E Jean Carroll verdict is in.

[pknopp]

That’s if you believe this fiction.

 

[berg80]

Yeah? How’s that working out for ya? Every time you reprobates do this, it adds votes for Trump…idiot.

How long does the list of conspirators who are "out to get Trump" have to get before you contemplate the possibility it's him, not the thousands of random people on the list?

 

[berg80]

That’s if you believe this fiction.

If I were you I wouldn't go around telling others they believe in fiction while believing in the mountain of lies defending Trump is founded on.

 

[JoeB131]

You really think she’s getting 83 mill when all is said and done? What a maroon.

Yes, she probably will. Trump really doesn't have grounds for appeal.

 

[OldFlame]

The evidence presented in court to the Jury.

Remember "evidence" include testimony.

• There was Ms. Carroll's testimony.
• There was testimony by multiple people regarding contemporaneous communications.

FPOTUS#45 decided (a) not to present a defense, (b) not to testify, and (c) not to even appear in court for any of the proceedings.

The jury found in favor of Ms. Carroll based on a preponderance of the evidence (which is the civil standard) for liability.

WW

So she simply accused him and that's enough? Just like whart happened in the Duke Lacross case many years ago, where all of those boys were innocent and put through the wringer. For all of those applauding this, I hope the same happens to you.

The rest is hearsay.

Wasn't this the case where Trump was not allowed to speak, so the judge was biased as well, complete kangaroo court, and you idiots applaud it and cheer it on,

 

[WorldWatcher]

How long does the list of conspirators who are "out to get Trump" have to get before you contemplate the possibility it's him, not the thousands of random people on the list?

Trump cannot fail.

..... ..... Trump can only be failed.

..... ..... ..... ..... Trump cannot be responsible.

..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... Trump can only be a victim.

WW

 

[SweetSue92]

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23317687/e-jean-carroll-v-donald-trump-112422.pdf

View attachment 893751

For the time frame in official documents, the jacket was in production which started in 1995.

WW

In fashion, "in production" is very much different than "available". On what grounds did she have access to a jacket that was "in production"?

 

[pknopp]

So she simply accused him and that's enough? Just like whart happened in the Duke Lacross case many years ago, where all of those boys were innocent and put through the wringer. For all of those applauding this, I hope the same happens to you.

The rest is hearsay.

Wasn't this the case where Trump was not allowed to speak, so the judge was biased as well, complete kangaroo court, and you idiots applaud it and cheer it on,

 

[JLW]

Yes, she probably will. Trump really doesn't have grounds for appeal.

Trump has to post an appeals bond. There is already 5 million in an appeals bond for E. Jean Carol for the first appeal. The question is how much will the second appeals bond be. Provided Trump loses the appeal, either first or second or both, which is highly likely, E. Jean Caroll will party like it is 2099, when those funds are released to her.

 

[OldFlame]

There is not supposed to be a standard applied to FPOTUS#45.

He was literally found to be liable for sexual assault on 5th Avenue and they don't care. Bergdorf Goodman is on 5th Avenue for those that don't know.

WW

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.

 

[JoeB131]

In the dressing room? In the year she can't remember and told no one about? Where she was wearing a piece of clothing by her own admission that didn't come out until years later?

That incident?

Trump should have challenged that in the first trial. He didn't do so convincingly.

 

[surada]

Because you say so.
Who's delusional???

Listen to Trump.

 

[JoeB131]

So Trump was found less credible than an eccentric woman?

 

[Lesh]

Trump should have challenged that in the first trial. He didn't do so convincingly.

As far as I can tell she claimed this happened in 95 or 96.

That outfit was available then

The claim that she supposedly said 94 was Trump’s lawyer saying so OUT OF COURT… where lying wouldn’t cost him his license

 

[j-mac]

How long does the list of conspirators who are "out to get Trump" have to get before you contemplate the possibility it's him, not the thousands of random people on the list?

See, you're still not getting it....We know that these cases, and constant crap about Trump are political. And as usual the left overplays their hand...If you wanted people to be offended like they were back in the 70s or 60s, then you shouldn't have defended a sexual abuser as POTUS, saying his personal life was his business....YOU normalized it....And now y'all want to act like puritans when it comes to a political opponent...

And to make it worse, in your zeal to have anyone but Trump, y'all put a guy in who is truly corrupt, and a traitor to this country....Who has turned his back on the people that make up the majority of this country, the working man....

Nobody believes this crap, and E. Jean Caroll will never see a dime....if there's any fairness in this world left...So, keep dividing the country, and see how that works for ya...I'm thinkin not too good....

 

[j-mac]

If I were you I wouldn't go around telling others they believe in fiction while believing in the mountain of lies defending Trump is founded on.

I pray you idiots keep going, the explosion when Trump becomes your 47th POTUS will be epic...

 

[Rawley]

?? What the hell?

Caroll testified to having been fingered by Trump against her will. Jury believed her.

Caroll testified that Trump raped her in a department store. She lied. The jury found she lied. Deal with it.

 

[pknopp]

See, you're still not getting it....We know that these cases, and constant crap about Trump are political. And as usual the left overplays their hand...If you wanted people to be offended like they were back in the 70s or 60s, then you shouldn't have defended a sexual abuser as POTUS, saying his personal life was his business....YOU normalized it....And now y'all want to act like puritans when it comes to a political opponent...

This part is true BUT it doesn't make any of it right. What do we accept next?

And to make it worse, in your zeal to have anyone but Trump, y'all put a guy in who is truly corrupt, and a traitor to this country....Who has turned his back on the people that make up the majority of this country, the working man....

BOTH are corrupt and neither is worthy to be president.

Nobody believes this crap, and E. Jean Caroll will never see a dime....if there's any fairness in this world left...So, keep dividing the country, and see how that works for ya...I'm thinkin not too good....

I believe he did as he bragged about doing it and even admitted to it in his deposition. Are you saying he was lying?

 

[John09]

It is not true that the jury found she lied about Trump having raped her. Here is what the judge said, which explains why the jury determined that Trump had not raped her. Deal with it.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.200.0.pdf

 

[AntonToo]

Caroll testified that Trump raped her in a department store. She lied. The jury found she lied. Deal with it.

Moron, what do you call Trump jamming his fingers into her vagina against her will? A friendly gesture maybe?

Most people call that in plain language as rape. Jury did not find anything untruthful in what Caroll testified.