svashtabezneshto Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 da je u srbiji pokrenuo bi peticiju za skupljanje para da se bori protiv pravosuđa establišmenta koje ne dozvoljava da on bude predsednik i na sve načine hoće da ga sabotira. ne znam može li to proći u americi Link to comment
Zverilla Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fakundo Sava said: Šta je on rekao toj gospođi koja ga tužila Nigde ne piše konkretno nego sve uvijeno 83 meleona zato što samo na taj način može da se utiče na okrivljenog ,ako sam dobro razumeo Ono što sam ja video je bilo : "između ostalog: Sick, mentally ill, wack job" A to je onda pokrenulo lavinu , kad se (R)ulja nakacila Edited January 27 by Zverilla Link to comment
dragance Posted January 27 Share Posted January 27 1 hour ago, svashtabezneshto said: da je u srbiji pokrenuo bi peticiju za skupljanje para da se bori protiv pravosuđa establišmenta koje ne dozvoljava da on bude predsednik i na sve načine hoće da ga sabotira. ne znam može li to proći u americi Pa on to upravo i radi u Americi. Link to comment
vememah Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 (edited) Quote The full video of a deposition given by former president Donald Trump as part of his civil rape trial has been released. In the video, Trump calls his accuser, writer E. Jean Carroll a “nut job” and “mentally sick.” At one point, he also mistakes Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples in a photo. Spoiler Dakle, lagao da nije njegov tip, a onda ju je na svedočenju pobrkao sa svojom drugom ženom. Na to je probao da se vadi da je slika mutna, ali naravno nije bila. Quote A photograph of (left to right) Trump, Carroll, Carroll's then-husband John Johnson, and Trump's then-wife Ivana Trump in 1987. Quote Speaking to the six-man, three-woman jury, Roberta Kaplan played a video of the former president's October deposition in the case, where he looked at a picture of Carroll from the late 1980s and identified it as a photo of Marla Maples, his second wife. Trump had said in his deposition and in public statements after Carroll accused him of sexually assaulting her in a Manhattan department store that he wouldn't have done so because she was "not my type." "In other words, she wasn't attractive enough to sexually assault," Kaplan told the jury. After his lawyer pointed out the mistake about who was in the photo, Trump said the picture was "blurry." Kaplan displayed it for the jury. “It’s not at all blurry,” she said, and Carroll was "exactly his type." https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/e-jean-carroll-was-exactly-donald-trumps-type-lawyer-says-closing-argu-rcna83333 Navodno je levo je ova što ga je tužila, a desno ta njegova žena. Edited January 27 by vememah 1 1 Link to comment
vememah Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 (edited) 2 hours ago, aram said: To je došlo do suda, sud je presudio da nema dokaza za silovanje, ali ima za sexually assault S tim da je sudija kasnije napisao da je porota zapravo rekla da to u suštini jeste bilo silovanje u smislu nedozvoljene penetracije, samo ne penisom (što se jedino definiše kao silovanje po njujorškom krivičnom zakoniku). Quote The jury’s unanimous verdict in Carroll II was almost entirely in favor of Ms. Carroll. The only point on which Ms. Carroll did not prevail was whether she had proved that Mr. Trump had “raped” her within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law – a section that provides that the label “rape” as used in criminal prosecutions in New York applies only to vaginal penetration by a penis. Forcible, unconsented-to penetration of the vagina or of other bodily orifices by fingers, other body parts, or other articles or materials is not called “rape” under the New York Penal Law. It instead is labeled “sexual abuse.” (...) As is shown in the following notes, the definition of rape in the New York Penal Law is far narrower than the meaning of “rape” in common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere. The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that. So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s $2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll. Its verdict, he says, could have been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar conduct, which is a far cry from rape.” And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive. This jury did not award Ms. Carroll more than $2 million for groping her breasts through her clothing, wrongful as that might have been. There was no evidence at all of such behavior. Instead, the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf Edited January 27 by vememah 1 1 Link to comment
vememah Posted January 27 Author Share Posted January 27 (edited) U zadnjih milion godina zvezde hvataju žene za pičku, i to vam je tako, reče Tramp na svedočenju, potvrdivši da on sebe smatra zvezdom. Edited January 27 by vememah Link to comment
Lord Protector Posted January 28 Share Posted January 28 Šta li je tek radio u Beloj kući... Link to comment
Roger Sanchez Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Catturd™ se zaista vratio osvježen i inspiriran sa susreta s... .... au, kako se ono taj lik zvao.... a da, Tucker Carlson... 1 Link to comment
Shan Jan Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Trampara je deo showbusiness-a tako da moze da bankrotira jos 20 puta, zabole njegove glasace. Oni sve ovo gledaju kao borbu establishmenta protiv lika koji je kao jedan od njih. 1 Link to comment
Tutankamon Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Cekaj bankrotiras i sta onda? Valjda te dugovi cekaju i kad izadjes iz bankrota? Link to comment
Roger Sanchez Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Dijeta Fox News/republikanskog ludila je ponekad baš ono što treba običnim luđacima da se pretvore u homicidalne manijake Link to comment
aram Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 On 29. 1. 2024. at 15:33, Tutankamon said: Cekaj bankrotiras i sta onda? Valjda te dugovi cekaju i kad izadjes iz bankrota? pa ne, posle određenog vremena dugovi ti se opraštaju. nije tako jednostavno, ima dosta različitih vrsta bankrota, a mediji često tako nazovu i insolventnost što je opet posebna stvar. 1 Link to comment
x500 Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 @Roger Sanchez ovaj sudija u NY kao da je ucio pravo kod sudca Lozine u slucaju one americke kosarkasice Link to comment
vememah Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 Quote "We cannot accept former President Trump's claim that a president has unbounded authority to commit crimes that would neutralise the most fundamental check on executive power - the recognition and implementation of election results," the three-judge appeals court panel wrote in its opinion. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68026175 1 Link to comment
Lord Protector Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) . Edited February 6 by Lord Protector Link to comment
Recommended Posts