On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff >> or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL definition of "rape" in New York State.
They DID find that Trump had assaulted Carroll and the judge noted that that assault met the ordinary definition of "rape".And the current legal definition as well.
On 6/14/2025 10:51 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said
they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future
plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter
made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow
LEGAL definition of "rape" in New York State.
If the trial were to be held today with the same jury and same evidence,
the jury *would* find that Trump raped Carroll. The law in New York has changed (for the better) since the trial.
And the current legal definition as well.
They DID find that Trump had assaulted Carroll and the judge noted
that that assault met the ordinary definition of "rape".
On 6/14/2025 10:51 AM, Alan wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff >> or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL definition of "rape" in New York State.
If the trial were to be held today with the same jury and same evidence, the jury *would* find that Trump raped Carroll. The law in New York has changed (for
the better) since the trial.
They DID find that Trump had assaulted Carroll and the judge noted that thatAnd the current legal definition as well.
assault met the ordinary definition of "rape".
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >>> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff >>> or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >>> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
They DID find that Trump had assaulted Carroll and the judge noted that
that assault met the ordinary definition of "rape".
The judge's statement was both improper and irrelevant to the case
On 15 Jun 2025, Dutch <no@email.com> posted some news:tBF3Q.1662112$%pKb.1316088@fx14.iad:No, Blowjob, it did not. The civil Carroll case did not "ignore criminal courts and make findings about criminal findings."
On 6/15/2025 6:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:45:10 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and
said they would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the >>>>>>> verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump >>>>>>> lewdly spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant >>>>>>> context in relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as
"propensity evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, >>>>>>> the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future >>>>>>> plaintiff or the government will be able to introduce evidence of >>>>>>> prior conduct in which a defendant went on a mundane outing and
sometime thereafter made a sexual advance," they wrote in their
dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow >>>>>> LEGAL definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed
sexual assault.
The idea that civil courts can ignore criminal courts and make
findings about criminal findings
That did not happen.
Yes it did.
On 15 Jun 2025, Chris Voigtlander <jacque.idiot.pal@number.2> posted
some news:n%J3Q.195187$IJr4.47352@fx47.iad:
[Nazi filth newsgroups alt.politics.trump and alt.politics.republicans
removed]
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his tell. What a fucking idiot!
On 6/15/2025 1:34 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 15 Jun 2025, Dutch <no@email.com> posted someand make findings about criminal findings."
news:tBF3Q.1662112$%pKb.1316088@fx14.iad:
On 6/15/2025 6:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:45:10 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and >>>>>>>>> said they would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered >>>>>>>>> the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which
Trump lewdly spoke about making passes at women, did not offer >>>>>>>>> relevant context in relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape
functioned as "propensity evidence," which is typically
inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a
future plaintiff or the government will be able to introduce >>>>>>>>> evidence of prior conduct in which a defendant went on a
mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a sexual advance," >>>>>>>>> they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the
narrow LEGAL definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed
sexual assault.
The idea that civil courts can ignore criminal courts and make
findings about criminal findings
That did not happen.
Yes it did.
No, Blowjob, it did not. The civil Carroll case did not "ignore criminal courts
Correct,
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >>>> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff >>>> or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >>>> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL >>> definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury correctly found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held today, the jury would
find that Trump raped her.
They DID find that Trump had assaulted Carroll and the judge noted that
that assault met the ordinary definition of "rape".
The judge's statement was both improper and irrelevant to the case
It was not in the least improper, and it had no bearing on the case. The verdict
had already been rendered.
Trump raped Carroll.
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said >>>>> they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump
lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in >>>>> relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said. >>>>>
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future
plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct >>>>> in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter
made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow
LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury correctly
found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held today,
the jury would find that Trump raped her.
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said >>>>>> they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump
lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in >>>>>> relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity >>>>>> evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said. >>>>>>
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future
plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct >>>>>> in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter >>>>>> made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow
LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury correctly
found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held today,
the jury would find that Trump raped her.
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be ex post facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that didn't exist at the time the supposed crime occurred.
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and
said they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump
lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant
context in relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as
"propensity evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court,
the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future
plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior
conduct in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime
thereafter made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow
LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury
correctly found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial
were held today, the jury would find that Trump raped her.
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be ex post facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that didn't exist at the
time the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows for
selective retroactive indictments?
In <102ud7e$34r1t$3@dont-email.me> Scout wrote:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said >>>>>>> they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict. >>>>>>>
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump >>>>>>> lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context >>>>>>> in
relation to Carrollâ,"s claims. The tape functioned as
"propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges
said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future >>>>>>> plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior
conduct
in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter >>>>>>> made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow >>>>>> LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury correctly >>>> found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held today, >>>> the jury would find that Trump raped her.
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be ex post
facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that didn't exist at the
time
the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows for
selective retroactive indictments?
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-survivors/
https://www.safehorizon.org/adult-survivors-act
"Jan 6 Legitimate Political Discourse" <lets.go.brandon@salon.com> wrote in message news:20250619.025028.aeae2713@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said >>>>>>>> they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict. >>>>>>>>
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump >>>>>>>> lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in >>>>>>>> relation to Carrollââ,¬â"¢s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said. >>>>>>>>
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future >>>>>>>> plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct >>>>>>>> in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter >>>>>>>> made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow >>>>>>> LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury correctly >>>>> found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held today, >>>>> the jury would find that Trump raped her.
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be ex post
facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that didn't exist at the time >>> the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows for
selective retroactive indictments?
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault- >> survivors/
https://www.safehorizon.org/adult-survivors-act
Nothing says they couldn't try, but keep in mind that 42USC1983 would allow you
to directly sue the individuals responsible for infringements upon your rights
and they would be personally liable for any damages awarded from such a suit.
On 6/19/2025 7:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Jan 6 Legitimate Political Discourse" <lets.go.brandon@salon.com> wrote
in message news:20250619.025028.aeae2713@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is
frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and >>>>>>>>> said
they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict. >>>>>>>>>
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump >>>>>>>>> lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context >>>>>>>>> in
relation to Carrollââ,¬â"¢s claims. The tape functioned as >>>>>>>>> "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges >>>>>>>>> said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future >>>>>>>>> plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior >>>>>>>>> conduct
in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter >>>>>>>>> made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow >>>>>>>> LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury
correctly
found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held
today,
the jury would find that Trump raped her.
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be ex post >>>> facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that didn't exist at the
time
the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows for
selective retroactive indictments?
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault- >>> survivors/
https://www.safehorizon.org/adult-survivors-act
Nothing says they couldn't try, but keep in mind that 42USC1983 would
allow you to directly sue the individuals responsible for infringements
upon your rights and they would be personally liable for any damages
awarded from such a suit.
Whenever the law-illiterate scooter starts blabbering about sections of
the United States code, what follows is always bullshit.
That section of the code contemplates civil liability for a deprivation of civil rights by state and local government officials.
E. Jean Carroll, of course, was never a government official, and nothing
she did violated any of Trump's civil rights.
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:KSW4Q.316965$wdi3.182725@fx45.iad...
On 6/19/2025 7:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Jan 6 Legitimate Political Discourse" <lets.go.brandon@salon.com> wrote in >>> message news:20250619.025028.aeae2713@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is
frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said >>>>>>>>>> they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict. >>>>>>>>>>
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump >>>>>>>>>> lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carrollââ,¬â"¢s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future >>>>>>>>>> plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct
in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter >>>>>>>>>> made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow >>>>>>>>> LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury correctly >>>>>>> found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held today, >>>>>>> the jury would find that Trump raped her.
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be ex post >>>>> facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that didn't exist at the time
the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows for
selective retroactive indictments?
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault- >>>> survivors/
https://www.safehorizon.org/adult-survivors-act
Nothing says they couldn't try, but keep in mind that 42USC1983 would allow >>> you to directly sue the individuals responsible for infringements upon your >>> rights and they would be personally liable for any damages awarded from such
a suit.
Whenever the law-illiterate scooter starts blabbering about sections of the >> United States code, what follows is always bullshit.
Keep in mind the claim here --- "always bullshit"
That section of the code contemplates civil liability for a deprivation of >> civil rights by state and local government officials.
Like say New York state government officials attempting to retroactively apply
changes in the law to allow persecution of someone???
E. Jean Carroll, of course, was never a government official, and nothing she >> did violated any of Trump's civil rights.
And just like that
Rudy is off into the weeds attacking an argument I never made.
On 6/20/2025 6:38 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:KSW4Q.316965$wdi3.182725@fx45.iad...
On 6/19/2025 7:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Jan 6 Legitimate Political Discourse" <lets.go.brandon@salon.com>
wrote in message
news:20250619.025028.aeae2713@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is
frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and >>>>>>>>>>> said
they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict. >>>>>>>>>>>
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which >>>>>>>>>>> Trump
lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant >>>>>>>>>>> context in
relation to Carrollââ,¬â"¢s claims. The tape functioned as >>>>>>>>>>> "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges >>>>>>>>>>> said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future >>>>>>>>>>> plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior >>>>>>>>>>> conduct
in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime
thereafter
made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the >>>>>>>>>> narrow
LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury
correctly
found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held >>>>>>>> today,
the jury would find that Trump raped her.
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be ex
post
facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that didn't exist at the >>>>>> time
the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows for
selective retroactive indictments?
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-
survivors/
https://www.safehorizon.org/adult-survivors-act
Nothing says they couldn't try, but keep in mind that 42USC1983 would
allow you to directly sue the individuals responsible for infringements >>>> upon your rights and they would be personally liable for any damages
awarded from such a suit.
Whenever the law-illiterate scooter starts blabbering about sections of
the United States code, what follows is always bullshit.
Keep in mind the claim here --- "always bullshit"
Yes, scooter. Whenever you start blabbering about either the Constitution
or statutory law, what follows is always bullshit — 100% of the time.
"Lee" <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote in message news:3hi5Q.1370923$6%s6.818136@fx12.iad...
On 6/20/2025 6:38 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:KSW4Q.316965$wdi3.182725@fx45.iad...
On 6/19/2025 7:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless >>>> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Jan 6 Legitimate Political Discourse" <lets.go.brandon@salon.com> wrote in
message news:20250619.025028.aeae2713@msgid.frell.theremailer.net... >>>>>> scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is >>>>>> frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said
they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump >>>>>>>>>>>> lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carrollââ,¬â"¢s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future >>>>>>>>>>>> plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct
in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter >>>>>>>>>>>> made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow >>>>>>>>>>> LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury correctly
found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the trial were held today,
the jury would find that Trump raped her.
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be ex post >>>>>>> facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that didn't exist at the time
the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows for >>>>>> selective retroactive indictments?
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-
survivors/
https://www.safehorizon.org/adult-survivors-act
Nothing says they couldn't try, but keep in mind that 42USC1983 would allow
you to directly sue the individuals responsible for infringements upon your
rights and they would be personally liable for any damages awarded from >>>>> such a suit.
Whenever the law-illiterate scooter starts blabbering about sections of the
United States code, what follows is always bullshit.
Keep in mind the claim here --- "always bullshit"
Yes, scooter. Whenever you start blabbering about either the Constitution or >> statutory law, what follows is always bullshit — 100% of the time.
Translation:
On 23 Jun 2025, Lee posted some
news:Kpd6Q.1408657$qmJf.83268@fx16.iad:
On 6/23/2025 6:10 AM, Scout wrote:
"Lee" <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote in message
news:3hi5Q.1370923$6%s6.818136@fx12.iad...
On 6/20/2025 6:38 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:KSW4Q.316965$wdi3.182725@fx45.iad...
On 6/19/2025 7:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Jan 6 Legitimate Political Discourse"
<lets.go.brandon@salon.com> wrote in message
news:20250619.025028.aeae2713@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who >>>>>>>> is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury >>>>>>>>>>> correctly found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the >>>>>>>>>>> trial were held today, the jury would find that Trump raped >>>>>>>>>>> her.
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court
dissented and said they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which Trump lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant >>>>>>>>>>>>>> context in relation to Carrollââ,¬â"¢s claims. The
tape functioned as "propensity evidence," which is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> future plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> prior conduct in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime >>>>>>>>>>>>>> thereafter made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the >>>>>>>>>>>>> narrow LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope. >>>>>>>>>>>
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be >>>>>>>>> ex post facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that
didn't exist at the time the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows >>>>>>>> for selective retroactive indictments?
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice >>>>>>>> -assault- survivors/
https://www.safehorizon.org/adult-survivors-act
Nothing says they couldn't try, but keep in mind that 42USC1983
would allow you to directly sue the individuals responsible for
infringements upon your rights and they would be personally
liable for any damages awarded from such a suit.
Whenever the law-illiterate scooter starts blabbering about
sections of the United States code, what follows is always
bullshit.
Keep in mind the claim here --- "always bullshit"
Yes, scooter. Whenever you start blabbering about either the
Constitution or statutory law, what follows is always bullshit — >>>> 100% of the time.
Translation:
A scooterism
"A common whore like my mommy cannot be raped"
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 42:26:21 |
| Calls: | 10,392 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,214 |