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

a reply to: Debunked

The old Stormy Surrrrrprise?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Mahogany

" It's pretty simple -- he couldn't be bothered to even SHOW UP in court to defend himself against rape allegations and the defamation that followed. He was asked to provide DNA evidence which could have COMPLETELY exonerated him and this whole thing would have been stopped early. He refused to."

Hmm... So tell me . What would you have done there if You were in Mr. Trump's Shoes Knowing in your Own Mind those Allegation were Not True ? I surmise he Reasoned he would be " Set Up " for Other Erroneous Charges if he could Not Thoroughly Convince a Judge or a " Suspect " Chosen Jury of his Innocence of that Charge . In a U.S. Court of Law he is Entitled to " Presumed Innocence " Until Proven by Substantive Evidence to the Contrary . I would then Assume his Lawyers Counseled him on taking the Action that he did in Order for the Law to Force his hand into Appearing in Court under an indictment that was based on Substantive Evidence .

How would DNA evidence exonerate him?

originally posted by: Mahogany
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

I would have put on my best suit and gone to court to defend myself, my livelihood and my reputation.

What I wouldn't have done is gone golfing in Scotland on those days I'm expected in court.

Good Answer , but I would also Assume your not a Billionaire who has Others doing the Mundane Jobs they themselves can Afford Not to do .

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Mahogany

" It's pretty simple -- he couldn't be bothered to even SHOW UP in court to defend himself against rape allegations and the defamation that followed. He was asked to provide DNA evidence which could have COMPLETELY exonerated him and this whole thing would have been stopped early. He refused to."

Hmm... So tell me . What would you have done there if You were in Mr. Trump's Shoes Knowing in your Own Mind those Allegation were Not True ? I surmise he Reasoned he would be " Set Up " for Other Erroneous Charges if he could Not Thoroughly Convince a Judge or a " Suspect " Chosen Jury of his Innocence of that Charge . In a U.S. Court of Law he is Entitled to " Presumed Innocence " Until Proven by Substantive Evidence to the Contrary . I would then Assume his Lawyers Counseled him on taking the Action that he did in Order for the Law to Force his hand into Appearing in Court under an indictment that was based on Substantive Evidence .

How would DNA evidence exonerate him?

She kept the dress she was wearing the day the attack occurred and it had a stain on it--much like the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress. They did a DNA analysis on the stain and have the records of it. A DNA sample from Trump would show whether the DNA on the dress came from him or not.

Is it illegal to grab a consistenting pussy. Inquiring minds want to know? Years later you get sued for what consisting adults do in private.

originally posted by: network dude
she didn't know when it happened, even what year it happened. But it happened, and she can tell you all the details, in fact, if you watch that one episode of law and order, it's just exactly like that.

But knowing your jury pool is key.

The "Christine Blasey Ford" tactic 😁

I'm a woman and don't believe these women who put themselves in place, then when something happens they cry 'rape' or whatever.
Still Voting For Trump 2024!!

a reply to: Nickn3

Then tell your case to the jury instead of treating the Court with utter contempt and bogging off to Scotland to play golf?

And then complaining about the inevitable consequences?

a reply to: UKTruth

" How would DNA evidence exonerate him? "

There was No Mention of that ...................>?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Mahogany

" She's 1000 percent his type. He lied. "

Hearsay , Opinions are Not Evidence in a Court of Law my Momma Always Used to Say...........

Maybe you missed the part where Trump was deposed on camera and asked to identify a woman he was photographed with back in the 1980s? He thought it was his ex-wife Marla Maples, but actually it was Carroll. He literally couldn't tell the difference between the woman who he said "was not his type" and the woman who had been his wife, who apparently was his type.

Once again, he himself provided the evidence that he was lying.

Here's a link to the video:

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: LSU2018

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.

🤣🤣
They are not happy unless a woman has a penis.

Let's leave MTG out of this.

You're mistaking a women with balls for a woman with a penis. One is typically a conservative while the other is a far left liberal.

Don't care for that Joe Tacopina - he failed to get Melanie McGuire off murder charges in NJ back in 2007, and she has life with no parole in prison.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Same California script writers 😎

Not rape just

kind of rape

or maybe rape??

This is one of the BIGGEST

SMEAR jobs in history..

THIS TO SHALL PASS!!!

TEFLON DON STRIKES AGAIN!!

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Mahogany

" It's pretty simple -- he couldn't be bothered to even SHOW UP in court to defend himself against rape allegations and the defamation that followed. He was asked to provide DNA evidence which could have COMPLETELY exonerated him and this whole thing would have been stopped early. He refused to."

Hmm... So tell me . What would you have done there if You were in Mr. Trump's Shoes Knowing in your Own Mind those Allegation were Not True ? I surmise he Reasoned he would be " Set Up " for Other Erroneous Charges if he could Not Thoroughly Convince a Judge or a " Suspect " Chosen Jury of his Innocence of that Charge . In a U.S. Court of Law he is Entitled to " Presumed Innocence " Until Proven by Substantive Evidence to the Contrary . I would then Assume his Lawyers Counseled him on taking the Action that he did in Order for the Law to Force his hand into Appearing in Court under an indictment that was based on Substantive Evidence .

How would DNA evidence exonerate him?

She kept the dress she was wearing the day the attack occurred and it had a stain on it--much like the stain on Monica Lewinsky's dress. They did a DNA analysis on the stain and have the records of it. A DNA sample from Trump would show whether the DNA on the dress came from him or not.

If it didn't it would not exonerate him, if it did it would not prove him guilty of anything.
The DNA is a bit of a red herring.
Let's say it was his DNA on her dress. How does that prove he sexually assaulted her?
Let's say it wasn't. How does that prove he didn't?

This case seems to be a he said/she said case.

It's yet another strange ruling in the US courts. What's to stop ANY woman claiming some high profile person who is not liked by the establishment sexually assaulted her and getting a NY court date and millions of dollars? Slippery slope. Slippery slope.

originally posted by: Nickn3
Is it illegal to grab a consistenting pussy. Inquiring minds want to know? Years later you get sued for what consisting adults do in private.

Well , that would be Based on what your Definition of it Is,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Same California script writers 😎

RINSE WASH REPEAT!!

I bet they just use CHATGPT
to robot ghost in the machine
write the # show script now days.!!

originally posted by: carewemust
How much of the $2 million dollars will Carrol's Attorneys and the IRS get?

Zero when the case gets dismissed on appeal 😁

Ok ive read all the comments, seen all the arguments (for and against) and what i come away with is ANYONE who says trump is guilty IN THIS CASE doesnt believe in the motto of ATS
"deny ignorance"
in fact is SUPPORTING ignorance, emotion and personal agenda.

look our basic constitutional right in court (be civil or criminal) is

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY (saying again for those in the back PROVEN GUILTY) IN A COURT OF LAW.

its up to the prosecution/accuser to PROVE THEIR CASE, not the person to prove their innocent.

yes in civil cases its a "ponderance of the evidence" vs "beyond reasonable doubt"

without this anyone can make an accusation and unless you prove them wrong, your guilty.

this has been thrown out the window (GLADLY AND WITH MUCH FANFARE) to get someone that alot DONT LIKE (for whatever reason).

yes this lady did testify under oath that she was raped by trump.

but AGAIN FACT she cant remember date, time or hell even the year.

those are FACTS that prove/disprove if her testimony can be believed.
her "sex" doesnt matter and "women dont lie about rape" has been proven that MANY DO.

the fact she did this "under oath" again is irrelevant to credibility (evidence) because people CAN AND DO LIE under oath.
its not a magic wand and if you do lie you wont "explode in a pillar of fire"

trump does NOT HAVE TO TESTIFY if he doesnt want to and (again) it isnt up to him to prove he is innocent.

in practical manor he cant testify / defend himself because SHE CANT EVEN GIVE A DATE WHEN THIS HAPPEN to refute.

now some say "but he said he did XX before"

again IRRELIVANT since we are dealing with THIS SPECIFIC CASE.
even more he has NO CONVICTIONS IN ANY COURT OF RAPE.

so you cant use the "cosby case" since again he was NOT FOUND GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

hell the only case was stormy and to remind you TDS that HE WON AND SHE HAD TO PAY HIS COURT COSTS... BTW ALSO A CIVIL CASE.

now what truly terrifies me and should ANYONE WHO WANTS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. is that if this is allowed to stand it CAN AND WILL BE TURNED/USED ON YOU.

what happens when say ANYONE HERE is accused of rape 30 YEARS LATER and the accuser cant even remember the day, month , and even year but now its ok to convict you?

this case at the moment she could not remember even the date and time the case should have been thrown out.

because NO ONE CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES if they dont even know the day.

so what you trump haters gonna do when NOT IF this is turned on you?

scrounger

a reply to: UKTruth

"It's yet another strange ruling in the US courts. What's to stop ANY woman claiming some high profile person who is not liked by the establishment sexually assaulted her and getting a NY court date and millions of dollars? Slippery slope. Slippery slope."

I agree - and in this case, it is simply attempting to ruin Trump politically.
JMO