Damn, I mean just damn. trump just slandered Carroll again.

[Kruska]

Under Biden US oil production is higher than it's ever been.

What is rather interesting, is the fact, that US crude oil production exceeds those "known" and every day mentioned producers like Saudi-Arabia, Russia, UAE, Kuwait etc. etc. by far.

Loading…

www.ceicdata.com.cn

 

[surada]

What is rather interesting, is the fact, that US crude oil production exceeds those "known" and every day mentioned producers like Saudi-Arabia, Russia, UAE, Kuwait etc. etc. by far.

Loading…

www.ceicdata.com.cn

UAE and Kuwait don't come anywhere close to those numbers.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

Cool it's the slander Carroll thread. Let's keep it real at least.

She's a dog.
Always was.
She's nuts, truly sick in the head.
Therefore the left's deep state has use for her.
He could have any woman he liked or close, and has a proven track record of being with sane and beautiful women.
I don't see anyone else making these claims.
The nuthouse must figure she's special.
Only an idiot would believe Trump took interest in that.

 

[Rigby5]

The suit was for defamation against Trump for his comments, not for sexual assault or rape.....but....in order for the jury to decide on Trump's defamation or not, they had to determine if she was sexually assaulted by Trump, or not.

This was not a criminal trial for sexual assault, so the jury was not required to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they only needed a preponderance of evidence that showed he was more likely than not, guilty of sexually assaulting, thus guilty of the defamation.

Yes, we all know the standard was much lower.
But the point is no rational jury should have ruled against Trumps, since it clearly is criminal to wait 30 years to start making allegations that can no longer be substantiated.
The case never should have even been allowed, and the judge should have thrown it out.
Whether or not something happened 30 years ago, no one has a right to wait 30 years and then slander someone.
Waiting 30 years means that is there was an assault, others were intentionally put at risk.

Plus the claim of assault is just physically impossible.
It was Jean Carroll who offered to get naked to model lingerie for Trump, so she clearly was being the sexual aggressor.

 

[Rigby5]

I wasn't aware. Probably has something to do with the fact that you either don't know what you're talking about, or don't care if what you say is true.

Trump was allowed to prove the accusation were false. At the first trial. He didn't, and so a jury decided him liable for sexual assault.

After a jury decides something you can't just try to relitigate it in front of another it's akin to double Jeopardy and is called What is estoppel? What is collateral estoppel? - Ask a Law Librarian .

As to not remembering a year of a traumatic event. It's not uncommon. When I was 12 or 13, about 30 years ago, I was put in the position to have to perform a Heimlich on my Grandmother. I know I was around that age because I remember the school year it happened. Can't tell you if it happened before or after Christmas. I don't know the year my grandfather died just an approximation this because I remember where I was working at the time.

The point is this. Events, even traumatic ones can be both clear, and yet have certain information get lost in time. Including the year it actually happened. Think back at something traumatic that happened around thirty or even twenty years ago and then tell me you're certain about the year?

Incorrect.
It is impossible to prove a negative, so Trump was under no obligation to prove anything.
It was Jean Carroll who was making the allegations, so she had the burden of proof, and she proved absolutely nothing.
And in fact, the trial was totally out of order, since the statute of limitations of 5 years, should have been vastly exceeded. The judge clearly abused an exception made for young children.

And no, relitigating a suit is perfectly legal. All it takes is some new evidence, like Trump's decision to testify.

And your claim of traumatic events is wrong because if it were actually a traumatic event, then she would have put in a claim immediately. Waiting 30 years clearly is criminal.

 

[Rigby5]

her lawyer is filing suit against him again ... what is that definition of insane ... keep doing something then do it again ...hum, now who is suffering from dementia ...forgot he can't say these things ... or still thinks he's immune

Wrong.
It is illegal for Jean Carroll to be making these claims, and it is perfectly legal for Trump to dispute them. That is his inherent right, and Carroll has no proof at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Nope! None of us would be picked as a juror in this case! We are too partisan and would be rejected!

That is the problem.
The jury selection process does not really get into a person's political bias at all.
They probably should, but don't.
The jury likely was totally biased this case. Likely there should have been a change of venue.

 

[Papageorgio]

How flipping stupid do you have to be? I mean, seriously?



New lawsuit incoming!!

Let Carrol sue then, enjoy!

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
It is illegal for Jean Carroll to be making these claims, and it is perfectly legal for Trump to dispute them. That is his inherent right, and Carroll has no proof at all.

it is legal for her to make those claims

 

[billyerock123]

Wrong.
It is illegal for Jean Carroll to be making these claims, and it is perfectly legal for Trump to dispute them. That is his inherent right, and Carroll has no proof at all.

apparently, a court of law and 12 people say differently ... it's not illegal to make these claims at all ... what your idiot-in-chief keeps doing is going to the press and he keeps saying in public what she sued him for ... that's not illegal to file suit again ... where do you get this bullshit from saying its illegal ... that's how stupid your orange turd is he keeps defaming her ...

 

[billyerock123]

That is the problem.
The jury selection process does not really get into a person's political bias at all.
They probably should, but don't.
The jury likely was totally biased this case. Likely there should have been a change of venue.

they did they asked if they were Biden or trump supporters what they did was get independents on the jurry who could have cared less ... so nice try ...

 

[Kruska]

But the point is no rational jury should have ruled against Trumps, since it clearly is criminal to wait 30 years to start making allegations that can no longer be substantiated.

Your dumb loudmouth, human scumbag and pathological fraudster placed the noose himself around his own neck.

Since he propagated and stated that "grabbing pussies" is okay to him. - amongst many other similar statements and his known private life.

 

[billyerock123]

That is the problem.
The jury selection process does not really get into a person's political bias at all.
They probably should, but don't.
The jury likely was totally biased this case. Likely there should have been a change of venue.

when you are selected to be on a jury like this case, you are allowed to ask questions of the party on it ... or do you support Trump or you don't support Trump they eliminated all Republicans and democrats and all sup[porters ... nice try ... but like always you have no idea what you are talking about ...

 

[billyerock123]

Wrong.
It is illegal for Jean Carroll to be making these claims, and it is perfectly legal for Trump to dispute them. That is his inherent right, and Carroll has no proof at all.

some more thing that I forgot to post ... why was Trump being sued for defamation ... Jean Carrol had written a book about her experience with Donald Trump ... in one of the chapters in the book are the same things she said in court about the incident was in the book this was 2019... trump came out to the press said he didn't know her that he never met her and that she is a liar ... if you remember there were pictures of her and trump at parties so he knew her... Trump lied about knowing her ...before you can sue for defamation you would have to be defamed ... here trump was on a nationwide press calling her a liar ... that's why she filed suit... carrol had a reputation as being a truthful person and writer...trumps little asshole looking mouth got him into trouble ... she filed for suit .against him .. what she proved was he attacked her that she wasn't lying ... she wasn't suing him for the rape she was suing him for defaming her ...calling her a liar ...the sexual part was the cause of his lying ... she didn't sue him for the sexual act she sued him for calling her a liar in the press ... which was 2019 not 30 years ago ... the sexual attack happens 30 years ago he wasn't being sued for the sexual attack... he was being sued for calling her a liar in the press ...12 man jury greed ... then after he was convicted for 10 million the dumb fuck come out to the press with his asshole liitle lookin mouth he did it again ... coust him another 84 million and they are going to sue him again ... the dumb fuck came out to the press denied it called her a liar again ...you would think he had learn to keep that little asshole looking mout of his shut ...

 

[BackAgain]

Jury disagreed.

Twice.

Once. After that first one, the jury only considered alleged damages.

And you probably can’t grasp that juries do make mistakes.

Ever hear of this thing called an “appeal?” That’s why they exist.

 

[billyerock123]

Once. After that first one, the jury only considered alleged damages.

And you probably can’t grasp that juries do make mistakes.

Ever hear of this thing called an “appeal?” That’s why they exist.

Just curious did you hear trump call her a liar ??? That’s what the whole case was about … Carol wrote a book and in the book she talk about trump trying to rape her in a dressing room … when he left she told her best friend what just happen this was in her book … this is what he was sued for … calling her a liar … she is know in the press and the people around her as a person who tells the truth … so she sued him then the dumb fuck comes out right after the trial and calls her a liar again … then after he paid the money for the appeal the dumb fuck comes out and says it again… she said they were going to go after him again… as she should … he needs to be put in his place …

 

[BackAgain]

Just curious did you hear trump call her a liar ??? That’s what the whole case was about … Carol wrote a book and in the book she talk about trump trying to rape her in a dressing room … when he left she told her best friend what just happen this was in her book … this is what he was sued for … calling her a liar … she is know in the press and the people around her as a person who tells the truth … so she sued him then the dumb fuck comes out right after the trial and calls her a liar again … then after he paid the money for the appeal the dumb fuck comes out and says it again… she said they were going to go after him again… as she should … he needs to be put in his place …

You’re so stupid, it’s painful to watch you post.

If you’re accused of a criminal act by some nutjob, you can deny it without committing any libel.

Every part of that ridiculous case needs to get set aside.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cool it's the slander Carroll thread. Let's keep it real at least.

She's a dog.
Always was.
She's nuts, truly sick in the head.
Therefore the left's deep state has use for her.
He could have any woman he liked or close, and has a proven track record of being with sane and beautiful women.
I don't see anyone else making these claims.
The nuthouse must figure she's special.
Only an idiot would believe Trump took interest in that.

Look everyone, a drooling cultist ^^

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just curious did you hear trump call her a liar ??? That’s what the whole case was about … Carol wrote a book and in the book she talk about trump trying to rape her in a dressing room … when he left she told her best friend what just happen this was in her book … this is what he was sued for … calling her a liar … she is know in the press and the people around her as a person who tells the truth … so she sued him then the dumb fuck comes out right after the trial and calls her a liar again … then after he paid the money for the appeal the dumb fuck comes out and says it again… she said they were going to go after him again… as she should … he needs to be put in his place …

She should sue him again.

 

[Faun]

Wrong.
It is illegal for Jean Carroll to be making these claims, and it is perfectly legal for Trump to dispute them. That is his inherent right, and Carroll has no proof at all.

If that were true, she'd be in jail.