E Jean Carroll verdict is in.

[ThisIsMe]

Says the guy on the wrong side of two jury judgments and of reality.


Can't make this shit up. What hilarious postings.

In light of all the things that have come out about that trial, the jury got it wrong. Until Carroll shows evidence, she has no ground for defamation. The jury found that trump didn’t rape her, which is the allegation she made, which is what Trump was denying. So, he was telling the truth when he denied it, so, how does a jury take that, and then award damages, based on HER lying and him telling the truth?

 

[ThisIsMe]

There are over 3,300,000,000 people in the world.

If you believe that you are the only one that knows how things work and everyone else doesn't, you might want to reexamine your understanding of how things work.

Just say'n.

WW

There are almost 8 billion people in the world, but I’m not talking to them, I’m talking to the, probably less than 50 people who are posting in this thread.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, we through guys in prison all the time on a "he said/she said".

IF this were a criminal case, then you might have a point. The Reasonable doubt standard would apply.

But this was a civil case, and surprise, surprise, it's based on who the jury found more credible. Trump just wasn't credible. It probably didn't help that he didn't take the process seriously and hired incompetent lawyers.

Again, we through guys in prison all the time on a "he said/she said".

We do? I’m pretty sure to get prison time, it’s a criminal case, which requires “beyond a reasonable doubt”. He said she said doesn’t cut it there.

IF this were a criminal case, then you might have a point. The Reasonable doubt standard would apply

Exactly. This was a civil case, which means the burden of proof is lower, MUCH lower. Again, look up preponderance of evidence. It only requires you to be 51% sure he did it. That means you don’t even have to be certain it happened, just …more likely than not. I’m not even sure how our legal system allows that to be a deciding factor, especially when you can be awarded judgements in the tens of millions. You’d think you’d have to be pretty damned sure, but apparently not. Apparently, they can say “I’m not sure but I think there is a good chance he could have done it”, and that’s all that is required to be awarded millions of dollars.

The amount is also frivolous. OJ Simpson was only required to pay 33 million for a civil trial that resulted in the deaths of people, and yet they think that Carroll suffered damages that require 83 million?

 

[BULLDOG]

In light of all the things that have come out about that trial, the jury got it wrong. Until Carroll shows evidence, she has no ground for defamation. The jury found that trump didn’t rape her, which is the allegation she made, which is what Trump was denying. So, he was telling the truth when he denied it, so, how does a jury take that, and then award damages, based on HER lying and him telling the truth?

He penetrated her with his fingers. That doesn't match the very narrow definition of rape in that state which requires penetration with the penis. It does, however match the definition of sexual assault, which he was found guilty of.

 

[JoeB131]

We do? I’m pretty sure to get prison time, it’s a criminal case, which requires “beyond a reasonable doubt”. He said she said doesn’t cut it there.

Yes, that's how it works in "theory". In reality, poor people are more likely to be convicted than rich people, people of color are more likely to be convicted than white people, etc. The very fact that two juries were found against Trump in these cases despite his wealth, whiteness (spray-tan notwithstanding), and fame tells me the evidence must have been pretty damning. Or maybe it was just 12 New Yorkers who have been putting up with Trump's shit since the 1970s and had a chance to stick it to him.

Exactly. This was a civil case, which means the burden of proof is lower, MUCH lower. Again, look up preponderance of evidence. It only requires you to be 51% sure he did it. That means you don’t even have to be certain it happened, just …more likely than not. I’m not even sure how our legal system allows that to be a deciding factor, especially when you can be awarded judgements in the tens of millions. You’d think you’d have to be pretty damned sure, but apparently not. Apparently, they can say “I’m not sure but I think there is a good chance he could have done it”, and that’s all that is required to be awarded millions of dollars.

Actually, it's not that much lower. The ultimate thing is that the jury found Carroll more credible than Trump, despite his being a former president and celebrity.

The amount is also frivolous. OJ Simpson was only required to pay 33 million for a civil trial that resulted in the deaths of people, and yet they think that Carroll suffered damages that require 83 million?

Trump could have limited his liability to a mere 5 Million, but he had to keep shooting off his mouth.

 

[ThisIsMe]

He penetrated her with his fingers. That doesn't match the very narrow definition of rape in that state which requires penetration with the penis. It does, however match the definition of sexual assault, which he was found guilty of.

Ok, but she also testified that he did perform penile insertion, she even wrote about it in her book, but the jury said she never proved rape. Why would they believe her about him using his fingers but not his penis? Apparently, she didn’t convince them he raped her, but that he did use his fingers? Explain how they came to believe one but not the other.

I’m just looking for evidence. That’s all. There was no police report, not hospital record, no video footage, no eye witness, that any of this was took place. All they have is her word that she wrote in a 2019 book, and that she claims she told 2 friends. That’s it. There is literally zero evidence.

Tell me where the justice is there.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, that's how it works in "theory". In reality, poor people are more likely to be convicted than rich people, people of color are more likely to be convicted than white people, etc. The very fact that two juries were found against Trump in these cases despite his wealth, whiteness (spray-tan notwithstanding), and fame tells me the evidence must have been pretty damning. Or maybe it was just 12 New Yorkers who have been putting up with Trump's shit since the 1970s and had a chance to stick it to him.



Actually, it's not that much lower. The ultimate thing is that the jury found Carroll more credible than Trump, despite his being a former president and celebrity.


Trump could have limited his liability to a mere 5 Million, but he had to keep shooting off his mouth.

The very fact that two juries were found against Trump in these cases despite his wealth, whiteness (spray-tan notwithstanding), and fame tells me the evidence must have been pretty damning

Not really. The first trial trump was found guilty based on the lowest bar needed to convict someone. There was no evidence, just “we think he did it”. The second trial, I believe the judge instructed the jury that they had to consider everything based on the outcome of the first trial…so, they used the same flimsy case as a wedge to rule in the second case.

Or maybe it was just 12 New Yorkers who have been putting up with Trump's shit since the 1970s and had a chance to stick it to him.

Or, maybe it was a bunch of democrats looking to ouster Trump from the election.

Actually, it's not that much lower. The ultimate thing is that the jury found Carroll more credible than Trump, despite his being a former president and celebrity.

It is much lower. If the 5 burdens of proof, preponderance is #3 just above reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Preponderance doesn’t even require the jury to be certain, they just have to believe more likely than not, the act took place. That’s flimsy, and wrong, especially when you are talking about this much money. You’d think they need to be damn sure.

Also, you said it in your response. “The jury found Carroll more credible”, which basically means the truth is irrelevant, it’s which side has the more convincing argument. Which is exactly what happened here.

Trump could have limited his liability to a mere 5 Million, but he had to keep shooting off his mouth.

Well, she kept claiming it so he kept denying it. That’s his right.

I’ll be honest, I think Trump should turn around and sue her for….83.3 million dollars…for defamation. Because what she did is defame him by accusing him of something to which she had no proof and couldn’t prove. Under the same preponderance of evidence, if he can get a jury that is…just slightly agrees with him, he could win that case!

 

[BULLDOG]

Ok, but she also testified that he did perform penile insertion, she even wrote about it in her book, but the jury said she never proved rape. Why would they believe her about him using his fingers but not his penis? Apparently, she didn’t convince them he raped her, but that he did use his fingers? Explain how they came to believe one but not the other.

I’m just looking for evidence. That’s all. There was no police report, not hospital record, no video footage, no eye witness, that any of this was took place. All they have is her word that she wrote in a 2019 book, and that she claims she told 2 friends. That’s it. There is literally zero evidence.

Tell me where the justice is there.

No, she didn't claim penile insertion. Quit making shit up.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, she didn't claim penile insertion. Quit making shit up.

In her book, Ms. Carroll describes what begins as a friendly encounter, as Mr. Trump, whom she’d met once before, asks her to try on lingerie that he is considering buying as a gift. Once they entered the dressing room, according to Ms. Carroll, Mr. Trump pushed her against the wall, pushed his mouth against her lips, then pulled down her tights, unzipped his pants and forced his “fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.”

E. Jean Carroll Accuses Trump of Sexual Assault in Her Memoir (Published 2019)

In her forthcoming book “What Do We Need Men For?,” the Elle advice columnist says the president assaulted her in the 1990s.

www.nytimes.com

Carroll recounted how Trump allegedly shoved her against the wall despite her struggles and eventually inserted his fingers and then his penis inside her.

E. Jean Carroll testifies: 'Donald Trump raped me and when I wrote about it, he said it didn't happen' | CNN Politics

Former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll took the stand Wednesday in her battery and defamation lawsuit against Donald Trump, testifying in chilling detail about the alleged sexual assault by the former president in a New York City department store.

amp.cnn.com

She said in the next few moments, Trump pulled down her tights and penetrated her with his hand and genitals.

E. Jean Carroll testifies in Trump lawsuit trial, "I'm here because Donald Trump raped me"

Trump "shattered my reputation," E. Jean Carroll testified in the trial, accusing the former president of rape and then of defamation.

www.cbsnews.com

But then, she alleges, Trump stamped his mouth onto hers, yanked down her tights and shoved his hand and then his penis inside her while she struggled against him.

E. Jean Carroll, writer who accused Trump of rape, testifies in defamation trial

As Carroll took the stand to describe the alleged 1996 attack, Trump, from afar, repeated his insistence that Carroll’s claim is utter fiction. He wrote on his social media site that the case “is a made-up scam,” and more.

www.pbs.org

Why would I want to “make shit up”, I’m just pointing out her words.

 

[0311]

New York Gears Up To Seize Trump Westchester Propertoies If Find Unpaid.

NY Gears Up to Seize Trump Westchester Assets If Bond Unpaid (1)

New York state’s $454 million judgment against Donald Trump in a civil fraud lawsuit was formally registered in Westchester County just outside Manhattan, a sign that his properties in the area may be at risk of being seized if the former president fails to post an appeal bond.

news.bloombergtax.com

ew York state’s $454 million judgment against Donald Trump in a civil fraud lawsuit was formally registered in Westchester County just outside Manhattan, a sign that his properties in the area may be at risk of being seized if the former president fails to post an appeal bond.

New York Attorney General Letitia James registered the judgment on March 6, according to the Westchester County Clerk’s online database. The filing didn’t give a reason for the registration or identify any Trump assets, but it will allow James to more easily secure liens, should she decide to do so, on two of the real estate mogul’s most valuable properties: Trump National Golf Club Westchester and the mostly undeveloped 212-acre Seven Springs estate.

James has said she’s prepared to start seizing Trump assets if he misses a March 25 deadline to post a bond for 120% of the judgment to put it on hold while he appeals. She hasn’t started that process, and the registration in Westchester County doesn’t automatically mean she will attempt to seize the properties. It’s nevertheless a clear sign they’re at risk.

 

[Dragonlady]

New York Gears Up To Seize Trump Westchester Propertoies If Find Unpaid.

NY Gears Up to Seize Trump Westchester Assets If Bond Unpaid (1)

New York state’s $454 million judgment against Donald Trump in a civil fraud lawsuit was formally registered in Westchester County just outside Manhattan, a sign that his properties in the area may be at risk of being seized if the former president fails to post an appeal bond.

news.bloombergtax.com

ew York state’s $454 million judgment against Donald Trump in a civil fraud lawsuit was formally registered in Westchester County just outside Manhattan, a sign that his properties in the area may be at risk of being seized if the former president fails to post an appeal bond.

New York Attorney General Letitia James registered the judgment on March 6, according to the Westchester County Clerk’s online database. The filing didn’t give a reason for the registration or identify any Trump assets, but it will allow James to more easily secure liens, should she decide to do so, on two of the real estate mogul’s most valuable properties: Trump National Golf Club Westchester and the mostly undeveloped 212-acre Seven Springs estate.

James has said she’s prepared to start seizing Trump assets if he misses a March 25 deadline to post a bond for 120% of the judgment to put it on hold while he appeals. She hasn’t started that process, and the registration in Westchester County doesn’t automatically mean she will attempt to seize the properties. It’s nevertheless a clear sign they’re at risk.

I think that Seven Springs is subject to some sort of non-development agreement. Trump had some sort of tax scam going on with that property back in the 1990's that prevented him from doing anything with that property, but I've forgotten what it was.

Ah yes. Here it is:

Claimed value of sleepy NY estate could come to haunt Trump

NEW YORK (AP) — It’s sleepy by Donald Trump’s standards, but the former president's century-old estate in New York's Westchester County could end up being one of his bigger legal nightmares.

apnews.com

 

[Calypso Jones]

It may teach Trump to shut up for once.

that bit of advice you should have given to E. Jean. She bragged on the stand about having an unregisterd gun on her nightstand. She's crazed. Why say that, why mention it... we all know what leftist/democrats do with guns. Well...it took a month but the cops came and questioned her about it. they didn't take it...but she turned it in the next day. Unlicensed firearm in ny means 4 years in prison potentially...but then...she's a leftist so the laws don't apply to her...do they bud.

 

[JoeB131]

that bit of advice you should have given to E. Jean. She bragged on the stand about having an unregisterd gun on her nightstand. She's crazed. Why say that, why mention it... we all know what leftist/democrats do with guns. Well...it took a month but the cops came and questioned her about it. they didn't take it...but she turned it in the next day. Unlicensed firearm in ny means 4 years in prison potentially...but then...she's a leftist so the laws don't apply to her...do they bud.

Actually, these laws are never applied to people who otherwise have a clean record.

But you are grasping and desperate at this point.

You mean a rape victim MIGHT want to feel the need to protect herself? This is what you are going with?

If the rapist had been anyone other than Orange Jesus, you guys would be praising her.

 

[Dragonlady]

that bit of advice you should have given to E. Jean. She bragged on the stand about having an unregisterd gun on her nightstand. She's crazed. Why say that, why mention it... we all know what leftist/democrats do with guns. Well...it took a month but the cops came and questioned her about it. they didn't take it...but she turned it in the next day. Unlicensed firearm in ny means 4 years in prison potentially...but then...she's a leftist so the laws don't apply to her...do they bud.

She's crazed????

Just the fact that you said that "she's a leftist so the laws don't apply to her" shows the depths of your gullibility and stupidity. Do you have any FACTS which apply here or are you just going to spew hate at the woman Trump raped?????

A woman who's life has been threatened by members of the Trump Cult now sleeps with a loaded gun on her night table, and you want her arrested for having it????

And you call her crazed?????

 

[otto105]

that bit of advice you should have given to E. Jean. She bragged on the stand about having an unregisterd gun on her nightstand. She's crazed. Why say that, why mention it... we all know what leftist/democrats do with guns. Well...it took a month but the cops came and questioned her about it. they didn't take it...but she turned it in the next day. Unlicensed firearm in ny means 4 years in prison potentially...but then...she's a leftist so the laws don't apply to her...do they bud.

Hilarious stupid fuckup

 

[bripat9643]

It may teach Trump to shut up for once.

Why should he shut up? Why doesn't Biden shut up? Why don't you shut up?

 

[otto105]

Why should he shut up? Why doesn't Biden shut up? Why don't you shut up?

He should keep talking, I’m sure the judge and jury will love his orange makeup childish behavior.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

that bit of advice you should have given to E. Jean. She bragged on the stand about having an unregisterd gun on her nightstand. She's crazed. Why say that, why mention it... we all know what leftist/democrats do with guns. Well...it took a month but the cops came and questioned her about it. they didn't take it...but she turned it in the next day. Unlicensed firearm in ny means 4 years in prison potentially...but then...she's a leftist so the laws don't apply to her...do they bud.

What hilarious horseshit.

Anyone else, and you guys would line up to defend it.

 

[San Souci]

The jury has reached a verdict in the E Jean Carroll case. Details not available yet. Announcement scheduled for 4:45

Carroll is a lying whore.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Carroll is a lying whore.

Apparently the juries felt Trump is a worse liar and bigger whore.