FBI Director: Trump wonders if trump was hit by a bullet or shrapnel

RossiCheated wrote:

Newname wrote:

The Judge claims the jury found him liable for rape when it did not.

And you fall for this?

God help us

The judge is capable of speaking for himself, and very clearly did so, why don't we just let the judge speak?

“...the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

They did not find him liable for rape because they did not believe they had sufficient evidence that he inserted his penis (as required for liability under the applicable New York law).

The defense of Trump seems to be "He didn't 'penis rape' her. He just fingered her against her will." (Just like he told us he does to women. "I just grab 'em by the p*ssy.")

In common terms, according to the judge, Trump raped her. You, I, and everyone else can call Trump a rapist and he has no grounds for a civil suit against us.

Under New York law, he is liable for sexual abuse against her.

Newname wrote:

RossiCheated wrote:

The judge is capable of speaking for himself, and very clearly did so, why don't we just let the judge speak?

“...the jury’s finding that Mr Trump ‘sexually abused’ Ms Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally – in other words, that Mr Trump in fact did ‘rape’ Ms Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York penal law.”

They did not find him liable for rape because they did not believe they had sufficient evidence that he inserted his penis (as required for liability under the applicable New York law).

The defense of Trump seems to be "He didn't 'penis rape' her. He just fingered her against her will." (Just like he told us he does to women. "I just grab 'em by the p*ssy.")

In common terms, according to the judge, Trump raped her. You, I, and everyone else can call Trump a rapist and he has no grounds for a civil suit against us.

Under New York law, he is liable for sexual abuse against her.

Cuz the jury made its verdict and we don't need Kaplan to say otherwise.

RossiCheated wrote:

comedyrelaff wrote:

When someone shoots at you and leaves you bloody it doesn’t matter if it is the bullet or shrapnel that does the damage. The effect is the same. Shrapnel can kill a man just as easily as a bullet. Not sure why you think he is being dishonest.

Here's the sad thing: We have arrived at a level of tribalism that the narrative is more important than the truth.

The Republicans seem to really need the narrative to be that "Trump took a bullet for (insert something here, like "freedom" or "democracy")."

Some Democrats seem to prefer that it be shrapnel that hit him, probably to discredit him or to reduce some "hero status" that he might have.

TRUTH:

We don't know yet. The investigation is not complete. The medical records have not been reviewed, nor has a full ballistics analysis been completed.

The photograph that shows the bullet seems to indicate that it is too low (by far) to have hit his ear. Based on when that photo was taken and how immediately Trump reacts, that would be the bullet that caused the injury, somehow.

What it could have hit to create shrapnel is unclear, if it hit anything at all. Until there is something that was hit or shattered by that bullet, we don't have a source of shrapnel.

Trump can't really know whether he was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. Gun shots were heard and bullets were whizzing by and something caused pain and blood from his ear. Does he know, for a fact, whether that was the edge of a bullet or a shard of glass? No. None of us would know that for a fact.

CONCLUSION:

If you are saying it is a fact that he was hit by a bullet or that he was hit by shrapnel, you are jumping the gun (probably for partisan reasons) and should let the investigation play out.

Lenny Leonard wrote:

RossiCheated wrote:

Here's the sad thing: We have arrived at a level of tribalism that the narrative is more important than the truth.

The Republicans seem to really need the narrative to be that "Trump took a bullet for (insert something here, like "freedom" or "democracy")."

Some Democrats seem to prefer that it be shrapnel that hit him, probably to discredit him or to reduce some "hero status" that he might have.

TRUTH:

We don't know yet. The investigation is not complete. The medical records have not been reviewed, nor has a full ballistics analysis been completed.

The photograph that shows the bullet seems to indicate that it is too low (by far) to have hit his ear. Based on when that photo was taken and how immediately Trump reacts, that would be the bullet that caused the injury, somehow.

What it could have hit to create shrapnel is unclear, if it hit anything at all. Until there is something that was hit or shattered by that bullet, we don't have a source of shrapnel.

Trump can't really know whether he was hit by a bullet or shrapnel. Gun shots were heard and bullets were whizzing by and something caused pain and blood from his ear. Does he know, for a fact, whether that was the edge of a bullet or a shard of glass? No. None of us would know that for a fact.

CONCLUSION:

If you are saying it is a fact that he was hit by a bullet or that he was hit by shrapnel, you are jumping the gun (probably for partisan reasons) and should let the investigation play out.

I agree. The only other thing I would point out is that one side clearly does not want there to be an investigation.