Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.." I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so." I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is." The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places." I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere." That was the point of the thread. Should the judge be making these types of comments, what use is it do so? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere." How ra*e is defined elsewhere including dictionaries, and other statutes has nothing to do with how it is defined by New York Civil Practice Law. Judge Kaplan would rightly have stopped anyone else veering off like that should they have been giving evidence in his court. He should have held himself to those same standards. The only reason I can see by him choosing to make those comments was to muddy the waters and make people think Trump was guilty of ra*e. Even though his guilt wasn't in question, being that it was a civil case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere." I grew up understanding r@pe involves non-consensual penis insertion. Anything else would be sexual assault. In law if legal definitions are available, they would have to be used. Weird there are differing definitions though. Ultimately he was found guilty of sexual assault  and that's the terminology ABC should have used. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. I grew up understanding r@pe involves non-consensual penis insertion. Anything else would be sexual assault. In law if legal definitions are available, they would have to be used. Weird there are differing definitions though. Ultimately he was found guilty of sexual assault and that's the terminology ABC should have used."He wasn't guilty, he was liable. It is more likely than not that he was responsible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. How ra*e is defined elsewhere including dictionaries, and other statutes has nothing to do with how it is defined by New York Civil Practice Law. Judge Kaplan would rightly have stopped anyone else veering off like that should they have been giving evidence in his court. He should have held himself to those same standards. The only reason I can see by him choosing to make those comments was to muddy the waters and make people think Trump was guilty of ra*e. Even though his guilt wasn't in question, being that it was a civil case. " OK I'm confused now, not the first time I know. Isn't Judge Kaplan the judge in the defamation trial ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. How ra*e is defined elsewhere including dictionaries, and other statutes has nothing to do with how it is defined by New York Civil Practice Law. Judge Kaplan would rightly have stopped anyone else veering off like that should they have been giving evidence in his court. He should have held himself to those same standards. The only reason I can see by him choosing to make those comments was to muddy the waters and make people think Trump was guilty of ra*e. Even though his guilt wasn't in question, being that it was a civil case. OK I'm confused now, not the first time I know. Isn't Judge Kaplan the judge in the defamation trial ?" Yes, I'm not sure what's confusing  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ABC news has agreed to pay President-elect Trump $15 million, after their star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for **pe". I have seen this claim many times, and after reading again the judges comments, I understand why there could be confusion. Judge Lewis Kaplan said the jury's conclusion was that Ms Carroll had failed to prove that Trump **ped her "within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law". Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. The judge attempted to explain the jury’s decision by referencing common day parlance, was the judge right or wrong to add into the summary what people may think, did that add unneeded confusion? " Trump can use the £15 million to pay Jean Carroll what he owes her  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"ABC news has agreed to pay President-elect Trump $15 million, after their star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for **pe". I have seen this claim many times, and after reading again the judges comments, I understand why there could be confusion. Judge Lewis Kaplan said the jury's conclusion was that Ms Carroll had failed to prove that Trump **ped her "within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law". Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. The judge attempted to explain the jury’s decision by referencing common day parlance, was the judge right or wrong to add into the summary what people may think, did that add unneeded confusion? Trump can use the £15 million to pay Jean Carroll what he owes her "It is going to be paid to a charity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so." The latter can't surprise you surely? It's a multiple times everyday occurrence depending on whom and whatever tenuous association can be used to sling mud or tell porkies.. Some say there's even people who earn real money from doing so..  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. The latter can't surprise you surely? It's a multiple times everyday occurrence depending on whom and whatever tenuous association can be used to sling mud or tell porkies.. Some say there's even people who earn real money from doing so.. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. How ra*e is defined elsewhere including dictionaries, and other statutes has nothing to do with how it is defined by New York Civil Practice Law. Judge Kaplan would rightly have stopped anyone else veering off like that should they have been giving evidence in his court. He should have held himself to those same standards. The only reason I can see by him choosing to make those comments was to muddy the waters and make people think Trump was guilty of ra*e. Even though his guilt wasn't in question, being that it was a civil case. " Agree with this, if no one else could say it in the proceedings then his own 'conclusions' look odd and possibly made in that arena because he thought it would cause (further) reputational harm and he had a degree of protection in saying it.. Unprofessional certainly.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. How ra*e is defined elsewhere including dictionaries, and other statutes has nothing to do with how it is defined by New York Civil Practice Law. Judge Kaplan would rightly have stopped anyone else veering off like that should they have been giving evidence in his court. He should have held himself to those same standards. The only reason I can see by him choosing to make those comments was to muddy the waters and make people think Trump was guilty of ra*e. Even though his guilt wasn't in question, being that it was a civil case. OK I'm confused now, not the first time I know. Isn't Judge Kaplan the judge in the defamation trial ? Yes, I'm not sure what's confusing "So it sounds to me that Judge Kaplan is explaining why it is defamatory by explaining the difference in what constitutes rope in New York irrespective what it might mean in other states. So I’m not seeing that he is muddying the waters. In fact I’d say he is doing the exact opposite. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the jury concluded that trump had inserted his finger(s) in her but nothing else so r"pe wasn't found to have taken place? Fabio gave a good summary at the time so maybe he'll update.. I suppose the bottom line is if he wasn't found to have r#ped her then he didn't do it as far as has been proven so anyone should bear that in mind if they say otherwise.. I agree but the many times I have seen people write he was guilty of **pe! Is it people bending the truth to attack Trump, or are people misinformed and happy to be so. I haven't read up on the case as I'm not that interested, however I presume that non consensual digital penetration isn't classed as rope in New York where the trial was held. In other states and other countries it is. The trial was in New York. We're in the UK. What Trump was found liable for does not equate ra*e in either of those places. I'm going off what was quoted. Judge Kaplan noted that the definition of **pe was "far narrower" than how **pe is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries and in criminal statutes elsewhere. How ra*e is defined elsewhere including dictionaries, and other statutes has nothing to do with how it is defined by New York Civil Practice Law. Judge Kaplan would rightly have stopped anyone else veering off like that should they have been giving evidence in his court. He should have held himself to those same standards. The only reason I can see by him choosing to make those comments was to muddy the waters and make people think Trump was guilty of ra*e. Even though his guilt wasn't in question, being that it was a civil case. OK I'm confused now, not the first time I know. Isn't Judge Kaplan the judge in the defamation trial ? Yes, I'm not sure what's confusing
So it sounds to me that Judge Kaplan is explaining why it is defamatory by explaining the difference in what constitutes rope in New York irrespective what it might mean in other states. So I’m not seeing that he is muddying the waters. In fact I’d say he is doing the exact opposite."Judge Kaplan made those remarks during the EJC sexual assault case. Not for any defamation case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Trump can use the £15 million to pay Jean Carroll what he owes her "Nope… as part of the settlement agreement the money can only go to his inauguration fund or to charities….. The 88 million he owes her will have to come from either | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New York State definition of class 1 sexual assault “the R word” is that it must involve the insertion of male genitalia…. Whereas in most states it is just insertion in general So where the New York State court didn’t find that he inserted his penis, they did find that based on probability he did insert his fingers into here forcefully without her consent …. In effect class 2 sexual assault " like he said, grab em by the pussy | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New York State definition of class 1 sexual assault “the R word” is that it must involve the insertion of male genitalia…. Whereas in most states it is just insertion in general So where the New York State court didn’t find that he inserted his penis, they did find that based on probability he did insert his fingers into here forcefully without her consent …. In effect class 2 sexual assault " A more considered focus from the judge on legal terminology alone would have been clearer and avoided any confusion. He certainly intended to damage Trump's reputation further in my opinion. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New York State definition of class 1 sexual assault “the R word” is that it must involve the insertion of male genitalia…. Whereas in most states it is just insertion in general So where the New York State court didn’t find that he inserted his penis, they did find that based on probability he did insert his fingers into here forcefully without her consent …. In effect class 2 sexual assault A more considered focus from the judge on legal terminology alone would have been clearer and avoided any confusion. He certainly intended to damage Trump's reputation further in my opinion." You could say that…. But I think that the R word is more emotive that sexual assault is… For example… there are 4 levels of SA by law in New York State… he was found not liable of 1, but liable in 2,3 and 4 It doesn’t make what he did more palatable in my eyes…if you are forcefully inserting something into a person without consent I don’t care if it’s fingers or a penis! .. and this what the judge is kinda saying in the summary…. But the other hand some are so focused on the fact of not R (1st degree) lessen what he did | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New York State definition of class 1 sexual assault “the R word” is that it must involve the insertion of male genitalia…. Whereas in most states it is just insertion in general So where the New York State court didn’t find that he inserted his penis, they did find that based on probability he did insert his fingers into here forcefully without her consent …. In effect class 2 sexual assault " probability but it’s still not profe tho so we will never really know what happened | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New York State definition of class 1 sexual assault “the R word” is that it must involve the insertion of male genitalia…. Whereas in most states it is just insertion in general So where the New York State court didn’t find that he inserted his penis, they did find that based on probability he did insert his fingers into here forcefully without her consent …. In effect class 2 sexual assault A more considered focus from the judge on legal terminology alone would have been clearer and avoided any confusion. He certainly intended to damage Trump's reputation further in my opinion. You could say that…. But I think that the R word is more emotive that sexual assault is… For example… there are 4 levels of SA by law in New York State… he was found not liable of 1, but liable in 2,3 and 4 It doesn’t make what he did more palatable in my eyes…if you are forcefully inserting something into a person without consent I don’t care if it’s fingers or a penis! .. and this what the judge is kinda saying in the summary…. But the other hand some are so focused on the fact of not R (1st degree) lessen what he did " I'm not condoning Trump, I'm asking why this judge was allowed to go to the lengths he did in his summary. I think it has caused many repercussions and been the vessel for misinformation. Is it okay to tarnish further if it someone the judge doesn't like? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New York State definition of class 1 sexual assault “the R word” is that it must involve the insertion of male genitalia…. Whereas in most states it is just insertion in general So where the New York State court didn’t find that he inserted his penis, they did find that based on probability he did insert his fingers into here forcefully without her consent …. In effect class 2 sexual assault A more considered focus from the judge on legal terminology alone would have been clearer and avoided any confusion. He certainly intended to damage Trump's reputation further in my opinion. You could say that…. But I think that the R word is more emotive that sexual assault is… For example… there are 4 levels of SA by law in New York State… he was found not liable of 1, but liable in 2,3 and 4 It doesn’t make what he did more palatable in my eyes…if you are forcefully inserting something into a person without consent I don’t care if it’s fingers or a penis! .. and this what the judge is kinda saying in the summary…. But the other hand some are so focused on the fact of not R (1st degree) lessen what he did I'm not condoning Trump, I'm asking why this judge was allowed to go to the lengths he did in his summary. I think it has caused many repercussions and been the vessel for misinformation. Is it okay to tarnish further if it someone the judge doesn't like?" it seems anything is ok aslong as it’s trump tho | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New York State definition of class 1 sexual assault “the R word” is that it must involve the insertion of male genitalia…. Whereas in most states it is just insertion in general So where the New York State court didn’t find that he inserted his penis, they did find that based on probability he did insert his fingers into here forcefully without her consent …. In effect class 2 sexual assault A more considered focus from the judge on legal terminology alone would have been clearer and avoided any confusion. He certainly intended to damage Trump's reputation further in my opinion. You could say that…. But I think that the R word is more emotive that sexual assault is… For example… there are 4 levels of SA by law in New York State… he was found not liable of 1, but liable in 2,3 and 4 It doesn’t make what he did more palatable in my eyes…if you are forcefully inserting something into a person without consent I don’t care if it’s fingers or a penis! .. and this what the judge is kinda saying in the summary…. But the other hand some are so focused on the fact of not R (1st degree) lessen what he did I'm not condoning Trump, I'm asking why this judge was allowed to go to the lengths he did in his summary. I think it has caused many repercussions and been the vessel for misinformation. Is it okay to tarnish further if it someone the judge doesn't like? it seems anything is ok aslong as it’s trump tho " Okay… if you didn’t know better, which would you say sounds worse…. A person was found not liable of R….. A person was found not liable of 1st degree sexual assault…. Bearing in mind in New York State both statements mean exactly the same thing Okay… so now we have said that let me ask you another question In your eyes do you think it is less grave than someone inserted you with fingers rather than a penis? Because in a lot of people’s eyes they are probably going to say no difference as insertion is insertion So trump as found not liable of R but was found liable of 2nd degree sexual assault…. And then you said the only difference between them was the body part used in committing the act… not a great look The problem is that the people defending here are trying to equate sexual assault to “well he pinched her arse and she got upset “ without looking into the definition | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Classic TDS..." And thanks for proving the point…. Insertion of fingers into a person without consent equals classic TDS  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New York State definition of class 1 sexual assault “the R word” is that it must involve the insertion of male genitalia…. Whereas in most states it is just insertion in general So where the New York State court didn’t find that he inserted his penis, they did find that based on probability he did insert his fingers into here forcefully without her consent …. In effect class 2 sexual assault A more considered focus from the judge on legal terminology alone would have been clearer and avoided any confusion. He certainly intended to damage Trump's reputation further in my opinion. You could say that…. But I think that the R word is more emotive that sexual assault is… For example… there are 4 levels of SA by law in New York State… he was found not liable of 1, but liable in 2,3 and 4 It doesn’t make what he did more palatable in my eyes…if you are forcefully inserting something into a person without consent I don’t care if it’s fingers or a penis! .. and this what the judge is kinda saying in the summary…. But the other hand some are so focused on the fact of not R (1st degree) lessen what he did I'm not condoning Trump, I'm asking why this judge was allowed to go to the lengths he did in his summary. I think it has caused many repercussions and been the vessel for misinformation. Is it okay to tarnish further if it someone the judge doesn't like? it seems anything is ok aslong as it’s trump tho Okay… if you didn’t know better, which would you say sounds worse…. A person was found not liable of R….. A person was found not liable of 1st degree sexual assault…. Bearing in mind in New York State both statements mean exactly the same thing Okay… so now we have said that let me ask you another question In your eyes do you think it is less grave than someone inserted you with fingers rather than a penis? Because in a lot of people’s eyes they are probably going to say no difference as insertion is insertion So trump as found not liable of R but was found liable of 2nd degree sexual assault…. And then you said the only difference between them was the body part used in committing the act… not a great look The problem is that the people defending here are trying to equate sexual assault to “well he pinched her arse and she got upset “ without looking into the definition " The problem here is you're saying an awful lot without actually addressing the point. Do you think Judge Kaplan would have allowed anyone on the witness stand to veer off like he did? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And thanks for proving the point…. Insertion of fingers into a person without consent equals classic TDS "Wtf? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not condoning Trump, I'm asking why this judge was allowed to go to the lengths he did in his summary. I think it has caused many repercussions and been the vessel for misinformation. Is it okay to tarnish further if it someone the judge doesn't like? Typical New York kangaroo court, giving credibility to a person claiming sexual assault that was probably consensual if in fact it actually happened at all. Seeing some of these comments on here based on here say, then retracted after realizing they are making fools ok f themselves and their attempt of poking President Elect in the eye is not working. You all need to move on and let the man get to work and start the recovery of America. It is just nothing more than petty childish nonsense, just like Joey selling off pieces to the wall along the border for pennies on the dollar as another spiteful action against President Elect Trump and the American taxpayers that will have to pay once again for the wall" Allegations of sexual assault is childish?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
