SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
Brumar89
Fiscally Conservative
To: Bill who wrote (1508301)12/14/2024 5:41:26 PM
From: Tenchusatsu2 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) of 1575175
 
This is ridiculous, and the judge who decided that Trump's lawsuit may go through back in July said something blatantly wrong:
A judge in July refused to dismiss Trump’s lawsuit against the network, writing that these definitions were different enough. He added that the case would turn on “whether it is substantially true to say a jury (or juries) found (Trump) liable for rape by a jury despite the jury’s verdict expressly finding he was not liable for rape.
If Trump wasn't found liable for rape, then what was he found liable for?

And why would Carroll win TWO lawsuits, one worth $5M, the other $83M, if what this judge said was true and that the jury found Trump wasn't "liable for rape"?

This lawsuit should have been thrown out back in July, but the judge decided that the difference between "rape rape" and "grab 'em by the pussy" is worth keeping Trump's malicious lawsuit alive.

And now that Trump won the election, said malicious lawsuit becomes a $15M windfall for him.

I hope you're happy, Bill, because this proves there is indeed a two-tiered justice system. One for guys like Trump, and one for the rest of us.

Tenchusatsu
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext