LOL - the fact she failed to prove she was ***** in the legal sense doesn't mean she wasn't ***** - that's pure awesome. I might even entertain the judge's reasoning, except he's a judge rendering an opinion on a legal case, not some civilian out there opinning about difference between "legal ****" vs "common knowledge ****." Let's keep in mind we're literally talking about a women who is clearly mental and can't even testify as to what she was penetrated with. Let's keep in mind that way this judge "decided" Trump was guilty of **** was to literally discard the legal definition of ****. This is right up there with there are no pipes "in" my walls.
I do think it's telling that no major news outlet is willing to side with the Judge on this one, except for ABC, who is now paying TrumpCo $16m for claiming Trump was liable for ****.
I get it, Jimi. You don't agree with the decision.
But this discussion isn't about what people believe, feel, or opine. It's about the legal decision on paper.
I feel a speed limit of 45MPH on a 4-lane roadway is ridiculous. I believe a ticket issued to someone for doing 50MPH on that roadways is similarly ridiculous.
But my opinion or beliefs on either topic don't change the laws on record. They do no change the issuance of the ticket. They would not change the judge's decision if the ticket was fought in court and upheld.
They are simply my opinions, of value to me and me only.
If we want to discuss opinions of the case/s and the decisions reached in them, we can certainly do that.
But, this is not about opinion.
If you look back at the post history, I said Trump is a ******. Spokey challenged that statement, and asked me for proof. I assume so he could tell me that I am not allowed to call Trump a ****** without proof. The proof I offered is the hearing decision in which it confirms that he is indeed a ******.
He has argued against it, but has not been able to show that the decision was changed in ANY way. Given that fact, there is no reason I should not be able to repeat what is on record in a court hearing decision, regardless of what anyone's personal opinion is on the matter.
Again, those opinions mean fuckall in the context of the existence of the case decision. It exists, unchanged.
As for the "mental" part, she testified for over a day and a half, was extensively cross-examined, had witnesses and people testify that she told them immediately after it happened. Sure, they could have been coached to say the right things. So could Trump. It's a two-way street.
Trump's defense statement to the public was that he never met her, and that she was not his type. He never even denied the ****.
As for that trial, he never testified, and his defense called no witnesses. They rested simply on his deposition. Were they afraid to let him speak? Did they think his deposition was persuasive enough? Who knows.
Maybe if Trump's defense was stronger, he would have prevailed.
But he didn't.
And the decision of this particular hearing remains intact.
And I just saw that Thx is STILL defending his claim that bones do not have nerves in them, by claiming that "walls" are not really "walls".
I guess he's never seen hollow-core cinder blocks that are stacked up with rebar running through the core and into the ground to stabilize. I guess that rebar would not be "in" the wall, since it is not "attached", just like he is not "in" his car, since he is not "attached" to it.
The great wall of China is not really a "wall", since it has two distinct sides and the interior is filled with earth and other materials. Of course, that stuff is not "in" the wall, it's just "
passing through". For the past 3,000 years.
I wonder when it will all will get to where it's going?
This guy is fekking hilarious.
abcnews.go.com
nypost.com
