El Gallo Blanco said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

When did Trump say that he grabs women? Can you find that quote for us.

---

He never did, he was engaging in braggadocious "locker room talk" and making the point of how easy it is to get women when you are rich and famous. Every liberal dimwit would know this deep down, if they were capable of filtering out their intense hatred of Trump and being honest with themselves.

It doesn't make it right....but only a child, or a hate fueled brainwashed dem, would actually think he was saying you can just walk up and grab ladies by their privates, or that he has done so.

But ultimately, they are complete hypocrites either way...Bill Clinton sexually assaulted a young INTERN int he Oval Office, which is orders of magnitude worse than Trump's cocky lcker room jokes...and the liberal freaks are dead silent. I have never heard a single one criticize him over this...which is much worse than anything Trump has ever done. Can you imagine their reaction to Trump being caught banging an intern in the Oval Office? LOLOL

---

Yeah, the piety by never trumper's is sooo 2016...and so lame.

He can shut this down by stating:

"AOC has zero evidence to make this claim, but I can prove she's a blithering idiot every time she opens her mouth."

Sid Farkas said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

When did Trump say that he grabs women? Can you find that quote for us.

---

He never did, he was engaging in braggadocious "locker room talk" and making the point of how easy it is to get women when you are rich and famous. Every liberal dimwit would know this deep down, if they were capable of filtering out their intense hatred of Trump and being honest with themselves.

It doesn't make it right....but only a child, or a hate fueled brainwashed dem, would actually think he was saying you can just walk up and grab ladies by their privates, or that he has done so.

But ultimately, they are complete hypocrites either way...Bill Clinton sexually assaulted a young INTERN int he Oval Office, which is orders of magnitude worse than Trump's cocky lcker room jokes...and the liberal freaks are dead silent. I have never heard a single one criticize him over this...which is much worse than anything Trump has ever done. Can you imagine their reaction to Trump being caught banging an intern in the Oval Office? LOLOL

---

Yeah, the piety by never trumper's is sooo 2016...and so lame.

---

There is not a more blatantly hypocritical group in the entire world than the modern American/Western white liberal. Not even close. It is part of their deviant pagan religion at this point.

Im Gipper said:

---

What's with the:

Quote:

---

color=#33333

---

Have been seeing that on a lot of quotes.

---

They're Russian bots!

if you don't go along with leftist fake news lies, then you must be MAGA Army and you must be out today.

TexAgs91 said:

---

She just repeated ABC's mistake of calling Trump a rapist, which forced ABC to fork over $15 million to Trump.

link

Quote:

---

"Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?" Ocasio-Cortez posted to X on Friday. She appeared to be referencing the 2023 civil trial leveled against Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump liable of sexual assault, but not of rape, which critics of Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly cited in their condemnation of her use of the word "rapist."

---

Quote:

---

"Even under the ridiculously lenient standards of NY Times v. Sullivan, you've managed to incur defamation liability Wow," Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted to X in response.

---

---

I think zero chance Trump would try to pursue a lawsuit even if AOC is out there calling him a 'rapist' every single day.

He'd have to prove the charges were definitely not true and discovery would reopen stuff like the Carroll stuff and releasing the Epstein files. Give her lawyers the platform to rehash all sorts of stuff in Trump's past. So AOC would have gleefully baited him into a legal 'prove there is no smoke of you being a rapist' contest that he wouldn't want to being treading around in. In this case, he would serve best just leaving his response, if he does, to verbally bashing her. But again he'd have to be self aware of being baited. Trump himself is a skilled troller/baiter but so is AOC and he probably knows that very well.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

She just repeated ABC's mistake of calling Trump a rapist, which forced ABC to fork over $15 million to Trump.

link

Quote:

---

"Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?" Ocasio-Cortez posted to X on Friday. She appeared to be referencing the 2023 civil trial leveled against Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump liable of sexual assault, but not of rape, which critics of Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly cited in their condemnation of her use of the word "rapist."

---

Quote:

---

"Even under the ridiculously lenient standards of NY Times v. Sullivan, you've managed to incur defamation liability Wow," Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted to X in response.

---

---

I think zero chance Trump would try to pursue a lawsuit even if AOC is out there calling him a 'rapist' every single day.

He'd have to prove the charges were definitely not true and discovery would reopen stuff like the Carroll stuff and releasing the Epstein files. Give her lawyers the platform to rehash all sorts of stuff in Trump's past. So AOC would have gleefully baited him into a legal swamp he wouldn't want to being treading around in. In this case, he would serve best just leaving his response, if he does, to just verbally bashing her. But again not being baited into litigating his past history. Trump himself is a skilled troller/baiter but so is AOC and he probably knows that very well.

---

There are no Epstein files...

please completely ignore this one lady who actually worked for Biden in the 1990s. Ignore that she filed a harassment complaint back then and it was buried and she was fired back then. Ignore that she told other people about what happened to her back then. Ignore that when she recounted the story over 20 years later, she had to flee the country because of threats on her life. She has no credibility because the Sniffer in Chief would never do anything like that.


but this other lady, a fiction writer who has written and talked about rape fantasies, where there's no evidence she ever met Trump 30 years ago (or ever), nor any evidence Trump ever knew who she was, is totally credible because Trump once said something very crass on hidden camera when bragging about being rich and famous.


the hypocrisy knows no bounds

Soros will pay any legal bills and fines she gets.

oh no said:

---

please completely ignore this one lady who actually worked for Biden in the 1990s. Ignore that she filed a harassment complaint back then and it was buried and she was fired back then. Ignore that she told other people about what happened to her back then. Ignore that when she recounted the story over 20 years later, she had to flee the country because of threats on her life. She has no credibility because the Sniffer in Chief would never do anything like that.


but this other lady, a fiction writer who has written and talked about rape fantasies, where there's no evidence she ever met Trump 30 years ago (or ever), nor any evidence Trump ever knew who she was, is totally credible because Trump once said something very crass on hidden camera when bragging about being rich and famous.


the hypocrisy knows no bounds

---

Good summation of what it's like to fight the left.

Can't stand that slag, but she would skate on this if Trump sued.

Y'all would be better off thinking of some of these settlements as more like bribes or protection money rather than actually relating to the validity of the underlying lawsuit.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

She just repeated ABC's mistake of calling Trump a rapist, which forced ABC to fork over $15 million to Trump.

link

Quote:

---

"Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?" Ocasio-Cortez posted to X on Friday. She appeared to be referencing the 2023 civil trial leveled against Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump liable of sexual assault, but not of rape, which critics of Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly cited in their condemnation of her use of the word "rapist."

---

Quote:

---

"Even under the ridiculously lenient standards of NY Times v. Sullivan, you've managed to incur defamation liability Wow," Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted to X in response.

---

---

I think zero chance Trump would try to pursue a lawsuit even if AOC is out there calling him a 'rapist' every single day.

He'd have to prove the charges were definitely not true and discovery would reopen stuff like the Carroll stuff and releasing the Epstein files. Give her lawyers the platform to rehash all sorts of stuff in Trump's past. So AOC would have gleefully baited him into a legal 'prove there is no smoke of you being a rapist' contest that he wouldn't want to being treading around in. In this case, he would serve best just leaving his response, if he does, to verbally bashing her. But again he'd have to be self aware of being baited. Trump himself is a skilled troller/baiter but so is AOC and he probably knows that very well.

---

It wouldn't make it past a motion to dismiss. Thus no discovery.

She'll triple down and scream about how Trump is victimizing her right to "free speech". Hell, it's how this radical left ideology works now. We have actual video of that black congresswoman physically assaulting a Border Patrol agent and yet she still shrieked about how that didn't happen at all.

And all the leftists flock here to say "hey it's ok". Rather comical and sad at the same time.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

She just repeated ABC's mistake of calling Trump a rapist, which forced ABC to fork over $15 million to Trump.

link

Quote:

---

"Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?" Ocasio-Cortez posted to X on Friday. She appeared to be referencing the 2023 civil trial leveled against Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump liable of sexual assault, but not of rape, which critics of Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly cited in their condemnation of her use of the word "rapist."

---

Quote:

---

"Even under the ridiculously lenient standards of NY Times v. Sullivan, you've managed to incur defamation liability Wow," Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted to X in response.

---

---

I think zero chance Trump would try to pursue a lawsuit even if AOC is out there calling him a 'rapist' every single day.

He'd have to prove the charges were definitely not true and discovery would reopen stuff like the Carroll stuff and releasing the Epstein files. Give her lawyers the platform to rehash all sorts of stuff in Trump's past. So AOC would have gleefully baited him into a legal 'prove there is no smoke of you being a rapist' contest that he wouldn't want to being treading around in. In this case, he would serve best just leaving his response, if he does, to verbally bashing her. But again he'd have to be self aware of being baited. Trump himself is a skilled troller/baiter but so is AOC and he probably knows that very well.

---

In Trump style, he will probably start calling her a prostitute, and if she complains he can say, "if I'm a rapist, then the onus is on me to prove you wrong, and onus is on you to prove to me you're not a prostitute." Because that is how he works.

93MarineHorn said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

He wasn't convicted of rape. He was found liable by a jury of New Yorkers for a crotch grab in the 90's, correct? I don't recall there being any concrete evidence submitted. Zero witnesses. Just the pathetically hazy recollections of one woman that made up the whole thing because of his "***** grab" comment. Now every lib goes around claiming Trump is a rapist.

---

He wasn't convicted of anything physical only libel against the bat **** crazy lady who lied. I think it will be overturned at some point.

2000AgPhD said:

---

Can't stand that slag, but she would skate on this if Trump sued.

---

CBS didn't skate.

annie88 said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

He wasn't convicted of rape. He was found liable by a jury of New Yorkers for a crotch grab in the 90's, correct? I don't recall there being any concrete evidence submitted. Zero witnesses. Just the pathetically hazy recollections of one woman that made up the whole thing because of his "***** grab" comment. Now every lib goes around claiming Trump is a rapist.

---

He wasn't convicted of anything physical only libel against the bat **** crazy lady who lied. I think it will be overturned at some point.

---

That's all irrelevant in the context of a prospective defamation case for what AOC said.

93MarineHorn said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

He wasn't convicted of rape. He was found liable by a jury of New Yorkers for a crotch grab in the 90's, correct? I don't recall there being any concrete evidence submitted. Zero witnesses. Just the pathetically hazy recollections of one woman that made up the whole thing because of his "***** grab" comment. Now every lib goes around claiming Trump is a rapist.

---

Yeah well. He pretty much said he did it on occassion

Discovery would be amazing. But Donald is not going to do anything. He is going to let this one hopefully die quickly. He already is having to create too many distractions with the main Epstein issue.

Oh look, another tariff.

GeorgiAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Nope. He never said he did that. It ranks right up there with saying Nazis are good people and Koigate as Trump urban legends.

---

It's a recording. He said it. The inference is that he did it. That alone would probably be enough but you add the E Jean Carroll civil verdict and all the other stuff and it's not "false". Add the public figure requirement of actual malice and it's a frivolous lawsuit. He'd have to pay her attorney fees.

---

This is 100% completely incorrect…. You know that. Your TDS is really showing through here….

HTownAg98 said:

---

annie88 said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

He wasn't convicted of rape. He was found liable by a jury of New Yorkers for a crotch grab in the 90's, correct? I don't recall there being any concrete evidence submitted. Zero witnesses. Just the pathetically hazy recollections of one woman that made up the whole thing because of his "***** grab" comment. Now every lib goes around claiming Trump is a rapist.

---

He wasn't convicted of anything physical only libel against the bat **** crazy lady who lied. I think it will be overturned at some point.

---

That's all irrelevant in the context of a prospective defamation case for what AOC said.

---

I wasn't talking about it within the context of this case I was talking directly to the poster that said he was found liable for a crotch grab when he was not.

Lighten up. She's joking.

Quote:

---

I wasn't talking about it within the context of this case I was talking directly to the poster that said he was found liable for a crotch grab when he was not.

---

He was found liable for sexual abuse based on the claim he forced his fingers in her. That's a little worse than a crotch grab I'd say.


I have never bought Carrol's story, too far fetched. But those are the facts of what he was found liable for.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I wasn't talking about it within the context of this case I was talking directly to the poster that said he was found liable for a crotch grab when he was not.

---

He was found liable for sexual abuse based on the claim he forced his fingers in her. That's a little worse than a crotch grab I'd say.


I have never bought Carrol's story, too far fetched. But those are the facts of what he was found liable for.

---

You're right that $83 million was because of liable. But I'm telling you he never touched that woman. Her story made no sense. First off the dress she claims she was wearing wasn't even manufactured in the random years that she said it happened. And I don't know too many women that are sexually assaulted. Who don't remember the exact date of it. There were several other things in the story that were lies as well. Once again, they just got a liberal jury that hated Trump. Same thing with the Felony based on a ledger entry for a crime that no one else in the state could've been convicted of.

Plus you're talking about he said/she said thing that happened over 30 years ago? I think it's bull**** that any case like that can be found guilty. Again this was just about a Trump-hating jury.

Ag87H2O said:

---

Like every Democrat, she loves lawfare.

She should get to experience it firsthand. I would love to see Trump slam dunking on her.

---

And it is time that Trump made an example of her to ALL the Democrats which believe that they can say and do anything without consequences.

AOC needs home schooling. Her bartender brain does not serve her well with decision making.

That's total BS, the burdern of proof is on her! She made a declaration of fact that Trump is a rapist. She has to prove that.

So let me se if I got this right. I could make a declatory public statement that you are a child molester! And then you have to prove that your not!?!??!??

Insanity

Muy said:

---

She'll triple down and scream about how Trump is victimizing her right to "free speech". Hell, it's how this radical left ideology works now. We have actual video of that black congresswoman physically assaulting a Border Patrol agent and yet she still shrieked about how that didn't happen at all.

---

I am big proponent of free speach, However I am not free to make declarations of fact about anyone without knowing it first hand,

I can't say, "Muy is pedo or a rapist" without having hard proof.

I could say, I think Muy is a pedo, but to come out and declare it, maybe free speech but it is not free of consequences.

You should be able to sue me for defamation. and now I have to prove what I declared as fact. You do not have to prove that you are not a rapist or a pedo. You cannot prove that your not something. You cannot give a 24 hour 356 days a year accounting of every thing you have done. You cannot prove that you have never done something. This is not how our law works

OPAG said:

---

That's total BS, the burdern of proof is on her! She made a declaration of fact that Trump is a rapist. She has to prove that.

---

in a defamation lawsuit against AOC, the burden would be on Trump to prove the falsity of the statement.

Quote:

---

So let me se if I got this right. I could make a declatory public statement that you are a child molester! And then you have to prove that your not!?!??!??

Insanity

---

its a different standard because it involves non-public figure, not a matter of public concern and no media defendant.

If he sues you for defamation, then he technically has to prove the statement was false. however, if one of your defenses in the case is that the statement was true, then you bear the burden of proving that.

Artimus Gordon said:

---

AOC needs home schooling. Her bartender brain does not serve her well with decision making.

---

It over-serves her stupidity.

AOC is the yippy little dog down the street that barks at you when you walk by. Her owners aren't going to do anything to stop her and they would sell their home to fund a lawsuit if you ever took action against it.

Her Lawyer can claim she was referring to Clinton and then just say she misspoke and that those were "consensual", not rape, "I was being dramatic and exaggerated."

BMX Bandit said:

---

OPAG said:

---

That's total BS, the burdern of proof is on her! She made a declaration of fact that Trump is a rapist. She has to prove that.

---

in a defamation lawsuit against AOC, the burden would be on Trump to prove the falsity of the statement.

Quote:

---

So let me se if I got this right. I could make a declatory public statement that you are a child molester! And then you have to prove that your not!?!??!??

Insanity

---

its a different standard because it involves non-public figure, not a matter of public concern and no media defendant.

If he sues you for defamation, then he technically has to prove the statement was false. however, if one of your defenses in the case is that the statement was true, then you bear the burden of proving that.

---

How can one prove that they never raped someone!?


The only proof that can be offered is a lack of evidence!

If this the case our whole legal judicial system is totally screwed!