Quote:

---

[color=#000000]How can one prove that they never raped someone!?[/color]


[color=#000000]The only proof that can be offered is a lack of evidence![/color]

---

not true.

for this case (which will never actually be a case):

"I never raped anyone" testimony and here is the verdict that found I did not rape carroll.

One of the ten commandments is to not 'bear false witness' against some one.

Now, in our system, people can lie about someone with impunity!

No consequences here, before His throne, is a different thing all together.

If there were real consequences applied of defaming someone, (even if a public figure) then this sort of stuff would slow down dramatically,

It really needs to. It won't but it if there were real consequences for lying then things would change. There is virutally no consequences for this sort of stuff and it is extremely detrimental to the society.

OPAG said:

---

One of the ten commandments is to not 'bear false witness' against some one.

Now, in our system, people can lie about someone with impunity!

No consequences here, before His throne, is a different thing all together.

If there were real consequences applied of defaming someone, (even if a public figure) then this sort of stuff would slow down dramatically,

It really needs to. It won't but it if there were real consequences for lying then things would change. There is virutally no consequences for this sort of stuff and it is extremely detrimental to the society.

---

Very fake news.

GeorgiAg said:

---

…,,,…,,, Also there is a much higher standard for a public figure, and Trump is a public figure.

---

unfortunately, seems like the intention of our founding fathers was equal treatment under the law.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

goijg to be a huge hit to AOC's hay budget.

---

Thanks for causing an audible chuckle from me. Blue star for you

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 "you can" women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

He said "you can" because "they'll let you do anything."

That's called consent, and is thus, not assault.

Thanks for leaving that part out. You either did it on purpose, or don't realize it's import in the case. Judging by your posting history, I'm not sure which one is more likely.

OPAG said:

---

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

---

I agree with you 100%, because you're right.

Muy said:

---

OPAG said:

---

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

---

I agree with you 100%, because you're right.

---

I hope you all get your way. I could sue people nonstop for ten years and then retire in my yacht in the Med. Full employment for litigation attorneys.

OPAG said:

---

One of the ten commandments is to not 'bear false witness' against some one.

Now, in our system, people can lie about someone with impunity!

No consequences here, before His throne, is a different thing all together.

If there were real consequences applied of defaming someone, (even if a public figure) then this sort of stuff would slow down dramatically,

It really needs to. It won't but it if there were real consequences for lying then things would change. There is virutally no consequences for this sort of stuff and it is extremely detrimental to the society.

---

If there was a lower barrier Trump would be one of the ones with the most defamation lawsuits to defend. Guy lies and accuses every other sentence.

Francis Macomber said:

---

OPAG said:

---

One of the ten commandments is to not 'bear false witness' against some one.

Now, in our system, people can lie about someone with impunity!

No consequences here, before His throne, is a different thing all together.

If there were real consequences applied of defaming someone, (even if a public figure) then this sort of stuff would slow down dramatically,

It really needs to. It won't but it if there were real consequences for lying then things would change. There is virutally no consequences for this sort of stuff and it is extremely detrimental to the society.

---

If there was a lower barrier Trump would be one of the ones with the most defamation lawsuits to defend. Guy lies and accuses every other sentence.

---

Man, you really hate Trump. Are you in Antifa?

I would love to see Trump taking AOC to court and slam dunking on her there.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Muy said:

---

OPAG said:

---

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

---

I agree with you 100%, because you're right.

---

I hope you all get your way. I could sue people nonstop for ten years and then retire in my yacht in the Med. Full employment for litigation attorneys.

---

This is really not that hard, If some one comes out publcially and declares I am a rapist. Then I should be able to go after them. And this is exactly why you see new cast, et al say "allegedly" or something similar.

It's one thing to say I think so and so is a pedo or whatever, But to declare it as a hard fact, that's different.

And as far as you getting big pay days for it, I doubt it, one or two and it would stop. The issue is their absolutely no consequences for 'bearing false witness against some one'. Just straight up lying.

If the women that accused men of raping them and were lying were given the same sentence and judgement that would of been given to the men/man she accused, All that nonsense would dry up.

You can go after them. What you were mistaken about above was how the burden of proof works in a lawsuit for defamation.

Sigh.

Trump already tried defamation as a counterclaim in E Jean Carroll II. The counterclaim was thrown out via a motion to dismiss. There is an entire Order explaining this in excruciating detail. The link is below if you care to read it. You may disagree with the Judge, but as to AOC, there now, on top of what the judge relied on in the E Jean Carroll order, there is a new judge's order that conclusively stated that he "raped her." He is therefore "a rapist" for purposes of First Amendment jurisprudence. There is no person in the world who could be sued for calling Trump "a rapist." You cannot say he is a "convicted rapist" because he has not been criminally convicted of it. See, ABC case. But he is an "adjudicated rapist" and also a "rapist" for purposes of First Amendment law, defamation, libel, slander, etc...

This has not been overturned. From the Judge's Order and there are dozens of other statements by the Judge:

Quote:

---

It accordingly is the "truth," as relevant here, that Mr. Trump digitally raped Ms. Carroll.

---

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24370395-kaplan-august-ruling-trump-counterclaim/

And AOC does not have to show it is the "truth," it would be Trump's burden to show that AOC made the statement "with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. New York Times v. Sullivan. Not only is this "not false," it is "true."

I know you don't think that is "rape" AND I AGREE WITH YOU. It is more accurately stated that would be sexual assault. But for purposes of a defamation suit, he would lose immediately and likely have to pay attorney fees because this is LEGALLY so very clear.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

I would love to see Trump taking AOC to court and slam dunking on her there.

---

He might get to do that at some point, but it won't be because of this lawsuit. If anything, if he sues her in New York, he will be the one paying her attorneys' fees.

Im Gipper said:

---

You can go after them. What you were mistaken about above was how the burden of proof works in a lawsuit for defamation.

---

Oh I totally get it. It's just not good IMHO.

We have had really bad people twist and turn and take advantage of the intent of our laws.

This more than anything else will lead to the death of the Republic, IMHO.

I'll give you a quick personal example. My son was in Military Intelligence, with the Green Beret. He is fairly highly decorated, Has about the highest level of security clearance you can get. He sought to get a fiance visa for his now wife from Indonesia. Even had his commanding officer right a letter requesting the granting of this visa, It was refused, He reapplied, refused again,

Went to Indonesia, got married, 9 months later sought to bring new wife the US on a visitor visa to meet the family, It was refused again, 5 minute interview with the wife, and my son, who was there was not part of the interview.

Now they have a child a US citizen, (one on the way in Dec) they have been married over two years. He has applied for a spousal vise. She is on a 18 month waiting list> He must come to the US to find work, (high level cyber security IT guy -- did that in the MIL) and he is faced with being separated from his fam for over year,

All the while illegals were pumped over her through various NGO's.

Yet when those who try to do it legally and should be approved quickly denied and refused and then guess what over time we are going to have some problems.

Ex 23:2-3
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 3 You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.
NKJV

Prov 29:4
The king establishes the land by justice,
But he who receives bribes overthrows it.
NKJV

GeorgiAg said:

---

Muy said:

---

OPAG said:

---

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

---

I agree with you 100%, because you're right.

---

I hope you all get your way. I could sue people nonstop for ten years and then retire in my yacht in the Med. Full employment for litigation attorneys.

---

After several people end up paying the consequences most people would stop. Those that wouldn't stop wouldn't have the wealth to pay for your yacht, unless your yacht looks like;

OPAG said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

You can go after them. What you were mistaken about above was how the burden of proof works in a lawsuit for defamation.

---

Oh I totally get it. It's just not good IMHO.

We have had really bad people twist and turn and take advantage of the intent of our laws.

This more than anything else will lead to the death of the Republic, IMHO.

I'll give you a quick personal example. My son was in Military Intelligence, with the Green Beret. He is fairly highly decorated, Has about the highest level of security clearance you can get. He sought to get a fiance visa for his now wife from Indonesia. Even had his commanding officer right a letter requesting the granting of this visa, It was refused, He reapplied, refused again,

Went to Indonesia, got married, 9 months later sought to bring new wife the US on a visitor visa to meet the family, It was refused again, 5 minute interview with the wife, and my son, who was there was not part of the interview.

Now they have a child a US citizen, (one on the way in Dec) they have been married over two years. He has applied for a spousal vise. She is on a 18 month waiting list> He must come to the US to find work, (high level cyber security IT guy -- did that in the MIL) and he is faced with being separated from his fam for over year,

All the while illegals were pumped over her through various NGO's.

Yet when those who try to do it legally and should be approved quickly denied and refused and then guess what over time we are going to have some problems.

Ex 23:2-3
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 3 You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.
NKJV

Prov 29:4
The king establishes the land by justice,
But he who receives bribes overthrows it.
NKJV

---

I feel for your son and his hardship in working through the system legally. People trying to come to this country and become citizens legally are made to go to extraordinary lengths yet the illegal aliens are given a pass. This is indescribably wrong.

It's not only incredibly wrong, it can cause the most talented and patriotic of US and sours them!

It's not just my son that faces this.

There are MANY US MIL/Vets who took foreign wives when they were deployed and they also face this issue.

That is why I am trying to have a meeting with Ted Cruz about this and another important topic,

This is an easy fix. Really simple.

When filling out the spousal visa app, there simply needs to be the following boxes added that ask

"Are you active US Military or a Veteran?"

"Have you been married for 2 years or longer"

"Do you have any children" and subset off of that, "Are they a US Citizen?"

If you can click any of the boxes then your applicationg should be pulled from the general stack and expedited.

If you check all three boxes it should be expediated immediatly through the USCIS.

Now it just goes in the general pile.

Sorry for the derail

richardag said:

---

OPAG said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

You can go after them. What you were mistaken about above was how the burden of proof works in a lawsuit for defamation.

---

Oh I totally get it. It's just not good IMHO.

We have had really bad people twist and turn and take advantage of the intent of our laws.

This more than anything else will lead to the death of the Republic, IMHO.

I'll give you a quick personal example. My son was in Military Intelligence, with the Green Beret. He is fairly highly decorated, Has about the highest level of security clearance you can get. He sought to get a fiance visa for his now wife from Indonesia. Even had his commanding officer right a letter requesting the granting of this visa, It was refused, He reapplied, refused again,

Went to Indonesia, got married, 9 months later sought to bring new wife the US on a visitor visa to meet the family, It was refused again, 5 minute interview with the wife, and my son, who was there was not part of the interview.

Now they have a child a US citizen, (one on the way in Dec) they have been married over two years. He has applied for a spousal vise. She is on a 18 month waiting list> He must come to the US to find work, (high level cyber security IT guy -- did that in the MIL) and he is faced with being separated from his fam for over year,

All the while illegals were pumped over her through various NGO's.

Yet when those who try to do it legally and should be approved quickly denied and refused and then guess what over time we are going to have some problems.

Ex 23:2-3
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice. 3 You shall not show partiality to a poor man in his dispute.
NKJV

Prov 29:4
The king establishes the land by justice,
But he who receives bribes overthrows it.
NKJV

---

I feel for your son and his hardship in working through the system legally. People trying to come to this country and become citizens legally are made to go to extraordinary lengths yet the illegal aliens are given a pass. This is indescribably wrong.

---

Do you not understand how the two might be related? As in, bc it is so difficult to come in the "right way," many people choose to do it the wrong way.

All the more reason for immigration reform.

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.

---

---

Yep. She doesn't have Article I constitutional immunity for that.