he lost it.

 

"couldn't be sure" ???
Id say that makes her published allegation that Trump raped her, actionable defamation.

 

And that in and of itself is assault

Good Grief! Are you the same people screaming about how “dangerous” it is to have a trans woman in a toilet in case someone sees a *******?

 

It was an obvious political trial, and a very foolish dirty political trick that has helped Trump's campaign.
It has focused the public's attention back on DJT.

I assume you have seen what happens whenever the public's attention is focused on Trump.
If not, brace yourself and watch CNN's Town Hall with DJT and see for yourself.
Trump's best friends are the fools that hate him.

 

Depends on the definition. One of the more horrific serial killers used a branch of wood - could you say that was not rape?

 

You have ZERO evidence of this preposterous claim.

And, Trump spending 70 minutes lying his ass off is evidence only of his lack of any relationship to the truth.

 

LOL! The Court system in the US is a national disgrace. Surely you know that.
This kind of kangaroo justice is common now, and the public knows it.

Trump's base of support will expand as his enemies continue to discredit themselves. Watch CNN.
What folly!