There's A Verdict in the E. Jean Carroll/Trump Case

originally posted by: shooterbrody
How do I know the state is a pos?

That it was past the statute of limitations, which is what I said.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Gothar
Loving the rape defenders in this thread. She doesn't remember the date and time she got raped 30 years ago. Pretty significant. Anyone remember the date and time 30 or more years ago.....
First Kiss?
First broken bone?
Lost your virginity?
Had your heart broken?
All pretty significant moments in life, but some if not most of you here haven't even been generating memories for that long, much less been alive that long. And probably still couldn't give a specific date and time of these events. Sure, you remember when, the environment, the circumstances, what led up to it, the aftermath, details about that day, but not the specific calendar date and time on the click.

Your expectation is that while some gross disgusting old dude forces himself on you and rams his hand down your pants, even after you said no, you are desperately trying to find a calendar and a clock so you can commemorate the moment?

Can't remember the year, but can remember the whole thing lasted for three minutes.

Just admit you don't give a damn about facts or proof since you got the results you wanted and move on. The miserable posts are sounding more miserable each time.

So you tell me that I'm correct, then piss and moan about it and call it misery. Why don't you just admit you have a problem with women and think they are all lying. Think we will be waiting similar times.....

The fact that 30 f'ing women accused him, one got something to stick, and all you got is "they all lied". They all want his money and want to "get him" because all women just want to get men and make them pay. Right? Sound about "right" to you? Hate women a bunch do ya? F this noise, see ya when I see ya....out

originally posted by: Gothar
Rape is not about sex, it's about power. Someone who envisioned themselves as being powerful and wanting to take that power and exert it over someone else. Taking that power in the most demeaning and vile way they know, violating what the other person holds sacred, so they never forget who has power. It literally sounds like something he would do. Using power to take power from others, only for the sake of exerting your power over others.

This just proves you listen to everything the media feeds you and you hate exactly what and who they tell you to hate.

Carroll didn't get raped. She snuck into a dressing room with a multi-millionaire and fooled around. Now she's looking to make a buck off of it 27 years later, or is it 28? She doesn't remember so I'm not sure.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU2018
Maybe if they hadn't been out to get him with BS over and over for the past 7 years then this would sound more believable.

I know, it's a tough break, so many women alleging misconduct, it has to be made up. Did you catch Alyssa Griffen and Stephanie Grisham saying Trump behaved inappropriately with women while in the White House and nothing was done? I bet they made it up too because they hate him. Everyone hates him. No one is nice to the guy. Woe is me. I'm a victim.

How funny that you believe the victim cries of these women who conveniently crawl out of the woodwork for elections or GOP nominations. Carroll and Blaise-Ford couldn’t tell you what actually happened, but it must be true cuz Trump. And Trump is the “complainer” for noting that he’s being prosecuted with no evidence of anything. Brilliant take.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU2018
I guess not. Excuse me for thinking perjury was illegal.

In this case it would be a criminal conspiracy as they would also have to have colluded.

And in Ford's case?

My point here is that people lying under oath to "gotcha" anyone in good graces with Trump (or Trump himself) never seem to warrant an arrest or any charges so why would Carroll or any of her friend witnesses care about lying under oath.

originally posted by: Gothar

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Gothar
Loving the rape defenders in this thread. She doesn't remember the date and time she got raped 30 years ago. Pretty significant. Anyone remember the date and time 30 or more years ago.....
First Kiss?
First broken bone?
Lost your virginity?
Had your heart broken?
All pretty significant moments in life, but some if not most of you here haven't even been generating memories for that long, much less been alive that long. And probably still couldn't give a specific date and time of these events. Sure, you remember when, the environment, the circumstances, what led up to it, the aftermath, details about that day, but not the specific calendar date and time on the click.

Your expectation is that while some gross disgusting old dude forces himself on you and rams his hand down your pants, even after you said no, you are desperately trying to find a calendar and a clock so you can commemorate the moment?

Can't remember the year, but can remember the whole thing lasted for three minutes.

Just admit you don't give a damn about facts or proof since you got the results you wanted and move on. The miserable posts are sounding more miserable each time.

So you tell me that I'm correct, then piss and moan about it and call it misery. Why don't you just admit you have a problem with women and think they are all lying. Think we will be waiting similar times.....

The fact that 30 f'ing women accused him, one got something to stick, and all you got is "they all lied". They all want his money and want to "get him" because all women just want to get men and make them pay. Right? Sound about "right" to you? Hate women a bunch do ya? F this noise, see ya when I see ya....out

Don't run away now, you seem to be the "just get men and make them pay" type of girl you just explained...

All the other ones that came forward completely disappeared after Trump won the 2016 election and we heard nothing from them again. Hmmm. Then the left trotted Stormy out there and her case was so bad that she ended up paying Trump. Hmmm. Now they send out their next Gotcha Girl to get Trump. Give me one good reason I should believe what she said. Tell me exactly how you provide *proof a 27 or 28 year old accusation of forcibly kissing someone and taking their pants off.


*proof: the *cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
*cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone
You are good with a sliding scale on statues of limitations?
Guess that’s not surprising.

I certainly am not Ok with sliding statutes of limitations, I want the limitations to be any time in the past, any time in the future, and any time the alleged victim is ready to come forward.

Not surprising.
Whatever gets the job done?

I wonder how quick they'd change their mind about limitations if someone came out against them about something that supposedly happened 20+ years beforehand. Even 10 years is too long in a case like this.

Do you belive the statue should protect people even if guilty, not that I am casting anyone as guilty in this case (that was upto a jury) but in the UK would you be happy for Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris et al to get away with their crimes because of time?

How about Bill Cosby/Harvey Weinstein in the US, should they have been allowed to walk scot free, thankfully none of the nonces/rapists I mentioned got away with it forever, shame they werent caught earlier, but IMO the statute of limitations does nothing but allow rich creeps to evade the law long enough to walk free.

does evading the law for 10+years make any of those I have mentioned who were guilty suddenly innocent? why is 10 years to long?

If it can be proven, I don't have a problem with it. My issue with this whole thing is that this chick waited two and a half decades to come out about being kissed in a dressing room and call it sexual assault. There's absolutely no way to prove it happened unless cameras were in that dressing room and the VHS was saved. Had there been a rape and Carroll saved the article of clothing with Trump juice on it then there would be proof but there was nothing.

It is why this was a civil case and not a criminal case.
There is no actual evidence.
He said, she said.

He was found liable, and will get to appeal.
If the ONE YEAR bull crap exemption passes legal scrutiny.

I hope he sues her for double what she got out of him.

She may want to read up on the Stormy story. Poor old gal will be selling the pleasure until she’s 100 to pay for her fraud.

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone
You are good with a sliding scale on statues of limitations?
Guess that’s not surprising.

I certainly am not Ok with sliding statutes of limitations, I want the limitations to be any time in the past, any time in the future, and any time the alleged victim is ready to come forward.

Not surprising.
Whatever gets the job done?

I wonder how quick they'd change their mind about limitations if someone came out against them about something that supposedly happened 20+ years beforehand. Even 10 years is too long in a case like this.

Do you belive the statue should protect people even if guilty, not that I am casting anyone as guilty in this case (that was upto a jury) but in the UK would you be happy for Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris et al to get away with their crimes because of time?

How about Bill Cosby/Harvey Weinstein in the US, should they have been allowed to walk scot free, thankfully none of the nonces/rapists I mentioned got away with it forever, shame they werent caught earlier, but IMO the statute of limitations does nothing but allow rich creeps to evade the law long enough to walk free.

does evading the law for 10+years make any of those I have mentioned who were guilty suddenly innocent? why is 10 years to long?

If it can be proven, I don't have a problem with it. My issue with this whole thing is that this chick waited two and a half decades to come out about being kissed in a dressing room and call it sexual assault. There's absolutely no way to prove it happened unless cameras were in that dressing room and the VHS was saved. Had there been a rape and Carroll saved the article of clothing with Trump juice on it then there would be proof but there was nothing.

It is why this was a civil case and not a criminal case.
There is no actual evidence.
He said, she said.

He was found liable, and will get to appeal.
If the ONE YEAR bull crap exemption passes legal scrutiny.

I hope he sues her for double what she got out of him.

She may want to read up on the Stormy story. Poor old gal will be selling the pleasure until she’s 100 to pay for her fraud.

Yep, and she deserves to pay it all back. All she had to do is tell Avanatti that she doesn't want to play his games. I wonder if she'll let greed and the love of money control her bad decisions again.

originally posted by: stevieray
How funny that you believe the victim cries of these women...

When it's 15 or so, yeah, it's kinda obvious there's a problem.

Any comment on his press secretary? Guess she wants money too, or maybe he's a sick POS when it comes to women.

a reply to: LSU2018

Whataboutism? Start a thread, this one is about how Trump got convicted in the civil case by a jury.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
So the entire state of ny was pos before this exemption bill?

I don't think there should be any statute of limitations on sex abuse for anyone in any state.

Really. I can find some old gal to say you fondled her in 1985, doesn’t remember any other details at all, and she gets all the pomp and circumstance of somebody who was murdered yesterday. I can only chuckle at this.
I’m betting you won’t say the same for Tara Reade. Make me wrong.

originally posted by: stevieray
Really. I can find some old gal to say you fondled her in 1985...

Go ahead, knock yourself out, it will be funny for reasons you don't even know.

a reply to: stevieray
They won’t
Rules for thee
Not for me

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: LSU2018

Whataboutism? Start a thread, this one is about how Trump got convicted in the civil case by a jury.




**
Now I’m not half the lawyer that you are, but did he get convicted of something ? I do believe he was found NOT guilty of rape. I think maybe he was found “liable” for something.

www.msnbc.com...

This is probably why he lost. His own deposition in which, amongst other howlers, he claimed that the Claimant was not his type and then confused a photographer of her with his ex Marla Maples.

Then going on about how it's fine for stars like him to forcibly kiss and grope women.

And so on.

This deposition is an absolute train wreck.

As others have said, he's his own worst enemy.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Yeah
That proves he did it

Lol

a reply to: stevieray

You believe wrong. It was a civil trial and he was not charged with rape as a criminal offence.

You can't be convicted of a criminal offence in a civil suit.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: stevieray
Really. I can find some old gal to say you fondled her in 1985...

Go ahead, knock yourself out, it will be funny for reasons you don't even know.

Ah, another mystic who speaks in riddles and non-answers.

Too young for 85 ? Yes that would be a major finding.

Hey, serious question - Are you Kanrok ?
You have him down to a T, behaviors and even personal details.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Wow. You read and watched the vid in like, two minutes?

Impressive.

No. Not proof. Just enough to sway a jury that it was more likely than not she was telling the truth.

On the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt as this was not a criminal trial.

originally posted by: stevieray
I think maybe he was found “liable” for something.

Sexual abuse, forcible touching and willful or wanton negligent, reckless, or done with a conscious disregard of rights.