ADVERTISEMENT

GOP's 2024 Frontrunner convicted of Sexual Abuse

KnighttimeJoe said:
Trump: "(I have) No idea who this woman is."
Click to expand...
Trump: "She's not my type." (he says regarding someone who's accused him of rape?)
Trump: "That's Marla" (mistakenly identifying a 1990s photo of the victim as his ex-wife.)
Trump: Doubling-down on his Access Hollywood "You can do anything you want when you're a star" quote in his trial testimony.
 
finding in a civil suit is not an conviction. That said if he did it I am glad he lost, If not hope he can win on appeal.
 
He's also a draft dodging piece of shit that makes fun of the military that he was too much of a little bitch to join.
 
goodknightfl said:
finding in a civil suit is not an conviction. That said if he did it I am glad he lost, If not hope he can win on appeal.
Click to expand...
Lol. He will appeal it. But a jury of his peers found that he assaulted her. And awarded the money. Not sure what grounds he would have for appeal but no doubt he will try to outlawyer her.
 
I expect you are right on the appeal. She lost on the rape charge but won on the sexually abused part. Still, it was not a conviction, He was indeed found liable. The standard of proof in a lawsuit is much lower than in a criminal court. If the event did indeed happen, I am glad he lost.
 
goodknightfl said:
I expect you are right on the appeal. She lost on the rape charge but won on the sexually abused part. Still, it was not a conviction, He was indeed found liable. The standard of proof in a lawsuit is much lower than in a criminal court. If the event did indeed happen, I am glad he lost.
Click to expand...
A jury when presented with the facts of the case concluded it happened. There is not really any basis to assume their conclusion invalid other than bias toward someone you have a need to defend based on voting interests.
 
hemightbejeremy said:
A jury when presented with the facts of the case concluded it happened. There is not really any basis to assume their conclusion invalid other than bias toward someone you have a need to defend based on voting interests.
Click to expand...
How can any competent lawyer defend this clown? He CONFESSED TO SEXUAL ASSAULT in his court deposition for crying out loud!

You'd THINK he'd be smart enough -- or his lawyer would be competent enough -- to steer clear of his taped Access Hollywood remarks about assaulting women and 'they let you get away with it.' But instead he doubles-down and said 'stars like him' have been able to do it for thousands of years "Fortunately" or unfortunately.

Posters here bag on Biden for his lack of mental acuity yet remain strangely silent about dumbsh*t remarks like this gem from Trump.
 
DaShuckster said:
How can any competent lawyer defend this clown? He CONFESSED TO SEXUAL ASSAULT in his court deposition for crying out loud!

You'd THINK he'd be smart enough -- or his lawyer would be competent enough -- to steer clear of his taped Access Hollywood remarks about assaulting women and 'they let you get away with it.' But instead he doubles-down and said 'stars like him' have been able to do it for thousands of years "Fortunately" or unfortunately.

Posters here bag on Biden for his lack of mental acuity yet remain strangely silent about dumbsh*t remarks like this gem from Trump.
Click to expand...
what makes you sure he can get competent attorneys? Did you miss the stop the steal litigation circus?
 
hemightbejeremy said:
A jury when presented with the facts of the case concluded it happened. There is not really any basis to assume their conclusion invalid other than bias toward someone you have a need to defend based on voting interests.
Click to expand...
I don't say it is invalid. just civil case simply say 51% likely it happened. I don't argue whether he mistreated her, Rich, powerful men have always used women for their pleasure, without consent. It is sad but true. I didn't argue whether he did it, simply stated libel case is not the same as criminal case. The burden of proof is much higher for criminal case. I said in a manner that I thought was clear that a civil case and a conviction are 2 different animals.

OJ won against criminal act of murder then lost in civil wrongful death case. It happens all the time.
 
goodknightfl said:
I didn't argue whether he did it, simply stated libel case is not the same as criminal case. The burden of proof is much higher for criminal case.
Click to expand...
Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd this was important to state after Trump's conviction...why exactly?

We seem to get a lot of comments around here that start with, "I'm no Trump supporter, but..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back