E Jean Carroll verdict is in.

[WorldWatcher]

By a corrupted court, a corrupted judge, and a corrupted jury. You don't care about that as long as you get the outcome you want.

Oh, my mistake. I was thinking I was conversing with someone actually interested in the law.

I see I'm incorrect.

Have a nice day.

WW

 

[Arlette]

Oh. So if someone steals a pack of gum when they're five, and is then accused of grand theft auto when they're 30 but didn't commit the crime, that's okay because they once stole SOMETHING.

This is a joke, I hope you know. TDS brain rot.

^^ can't accept the fact that Trump is a sexual predator and slanderer

 

[BackAgain]

Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll​

False. The biased judge made a claim. But it wasn’t supported by the jury’s actual finding. They make the call; not the judge. They said “no.”

 

[Aldo Raine]

That’s frivolous. It will be appealed.

I think her current net worth is only like 2M…they think the damage to her life and career is worth 40 times her total net worth?

If appealed tRump will need to put up a bond with the court for that amount of !
MAGA

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes. The MAGA tears are delicious.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

View attachment 893554

Hero? Winner? Brave?

King Slayer.

 

[StoneCold]

Its amazing and hilarious that whenever reality disputes the information they've been given it isn't their sources they question but reality itself.

Just like the Paul Pelosi attack.

 

[OldFlame]

No.

THere was a trial, evidence was presented and the jury rendered a verdict.

In no way was it "she simply accoused him and that was enough".



The Duke Case is totally irrelevant to this case.

However of note is the Duke Case was not tried in court and the case was dropped.




We're different, if someone rapes/sexually assaults someone, I hope the same thing happens.



You don't seem to understand the concept of hearsay. There are different types of hearsay and different rules for when it can be used or not.

The contemporaneous witnesses that testified DID NOT testify as to the act of the assault. That would be inadmissible hearsay.

What the contemporaneous witnesses DID testify to was as to the communications between themselves and Ms. Carroll. The testimony was NOT as to whether the assault occurred, but that Ms. Carroll communicated it at that time, which goes to the weight given by Ms. Carroll and whether she was believable.

Some people throw out the word "hearsay" without understanding (a) what it means and (b) when it can be used to establish a timeframe of when something occurred. In this case Ms. Carroll's contemporaneous conversations.



Anyone that has told you that in this case "Trump was not allowed to speak" is lying to you. There were 3 trials surrounding the events:

• The Trial of Fact to determine if FPOTUS#45 was liable.
• The initial trial of damages.
• The second trial for additional damages.

During the Trail of Fact FPOTUS#45 was fully allowed to speak, to be present, to face his accuser, to present evidence and testimony in his defense, and to take the stand and respond to questions relevant to the case. ** HE ** choose not to go to court and he and his lawyers decided NOT to mount any meaningful defense. Him choosing those actions is not "not allowed to speak".

Now, once the Trial of Fact was completed and the Jury rendered their verdict. At that point the responsibility for the assault is considered fact and is NOT allowed to be relitigated as part of the damages trials. This isn't something new and applicable to FPOTUS#45, this is standard in courts of law.

So yes, he was not allowed to attempt to relitigate the Trail of Fact in the Trail for Damages. The fact that he CHOOSE not to present a defense during the Trial of Fact is not the Judges problem, nor is it Ms. Carroll's. And in choosing not to present a defense in the Trail of Fact, getting a ruling against him, does not make that an issue for appeal.

WW

What 'evidence' was presented other than her word and the word of her friends?

 

[BS Filter]

Presidents can only pardon for federal crimes.

Trump can do whatever he wants. He's Superman.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Read what? What evidence was shown in court to prove he raped her? Zero.

False. You don't know what youvare talking about.

You are also wasting your time. This was litigated. It cannot be relitigated. That is not how appeals work. Get a grip on reality.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

LOL, because she never filed any such charge all those years, because she was never raped.

Sorry, that defense already failed.

I really don't think you're getting this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What 'evidence' was presented other than her word and the word of her friends?

Can't read up for yourself?

 

[OldFlame]

Oh, my mistake. I was thinking I was conversing with someone actually interested in the law.

I see I'm incorrect.

Have a nice day.

WW

I see I'm conversing with a complete idiot who actually believes that bias and corruption don't exist. You live in a fairy tale land and believe only what you want to believe.

 

[Curried Goats]

Just like the Paul Pelosi attack.

You mean when he was assaulted by his gay lover for not giving him the keys to pizza shop where they're keeping the Sandyhook crisis actors? That's incident!?!?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I see I'm conversing with a complete idiot who actually believes that bias and corruption don't exist. You live in a fairy tale land and believe only what you want to believe.

This is an idiotic non sequitur. Not that you know what that is.

It's a sure sign that you know you are on the losing end.

 

[OldFlame]

Can't read up for yourself?

If you don't know the answer, just stfu.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you don't know the answer, just stfu.

I actually posted a good link on this. Am I supposed to repeat myself every 5 minutes for the slow kids? No.

 

[OldFlame]

This is an idiotic non sequitur. Not that you know what that is.

It's a sure sign that you know you are on the losing end.

We'll see how much you squeal about no corruption in the near future, it will be amusing to watch.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We'll see how much you squeal about no corruption in the near future, it will be amusing to watch.

And this is a low IQ ad hominem, based on thoughts and prayers.

 

[OldFlame]

I actually posted a good link on this. Am I supposed to repeat myself every 5 minutes for the slow kids? No.

I don't read your posts, you're nothing but a partisan moron, incapable of any logical thought when it comes to political topics. TDS is a terrible thing.