In 2016, Trump (and Epstein) were accused in court of raping a 13-yearold back in the 1990's

[Rawley]

Choose you favorite:

Pedo in Chief
Felon in Chief
Liar in Chief
Rapist in Chief

Or come up with your favorite.

Mr. President

 

[CowboyTed]

It was withdrawn.

It was a lie.

And you know that it was a lie.

She was a Epstein victim, do you think they were all lying...

 

[Luckyone]

Mr. President

Other PRESIDENT'S that are called that as well:

Maduro
Putin
Xi
Kim Jong-un

Good comparison of Trump with them.

 

[Clipper]

Fer Christ sake, are you paying attention!!! None of the victims mentioned Trump's name. And you fricken managed to twist that into MAGA want's to know their names.

I know they didn't mention his name. Did I say that they did? Why the hell do you think most of them want to remain anonomous?

Btw, how many of Trump's former cabinet members & former associates who he targeted have had their lives thteatened forcing them to hire private security? Mitt Romney ring a bell? Anthony Fauci?

 

[Clipper]

It was an election year and that's Democrat election year tactic #1 or #2.
"Falsely accuse opponent of heinous rape decades ago that can't be proved, but it will stain them."
Why did this not happen in 2014-15? Only for Congress in 2014..
I'm sure it was used a couple times then, too.
It's election time Democrat standard tactics, they go by the book every time.

When Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave & his supporters would still support him, was talking about cult fanatics like you.

 

[The Duke]

When Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave & his supporters would still support him, was talking about cult fanatics like you.

That tactic will be used by Democrats next election. Guaranteed. They can't not do it.
Not on Trump, on a new candidate. That's the pattern.

 

[popscottpopscott]

So when was Trump convicted?
The court found that 18 U.S.C. § 2241 is a criminal statute without a private civil cause of action, so plaintiff failed to state a claim under it. The court rejected the civil rights claims because the legal statutes cited do not provide a private right to sue for the alleged abuses and because the claims lacked necessary allegations of discriminatory conspiracy under § 1985(3). The IFP status was denied, and the case was dismissed.
Case 5:16-cv-00797-DMG-KS

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.646485.6.0.pdf