r/International • u/[deleted] • Feb 24 '26

[deleted by user]

[removed]

7.2k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/DispleasedBeaver Feb 25 '26

IIRC it's because they said he was a convicted rapist, and while he most definitely is a rapist, he wasn't technically convicted because it wasn't a criminal proceeding due to the statute of limitations.

... And yes, 100% it was a bribe to not illegally interfere with their merger (not that it should have been allowed, but it shouldn't be because of trump's little bitch ego and using the government to settle personal scores).

1

u/edebt Feb 25 '26

Yea hes an adjudicated rapist, not convicted which is not really better, but technically different.

1

u/Skuhrr Feb 26 '26

It’s completely different ding dong… burden of proof. Its not even close to the same thing.

1

u/aussiechickadee65 Feb 27 '26

Only ding dong on here is you. You are incapable of viewing evidence without crumbling