is that it now game over no chance of POTUS

 

Rayguns out

8 minutes ago, wakey said:

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?

But didn’t convict of him of that as it wasn’t legally rape. (We all like to stick within the law…..guidelines or something) We got there 👍

1 minute ago, royal white said:

But didn’t convict of him of that as it wasn’t legally rape. (We all like to stick within the law…..guidelines or something) We got there 👍

ah, fair point.

But on those terms, are we all at least agreed that Trump is more of a rapist than Jimmy Saville is a nonce?

5 minutes ago, wakey said:

ah, fair point.

But on those terms, are we all at least agreed that Trump is more of a rapist than Jimmy Saville is a nonce?

58 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

My guess is that whoever sent that email is being investigated so I guess that it is redacted so as to not prejudice any potential prosecution? As we see/hear about quite often.

Im no legal expert so that’s as simple as as I can guess 

So @royal white.

 

Trump. 
 

Fucking wrong un or whaddaguy?

10 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

So @royal white.

 

Trump. 
 

Fucking wrong un or whaddaguy?

It depends on what you mean by wrong un, its Up for debate really. I dont believe the sex abuse claim, but each to their own.

So when he’s found guilty you don’t believe it? 
 

on what premise?

 

so if he’s found guilty again, you just simply won’t believe it again?

11 minutes ago, royal white said:

It depends on what you mean by wrong un, its Up for debate really. I dont believe the sex abuse claim, but each to their own.

 

7 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

So when he’s found guilty you don’t believe it? 
 

on what premise?

 

so if he’s found guilty again, you just simply won’t believe it again?

Just think it was a bit of a farce, no physical evidence, no witnesses, she couldn’t remember when it was. Do you reckon this would have gone to court if it was a criminal case? 

Edited February 4Feb 4 by royal white

10 minutes ago, royal white said:

It depends on what you mean by wrong un, it’s Up for debate really. I dont believe the sex abuse claim, but each to their own.

There’s 28 claims. But you don’t seem like who bloke who changes his mind, so I’ll leave you to crack on

1 minute ago, mickbrown said:

There’s 28 claims. But you don’t seem like who bloke who changes his mind, so I’ll leave you to crack on

Oh like the kissing on the lips - I’ll put him in the same bracket as a lot of footballers. 

16 minutes ago, royal white said:

It depends on what you mean by wrong un, its Up for debate really. I dont believe the sex abuse claim, but each to their own.

so nowt to do with whether or not it meets the UK legal definition of rape then?

 

4 minutes ago, wakey said:

so nowt to do with whether or not it meets the UK legal definition of rape then?

 

Eh? I’ve just said why, no evidence, no witnesses, a victim that didn’t know when it happened. 

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

Eh? I’ve just said why, no evidence, no witnesses, a victim that didn’t know when it happened. 

after multiple posts about whether or not it met the legal definition of rape.

quicker if you'd said from the off "I don't think he did it".

Just now, wakey said:

after multiple posts about whether or not it met the legal definition of rape.

quicker if you'd said from the off "I don't think he did it".

I don’t, however I was helping mick know the difference with what he was charged for, 2 different subjects 

41 minutes ago, royal white said:

I don’t, however I was helping mick know the difference with what he was charged for, 2 different subjects 

I don’t need your help, ta very much. 

6 minutes ago, Spider said:

I miss Widnes

1 hour ago, royal white said:

Just think it was a bit of a farce, no physical evidence, no witnesses, she couldn’t remember when it was. Do you reckon this would have gone to court if it was a criminal case? 

Well there was enough for a jury to find him guilty 

9 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

Well there was enough for a jury to find him guilty 

No physical evidence. Hence why I think it was a farce, this case would have never gone to court in a criminal case 

So out of interest I checked what the difference is between the NY legal definition and what is more widely known as rape.

Basically the difference is NY legal definition means the penis needs to penetrate. The Don was not found guilty of that. He was found guilty of basically sticking his fingers up there. 

As much as I dislike the Don it does seem strange the judge coming out with this ‘commonly held’ statement. Not sure how he is qualified to comment on anything other than the legal definition, or if he does on what he is basing his opinion on what is ‘commonly understood’

30 minutes ago, Ani said:

So out of interest I checked what the difference is between the NY legal definition and what is more widely known as rape.

Basically the difference is NY legal definition means the penis needs to penetrate. The Don was not found guilty of that. He was found guilty of basically sticking his fingers up there. 

As much as I dislike the Don it does seem strange the judge coming out with this ‘commonly held’ statement. Not sure how he is qualified to comment on anything other than the legal definition, or if he does on what he is basing his opinion on what is ‘commonly understood’

Whaddaguy

What a fabulous whataboutery thread this has become. The Epstein files prove nothing about Trump. So far. Other than he travelled on the “Lolita Express”. With his family on occasions. But not to “Paedo Island” when Epstein owned it. So the files cannot prove he’s a nonce.

Yeah but, but, but….he’s a rapist. But not proven in a criminal court of law

So. No “proof” so far regarding two major accusations. But plenty of “buts”

The man is an unstable, narcissistic, loathsome, Teflon piece of shit but whataboutery convicts no-one.

JSL

Just now, MancWanderer said:

What a fabulous whataboutery thread this has become. The Epstein files prove nothing about Trump. So far. Other than he travelled on the “Lolita Express”. With his family on occasions. But not to “Paedo Island” when Epstein owned it. So the files cannot prove he’s a nonce.

Yeah but, but, but….he’s a rapist. But not proven in a criminal court of law

So. No “proof” so far regarding two major accusations. But plenty of “buts”

The man is an unstable, narcissistic, loathsome, Teflon piece of shit but whataboutery convicts no-one.

JSL

The files have not seen Andrew or Mandelson convicted. But look at the fuss.

JSL

11 minutes ago, Spider said:

The files have not seen Andrew or Mandelson convicted. But look at the fuss.

JSL

It might do Starmer in though, but it won't do that for Trump. Only one is a serious country.