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

[Chillicothe]

so she clearly was being the sexual aggressor.

How did Don Trump's defense attorneys handle that aspect?
If they did....well, how did the jury respond?

-----------------------------------------------------------

It was Jean Carroll who was making the allegations, so she had the burden of proof, and she proved absolutely nothing.

Well, I ain't a lawyer, but I believe that Don Trump had capable and skilled legal representation. How did they address your "burden-of-proof" theory with the judge, and then the jury?

And, I am surprised that "she proved absolutely nothing" was not addressed by Trump' defense attorneys. Or for that matter, I'm surprised the judge and the jury didn't ...seemingly ....object to the lack of proof.
----------------------------------------

Waiting 30 years clearly is criminal.

I didn't know that.
Have no desire to appear skeptical; however, can poster Rigby please cite the ruling statute on that issue.
Thanx.
-----------------------------------------

The jury likely was totally biased this case.

And that assertion also surprised me. I had assumed that the expensive legal talent that this very rich man can hire....well, I presumed their skill in performing voir dire would have uncovered these biases. And those folks would have been rejected by Trump's experienced and competent representation.

 

[billyerock123]

She should sue him again.

I believe she is there was talk about it ...if she doesn't he'll think its ok to call her a liar again

 

[billyerock123]

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.

there is nothing wrong about coming out to the press and saying "You don't know her, you never met her, you never raped her... this is true this shows how stupid you are when it comes to law ... the last thing he said in his press conference was she is a liar... That's defamation ... if he hadn't called her a liar there wouldn't have been a suit filed ... so keep up making a fool of yourself...

 

[BackAgain]

there is nothing wrong about coming out to the press and saying "You don't know her, you never met her, you never raped her... this is true this shows how stupid you are when it comes to law ... the last thing he said in his press conference was she is a liar... That's defamation ... if he hadn't called her a liar there wouldn't have been a suit filed ... so keep up making a fool of yourself...

If you make a false allegation about some other person claiming he committed a crime, you can be called a liar.

This “case” turns the law into a joke.

 

[billyerock123]

If you make a false allegation about some other person claiming he committed a crime, you can be called a liar.

This “case” turns the law into a joke.

you are wrong ...the whole case relies on her writings in her book ... describing how Trump came into her dressing booth and tried to raper her ... this was brought to trumps attention in 2019 ... he became enraged and came to the press and said "he didn't know her" that's not defamation ... the then said "he didn't raper her" ... that's not defamation ...he then said "he's never met her" that's not defamation ...when he called her a liar that's defamation ... trump saying she lied about the whole thing ... she then brought it to the court ... when this thing happens, right after it happen when she saw trump leave she told her best girlfriend who was with her in the store ... she told her girlfriend what had happened... the girlfriend testified in court that jean told her what just happen at the time ... she wants Jean to call the cops and report it ... jean at the time said she didn't want to be one of these helpless women, told her to drop the idea of reporting it to the police ... in 2019 she wrote a book about her life ... when the press got ahold of it they went after trump ... by calling her a liar this put her book into jepordy ... this was trump defaming her and her book thats grounds for defamation ands she proved it beyond a reasonabl doubt to her jurors ... where they picked ijurors they a ndependents or libraterians ... in the jury question air it asked what party do you represent ... they only took libraterrians and independance ... so you can't call the jurors a bunch of dems and liberals there wasn't a one on the jury ...

 

[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.

he has to have grounds for appeal ... saying he never did it would get him appealed ...

 

[BackAgain]

you are wrong ...the whole case relies on her writings in her book ... describing how Trump came into her dressing booth and tried to raper her ... this was brought to trumps attention in 2019 ... he became enraged and came to the press and said "he didn't know her" that's not defamation ... the then said "he didn't raper her" ... that's not defamation ...he then said "he's never met her" that's not defamation ...when he called her a liar that's defamation ... trump saying she lied about the whole thing ... she then brought it to the court ... when this thing happens, right after it happen when she saw trump leave she told her best girlfriend who was with her in the store ... she told her girlfriend what had happened... the girlfriend testified in court that jean told her what just happen at the time ... she wants Jean to call the cops and report it ... jean at the time said she didn't want to be one of these helpless women, told her to drop the idea of reporting it to the police ... in 2019 she wrote a book about her life ... when the press got ahold of it they went after trump ... by calling her a liar this put her book into jepordy ... this was trump defaming her and her book thats grounds for defamation ands she proved it beyond a reasonabl doubt to her jurors ... where they picked ijurors they a ndependents or libraterians ... in the jury question air it asked what party do you represent ... they only took libraterrians and independance ... so you can't call the jurors a bunch of dems and liberals there wasn't a one on the jury ...

Wrong. Where ever and however she made a claim relative to the allegation that Trump raped her or finger banged her, Trump is perfectly free to deny it.

You really don’t understand any of this.

Example:

In some weird way you are aroused by Pelosi. But beyond that, she has accused you of meeting her in a store somewhere oh, maybe 15 or is it 20 years ago. She says you reached under her clothing and manually played with her private bits. Oh, and she also says you fucked her.

Let’s say it’s a false claim.

It doesn’t matter if she’s bleating the allegation in front of a news camera or spouting her story in a book. You’re actually allowed to deny a claim that you engaged in a criminal act.

So sorry for your ongoing ignorance.

 

[BackAgain]

he has to have grounds for appeal ... saying he never did it would get him appealed ...

No shit, you idiot. Yes. Grounds for appeal do have to exist. He has those aplenty.

Did you graduate 3rd grade yet?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Ever hear of this thing called an “appeal?”

Sure.

They fail nearly 100% of the time.

 

[BackAgain]

Sure.

They fail nearly 100% of the time.

No. They don’t. You ignorant dishonest moron.

In fact, a great deal of law is established via the appeals process where errors made at the trial stage result in verdicts getting overturned.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. They don’t.

They of course almost always fail.

 

[struth]

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



New lawsuit incoming!!

It’s sad you all are hanging your hat on a woman that thinks rape is sexy

How pathetic

 

[Libby von H]

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



New lawsuit incoming!!

I won't take sides but I wish you would know what goddam words actually mean !!!!

Who Believes E. Jean Carroll? - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Carroll is suing Trump for battery and defamation stemming from an incident some 27 years ago. When she was an advice columnist in her 50s,

spectator.org

"Here’s what bugs me the most.

If Carroll’s accusation is true, she should have spoken out at the time and called the police instantly.

It’s possible authorities might have chosen not to prosecute because it was a he said/she said case, but there would be a record of a complaint, and the act itself would put Trump on notice.


Also, there would be a date of the alleged attack.

Later, out of civic-mindedness, Carroll could have spoken up when Trump ran for president.

​

Instead, she waited until 2019 when she was hawking her memoir."

HER MEMOIR? ARE YOU BLIND !!!!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s sad you all are hanging your hat on a woman that thinks rape is sexy

How pathetic

As opposed to hanging your hat on the pussy grabbing sexual predator charity thief.

The cult just has no intellectual or moral standing anymore. Sorry.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If Carroll’s accusation is true, she should have spoken out at the time and called the police instantly.

Now say what you mean to say, without the errors in your logic and communication. Here:

"Since she didn't speak out at the time, she is lying."

Now take some time and think about the validity of that. It shouldn't take long.

 

[BackAgain]

They of course almost always fail.

False.

 

[struth]

As opposed to hanging your hat on the pussy grabbing sexual predator charity thief.

The cult just has no intellectual or moral standing anymore. Sorry.

Haha the difference is you all are hanging your hat on a woman that actually said rape was sexy

And you wonder why are record number of americans are worse off since your cult took the Oval Office???

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

False.

Yeah, the cult is really clinging to that lie right about now. We know.

 

[BackAgain]

Now say what you mean to say, without the errors in your logic and communication. Here:

"Since she didn't speak out at the time, she is lying."

Now take some time and think about the validity of that. It shouldn't take long.

The presence of absence of a “prompt outcry” is historically a factor jurors may consider in assessing whether or not the claimed incident ever took place.

 

[j-mac]

I’m amazed that liberals can keep a straight face anymore…