Trump guilty of battery and defamation of E Jean Carroll

Found "guilty" by a jury of his prosecutor's "peers."

There were nine men on the jury and three women. All 12 had to agree on the verdicts.

Trump is never guilty of anything, even when he admits that he did it. And everyone is lying in court except Donald Trump.

Even his own family has turned on him, but the Cult will never ever quit him.

There was no hard evidence. It is nothing but a circumstantial case.

C'mon, stahp being a lying liar.

It was just, "he said," "she said." You know, things she claimed to have told friends, years ago when it happened, from her point of view on it.

I'm not sure, if Trump even was aware that he did anything wrong in that moment. It was a very different time, with very different standards. If, it really went down, like she says it did. . . though, again, it is a "she said/he said" thing. We don't even know Trump's sade, if he has one, as he claims, he doesn't remember her???



". . . At the time Carroll was a media celebrity in her own right thanks to her advice column with Elle magazine, Ask E. Jean, and her cable TV show of the same name.

Trump asked her to help him choose a gift for a girl and after some 'playful banter' they went up to the sixth floor to the lingerie department.

As Carroll told it, she thought the whole thing was a 'fun New York story', made all the more amusing when Trump told her to try on a see-through bodysuit. She told him to try it on, continuing the banter as he showed her into a changing room.

But then the mood suddenly became 'dark', Carroll told the jury.

Trump 'shut the door and shoved me against the wall,' Carroll said. She told the court: 'I pushed him back, and he thrust me back against the wall, banging my head.

'He put his shoulder against me and held me against the wall'.

Carroll could not see Trump as he allegedly penetrated her but she could 'certainly feel that pain'.

After fighting him off, she ran outside and called a friend, Lisa Birnbach, a journalist, who told her to go to the police.

Carroll also spoke to Carol Martin, the former TV anchor, who told her to keep quiet as Trump would 'bury her'.

She did exactly that for 20 years until 2019 when he had become President and she wrote a memoir publicly accusing him for the first time.

Carroll claims that Trump set out to 'destroy' her, calling her a liar and saying her allegations were a 'hoax'.

She endured a deluge of hate mail and tweets and allegedly lost her job with Elle because her readers couldn't trust her any more.

Under cross examination from Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina, Carroll became emotional when asked repeatedly why she didn't scream.

'Mr Tacopina,' Carroll said, 'I was born in 1943. I am a member of the silent generation. Women like me were taught and trained to keep our chins up and to not complain.. . . "
View attachment 783927


^ This type of rhetoric makes me believe that this whole trial and verdict is staged. IMO? This verdict plays more into the hands of the Trump people, than those who oppose him. . . .

This is really dangerous. Handing down a judgement like this, based on thirty-year old testimony of some phone calls and memories, and some bad PR video tape?

Seriously?

You make no mention of Trump’s testimony via deposition where he and he admits to raping women. He actually claims that men like him have had the right to assault any woman they wanted from nearly 1,000,000 years.

Trump was convicted by his own words and his own arrogance as much as by Jean Carroll’s evidence.

Trump all but admitted he attacked her in his deposition. After saying, she wasn’t his type he mistook a picture of Jean Carroll for Marla Maples. Trump said that’s Marla. that’s my wife. Carroll looked so much like Trumps ex wife, he thought it was Maple, putting the lie to the idea that she “wasn’t his type”. She was exactly his type


Buckle up, tomorrow is going to be a rough day for democrats. :laugh:

Is this Gym Jordan’s Republican Obstruction of justice committee? Providing cover for insurrectionists and sexual predators?

They can’t even find a crime that Hunter Biden has committed and they’ve been investigating him for five fucking years.

They’re going after Beaus widow for $35,000 in corrupt payments from the Chinese. What do they think Beau’s widow is selling to the Chinese?

The last “smoking gun” they claimed was a list of law firm trust checks. Proof of nothing. Proof that the law firm wrote checks that’s all it was.

So far, they have a list of overseas deposits to Hunters’ bank account from the Treasury Department, covering the time that Hunter was working for Burisma. That was the first “smoking gun”. Since Hunter was being paid, $50,000 a month by Burisma, plus consulting fees to his company, and all overseas deposits over $10,000 are reported to the treasury department on an automatic basis, that fizzled quickly.

The next smoking gun was the list of laws firm checks mentioned above. This sounds like more of the same and I’m not even gonna warm up the popcorn popper until I see what they actually have.

Maybe MTG can create another scene accusing Swallwell of being a security threat again. I mean, you can’t really have a circus without a clown
 
Trump guilty of battery and defamation of E Jean Carroll.
Five million dollars awarded E. Jean Carroll.
Firt time an ex-President has been found guilty of battery and defamation in a civil case

Considering the number grand jurys considering charge against Trump, I think we will be seeing a lot of first times
 

Makes ya proud, MAGA?
I'm just starting the the thread. I am sure the same same who blindly attacked the very heart of our system (elections) in order to defend a psychopath likely will throw our judicial system under the bus to defend him as well.

Then they will wave big US flags and call themselves patriots.

The quote attributed to Sinclair Lewis couldn't be more apt right now.
 
Meaning that they found it more likely to be true than not true. That's what preponderance of the evidence means.

And the jury found that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Trump sexually abused and defamed her.
If Trump were a Democrat the ruling would be a campaign enhancer.
 
If Trump were a Democrat the ruling would be a campaign enhancer.

And once again, we run smack into the reason why you can't hold a rational conversation with a conservative.

If you present evidence, they counter with their imagination.

Evidence is finite. Imagination is infinite. And they'll always reject evidence in favor of whatever they want to make up.
 
Meaning that they found it more likely to be true than not true. That's what preponderance of the evidence means.

And the jury found that a preponderance of the evidence proved that Trump sexually abused and defamed her.
Yeah, but we all know if you were on a jury, you would be easily led to a guilty verdict. It means nothing. Juriors have bias.
 
Yeah, but we all know if you were on a jury, you would be easily led to a guilty verdict. It means nothing. Juniors have bias.

I wasn't on that jury. And blaming bias for any legal outcome you don't like is like claiming fraud for any electoral outcome you don't like.

Sour grapes are sour grapes.
 
And once again, we run smack into the reason why you can't hold a rational conversation with a conservative.

If you present evidence, they counter with their imagination.

Evidence is finite. Imagination is infinite. And they'll always reject evidence in favor of whatever they want to make up.
We have a Democrat POTUS who apparently abused his daughter and has been caught fondling little girls and smelling their hair. Then there is Bill Clinton.....
 
We have a Democrat POTUS who apparently abused his daughter and has been caught fondling little girls and smelling their hair. Then there is Bill Clinton.....

Oh, I'm familiar with all the conspiracies you guys love to indulge in to try and deflect an ACTUAL jury finding that Trump sexual abused and defamed Jean Caroll.

Why would I ignore the jury's verdict? Why would anyone?
 

Forum List

Back
Top