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

originally posted by: UKTruth
What was the actual evidence in the case?
Was there DNA?
Any witnesses?

Yes, yes and yes.

Plenty of evidence was brought forward. The case took weeks. The case was ruled on a preponderance of evidence, which means one side had to bring evidence supporting their claim 51 to 49 percent.

Yes, there was DNA. Carroll saved a dress from the rape. She turned it in to the investigators and the courts. Trump was asked to provide DNA to rule himself out. He refused to. He changed his mind as the trial was beginning and offered up DNA as a delay tactic. The judge ruled it was too late for discovery and the trial would continue.

Yes, there were multiple witnesses, other women who described being sexually assaulted. One described being upgraded to first class on an airplane and being sat next to Trump. He proceeded to assault her and sexually assault her without giving her a warning or saying any words. There were similar statements from other witnesses.

I wish there was a female Democrat politician good looking enough that I would feel comfortable with falsely accusing her of sexual battery against me.
I have a reputation to think about.

The most DEFAMED president in American history gets sued for defamation.

And YOU call that justice ?

The very definition of kangaroo court.

PS.

Drag queen and KIDS have more contact at story hour.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Ford spoke under oath, she lied. Grosskruetz spoke under oath, he lied. I don't know what you're on about by saying Carroll spoke under oath. That means nothing when there's a righty to be had.

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: PorkChop96

as you mentioned the Cosby case do you think he was innocent?, or are you stating if he beats the statute of limitations timescale he should be able to walk scot free despite being guilty?, sounds like the statute of limitations gives certain people a free pass if they can evade prosecution.

For me if someone is found guilty regardless of when the crime took place they should be punished accordingly

I am thinking jimmy Saville, rolf harris, gary glitter would have been able to be a pedo and walk free, thankfully in the UK we dont have such a timescale to allow such vile beasts to evade punishment for ever.

if she would have filed charges, he might have been arrested and jailed. But she didn't. In fact, she doesn't even know when it happened. So there is that.

Bill Cosby was accused by multiple women , who are you refering to?

the thread is about Carrol. She was the woman who claimed Trump raped her. But she doesn't know when it happened, what year it happened. If she would have reported the rape when it happened, she would know when it happened, and perhaps she could have gotten Trump arrested. Unless this was just a bullsh!t case brought about by an asshole with TDS who found a willing dupe to point at.

who financed this charade? Wasn't it a dem donor?

Kaplan told jurors that the first question on the verdict form will be to decide whether they think there is more than a 50% chance that Trump raped Carroll inside a store dressing room. If they answer yes, they will then decide whether compensatory and punitive damages should be awarded.

An ABSOLUTE FARCE.

I'm pretty sure that tramp is backed by a far-leftist gov faction.

It would wage, Biden's illegitimate government is using Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" in Lawfare.

"Accuse your opponent of what you are doing to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt."

a reply to: Debunked

Stormy lost her defamation case. Carroll won her's.

I hope you see the clear distinction between the two.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

Good grief.

I give up.

Most normal people over here (not Democrats or Republicans, like normal people) don't fall for your bs.

A unanimous verdict by a jury.

Nuff said.

He's a sex abuser. AKA a "nonce".

Carry on regardless.

Sad.

A unanimous verdict decided Trump sexually assaulted some Dear Annie nag in either 1995 or 1996 (she doesn't remember) going only off of hearsay. I will carry on, thanks. And you should give up. This isn't justice, it's a witch hunt and we're all tired of it.

I wonder how much Tara Reade will get.

Second verse.

a reply to: LSU2018

No, it's for the Claimant to convince the jury. She did. He did not even give any evidence.

The jury heard her evidence, and unanimously found for her.

How the Hell do you think jury trials work?

Deny reality all you like.

Your boy lost, bigly.

Boo Hoo. So unfair. Fake news. Etc.

Cry me a river.


Reeeeeee......

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Xcalibur254

🤣🤣🤣

You guys got him now.

I’ll still vote for him.
He’s still far and away better than any Democrat, grabbing pussy or not.

Democrats don't grab pussy, they're afraid of it. They let us all know it when they cried over and over about it.

One would think this will effectively end Trump's chances of being the Republican nominee. It's why I was for DeSantis, its the uncertainty this case brought for Trump.

All it had to do was create uncertainty

originally posted by: imitator
I'm pretty sure that tramp is backed by a far-leftist gov faction.

It would wage, Biden's illegitimate government is using Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" in Lawfare.

"Accuse your opponent of what you are doing to create confusion and to inculcate voters against evidence of your own guilt."

The far left billionaire founder of LinkedIn - Reid Hoffman, was bankrolling her defense.

a reply to: neo96

Yes. Because the defamation suit pertained to Trump's alleged rape and sexual assault of Carroll. If the jury determined there was not a preponderance of evidence for rape or sexual assault then they were instructed to find Trump not guilty of defamation.

a reply to: LSU2018

"Dear Annie nag"?

Sounds like you have about as much respect for women as your Boy.

He probably should have shown up.
Oh well, live and learn, and grab em by the…..

He should have shown up.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Yes. Because the defamation suit pertained to Trump's alleged rape and sexual assault of Carroll. I

That must be why she was joking on social media about $17 grand to have sex with him.

a reply to: network dude

the poster I was replying to brought up Bill Cosby and the statute of limitations, why reply to me then regarding trump, i think that tds you mention works both ways, some people have to defend him despite me not mentioning him

a reply to: spacedoubt

Pretty good summary of what his lawyers presumably advised him to do.

But he knew best.....