Political Memes

To be fair, he thinks everything is about him.

Intense biblical narcicism + heavy dementia.

one other notable daughter he made is toward a young paris hilton.

He doesn't think he is. He paid for it, so it's a fair transaction.

Not on the majority of platforms nowadays. AI Moderation and content-aware automated filters before that ensure that the nasty people that say things like rape or shit or cum or Scunthorpe get censored, shadow banned, banned, then HWID/IP range banned in that order, in order to ensure the safety of everyone online.

Pity they can't do anything about the CSAM, grooming, or nazis though.

Sexual assault that the presiding judge said would have been legally rape if not for New York's strict definition of "rape" as involving penile-vaginal penetration.

uNaLiVe*

He wasn't convicted of the crime of rape because he hasn't, to date, been criminally charged with rape. He was sued civilly by E. Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation, and found by a jury liable for both acts. Which means the jury found that sufficient evidence existed that he did sexually abuse her even without a criminal conviction for rape.

The judge later clarified that the acts that the the jury found him liable for, forcible penetration of the vagina with his fingers, do constitute first degree rape under New York law. And first degree rape in New York has no statute of limitations. Were he to be tried for rape, the evidence in the civil suit would be admissible and he would almost certainly be convicted of rape. Weird that hasn't happened, but here we are.

So technically, he is not a convicted rapist as he has yet to be criminally charged and tried for rape. But he has also been determined by a court and a jury to have absolutely sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a manner that constitutes rape under New York law. "Rapist love this one weird loophole."

He was found civily liable for sexual assault by a jury. It means a jury said he did it, but it's not actually a conviction because civil suits are between private parties whereas criminal cases are between the defendant and society. They also have very different methods of punishment, as they pursue different goals.

In criminal court, the prosecutors seek punitive damages. It usually takes the form of a fine or a prison sentence. In civil court, the plaintiff (who can also be the government) seeks relief in the form of compensation for damages or an order to do something, undo something, or stop doing something. You can't

This makes sense when you think about it. Let's say you get pulled over for speeding. You didn't actually cause any damage, you can't undo having sped, and since you were pulled over you've already stopped speeding. So the state's options are pretty much limited to punishment for having committed the crime. And once you've paid the ticket, the matter is resolved.

But what if instead of speeding, you build a building that extends beyond your property line and into a public street? Criminal statues allow for a fine, but that's about it. Cities can even do daily fines, but rich people can just pay the fine and effectively take control of public land.

For that, you need to go through the Civil process, because in the civil system the goal isn't justice or punishment, but relief. Instead of getting fines, the government can get an order from a judge requiring the building to be removed, and even to allow the government to bulldoze the building and bill the landowner for the expense of the demo and remediation.

This is why, unless you're looking at a felony, you'd rather have the government take you to criminal court than civil.

He was determined by a jury in court to have sexually abused E. Jean Carroll too. While the case was a civil suit for sexual abuse (and defamation), not a criminal charge for rape, he was still determined to have committed specific acts that do constitute first degree rape under New York law, a crime for which there is no statute of limitations. In other words, he's not a convicted rapist, but still definitely a rapist, just an as yet unconvicted one.

They had weeks to prepare for it.

The topic was "White House Correspondents Dinner" and was planned way ahead of time. The reporters were just quick to adapt to the real story of the dinner.

Full Interview

People have already died