It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Rapist gets shot. He's fine. A few years from now, after his dictatorship is firmly established
a reply to: Xtrozero
This is the new labeling
Joe asked me to keep an eye on the boys ... 'I thought, hmm...
originally posted by: Bluntone22
Now with their mentality compromised candidate (the world can’t deny that fact after the debate), they are not able to do anything but attack the other guy in an attempt to make him look worse than their own guy.
originally posted by: EatZeeBugs
Joe slept with the babysitter
originally posted by: BernnieJGato
that doesn't matter now, after yesterday election win for trump he will be called the attempted assassination survivor President Trump
originally posted by: Bluntone22
The biggest problem with politics is that it’s all about popularity today.
Everything is feelings and not ability.
That all started with television and has gotten so much worse with 24/7 social media coverage.
Basically in the future we will be stuck with influencers running the country.😳👎
In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". When the jury looked at all the facts described above, they concluded that it was more likely than not that she was telling the truth.
originally posted by: Boomer1947
a reply to: Xtrozero
You've got a few things wrong.
1. The event happened back at the very end of 1995 or beginning of 1996. that nails it down to plus or minus a week or two. Shortly afterwards, E. Jean Carroll confided in a couple of her friends about the incident. They weren't with her when the incident supposedly happened, but their testimony establishes that she wasn't just making it all up many years later.
2. She claims that Trump managed to get his pink little pecker out and into action and spooged on her. She wiped it off with her dress more or less like Monica Lewinsky did after servicing Bill Clinton. The spooge stain was later examined forensically by a lab and found to contain male DNA. For many years, her legal team tried to get Trump to provide a DNA sample to see if it could be matched to the DNA sample on the dress and he consistently refused. There is less than one chance in a billion that a DNA match could return a false positive, so you would think that if he really never met her, he could easily have conclusively disproved her claim. Now, in a criminal case, a defendant can't be required to incriminate themselves, doesn't even have to testify, and furthermore, their refusal to testify can't be used against them when the jury goes to deliberate. But the case against Trump was a civil case seeking damages, not a criminal case. In a civil case, the fact that Trump refused to provide a DNA sample that would exonerate him can be interpreted by the jury as evidence of guilty knowledge. And apparently, it was.
3. E. Jean Carroll was a cheerleader in high school and a beauty pageant winner. Trump claimed he never met her, but the jury was shown photos of the two of them together from around the time of the encounter. In his deposition, Trump was shown a photo of himself with several other people, including E. Jean Carroll and was asked to identify her. He mistakenly identified her as his former wife, Marla. The jury concluded that he was lying about not knowing who she was and that she "wasn't his type".
4. During the trial, she described in some detail what happened and that the sexual part of the encounter took about 3 minutes. The statement that she provided no time line is bullcrap. The basics of the encounter she described is that he immediately started kissing her without asking and grabbed her by the pussy. Of course, the jury was shown the famous Access Hollywood tape in which he candidly admits that that is exactly how he treats women he is attracted to. The important thing there is the timing. E. Jean Carroll was telling her story from about 1995 onward, but the Access Hollywood tape wasn't made until 2005, and it didn't become public until late 2016. So her story could not possibly have been based on the tape. The tape simply provided independent evidence that Trump engages in exactly the kind of behavior she reported.
In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". When the jury looked at all the facts described above, they concluded that it was more likely than not that she was telling the truth.
originally posted by: Boomer1947
You've got a few things wrong.
1. The event happened back at the very end of 1995 or beginning of 1996. that nails it down to plus or minus a week or two. Shortly afterwards, E. Jean Carroll confided in a couple of her friends about the incident. They weren't with her when the incident supposedly happened, but their testimony establishes that she wasn't just making it all up many years later.
During the trial, she described in some detail what happened and that the sexual part of the encounter took about 3 minutes. The statement that she provided no time line is bullcrap. The basics of the encounter she described is that he immediately started kissing her without asking and grabbed her by the pussy. Of course, the jury was shown the famous Access Hollywood tape in which he candidly admits that that is exactly how he treats women he is attracted to. The important thing there is the timing. E. Jean Carroll was telling her story from about 1995 onward, but the Access Hollywood tape wasn't made until 2005, and it didn't become public until late 2016. So her story could not possibly have been based on the tape. The tape simply provided independent evidence that Trump engages in exactly the kind of behavior she reported.
In a civil case, the plaintiff has to prove their claim by a preponderance of evidence, not "beyond a reasonable doubt". When the jury looked at all the facts described above, they concluded that it was more likely than not that she was telling the truth.
originally posted by: watchitburn
She also accused 6 other guys of sexually assaulting her. Including the CEO of CBS.
originally posted by: nugget1
Is that why they wouldn't allow Trump's lawyers to present any evidence to the contrary? Asking for a friend.
originally posted by: network dude
George Stephanopoulos is being sued by Trump for calling him a rapist.
www.cbsnews.com...