Nothing says rock-solid legal analysis quite like a man who copy-pastes a dictionary definition, waves vaguely at 'court documents.' Then it declares itself a 'heavyweight' while shadowboxing imaginary amoebas. In a single, chest-thumping tweet, Ryan Shead manages to confuse civil and criminal law, misstate what the jury actually found, and then spike the ball like he just won oral arguments before the Supreme Court ... all before finishing it off with the rhetorical flourish of an eighth-grade debate champ who just learned the phrase 'IQ below room temperature.'
It's too frickin' funny, y'all, check it out:
Adjudicate: Make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter.
— Ryan Shead (@RyanShead) December 28, 2025
Trump was found to have sexually abused E Jean Carroll with the judge clarifying it was r*pe under New York law, as proven by the court documents I’ve provided, which you can verify yourself if you believe they’re fake.
…just sayin’. 🤷🏻♂️
I’m a heavyweight and you’re an insignificant amoeba clinging for life. Don’t come for me with an IQ below room temperature again.
Somewhere in the wilds of X, Shead apparently decided that civil sexual abuse liability equals criminal rape, that insults automatically equal intellectual dominance, and that a dictionary definition counts as legal precedent. Let’s unpack this, shall we?
The judge's opinion was meaningless from a legal standpoint, meaning it was a personal opinion, not a finding.
— Antmuse (@Antmuse) December 28, 2025
Shead treats this like confirmation of his personal genius. However, in reality and in real law, it’s not a criminal conviction. In Shead’s imagination, he’s the Supreme Court, tweeting from his throne.
It was a ridiculous finding, probably mostly based on Trump hatred. I don’t typically question a jury, but her social media posts completely destroy her credibility https://t.co/5k3h0akPXo
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) December 28, 2025
Also the jury specifically said he didn’t rape her. But the judge found that what the jury… https://t.co/bTIddKqgof
Recommended
All true, but when did leftists like Ryan ever let pesky little things like facts get in the way of a good narrative?
Self-proclaimed "heavyweight" (one can only imagine!!) is vewwy angwee with me for pointing out that the judge's "clarification" bears zero legal weight in the rape case against Trump. Make no mistake, Trump is NOT an adjudicated rapist in any sense of the word, notwithstanding… https://t.co/RTiZRUwWeg
— Antmuse (@Antmuse) December 28, 2025
Now, yes, court documents exist, and yes, you can 'verify them yourself.' Still, if your method of verification involves ignoring legal nuance and focusing on selective excerpts, that’s not research, it's hubris. Civil liability does not equal a criminal conviction, which is a distinction Shead apparently considers optional.
— Ron Tucker (@FearIsALiar60) December 28, 2025
Now, this writer cannot confirm the veracity of this, but in legal-speak, this goes to the credibility of your witness, and it's not good...
Calling the person you're responding to an 'amoeba' or bragging about IQ does not make you right, by the way. It makes you a Twitter villain in a high-stakes game of verbal chest-thumping. And in this case, the chest is empty, which makes Ryan so much more pathetic.
All this to say that, legally speaking, nuance and precision absolutely matter, even if colloquially, we would arguably all call this kind of alleged sexual assault a rape. So, according to the actual text of the law, one could not factually call Trump an 'adjudicated rapist.' This is an important distinction to make, regardless of how you feel about the man.
Call it what you want in casual conversation, but let’s leave the ‘heavyweight’ title to the people who don’t confuse dictionaries with court rulings.