E Jean Carroll verdict is in.

[Orangecat]

You think she isn't?

I think she won't. No impartial body can justify that amount. We shall see.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No. It was a second trial for defamation. The defamation was the denial of having committed a rape.

He didn’t commit a rape. Even the civil jury granted that much. So his denial was true.

In a defamation suit, truth is supposed to be a complete defense.

I’m not sure why a NY court allowed this to proceed.

 

[AntonToo]

Now you're lying.

The woman claimed 36 times in her complaint that Trump raped her. Not in the "casual english" bullshit your loon media has sold you on. But she claimed penis in vagina rape, in a department store, in the middle of the day. The jury found she was lying - she wasn't raped.

E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump 11:24:22

www.documentcloud.org

I stand corrected, Caroll did claim that Trump's penus briefly entered her vagina, but can you show me where jury found that she was lying about that?

A juror may consider her possibly mistaking a finger for penus in the brief moments all this was happening, so where do you get the idea that they thought she was specifically lying about it?

Jurors also found Trump liable for sexual assualt, which in plain language is simply called rape.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

She'll never see a dime. He's gonna pardon himself.

Presidents can only pardon for federal crimes.

 

[Orangecat]

So what exactly makes these idiots bleev they are Christians?!?!?

"Because fags!"

Sorry, I can't take any adult seriously who uses the non-word "bleev". It's a sure sign of a moron.
Also the pseudo-hysteria of multiple exclamation points and question marks is just childish drama.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

The jury did just that.

In form, but not substance.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

It’s a jury decision. Nothing to appeal, bud.

Yes there was a, bub.

 

[wihosa]

A unanimous jury of his peers said ok big shot, you had to open your lying mouth and again defame your rape victim so maybe $83.3 million will stop you.
Or we can do this again...

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What’s stupid about that? He is talking about gold digger hoes that go to upscale parties.

It’s the truth, there are women like that, that want the rich and famous guys to hit on them, and grab them.

Gold diggers hooking up with rich men isn’t rape, nor did Donald Trump say that he did that himself.

Derp…
He’s admitting that “stars”, like himself , can do this and get away with it. Exactly what he did to Miss Carroll.

 

[Rawley]

I stand corrected, Caroll did claim that Trump's penus briefly entered her vagina, but can you show me where jury found that she was lying about that?

JFC,

How many times does this need to be posted before you read ans understand it.

This was a civil case for goodness sake. She only had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence her claim that Trump raped her. They didn't believe her - they thought she was lying.

 

[BackAgain]

View attachment 893821

Zzz

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Yes there was a, bub.

Which is what? The jury decides.

 

[Orangecat]

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

Keep telling yourself that, gaslit dumbass.

 

[AntonToo]

JFC,

How many times does this need to be posted before you read ans understand it.

View attachment 893824

This was a civil case for goodness sake. She only had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence her claim that Trump raped her. They didn't believe her - they thought she was lying.

Dummy, just because you think evidence is insufficient to find someone liable for rape, doesn't mean you think plaintiff was lying.

Here is the FULL PAGE you don't want to show:

Wtf do you think words TRUMP SEXUALLY ABUSED CAROLL mean?

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Which is what? The jury decides.

Unconscionable damages. Appellate court reduce large damage awards all the time, dummy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well, if that’s true, then justice was truly set back today, because what happened here isn’t right. She made an allegation she couldn’t prove, trump denied it, and a court failed to deliver a measured response.

It was proven in court.

 

[AntonToo]

Unconscionable damages. Appellate court reduce large damage awards all the time, dummy.

Sounds like you didn't read this:

E Jean Carroll verdict is in.

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...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Unconscionable damages. Appellate court reduce large damage awards all the time, dummy.

You can hope anyway.
Big gamble since Trump would have to put the entire award in bond in order to file an appeal.
Either way she gets paid after.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

You can hope anyway.
Big gamble since Trump would have to put the entire award in bond in order to file an appeal.
Either way she gets paid after.

She won’t see a dime.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So she simply accused him and that's enough?

No.

THere was a trial, evidence was presented and the jury rendered a verdict.

In no way was it "she simply accoused him and that was 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.

The Duke Case is totally irrelevant to this case.

However of note is the Duke Case was not tried in court and the case was dropped.

For all of those applauding this, I hope the same happens to you.

We're different, if someone rapes/sexually assaults someone, I hope the same thing happens.

The rest is hearsay.

You don't seem to understand the concept of hearsay. There are different types of hearsay and different rules for when it can be used or not.

The contemporaneous witnesses that testified DID NOT testify as to the act of the assault. That would be inadmissible hearsay.

What the contemporaneous witnesses DID testify to was as to the communications between themselves and Ms. Carroll. The testimony was NOT as to whether the assault occurred, but that Ms. Carroll communicated it at that time, which goes to the weight given by Ms. Carroll and whether she was believable.

Some people throw out the word "hearsay" without understanding (a) what it means and (b) when it can be used to establish a timeframe of when something occurred. In this case Ms. Carroll's contemporaneous conversations.

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,

Anyone that has told you that in this case "Trump was not allowed to speak" is lying to you. There were 3 trials surrounding the events:

• The Trial of Fact to determine if FPOTUS#45 was liable.
• The initial trial of damages.
• The second trial for additional damages.

During the Trail of Fact FPOTUS#45 was fully allowed to speak, to be present, to face his accuser, to present evidence and testimony in his defense, and to take the stand and respond to questions relevant to the case. ** HE ** choose not to go to court and he and his lawyers decided NOT to mount any meaningful defense. Him choosing those actions is not "not allowed to speak".

Now, once the Trial of Fact was completed and the Jury rendered their verdict. At that point the responsibility for the assault is considered fact and is NOT allowed to be relitigated as part of the damages trials. This isn't something new and applicable to FPOTUS#45, this is standard in courts of law.

So yes, he was not allowed to attempt to relitigate the Trail of Fact in the Trail for Damages. The fact that he CHOOSE not to present a defense during the Trial of Fact is not the Judges problem, nor is it Ms. Carroll's. And in choosing not to present a defense in the Trail of Fact, getting a ruling against him, does not make that an issue for appeal.

WW