is that it now game over no chance of POTUS

 

Rayguns out

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

4. The negative publicity is crucifying my reputation/business/family. I've got pots of money, let's just make this go away.

Feel free to add anything I haven't.

Tenuous ... surely a robust, consistent rebuttal followed by a win in court is - PR-wise - far better than settling and always looking guilty. Unless you mean settling the claim before it gets into the public domain, of course.

You've reminded me of another.

5. The 'claimant' is blackmailing you in some other way that would be far more costly than the settlement itself, e.g. threatening to withhold broadcasting licenses, withhold federal funds etc.

5 hours ago, royal white said:

As @bolty58 said who’s defending? Everything I have said regarding Trump and these files has been true, feel free to prove me wrong. Yet there’s multiple people on here who have just made up their own version on the files. You’re a big spaz at times aren’t you fella.

He’s a rapist. 
 

Plain and simple

21 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

He’s a rapist. 
 

Plain and simple

Who to believe? 
 

35 minutes ago, royal white said:

Who to believe? 
 

The judge

Anyroad, I’ll reword it for you. 
 

He’s a sexual abuser. 

Edited February 4Feb 4 by mickbrown

2 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

The judge

Anyroad, I’ll reword it for you. 
 

He’s a sexual abuser. 

I know that, it’s literally in the picture that I’ve just sent to you. Just happy to clear things up for you, 👍

1 minute ago, royal white said:

I know that, it’s literally in the picture that I’ve just sent to you. Just happy to clear things up for you, 👍

But your picture missed the bit where the judge said he was a rapist

Just now, mickbrown said:

But your picture missed the bit where the judge said he was a rapist

Ah your pic did say that. 
 

So he’s a rapist and a sexual abuser. 
 

Whaddaguy 

Just now, mickbrown said:

Ah your pic did say that. 
 

So he’s a rapist and a sexual abuser. 
 

Whaddaguy 

Nope, not a rapist. 👍 glad to clear it up for you. 

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

Nope, not a rapist. 👍 glad to clear it up for you. 

not a rapist, but committed what is commonly understood as rape.

but definitely not a rapist.

 

4 minutes ago, wakey said:

not a rapist, but committed what is commonly understood as rape.

but definitely not a rapist.

 

Commonly known where? 

1 minute ago, royal white said:

Commonly known where? 

try reading what you post - "which the judge later clarified..."

1 minute ago, wakey said:

try reading what you post - "which the judge later clarified..."

Language not legal terms. We are going off legal terms. he was not convicted of rape. Glad we could clear that up. 👍

 

3 minutes ago, royal white said:

Language not legal terms. We are going off legal terms. he was not convicted of rape. Glad we could clear that up. 👍

 

so .....

not a rapist, but committed what is commonly understood as rape.

but definitely not a rapist.

think we're in agreement then.

Someone needs to explain to me in really simple terms why the name of the sender of this email is redacted.

Keep it really really simple

2 minutes ago, wakey said:

so .....

not a rapist, but committed what is commonly understood as rape.

but definitely not a rapist.

think we're in agreement then.

I wouldn’t understand it as rape, as per British laws anyway. I’m obviously going off legal terms whilst you go off what folk Say down the pub or on a footy forum. 

Just now, royal white said:

I wouldn’t understand it as rape, as per British laws anyway. I’m obviously going off legal terms whilst you go off what folk Say down the pub or on a footy forum. 

or - in the real world - what the judge said.

4 minutes ago, wakey said:

or - in the real world - what the judge said.

I guess Britain ain’t the real word then. 

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

I guess Britain ain’t the real word then. 

Commonly understood as rape but didn't meet the narrow legal definition in the case. Per the judge, who as far as I know isn't on a footy forum or down the pub.

I've no idea if it meets the British legal definition, but it's seems pretty irrelevant to me.

Are we agreed that he committed what is commonly understood as rape then? 

8 minutes ago, wakey said:

Commonly understood as rape but didn't meet the narrow legal definition in the case. Per the judge, who as far as I know isn't on a footy forum or down the pub.

I've no idea if it meets the British legal definition, but it's seems pretty irrelevant to me.

Are we agreed that he committed what is commonly understood as rape then? 

Maybe in some states in America but not in NYC at the time and not here in Blighty. 
 

Can you just confirm if he has ever been charged, tried and convicted of rape. It’s a yes or no answer no matter how much you try and twist it. 

48 minutes ago, royal white said:

Nope, not a rapist. 👍 glad to clear it up for you. 

Just sexual abuser then?

Whaddaguy. 

Just now, royal white said:

Maybe in some states in America but not in NYC at the time and not here in Blighty. 
 

Can you just confirm if he has ever been charged, tried and convicted of rape. It’s a yes or no answer no matter how much you try and twist it. 

never said he had pal.

if I'd said convicted rapist, your last few posts of pointless argument would have been justified.

So the argument, he didn’t actually stick his dick in her just sexually abused her ain’t really a win. 

4 minutes ago, wakey said:

never said he had pal.

if I'd said convicted rapist, your last few posts of pointless argument would have been justified.

I never said you had. I was just asking you to confirm it as mick is struggling to accept it when I tell him. 

31 minutes ago, Spider said:

Someone needs to explain to me in really simple terms why the name of the sender of this email is redacted.

Keep it really really simple

This is what i dont understand.

Remove all the blacked out shit

Let us see who said what to who and when

Speculation over

Lock all the dirty bastards up

Throw away key

Sorted

3 minutes ago, royal white said:

I never said you had. I was just asking you to confirm it as mick is struggling to accept it when I tell him. 

Yeah, no problem.

Mick, he's not a convicted rapist. All he did was commit what the judge said is commonly understood as rape.

We all happy now?