尼玛 这叫承认？方轮子的信徒？fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 5月 6日 21:02 At least he did not deny it.
"It's true with stars that they can grab women by the p----?" Trump was asked.
"Well, if you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true," Trump said. "Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately, or fortunately."
"And you consider yourself to be a star?" Trump was asked.
"I think you can say that, yeah," he said.
--https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-deposit ... d=99107636
所以川普到底还是承认性侵了～
版面规则
左也行，右也行，文明发帖就欢迎；粉也罢，黑也罢，互相尊重别谩骂。
左也行，右也行，文明发帖就欢迎；粉也罢，黑也罢，互相尊重别谩骂。
Re: 所以川普到底还是承认性侵了～
Re: 所以川普到底还是承认性侵了～
When grilled by questions like this, and he did not directly deny it, you know what it means.
Oh, btw, he might have denied it many times in front of camera, but there is no legal consequence for lying in public. But lying to the congress or law enforcement is another thing.
Oh, btw, he might have denied it many times in front of camera, but there is no legal consequence for lying in public. But lying to the congress or law enforcement is another thing.
Re: 所以川普到底还是承认性侵了～
It only means he didn't admit it.fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 5月 7日 17:28 When grilled by questions like this, and he did not directly deny it, you know what it means.
Oh, btw, he might have denied it many times in front of camera, but there is no legal consequence for lying in public. But lying to the congress or law enforcement is another thing.
Re: 所以川普到底还是承认性侵了～
You are right literally, but every juror out there has his/her reasonable interpretation.
Re: 所以川普到底还是承认性侵了～
You don't have interpretation. You only have what's said.fortyNiner 写了： 2023年 5月 7日 17:54 You are right literally, but every juror out there has his/her reasonable interpretation.
Re: 所以川普到底还是承认性侵了～
Humans are not machine. You have your interpretation too, more or less.
Even in the courts, and that's why not all verdicts are unanimous.
And btw, the SCOTUS justices' job is to interpret, and their interpretations are rarely unanimous.
Even in the courts, and that's why not all verdicts are unanimous.
And btw, the SCOTUS justices' job is to interpret, and their interpretations are rarely unanimous.