Why the fuck wouldn’t he think the manifesto is referring to him?
To be fair, he thinks everything is about him.
Intense biblical narcicism + heavy dementia.
I don’t understand.
Adjudicated rapist.
Openly speaks about sexually assaulting women.
Has made many very creepy remarks about his daughter as well as other people’s daughters.
Is the single most prominently featured individual in the Epstein Files.
So it’s 100% accurate to call him a rapist and reasonably implicated pedophile.
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.
That’s why he had a break with Epstein, because Epstein “stole” some of “his people”.
It’s ok to say “rape” and “pedophile” on the internet.
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.
Lol I’m here because reddit banned me because I mentioned a murder-suicide case that was another commenter was trying to recall. Apparently I “threatened violence” 🤷♀️ is lemmy as as easily triggered? 🤔
But they are saying it. Everyone knows what’s being said. It’s understood what’s being meant.
However that’s not the point. The point is Companies, when brought into say, the Pennsylvania supreme court on Obscenity charges, can say they do everything technically possible to filter out these words, so we are not liable for whatever law – this usually makes prosecutors fail at trial, or reconsider bringing charges.
If you let anyone say the no no words, and someone sends a rape threat to Nancy Pelosi on your platform you could be liable for harassment, hosting obscenity (real charge in multiple US states), and other such financial annoyances.
So it is cheaper to just have a set of policies and procedures in place, even if it objectively makes your platform worse, even if it objectively is not effective, simply because it looks better in court and gets you out of more fines. See: The New Zealand law spurred on by the Christchurch shooter, which essentially requires every website to censor violent images and manifestos or pay some ridiculous $5mil NZD fine a DAY that it is kept up after being reported. If they can AI things breaking that law away, even if it harms other users, they’re going to do so.
Companies, like all parasites, will actively shy away from poisonous food sources and pick other directions to go in.
Is a veiled threat not a threat that would hold up in (American ) court ?
It is but it takes the blame off of the platform entirely.
To word it a different way - if I made a service where no matter what you wanted to say I would write down your words, read them, and run through town shouting them until I found the person it was directed to and then shout it at them… I would be liable for the words being said as much as the person paying me to say it.
If, however, I have a strict policy where I will only do the above after I strictly review and moderate your words, and you managed to sneak in a tongue twister that says something dirty that I didn’t realize until after I shouted it… I am no longer liable. I did everything a reasonable person could expect, you are the only one liable.
When people sue in the US (and when companies really fuck up) people sue the person liable and all possible parties that could be included. The parties then shift blame around pretrial and try to prove they are not liable by xyz to get dismissed off the case. If this fails then each party sued essentially has a trial for their specific liability, which needs to be separately proved in court; and if it makes it that far, in front of a jury (or panel of judges, or a single judge, depending on which state and what kind of action).
deleted by creator
Dude LITERALLY raped his ex wife.
Dude was convicted of sexual assault.
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.
That’s a pretty shitty definition New York.
Yes, it was. They changed the legal definition shortly after Mango Mussolini’s trial. If convicted today, what he did would legally be called rape.
Let’s give them some slack – at least they fucking hate trump.
Donald Trump is an adjudicated rapist, so he’s definitely lying there with that denial.
That doesn’t make the entire statement true, but if it were false I suspect the Epstein files would have been released in full unredacted by now, as the law requires. It would completely exonerate him, if he had nothing to hide.
*pedophile
*rapist
*rapist
*rape
*pedophile
uNaLiVe*
at the grand ballroom opening. Epstein memorial exhibits
Isn’t he a convicted rapist? Surely that means he’s in fact a rapist
Edit: thanks to all the people pointing out that he wasn’t convicted
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 paid her 78 million dollars specifically so that he wouldn’t have to take a DNA test to prove his innocence.
Hmmmm
I missed something. What dna were they going to test that could influence a case for a crime that occurred 30 years ago?
E. Jean Carroll requested a DNA sample from Donald Trump in 2020 to compare with unidentified male DNA found on the dress she allegedly wore during a 1990s sexual assault.
Well there you go.
EDIT: added some googling.
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.
Civil court is a much lower bar of proof. But yeah he received a civil liability judgement.
Well, the usa passed a law that makes a tomato a vegetable instead of a fruit, so labels don’t mean much there (neither does law anymore), so who knows? I agree though because of the “walks like a duck” logic.
“Vegetable” isn’t a real scientific term. Nothing is stopping a fruit from also being a vegetable
There is a definition of a fruit though, and it is understood that vegetables are not fruit. As I understand it.
Sure, but tomatoes are a fruit botanically (more precisely, a berry). “Vegetable” is a culinary term, and has no real strict definition beyond “a plant grown to be eaten”, so a tomato falls squarely into being a berry, a fruit, and a vegetable.
As far as I’m aware, the supreme court made a ruling on that, but that’s not the same as passing a law. Are you conflating the two or do you have additional sources? Because I can’t find any evidence that was made a law.
No, just something I heard or read a long time ago. If not a law, some sort of official status or recognition anyway.
Which is not remotely the same thing as passing a law.
Thanks for the confirmation!
He never said he is not a traitor?
In his criminal mind, they can’t prove it so he can lie about it but EVERYBODY knows exactly who they are referring to when they mention pedophile and rapist. Releasing the unredacted Epstein files is his greatest fear - people will die before he allows it.
People have already died
In his criminal mind, they can’t prove it
It has already been proven in court.
How the FUCK, is there already a 60 Minutes interview about this?
They had weeks to prepare for it.
Doesn’t make sense. If O’Donnell is in league with Trump, then why would she be butchering Trump like this?
Ever seen good old Babylon 5? When the corrupt president seizes the media and uses it for propaganda etc. There are still good people in the media, but they can’t be openly critical or they will be removed. Subtle jabs like this are pretty much all they’ll be willing to risk.
But if this is all a plot by the US government, and the assassin is presumably in on it, then why would the manifest be talking about pedophiles at all? That is not the kind of fake manifest Team Trump would have written.
I was joking, I don’t think it was staged because they looked like idiots.
But if they were to stage it, what do you think they would put on the manifesto? They hate him for having too nice hair? They would want to associate the people who criticizes them with madness and violence.
I guess they hate enough people they could have used Muslims, trans, black… Hell even greenlandish as scapegoats.
But if they were to stage it, what do you think they would put on the manifesto? They hate him for having too nice hair?
Fox News demonizes a caricature of Democrats every single day. I don’t watch Fox News, but surely Fox News would be able to write such a “manifest”. It would probably include mentions of stuff like “antifa”.
Antifa is not hot right now. They could use it to try to shift focus, but if the war didn’t make it I don’t think that would.
“You have Epstein derangement syndrom” is something they might want.
Again, I don’t think it’s staged, I just think they might want to change the perception with that of it was.
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.
Thank you for the actual answer.
The white house booked it last week as part of the planned shooting /s
You don’t really need the ‘/s’.
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.
Is this real
It’s at the 19min45sec mark.
Shooters manifesto about the secret service:
This level of incompetence is insane.
Trump:
Well he was pretty incompetent, too, because he got caught.
LOL
I heard that too, and chuckled.
Why chuckle? It’s the world’s biggest moron making anything up at our expense on live tv. It’s the worst possible thing, with the worst possibly price tag being paraded in front of our faces at the worst possible time. I got no chuckle
I chuckle because otherwise I’d cry. I feel you.
Because chuckling is free and Trump tacitly agreeing that he’s incompetent is funny.
Catastrophizing doesn’t help the situation either, at least a chuckle doesn’t blow up your own mental health for no reason.
Sometimes I laugh because otherwise I’d cry.
“So what about this statement someone else made?”
“You’re a shitty person for repeating words and I assumed you were shit and so now I’m calling you shit to deflect…”
“Yes well uh gosh Mr president okay…”
Fucking incompetence…
It’s shocking how awful journalists are in this country. They NEVER follow up when politicians blatantly lie to their face. It’s fucking shameful.
That’s O’Donnel which means CBS right? Which is basically Trump little bitch propaganda network now. Since he can fire Colbert because he’s Ass hurt, and he can fine 60 Munutes, also because he’s ass hurt.
He’ll just sue again to steal more money from the taxpayer
It’s been real since at least the 80s. Imagine the busses full of execs and millionaires and collaborators who stayed quiet all this time to make sure he got where he is today. None of whom we will talk about once the chief pedo is dead.
Thank you, miss O’Donnell. Not all heroes wear capes.
The moron doth protest too much
Hey, he didn’t deny he was a traitor.
“So you deny being a rapist and pedophile, but agree that you’re a Traitor, moving on…”
Fucker talks too much in general
Perhaps he simply breathes too much. Or at all would be too much
