Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, MrJ2U said:

12 witnesses is damning.

 

He should have done it privately if he had half a criminal brain. 

12 witnesses? What did they see or hear on which day?

She doesn't even remember when she thinks he did it.

Does any or the witnesses have a day and time for whatever they witnessed? 

[Tug]

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

He wasn't "found guilty" of anything, it was not a criminal trial.   It was a civil case that was found in her favour.

If I were trump I’d be plenty nervous think of this case as the canary in the coal mine looks like the canary croaked .this doesn’t bode well for trump in the pending cases theft of top secret documents,voter fraud (Georgia) inciting a riot,attempted coup,ect,ect.this verdict must give courage to the brave prosecutors filing cases against this vindictive career,live destroying,powerful sicko.yup not looking good for old Donnie imo 

[MrJ2U]

17 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

12 witnesses? What did they see or hear on which day?

She doesn't even remember when she thinks he did it.

Does any or the witnesses have a day and time for whatever they witnessed? 

Perhaps you can get the transcripts.  

 

With 30 more cases pending against Trump you'll have plenty of time. 

 

By tomorrow I'll have moved on to other news of the world. 

[OneMoreFarang]

7 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

Perhaps you can get the transcripts.  

 

With 30 more cases pending against Trump you'll have plenty of time. 

 

By tomorrow I'll have moved on to other news of the world. 

If anybody saw or heard what actually happened, and when it happened, then I am sure I would have read about it already.

Nobody saw or heard this accused rape happening. That's the whole point. There is no evidence.

That doesn't prove it didn't happen. But there is also no prove that it happened. 

[MrJ2U]

Just now, OneMoreFarang said:

If anybody saw or heard what actually happened, and when it happened, then I am sure I would have read about it already.

Nobody saw or heard this accused rape happening. That's the whole point. There is no evidence.

That doesn't prove it didn't happen. But there is also no prove that it happened. 

He wasn't found guilty of the rape charge.

 

I think the more guilty verdicts the more popular he gets.

 

It's sad to see a promising reality TV star fall so far from grace.

 

I find the whole thing comical. 

[sqwakvfr]

1 hour ago, MrJ2U said:

That's what the jury found with the help of the witnesses.

 

Don't you follow the news?

 

I'm not talking about that FOX crap. 

 

I don’t watch Fox.   What did they witness?  The main claims in the lawsuit were 1) Sexual Assault/Rape 2) Defamation.  

[billd766]

2 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

He wasn't found guilty of the rape charge.

 

I think the more guilty verdicts the more popular he gets.

 

It's sad to see a promising reality TV star fall so far from grace.

 

I find the whole thing comical. 

I mostly read the Trump threads for amusement value. I

 

enjoy watching the Trump supporters on ANN trying to twist things around, so that their hero still seems to walk on water.  ????

[MrJ2U]

Just now, sqwakvfr said:

I don’t watch Fox.   What did they witness?  The main claims in the lawsuit were 1) Sexual Assault/Rape 2) Defamation.  

He wasn't found guilty of rape but of defamation.

 

He's got 30 more lawsuits pending so you'll have plenty of time to do your own research.

 

By tomorrow, for me anyways, I'll have moved on to other news of the world. 

 

This Trump stuff seems better suited for the National Enquirer. 

[jerrymahoney]

10 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

This Trump stuff seems better suited for the National Enquirer. 

No the National Enquirer is the Stormy Daniels hush money case.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Yes, he should have watched his mouth.

 

But let's assume for a moment he is innocent and he didn't remember that woman. How does a man react if a woman accuses him he raped her when she was 50?

I didn't do it. Ok.

I am not interested in old women. Why would I rape an old woman when I can have a pretty young one?

Yes, it's not politically correct. But all this does not change anything about the not existing evidence.

According to photos of her when she was 50, she was an attractive looking woman. Trump mistook her for his former wife during the deposition.

I am not aware of rapists and sexual abusers asking the age of their victims before doing the deed.

The evidence was supplied by two of her friends who testified in court she had told them shortly after the rape/assault, and other women who came forward to testify he had molested them too. What do you want as evidence, his DNA on her dress?

[Phoenix Rising]

Senate Republicans question Trump’s 2024 viability after sexual abuse verdict

 

"“I hope the American people, the jury of the American people, reach the same conclusion as the jury of his peers, which is that Donald Trump should not be our nominee and he certainly shouldn’t be president of the United States,” Romney said. “We have other people who are highly qualified that could lead our party to victory, and someone who’s been found to have committed sexual assault should not be the face of the Republican Party.”

[alanrchase]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You can make a survey how many guys would be interested in sex with a teenage girl (16 is legal in Thailand) and how many would prefer an old woman. 

 

He certainly is a serial liar. But that doesn't make him guilty in this case. 

In a case like this it basically comes down to who can give the most believable testimony. As you admit, Trump is a serial liar, case closed.

[Tug]

1 hour ago, MrJ2U said:

He wasn't found guilty of the rape charge.

 

I think the more guilty verdicts the more popular he gets.

 

It's sad to see a promising reality TV star fall so far from grace.

 

I find the whole thing comical. 

Well yea he wasn’t found guilty of the rape charge because mrs carrol wasent sure if he put………I can’t go on ……..oh my …….. anyway the hands …….oh my …… poor Donnie 

[onthedarkside]

baiting troll post removed along with a reply to it

[Slip]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Maybe it was on a weekend. It seems she doesn't remember any date or time.

And in 1990 most people didn't run around with mobile phones.

 

 

You certainly seem to have strong opinions on this matter, though they seem to be more based in your own potential past culpability and the way that extrapolates to others.  However, I don't think you can revise history by posting that photo as typical of the phone technology available in the 90s.

 

Which brings us to the question of why are you?

[placeholder]

Trump Furious That Jury Wasn’t Told Name of E. Jean Carroll’s Cat

Donald Trump unleashed a barrage of attacks on a New York judge and jury late Tuesday after he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming journalist E. Jean Carroll. Among the stranger complaints made by the former president—who now has to pay Carroll $5 million—was that the jury wasn’t informed about the name of his accuser’s cat: Vagina T. Fireball. “The partisan Judge & Jury on the just concluded Witch Hunt Trial should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for allowing such a travesty of Justice to take place,” Trump raged on his Truth Social platform.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-furious-that-jury-werent-told-name-of-e-jean-carrolls-cat

 

Trump also went on to lie about Carroll's dress. He claimed that it wasn't allowed to be introduced into evidence. Actually his team fought against using the dress as evidence by refusing to give a sample of Trump's DNA. And when it was too late, Trump's team asked to see an appendix to the report about the dress (which they had the opportunity of seeing all along) and then deciding on the basis of that whether they would agree to have Trump provide a sample of his DNA. The judge ruled that this was an obvious delaying tactic and that the deadline for submitting such evidence had already passed.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

According to photos of her when she was 50, she was an attractive looking woman. Trump mistook her for his former wife during the deposition.

I am not aware of rapists and sexual abusers asking the age of their victims before doing the deed.

The evidence was supplied by two of her friends who testified in court she had told them shortly after the rape/assault, and other women who came forward to testify he had molested them too. What do you want as evidence, his DNA on her dress?

His DNA on her dress would be a start. But that also wouldn't prove that he raped her.

 

Those women who now say she told them "shortly after the rape/assault", do they have any dates when she told them.

If person A tells person B and C at time unknown that something happened, is that prove that it happened?

No! It's just information that A told something to B and C. It's independent of whatever she said. No prove at all.

 

And about a "50 year old attractive looking woman". There are 50 year old women who look not bad considering their age. There are no sexy and good looking 50 year old women - even if they try as hard as Madonna.

[OneMoreFarang]

2 hours ago, alanrchase said:

In a case like this it basically comes down to who can give the most believable testimony. As you admit, Trump is a serial liar, case closed.

If you take that argument then now every women who lived in NY can come forward and say that serial liar raped her and we should believe all of them because he is a serial liar, correct?

[spidermike007]

15 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

To the jury, apparently, that wasn't clear.

This was a civil case, alleging battery and defamation. It was not a criminal rape case. The jury did their job, and found the miscreant guilty. 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Slip said:

You certainly seem to have strong opinions on this matter, though they seem to be more based in your own potential past culpability and the way that extrapolates to others.  However, I don't think you can revise history by posting that photo as typical of the phone technology available in the 90s.

 

Which brings us to the question of why are you?

If you ask me now where I was i.e. at 14:37 on the 7th March 2017, then I am able to tell you. Not because I have such a great memory, but because Google saves the GPS records from my Android phone since years. In their timeline it is easy to check where my phone was, which 99% of the time means where I was.

That technology didn't exist 30 years ago for normal users.

Most people at that time didn't have big and expensive mobile phones. And even if they had I am pretty sure those phones had no GPS sensors included. There is no information about the locations of each of us from that time. 

[Harveyg]

Interesting to see how well this all works as a distraction.

And soon the other side will be able to exploit the Biden family troubles as another distraction.

All while other injustices make these pale in comparison.

[arithai12]

23 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I take your point but you weren't in the courtroom to hear the evidence, to build a picture of the character of Ms Caroll, to hear her words and the words of those who confirmed that she made such claims at the time or a relatively short period afterwards, the potential similarities with claims of many other women, and of course Trump did himself no favours with the total arrogance of his interview for the case. 

Keep in mind too the bigger part of the finding is actually for defaming her. 

 

 

Sorry, I don't give a fig about Trump but I had to read the whole story and I find it absolutely crazy. She got into a changing room with the guy while trying some pieces of apparel. Which adult woman does that without expecting something. She claims she was raped, involving she got naked but without any damage to her clothes and underwear, without a sound, without a witness seeing them get in and out, without any distress. Notably, she didn't start her complaints until some 15 years later. Those who confirmed are her friends, not a single employee of the department store where there is in fact no record of them being there together. In a normal judicial system there would be a huge benefit of doubt for Trump.

 

Most ridiculous, she gets awarded 5 M USD ! most of it for defamation! How big is the honour of this woman to deserve that?? Actually, the jury concluded that there was no rape (how did they establish that?) but only forced kissing and attempt to undress, then she kneed him in the balls and left without a peep. For that only, 1.7M !!!! How do they come to such figures? Mind you, even as a man I wouldn't mind that treatment for 1.7M, and I guess there would a line from NY to Florida of women ready as well. Of course, there will be appeals and agreements and she will see much less after the lawyers' share, but still to an outsider the american judicial system is farcical. 1.7M for kiss and fondling in a consensual intimate meeting, and scot-free if you shoot a person dead in your driveway.

[jerrymahoney]

4 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

This was a civil case, alleging battery and defamation. It was not a criminal rape case. The jury did their job, and found the miscreant guilty. 

The original complaint form only mentions rape. The jury said that Ms. Carroll's claim of rape did not meet the 'preponderance of the evidence' standard.

 

So that as in the original complaint form:

 

1. Roughly 27 years ago, playful banter at the luxury department store Bergdorf Goodman on Fifth Avenue in New York City took a dark turn when Defendant Donald J. Trump seized Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll, forced her up against a dressing room wall, pinned her in place with his shoulder, and raped her. 

 

she nowhere mentions that she was (only) sexually abused.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, arithai12 said:

Sorry, I don't give a fig about Trump but I had to read the whole story and I find it absolutely crazy. She got into a changing room with the guy while trying some pieces of apparel. Which adult woman does that without expecting something. She claims she was raped, involving she got naked but without any damage to her clothes and underwear, without a sound, without a witness seeing them get in and out, without any distress. Notably, she didn't start her complaints until some 15 years later. Those who confirmed are her friends, not a single employee of the department store where there is in fact no record of them being there together. In a normal judicial system there would be a huge benefit of doubt for Trump.

 

Most ridiculous, she gets awarded 5 M USD ! most of it for defamation! How big is the honour of this woman to deserve that?? Actually, the jury concluded that there was no rape (how did they establish that?) but only forced kissing and attempt to undress, then she kneed him in the balls and left without a peep. For that only, 1.7M !!!! How do they come to such figures? Mind you, even as a man I wouldn't mind that treatment for 1.7M, and I guess there would a line from NY to Florida of women ready as well. Of course, there will be appeals and agreements and she will see much less after the lawyers' share, but still to an outsider the american judicial system is farcical. 1.7M for kiss and fondling in a consensual intimate meeting, and scot-free if you shoot a person dead in your driveway.

Consensual?

You know better than the jury, huh?

This was a civil case with a lower bar than a criminal case.

Chances of a successful appeal are very remote.

[Lacessit]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

His DNA on her dress would be a start. But that also wouldn't prove that he raped her.

 

Those women who now say she told them "shortly after the rape/assault", do they have any dates when she told them.

If person A tells person B and C at time unknown that something happened, is that prove that it happened?

No! It's just information that A told something to B and C. It's independent of whatever she said. No prove at all.

 

And about a "50 year old attractive looking woman". There are 50 year old women who look not bad considering their age. There are no sexy and good looking 50 year old women - even if they try as hard as Madonna.

Er - you want Trump's semen inside her before accepting he raped her? News flash - it's possible to have sex with a woman without ejaculation.

 

Rape is about power, it's not about sex.

 

It's proof when other women come forward independently to confirm Trump assaulted them. It's proof when he makes statements supporting sexual predation.

 

Would you be dumb enough to do what Trump did in the aftermath, or smart enough to keep your mouth shut?

 

The jury believed her, they did not believe Trump. Perhaps there is some common sense in America after all.

 

I understand - you prefer 20 yo airheads. Each to his own.

[jerrymahoney]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

This was a civil case with a lower bar than a criminal case.

Chances of a successful appeal are very remote.

There usually must be a legal basis for the appeal an alleged material error in the trial not just the fact that the losing party didn't like the verdict.

 

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

 

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/appeals

[2baht]

23 hours ago, nglodnig said:

Hopefully the first of many convictions against him?

 

No comment from Melania - that must be a helluva gagging order he has on her.

 

Would be interesting to know what he paid her to stick around!

[sqwakvfr]

9 hours ago, MrJ2U said:

He wasn't found guilty of rape but of defamation.

 

He's got 30 more lawsuits pending so you'll have plenty of time to do your own research.

 

By tomorrow, for me anyways, I'll have moved on to other news of the world. 

 

This Trump stuff seems better suited for the National Enquirer. 

One is not found guilty in a civil trial.  

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Er - you want Trump's semen inside her before accepting he raped her? News flash - it's possible to have sex with a woman without ejaculation.

 

Rape is about power, it's not about sex.

 

It's proof when other women come forward independently to confirm Trump assaulted them. It's proof when he makes statements supporting sexual predation.

 

Would you be dumb enough to do what Trump did in the aftermath, or smart enough to keep your mouth shut?

 

The jury believed her, they did not believe Trump. Perhaps there is some common sense in America after all.

 

I understand - you prefer 20 yo airheads. Each to his own.

"I understand - you prefer 20 yo airheads. Each to his own." I love those personal attacks for no reason. Thanks for showing your attitude.

 

The question was about his DNA on her dress. That would prove that he was near her. I.e. maybe she gave him a BJ. It doesn't prove if she liked it or not.

 

And if his semen or DNA was inside her that still wouldn't prove he raped her. Did you ever leave DNA in any woman or maybe man? Did you rape that person?

 

I never raped a woman. If a woman would accuse me of raping her then I would be angry at her for such outrageous accusation. I am sure I would say I didn't do it. In private I also might say that she is ugly and old and the last person who I would want to have sex with.

 

Now let's get back to Trump. He is a well known as#%$%4 who is known to talk aggressive about anybody who is not on his side. Trump is like that for a long time. I don't like him and many people don't like him. I am sure he told many women that they are ugly. Is that nice? No. But is it prove that he raped them. No. It is just typical Trump behavior and no prove at all that he raped that woman.

[bamnutsak]

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Now let's get back to Trump.

You are picking a strange hill to die on. Your posting volume, quality and content here on this topic come across as obsessive..

 

 

 

Trump will NOT appeal. Tacopino was just saying what Trump wanted him to say, after a blistering call with the ex-President. BTW, watching and hearing Tacopino get roasted by the crowd, with multiple F-bombs was classic "New Yawkah". And his lack of response said everything you need to know about this schmuck. Look, if you whack some wise-guy hire Joe. Otherwise, get a lawyer with relevant experience.

 

Trump should start a law firm, and get John Robert's wife to help staff it. That way he'd have a bevy of quality lawyers on call.

 

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will back Judge Kaplan.

 

Trump will settle - unless Ms. Carroll demands a retraction, which Trump won't agree to - and he'll just fleece his followers $5 M.

 

Next trial.