MUSLIM AVOIDS JAIL FOR ANALLY RAPING TEEN BECAUSE HE “COULDN’T …” [VIDEO]

INFOWARS| Despite his 14-year-old victim repeatedly saying “no,” a Muslim migrant won’t face rape charges because the court claimed he had “difficulties in interpreting” the word “no.”

The Hovrätten (royal court) of Western Sweden said the Iraqi, who had former convictions, had “suspected ADHD,” which, according to the court, gave him “difficulties in interpreting and interacting with other people as well as recognizing the standards he is expected to live up to.”


This despite video evidence of the girl resisting and repeatedly saying “no” during the sexual assault – and despite evidence indicating the girl was blackmailed by the migrant who reportedly threatened to harass her family.

The court sided with the migrant even further by suggesting the girl’s repeated “no” only pertained to forced anal sex, which the judges somehow did not consider rape.

 

“Abdul will instead be sentenced for protection and will be included in the Freedom Relation and Relationship Program ROS, instead pay 60,000 SEK [roughly $6,650 US dollars] to the girl in compensation,” reported Swedish media, who also said Abdul is still a citizen of Iraq.

The incident occurred on Oct. 4, 2016 in Gothenburg at Abdul’s own apartment, but it wasn’t reported how the girl got there in the first place.

Another Muslim migrant charged with rape in Sweden two months ago was similarly slapped on the wrist by the court after anally raping a 13-year-old girl.

The Syrian migrant was only sentenced to two months in jail and ordered to pay the equivalent of $2800 to the victim.

He received a light sentence partially because the court accepted his “Syrian papers” claiming he was a minor despite Swedish paperwork stating otherwise.

“The then-17-year-old man, who since turned 18, pulled a 13-year-old girl on one of the school’s toilets, locked the door and then raped her,” reported the Swedish newspaper Expressen.  “During the trial, the convicted rapist’s age has been a major issue.”

“His personal shows that he was born in 1998, and was 18 years old when the crimes were committed, but by his own admission he was born in 1999.”

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’