In a shocking legal decision that is going to prove a nightmare for HR Departments everywhere, former President Donald Trump has been ordered to pay $5 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for saying that he never raped her and wouldn't want to.
The jury did not find Trump guilty of rape, but apparently, it's now unacceptably rude - and legally actionable - for a man to say that he doesn't want to rip off a woman's clothing and violate her sexually against her will.
This now being legal precedent, men who care about women's rights and simple courtesy should be quick to tell females "I'd like to have my way with you in a dark alley while gagging you with a filthy handkerchief and banging your forehead bloody on a dumpster." Or, if an even more flattering comment is required, "I'd rape you, put your broken body in a shallow grave, but then rape your corpse one last time because you're just that hot."
Obviously, so as not to combine racism with misogyny, "woke" men should make a point of telling women of all creeds, colors, and nationalities that "I'd really enjoy stalking you, tackling you in a dark park, and leaving you unconscious, naked, and bruised under a bush covered with my DNA." Similar expressions of etiquette should of course be shared with the elderly and handicapped.
Whether or not the ruling applies to same-sex relationships has not yet been established, but for safety's sake men using public urinals may wish to turn to whoever is next to them and say "I'd like to bang you like the new fish in a prison shower room."
As of this writing, Joe Biden has not made an official statement on the ruling but, in an effort to appeal to female voters, it seems certain that he will soon make public remarks on how much he'd like to rape Kamala Harris.
23 comments:
"Manners or not, this is going to be a tough one"
The picture they show you if you've had an erection, for more than four hours with Viagra!
I have in the past used the expression, "I wouldn't **** her with your ####!" Will I now be liable for $5 million? Every time? I've said it enough to bankrupt Elon Musk!
Anyone wanna take bets on someone deciding to try a similar stunt on Justice Kavaugh?
President Trump is in good company. I'm reminded of the accusation of racism levelled against Israeli soldiers because they DON'T rape Arab women...
AAAAUGH!!! Trigger warning please on those sorts of pictures. It's early morning and my heart pills haven't kicked in yet. And now I need anti-nausea pills as well.
I was vaguely curious as to what image seared my retinas so early in the morning. The first two hits I got were "Chunky Puffed X w/ Bar Large" and "Double Hoop Doorknocker Large", which, while seemingly accurate, weren't very informative...
That woman is a two-bagger!
Can we please have a picture of this nice lady? Thank you. I think I'll join a monastery.
That picture....the horror.....the horror.
It may have been Bill Burr who said "I wouldn't f*** her with a rented d***!"
This is a pretty clear indication that not only is the DOJ weaponized, so is the entire legal system, at least in socialist enclaves like NY. Trump was smart to leave, just like all the others fleeing from this and the other marxist hellholes, just not soon enough.
It appears that the real victim of rape here is Mr. Trump.
My preference is the expression, "I wouldn't **** her with a vaccinated crow-bar!"
There is one good thing about the photo though. I can make a small copy of it to put in my shirt pocket to take to town on the few occasion I stop at the local watering hole, then after each round I can take it out and look at it. When that thing starts looking good I'll know I've had to much to drink, and head for home.
Everyday it's something more irrational from the left, including this jury. Two days ago it was 40 acres and a mule amortizing to $220,000,000. The day before that it was parents not being told their children were/are being groomed for sex change surgery...need I go on? Stilton, thank you for making nonsense of it all. Jumpstarts my morning!
30 years after the alleged occurrence, he's sued by someone who has "DNA evidence" the court refuses to review for an act they deem he didn't do, though they say he did something bad to her, and fine for saying that he didn't do what they refused to say what he did.
Sounds about right. You keep on keepin' on, New York!
Just when we thought we might, just might, have reached maximum clown car insanity in this country.
Jumping Jehoshaphat! Great Googly Moogly! WTF! Pass the Advil!
Pass the ammo when it doesn't ever stop on its own.
Very fed up with the deepening effects on our culture, governance, economy and security.
The lawsuits will keep on coming in leftist-infested areas because that's all they have. Every single lawsuit makes Trump more desirable to his base and hopefully independents who are sick of Biden's utopia.
…and the lady has charged 11 men before this.
The Montana Department of Labor and Industry told me that there is no defense in an accusation of Sexual Harassment. The accusation makes you guilty. I think that it would be just fine to accuse people we don't like. I don't like Democrats.
Do be reminded that Anybody of any sex can make an accusation. The field is open.
I would hope an opinion that the Trump "trial" was faked will resound in these quarters.
http://mileswmathis.com/ejean.pdf
Here's an introductory taste...
MM: So Trump is talking about fake news while helping create it.
Hard to believe I am the only one saying this. Of all the people that have allegedly graduated from law school, not one of them can see this trial is a farce? Not just as in rigged, but as in staged in a dummy court by the CIA or some other entity. Fiction.
Mainstream media is giving you all the clues, admitting this makes no legal sense. And I say that not as a Trump supporter. I don't in fact support Trump, as my readers know. I wouldn't vote either Red or Blue with a gun to my head. They admit this crazy lady E. Jean Carroll doesn't even know when Trump raped or accosted her, not even the year. They admit the judge allowed the trial to proceed against all law and precedent, when other women were allowed to testify they had similar experiences with Trump, without being cross-examined by defense.
The judge controversially allowed other women to testify that they had similar experiences with Trump. Typically, such evidence of character — purporting to prove that a defendant committed a specific act based on an alleged propensity to commit similar acts — is inadmissible except in a few very specific circumstances. Because the case was not a criminal case, the plaintiff’s legal team was allowed to comment negatively on Trump’s refusal to testify, and the jury was allowed to draw negative inferences from it.
All proof of the fake. If Trump had previously been convicted of raping or assaulting one of these women, then that would be admissible as character. It would have been proved and could stand as evidence. But women just coming in and telling stories isn't evidence of anything. It might or might not be true.
ACD: Sorry to burst anyone's bubble. Does make for fun if idle speculation, though!
@Alan Donelson, there sure is a LOT of speculation in that Mathis word salad! Claiming E. Jean Coli may actually be a cousin of Donald Trump? Person "A" may actually be named "B" and may be related to someone because "McKinney" may actually be "McKinley" and even may actually be "McKinnon"??
There's so much crazy there I can't decide if it's supposed to be parody or not. However, since it's not April 1st...
@Mike aka Proof- That would be a pretty permanent cure, I'm guessing.
@JustaJeepGuy- I'm not sure if $5 million is for each pronouncement, or if one fee covers a single person permanently. Time to get the Supreme Court involved!
@Fish Out of Water- I'm surprised they didn't think to try this on Kavanaugh before. Maybe Sotomayor will ask him if she's rape-worthy and then leak his answer to the press?
@Maoz- Makes me think of the hillbilly bride thrown out of her husband's shack on the wedding night for being a virgin. "If she ain't good enough for her kin, she ain't good enough for ourn!"
@Jerryskids- In-depth news coverage isn't always pretty.
@M. Mitchell Marmel- And yet, these descriptions speak to me emotionally.
@Anonymous- And at least one of them should be plastic.
@Fred Ciampi- In fairness, she wasn't physically hideous at the time of the alleged incident. I'm not sure if I should opine on her do-ability back then.
@Phil- Has the name "Joy" ever been more ironic?
@Gorgon Zola- Not without losing your damage deposit.
@Snark- I hate to say it, but I'm done thinking of the DOJ and the FBI as anything but enemies of the constitution.
@American Cowboy- I think you may be on to something there!
@Susan Fineman- A lot of people speculate about our reality all being a simulation, and I sometimes wonder if whoever's running the show isn't just pushing the absurdity harder and harder to see when we'll catch on to the joke.
@Stevarooni- Here's a question: if Carroll could successfully sue Trump for denying he raped her, what's to keep her from suing the jurors who said the rape didn't happen?
@TrickyRicky- I've ceased to believe that things can't get more stupid.
@Anonymous- It seems like a lot of our traditional systems are breaking down at the same time.
@Shelly- Decisions like this are only going to make people more skeptical about the law and legal system. And as you point out, it also raises Trump's standing as the opponent to all this.
@Anonymous- I admire your dedication!
@Anonymous- Carroll has literally run a tour service in which she guides people through New York talking about the hateful men she's encountered there. Nuts much?
@Anonymous- Too often, there really IS no defense against sexual harassment for men. And after this ruling, well, we're all screwed.
@Alan Donelson- I won't lie, I tried reading that article but I just couldn't follow the logic in a lot of it. I think that civil proceedings are a great deal more lax than criminal proceedings.
@JustaJeepGuy- I, too, found that editorial to be a rough ride.
Put this post in your Top-10 List, Stilt
Post a Comment