Diversity Is Our Strength 
https://x.com/CollinRugg/status/1849584047879553487
NEW: Trump accuser Stacey Williams suggests it's a coincidence her accusation is coming out 2 weeks before an election, says she supports Kamala Harris.
— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) October 24, 2024
Williams, a former model who accused Trump of groping her 30+ years ago, says she wants Harris to win.
Williams: I can't… pic.twitter.com/vNtonJQ0iw
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The person who might win r*ped me
No nobody can corroborate this
Yes it has been so long the statute of limitations would have passed even it if were real so conveniently it will never go to trial where I would be cross examined
It's just totally random it's two weeks before an election
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
better ask the trumpet
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Democrats try weaponizing sexual assault when muh Nazi falls flat, shocked when nobody gives a frick
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
"If he's innocent, then why do people keep making unprovable accusations against him? Can't answer that, can you? Checkmate chud!"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
all men are serial abusers. women can't consent you fricking pervert!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Okay but what if she sues in NY and tells a jury she doesn't remember what happened, where it happened, or when it happened, and they believe her because they're unbiased and rational? Then will you accept that it's just a coincidence that it's right before the election?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think that law expired. They can always pass it just for Trump... again.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The thing about that one is that you can decide whatever you want from listening to heresay
But the fact that a jury came to a unanimous verdict "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it happened solely from verbal testimony and them being at the same event one time 30 years ago makes it totally unbelievable. I would be more likely to believe that it happened if no trial ever occurred at all
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yea, it seems just outright legally improper to me. Not that she might not be telling the truth per se, but that it should be sufficient to meet the burden of proof in court (even the lower burden of a civil case) to just have some vague details about decades ago in a place and time you're unsure of and with no witnesses is absurd. I wouldn't put it past Trump to grope some lady, but I also wouldn't put it past some lady to lie to stop 'orange Hitler' from winning. Same goes for this case, even if she's technically being more concrete in details. Trump is going to genocide the gays, Muslims, trans folx, etc. What's a little lie to stop that? God understands.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
UM THE JUDGE LITERALLY CALLED IT R*PE SWEATY
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context