Screwdriver wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 5:55 pm
Since you can't be bothered to think of any actual examples. let me pick your brains with a couple of "facts" you appear to refute with your <unnamed> reliable news source:
The prosecutor in this case (E. Jean Carrol) helped make up this new law i.e. the "adult survivors act"
The very next day, she just happened to pick Trump as one of the most egregious examples of a sex predator from the past two decades.**
There you go. Two easy facts you are dismissing I'm sure your superior news sources can easily debunk.
OK, a few points here.
1. Nobody 'makes up' new laws. You sound like Tucker Carlson himself now, in full demonic fascist-frowny-rant mode. The classic Fox/far-right technique of taking something mundane and using language to insinuate evil intent that doesn't exist. Can we settle on laws being 'passed' rather than 'made up'?
2. Was Carroll instrumental in passing this new law? Genuine question. I couldn't find any reference to this whatsoever, but am happy to read anything that there is. As Horse posted earlier, the law was based on a previous law regarding child abuse and several people are referenced in working towards it, but I've looked and failed to find any connection with Carroll to it whatsoever. Happy to learn more. But even if she did, I'm not sure how that's a negative... her point was that she wanted to sue someone for rape and US law has a strict statute of limitation that she wanted to change. Why wouldn't she campaign against it? If she did, good for her.
3. The day after it was passed, Carroll sued Trump. Well, yes. I mentioned this myself much earlier. In the context of her having a law available to her to try and get a legal resolution to her case. This isn't bias, I have no idea whether he was guilty or not any more than you do, I'm just stating the facts. Rehashing them with, again, a Carlsoneque evil overtone doesn't change anything. She sued Trump as soon as it was legally viable, yes. We're agreed.
4. Carroll 'just happened to pick Trump'?? What does that even mean? Her case is that Trump raped her. What are you suggesting? She would pick some other random person? For what reason? Yes, she sued the person she'd accused of raping her. I think your statement here is so weird as to be bordering on a bit unhinged.
So, in summary. Two facts 'I'm dismissing'. One that I'd already brought up myself before as a fact, that you even responded to, and one that I can find no evidence of whatsoever, but would happily agree on if true. But is no way a negative. Or, to put it another way, two 'facts' that I've not even hinted at dismissing in any form at all.