Trump found liable for sexual abuse and defamation in E. Jean Carroll case
Ordered to pay $5 million in damages
Tuesday, President Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation by a federal jury in Manhattan. The allegations came from E Jean Carroll who alleged Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room decades ago. Trump has been ordered to pay her $5 million in damages. Jurors rejected the claim that Trump raped Carroll.
On Truth Social, Trump wrote: I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE – A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!
The verdict was reached in less than three hours.
More from the NY Post:
Carroll, 79, held her head down as the verdict was read in Manhattan federal court — and nodded when she heard the jury finding in favor of her defamation claim for Trump, 76, branding her a liar when she came forward with her allegations.
The nine-person jury — three women and six men — decided the case after three hours of deliberations that began just before noon Tuesday.
Neither Carroll nor her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, spoke to the mass of reporters outside the Lower Manhattan courthouse as they left hand in hand, with the former “Ask E. Jean” columnist breezing through the crowd and into a waiting car.
“I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHO THIS WOMAN IS. THIS VERDICT IS A DISGRACE – A CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social following the verdict.
The jurors rejected Carroll’s claim in her 2019 suit that Trump had raped her, but found him liable for sexual abuse. Carroll had accused Trump of attacking her in a fitting room at the Fifth Avenue department store, most likely in 1996. He has denied her allegations.
Watchers in the court gallery cried tears of joy when the verdict finding Trump liable for sexual abuse was read.
Earlier this week, footage of Trump’s deposition in relation to this case was released:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I guess we’re just China now?
WSJ journalist was found guilty of spying in Russia
get the right venue, anything is possible
Depends on what era. Under Mao? Yup.
She’s about to get incredibly rich. Trump could not pay her and she’ll still bathe is dollars from being the darling of the media, writing more books, etc. She’s set. Which was probably her primary motivation.
It wouldn’t surprise me if she hasn’t already benefitted from a gofundme account provided to her by Democrats already.
Not in her lifetime. He will appeal and with all of the not allowed crap this judge allowed into the trial it should be overturned and if not appealed to the next higher court. We’re talking years not days before and if she ever sees any money. You are right about her being a writer and going on every talk show in America including FNC.
In a Kangaroo Court everyone is found guilty.
She won’t be as rich as the Lawyers and Front Man for her case.
Civil litigation has nothing to do with right or wrong, guilty or innocent.
If you get a favorable Judge, you win.
Apparently it has nothing to do with evidence either. Just one person’s story. Amazing.
That verdict makes no sense, at all. They rejected the rape charge, which means that they said that Jean Carroll was lying about the incident, but then they found him liable for the sexual battery charge, which was not what she was claiming. ANd then, when they found that she had lied about the rape they still found Trump liable for “defamation” when he rebutted her insane public charges of “rape”.
There is no logical consistency to these verdicts, at all, but I am not confident in our appellate system to straighten any of this out. It is crazy.
And they literally passed a law after the statute of limitations expired to specifically allow this case to go forward.
It wasn’t quite a bill of attainder because there was a jury trial and in theory it could apply to others.
So they passed a law to get him and they tried him in a court where the jury pool would make sure he was convicted.
That’s reason enough to never go to NYC ever. You cannot trust the legal system there.
One of the few places ACTUALLY allowing criticism of this embarrassment of the justice system. I posted things on the corrupt Guardian such as you are not news and was threatened that I was promoting hate speech. We have no more avenues – no Rush – no Tucker – no common sense – or very little. They indeed passed that law and it would seem the main reason was to get Trump. Now the non news degenerate sites such as the Guardian, BBC, AP, Reuters, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, and on and on we can go – ALL OF THEM ARE REJOICING.
Biden stories of ACTUAL CRIMES AND A COMPROMISED PRESIDENT BOUGHT BY CHINA – CRICKETS, CRICKETS, AND MORE CRICKETS.
“Compromised” equals “utterly corrupt.”
Question – Does E. Jean Carrol actually believe she was raped in the dressing room? Have her fantasies crossed over into her ‘realities’?
The SOL was not changed to get Trump.
The SOL was changed for the Catholic child abuse victims.
New York State shredded the statute of limitations to permit a party who claims that she was raped or sexually abused to bring a civil suit thirty years after the alleged incident. Because statutes of limitations do not confer rights on an alleged tortfeasor, they can be changed after the fact to authorize parties with preferred claims to proceed, undermining the premise on which such limitation statutes have been traditionally grounded.
Statutes of limitations are virtually universal because at some point evidence becomes unavailable and memories fade. Unreliability is the essential if not universal hallmark of litigating 30 year old claims, especially when there is no evidence other than the testimony of the alleged victim and the denial of the alleged perpetrator.
Because sexual abuse and battery claims are now considered more important than insuring that a defendant gets a fair trial, they have been repealed in certain cases. When the plaintiff cannot recall when the alleged incident happened, the defendant who might have had an alibi for a specific date is denied adequate specificity on which to base a defense. This does not seem to be justice in action.
The way the population views the courts as institutions of justice is not enhanced by allowing 30 year old claims to be litigated. With such time lapsed uncertainty is the common characteristic of the litigation.
And then there is Trump himself who gave a deposition in the case that seemingly justified ugly conduct if committed by a star, which he considered himself to be. Trump will have a hard time attacking a two-tier justice system, when it appears he favors one as long as he is among the beneficiaries.
Orange. Man. Bad.
It’s all you need to know for this to make “sense”.
The jury did not find that the plaintiff “ “lied.”. Where do you come up with such nonsense? Nowhere on the verdict form does the word “lied” appear. Without DNA evidence it was very difficult for the rape (penis-vagina) charge to succeed by a preponderance of the evidence. But plaintiff testified that Trump forcibly penetrated her with his fingers, which meets the sexual battery allegation. And Trump did himself no favors by doubling down on the Access Hollywood tape during his deposition under oath, which supported his frame of mind about what he was “entitled” to do to women because he was “famous”. And then, when he was too chickens___t to testify before the jury..…that sealed the deal. Big man is now gonna appeal and lose yet another court case.
The jury did not find that the plaintiff “ “lied.”. Where do you come up with such nonsense?
She claimed that he raped her and they rejected that. That means that they didn’t believe her story – i.e. that she lied.
Logic isn’t your thing, is it?
And Trump did himself no favors by doubling down on the Access Hollywood tape during his deposition under oath, which supported his frame of mind about what he was “entitled” to do to women because he was “famous”.
LOL.
That isn’t even close to what he said. You live in some alternate universe, I see.
“She claimed that he raped her and they rejected that. That means that they didn’t believe her story – i.e. that she lied.”
All the verdict says is that the jury didn’t see sufficient proof needed for such a judgment. It doesn’t say she lied or didn’t lie.
It isn’t black and white.
You’re kidding, right? What proof was there for the sexual battery that wasn’t there for the “rape”, even though the rape was her main contention?
The jury rejected her claim of rape, meaning that they thought she lied. If they thought that she wasn’t lying then they would have found Trump liable of the rape the way they found him liable of the sexual battery, for which there was no proof other than the nutcase’s testimony.
It is black and white in these circumstances.
Sorry, Henry, but if there was insufficient evidence to support her “rape” claim, then there was insufficient evidence with which to determine Trump defamed her. The “defamation” claim relied on the accusation of rape. How can the jury be sure about something that relies on a predicate they expressly rejected (whatever that rejection may mean in their own minds)?
That’s exactly what they said
Follow the logic. There are two simultaneous claims being made here:
1. She is claiming that Trump raped her.
2. Trump is claiming that he didn’t rape her.
The two claims are mutually exclusive. For one to be true, the other must be false.
The jury found that it was more likely that Trump’s claim was true than it was that her claim was true. (That’s what preponderance of evidence means)
Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.
Since the jury ruled that Trump’s version of the story was the truth, he should be immune to the defamation claim.
Nowhere did I say that the defamation conviction was justified. It clearly isn’t.
And I don’t know what evidence was presented to support the molestation count. But apparently the jury found it more supported than the rape charge.
Rejecting a claim because there was not enough evidence to support it and lying are not the same thing.
Ok we do have grey and white matter in our brain, and both serve different purposes but guessing grey would be better served in that statement
“which supported his frame of mind about what he was “entitled” to do to women because he was “famous” ”
I don’t think I ever saw that tape. The clip I saw, if you want to take it literally, was clear about consent.
Can you direct me to the one where he claimed he was “entitled”?
In the infamous tape he never claimed to be entitled to grope women. He expressed his surprise that if you are a famous show business guy women would line up to “casting couch” their way into a show business job. Thirty years ago Trump wasn’t a famous show business personality. The tape in question was made in 2005, and leaked years later to try to sabotage his presidential run.
Note that he never claimed to have actually “grabbed a woman by the pussy”, so this wasn’t some sort of taped confession that he had ever done so to a job seeker – it MIGHT be taken as a belief he could if he wanted to. The statement was, yes, crass, and the leak certainly didn’t help his presidential run, but it should have no bearing on his (possible) behavior decades before he made the transition to TV star. It’s admittance to be played in court seems a bad, prejudicial call by the judge.
Thirty years ago Trump wasn’t a famous show business personality.
Trump has been mega-famous and one of the biggest New York personalities since he finished the Trump Tower and it became the most successful piece of real estate development in Manhattan, claiming a record $1000/sq ft for residential property and finished at a time when New York was circling the drain and all the developers had either gone bust or ran away.
That was in the very early 80s, and at the time there were no names in New York bigger than Trump. That was 40 years ago.
This was a civil cause of action not a “charge’ of rape. All she needed was 7 jurors and a 51% probability. A very low threshold. That tape isn’t evidence and never should have been allowed since its irrelevant to this case and could prejudice the jury, It did not support any intent element because there is no intent element here. The tape is grounds for appeal too.
Actually, didn’t the Access Hollywood tape reveal that celebrity groupies, such as Carroll, threw themselves at people like Trump, and they allowed (i.e. were willing participants) the celebrity to do whatever they wanted? It was more a description of groupies as willing tramps and floozies, the way I understood it.
No. It’s pretty clear that he was talking about himself (not Hollywood celebrities), and how he can’t help making the first move. In particular:
Trump: “I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful… I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything… Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595321
There’s also a pretty classless exchange about how he tried very heavily to score with a woman he knew was married (as he was), but failed.
So this is precedent for Tara Reid v. Joe Biden?
I look forward to that.
This is incorrect. The jury found true that Trump did perpetate a harmful or offense touching that was sexual in nature but less than penetration.
I don’t understand how they could do that as there was as much evidence of that as there was of rape. Seems shady to me.
Because it was Trump. That is the only reason.
Legally, rape isn’t only penetration of a woman’s vagina by a man’s sexual organ, it’s ANY penetration by any body part or anything wielded. Including two fingers. Or a soda bottle. Hence the rape charge.
If you’re a juror and believe it’s 51% likely that this woman is being truthful that Trump manually penetrated her as she described, that’s rape. If you don’t believe her story, a lesser charge based on you don’t believe her story, but he’s Trump is not justice.
Did they have a depth gauge or something?
What a steaming load of political harassment.
So that would cover groping, grabass, a lot of things that don’t even require “inside the clothes.” Again I don’t know what the evidence was, but it’s much easier to get. As a matter of fact, we already have a few such items of evidence against Joe Biden, in the public domain, involving minors.
Agree that it makes no sense.
Have zero confidence in our appellate system on any case that is in any way political. Which is just about everything these days.
Amazing.
In any he/she said case, especially 30 years after the fact, it’s very unlikely to know for a fact what happened.
But any person accused of a horrid crime should not be punished for claiming innocence, failing conviction. And Trump was found (civilly) not guilty of rape-rape, the jury disbelieving the accuser that much, but partially believing her as a basis for a (civil) sexual assault conviction. Thus leading to the $5 million payday.
It should have been all or nothing, either the accuser was truthful or she wasn’t. If she lied about the rape, why believe even an assault took place?
And does anyone not believe that the defendant being Trump didn’t prejudice the jury? Bill Clinton (D) gets accused of rape with actual concurrent supporting evidence and only his advisor joking about traitor trash gets him in legal trouble. Trump (R) gets accused with no concurrent evidence – no evidence at all – and saying “I’m innocent” costs him $5 million.
The jury just asked themselves, what sort of thing would Trump be guilty of? Mean tweets, aka defamation, and women let famous men grab them by the p*. Rape didn’t sound right. Collusion does, but they didn’t see any way to apply it to the case.
The Left may label the right as deplorable but the Left is irredeemable, short of shock therapy. Nothing is new throughout recorded history. Civilizations come and then go… for the same reasons. This time, when the twilight comes, there will be no dawning to repair it. Some parts of life may be rescued… some aren’t. Looking at you NYC.
I’m sick of this country
We are a shame
It’s all so depressing
Democrats are a shame.
Where are the Republicans?? WHEN have they ever come out and defended Trump against the war against him?? They seem to be okay with it.
Like I’m supposed to be offended at this. I think of the notorious presidential rakes of my lifetime, who were they? Kennedy and Clinton. Both Democrats. A lifelong Democrat who made his political mark as a Republican shows up on the scoreboard? Yawn. Maybe some day we’ll find out Brandon did his daughter — then we’d have a guy who was a crap family man AND a crap president. And then I’m offended, because that last part is what really affects me, not what happens in his home.
(I didn’t like Clinton, and he scored some political achievements I despise, but compared to contenders like Brandon, Barry, Jimmeh, and Lyndon, he didn’t even rise to clown show quality.)
This will end up just like Stormy Daniels – with her owing him legal fees
These allegations are as as manifestly contrived and politically motivated as those proffered at the 11th hour by the transparent Dumb-o-crat partisan and kook, Blasey-Ford, against then-judge Kavanaugh.
If the Dems had managed to put Kavanaugh in front of a Manhattan jury on the Blasey-Ford charges, what do you think the chances are that he would have been found guilty.
Anyone who says less than 100% is a fool, who hasn’t been paying attention.
Am he appeal this crap
Can.. he appeal
Geez
Yep. And he’ll lose yet another one.
But she won’t get the money and maybe she’ll die first
He can wait her out and should
This will end up like tbe Stormy Daniels case – with her owing him his legal fees
Totalitarians take a guilty verdict by a kangaroo court as a sign of their virtue. Proud of yourself?
Because we don’t have a fair system anymore.
If you look at all the women that Trump can have not only is she not in their league, she is not even in the league of those who are are not in their league.
I would believe Trump tried to assault Rosie ODonnell then her.
That is funny
Sexual battery is not funny.
Oh please President Trump did not sexually batter that imbecile
Who by the way, on CNN she spoke about her, and all women having rape fantasies
She’s a lunatic
Yeah that wasn’t brought up by anyone – she’s a deranged degenerate and the corrupt media couldn’t be happier.
Show us on the dolly where OMB touched you RNJD 😂😂
Ouch!
If they let you, it’s not battery!
Ask Bill Clinton. “You better put some ice on that.”
Gfg you are scum
“Be honest … this isn’t really about hunting, is it?”
If you laugh you are an evil person!!
It’s not funny only if it happened. Otherwise, the jest is about a fiction of someone’s imagination.
And neither are false allegations.
Then why is it okay that this woman made a joke out of it?? She lied. PERIOD. WHERE was she for 30 years??
The absurdity of Pres. Trump, or anyone for that matter, seeking any sort of sexual congress with Rosie O’Donnell is what makes it funny.
Trump was frisky in his younger years – and so what? So was everyone, ESPECIALLY women!
This woman (judging by her internet posts) is nuts. She reminds me of another crazy lair (Miss Magoo at the Kavanaugh hearings).
“If you look at all the women that Trump can have not only is she not in their league, she is not even in the league of those who are are not in their league.”
Yeah, Donnie screwed the pooch on that argument when he “definitely” misidentified a photo of Carroll as his ex-wife Marla, while on the stand.
“Justice” is now dictated by whether the accused is politically hated or not and ensuring that trials are held in locations hostile to the accused.
See also: Jan. 6th defendants
The Judge refused to allow Trump to call a berdorf’s employee who would have testified that there was NO WAY Trump would have been in the store without a Staffer walking him around.
They have Personal Shopping Assistants for clients like Trump”
The woman didn’t know the date , time or year “it” took place
Because it didn’t
I hope it make’s President Trump a martyr
And yet the accuser couldn’t nail down the date either… any closer than a 2 year time frame.
I’m tally about the accuser
As someone who’s been raped, in reality, I know exactly when it happened
Exactly, date, time, year…
Very sorry this happened to you. What you said strikes me as the ACTUAL reaction of someone who had this happen. I don’t believer her for an instance.
Well, it had to be after the first showing of the television show she stole it from…
Is there a link to that about the refusal of the judge disallowing the Bergsorg Goodman employee testimony? That is huge!
I got it from aceofspadeshq but I couldn’t find a link I’ll ask
I agree. I have been in those kinds of NY stores in that time frame and am no celebrity. Their brand is “customer attention”. They know very well that if some Special Person is not satisfied the word could get around.
I also support gonzotx’s view, having experienced a different kind of horrible experience. They burn themselves into your memory and you never forget.
I almost think President Trumps mantra moving forward should be
Grab them by the Pu$$y…
I must say, when I frost heard that, I cringed and thought, no one can move on from this…
I was wrong, it’s become almost comical because the left are so vile, so unhinged, that knitting pu$&y hats and wearing masks is all they are
And again, sexual battery is not funny. Not even as a “joke”.
Then the judge and prosecutor should have made it a joke by bringing this laughable crap. 30 years later, she can’t even give a date but a 2 year time it ‘might’ have happened, and not one single shred of actual evidence.
If they let you, it’s not battery!
All the proggie liars conveniently forget that part of the quote. Well, actually only half of them forget. The others are gaslighting c*nts
Giving advice to a friend in a private conversation on how to please your lover in a CONSENSUAL relationship is not “sexual battery”.
Which is why that recording had zero effect on the election in 2016. It was not, and still is not, what haters pretended it to be.
guy talk… plain and simple.
What are you, the comedy police? We’ve already seen what happens when “rules” for comedy are enforced. It hasn’t been pretty. But it’s never pretty when petty authoritarians have success at enforcing their wills on others.
Tell us again how something isn’t funny, and someone will make a joke about it.
But probably not Al Franken.
No, it’s not a joke, but did the woman ever report it to police after it happened? If she didn’t that is highly suspect.
Never mind that; she couldn’t scream in the middle of a department store???
Where’s Danny? Surely this verdict proves Donald Trump is unfit for office.
/s
Lol
It does effectively end his 2024 candidacy. There is no way he remains viable with the new york criminal case, the sexual battery verdict, and the imminent Fanni Willis and Jack Smith indictments. Regardless of the merits of those claims, there is no way to sustain a vaible candidacy with all those talking points.
34 pending felony counts and a sexual battery judgment is politcally unsustainable.
And all BS and anyone with a grain of white matter knows that
Anyone
Oh shut the fuck up.
34 PENDING FELONY COUNTS – which is utterly laughably overcharged and already acknowledged by even a bunch of liberal lawyers as a joke, and that’s even before the ludicrously tortured logic of disregarding the statute of limitations.
There’s a reason even the liberals aren’t crowing about it. It’s pathetic.
You know what people that aren’t on the far left say about this?
That even a laughably biased New York Jury that hates Trump didn’t believe this he raped this lunatic, but they had to find him guilty of SOMETHING.
Trump’s poll numbers are going to go up after this.
It is ludicrous; if they had 34 “suspect” checks, each would represent a separate “felony” count.
And the flying monkeys of the media dutifully report it like it means something.
Get real. The ’34’ counts are from stacking of the central charge not truly 34 separate felonies brought by an ideologically motivated DA who has cobbled together a very bizarre theory to sustain the felony.
So bizarre in fact that the DA refused to list the specific crime he was alleging in order to bootstrap the case up from a misdemeanor which he had to do b/c the statute of limitations had already long since run out on any misdemeanor charges.
A civil judgement from a jury in NYC? A very odd finding at that which somehow doesn’t support the rape allegation but does find for defamation for Trump saying the women was lying about the same rape allegation the jury didn’t find credible? No, the politically motivated persecution of DJT by zealous, rabid lefties in NYC doesn’t matter to those outside the lefty echo chamber.
I haven’t seen you on this forum before so I don’t have an image in my head of what you must be like as a person but from your nonsense that you are spouting here you might want to seek out another forum where the truth is a little more fluid. This will be appealed and overturned. The judge has turned justice upside down and allowed his personal opinion of Trump to distort his sense of duty.
He shows up occasionally and ALWAYS spouts ehatever deivel the far left is currently spewing.
Is illegal possession of classified documents by Joe Biden (a crime he acknowledges he committed) likewise “politically unsustainable”? This is a matter that goes straight to national security and fitness for office.
(Doesn’t apply to Trump, because as POTUS his mere handling of classified materials as if they aren’t classified is sufficient to declassify them. If you don’t know why that is, do some research. I’m not going to waste my time trying to provide information that is readily available elsewhere.)
Are you Keith Olbermann? You sound just as unhinged with this.
It is called lawfare. Anyone can see that it is just another way of attacking.
You are wrong…
So Trump is done? Looks to me like he is running 9 points ahead of where he did in 2020…
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html
This only went up after the Bragg indictment and I doubt this silly lawsuit will sway anyone from voting against him. I suspect it plays right into his hand of being a martyr where the left is “out to get him” (which is actually quite true). As I read today on Twitter… this will only make his supporter dig in like a tic.
Sounds like Joe Scarborough spouting.
Oh no it does not. It makes people want him more, since the system is against him, just like it is against US.
Danny Kerzinger?
I did find this and it at least makes me take a deep
Breath but there are so many lawsuits out there gunning for President Trump
An intervention God, or maybe the second coming would be nice as it sure as heck is needed
“Hence the appeal process. Granted it is New York but trump will draw this out for years and eventually settle for next to nothing.
Everyone needs to remember trump has not been found guilty of any crime because the leftists are going to hammer that trump has been found *guilty* 24/7. “
Trump is lots of things but I seriously doubt the man assaulted this woman. He seems to have impressive standards of beauty for the women in his life and as others have said this woman didn’t come close to that standard.
Did he defame her? The NYC jury says so but that claim seems very shaky in regard to this situation. He was responding to her claims he ‘raped’ her by saying she was a liar. The oddly inconsistent part is that jury rejected the rape claim which was the central basis for the defamation claim. I don’t see how the jury could do that and it stick on appeal.
So are you (and Trump) saying he would only rape or sexually assault a woman if she is beautiful?
Rape is an act of violence and power. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction.
Ah the feminist wing nut chime in! No that’s not what I stated. I am stating that,to paraphrase AOC, Trump wouldn’t date her. Nice try though, maybe your code pink hat too tight and impacting your ability to more cleverly articulate your attempt to project your sexual fantasies?
What an interesting comment.
It presupposes, as a premise that Trump is a rapist.
I find any argument that suggests sexual attraction is a factor in rape, regardless of the individual who is the alleged perpetrator, to be absurd. It was absurd that Trump used the argument as reasoning for why he couldn’t have assaulted her. And it naturally suggests that he would have assaulted a beautiful woman.
I voted for Trump twice, the first time very reluctantly. I have no idea whether he did what the woman alleges that he did, I don’t think anyone would describe him as a pillar of virtue, and I wouldn’t be flabbergasted to learn that he did it.
If he’s the Republican candidate, will I vote for him. Yeah, but not in the primaries. How many Independent votes has this cost him? Probably a substantial number.
If sexual attraction isn’t a factor in rape then wouldn’t the stats for rape be much more even between the number of male victims and female victims.
Wouldn’t the number of female victims of forcible penetration committed by female assailants be much higher as well? Especially so given the accessibility to changing rooms, locker rooms and other spaces by those potential female assailants v potential male assailants, at least until ten minutes ago when they began letting dudes into those spaces?
“And it naturally suggests that he would have assaulted a beautiful woman.”
That is illogical. Trump’s statement only suggests that if he were to rape a woman, that he would only rape an attractive woman. It does not in any way imply that he would actually rape anyone. Anyone with any sense knows this.
“And it naturally suggests that he would have assaulted a beautiful woman.”
Gee, check out his own words.
“You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful… I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”
Now, that isn’t “rape”… but it does happen to be “sexual abuse.”
What a coincidence, that’s just how the jury decision happened to fall out.
And that’s one solution to the jigsaw, assuming it happened.
Most “normal”people don’t believe they would have sex with someone they are not attracted to
Criminals don’t give a shit, they will rape a 90 year old woman
Normal people don’t think in those terms, to them, there has to be a connection
And President Trump clearly didn’t want or need anything from this insane woman
He never met her in his life
Her argument is that rape lacks any sexual component and is exclusively an act about power, dominance, control and violence. If that’s true, and rape has no sexual component then we would expect weaker men to be raped by stronger men in much higher numbers outside of prison. That isn’t the case.
Rape does have a sexual component, beyond simple sexual gratification, that goes along with the violence, power dominance, control aspects. Rape definitely does have aspects of power and dominance but not exclusively.
Removing the sexual component reduces this to a feminist one that says in essence;
1. rape is only about power and dominance of the stronger preying on the weaker.
2. Men are stronger physically than women and more violent than women.
3. Therefore only men are or can become predators and only women are victims.
That’s simply not the case. I can’t understand why some women make these arguments that paint men as predators and condemn their Fathers, Brothers, Cousins and the other good men in their lives as nothing more than potential predators waiting for an opportunity victimize women.
Rape is an act of violence and power. It has nothing to do with sexual attraction.
LOL.
I love when people mindlessly repeat stupid things.
Look at the allegations. He met her, he flirted with her, they went into a dressing room together (and alone) and according to all common sense (and the NY Jury) he did not rape her. The allegations would suggest that Trump was attracted to her and was attempting to seduce her (not rape her). The argument seems more about “no” meaning “no” and her allegations that he groped her without consent.
And need we remind anyone. Even the Jury tossed aside the possibility of rape.
Even a NEW YORK JURY didn’t believe it by the laughably lower standard of preponderance of the evidence.
They clearly just looked at their charge sheet and said ‘well we have to find him guilty, so we’ll pick the lowest charges and just lay out a massive penalty’, without even thinking about whether it was logically consistent.
Sexual assault? Isn’t that what some transgender “women” do to real women in previously female changing rooms and lavatories?
Trump, unlike Bill Clinton, has always sought beautiful and glamorous women. He has bedded many of them and from reading his history many were available almost anytime. Knowing that and thinking of his status in NYC does it make any sense at all that he would attack and try/Rape this very average-looking woman at midday in one of NYC’s finest department stores? I know what “Date” rape is or being raped while a woman is drunk and they are bad but understandable because of circumstances, but in the daytime in a department store full of people and employees, in a changing booth? It is clearly not his MO.
On top of all that, Trump was a huge name in New York, at the time, and his whereabouts were regularly noticed and reported on by all sorts. I think that Trump out shopping around in Bergdorf, on his own, probably would have made the papers – page 6 or whatever the gossip columns are.
At the very least, his presence in the store would have made for a bit of scene, I think.
I haven’t followed this trial at all. I don’t know what the actual evidence might be. But in the end, the evidence doesn’t really matter. There’s no way Trump gets tried in Manhattan, and wins.
aslannn, there was no evidence. It was just one lady’s story, without any actual dates.
So? Some twit see’s a payday and files in a jurisdiction that hates Trump with vague memories and murky allegations. Surprise!!! Guilty! Pay $5 Million to the accuser that couldn’t sell her book so sought another avenue for some money.
This is nonsense and only the die hard Trump haters will buy this. Seriously? 30yr old allegations that this chick actually had to petition the NY Government to change the law to file and only filed after Trump looked like he was running again???
We need to have a Republican presidential candidate who doesn’t brag about grabbing a woman by her pussy.
As I understand it, and correct me now if I’m wrong, Trump didn’t “brag about grabbing a woman by her pussy.” He marveled that they let him!
They don’t care because they aren’t honest.
Let me try and put this grabbing comment to bed once and for all.
Guys like John Stamos, Tom Sellick, Harrtison Ford. don’t talk about sex in the locker rooms.
Who are the guys talking about sex in locker rooms. The dweebs who aren’t “getting any”, who want to brag.
The basic fact that any guy will tell you:
When it comes to “locker room” talk. those who talk about it the most are the guys who do it the least.”
You think Bill ever talked about his conquests?
He didn’t even go that far. The conversation was about women who are attracted to powerful men. Trump said women attracted to powerful men want them (the men) to grab them (the women attracted to those men) by their pussies. Trump was commenting on the mindset of certain women, not his own.
Trump-Hollywood Celebrity
Hollywood Celebrities-Need I discuss what they do to women?
Women-Are aware of it
Trump-Declares women let Hollywood celebrities grab them by pussy and like it to a man who was openly recording every second who works for a media company notorious for it’s tabloid behavior.
If people are trying to label you a creep the worst thing you could do is say something that makes you sound extremely creepy.
Seriously, you guys need to read the actual transcript, then come back and use the non-existent edit button to correct what you posted.
Wow China and Russia are eating our lunch and we are very close to ww3 and you worry about something President said, locker room bs instead of what he can and has done
Sad
Speak for yourself, please, not “we.”
Stick a fork in him. He’s done.
Wet dream?
He was already done before this verdict because frankly he is unpopular in most swing states, is unpopular with the general public and…..well this certainly doesn’t help but he had no path to the White House before this.
If someone accused me of rape, sexual assault, and slander I guarantee you I would show up to defend myself.
What kind of man wouldn’t?
A guilty one who can easily come up with the $5 million using other peoples money.
Not if your lawyer told you not to testify. Unless you’re a stupid client.
Or just stupid. Hey, I think I may have hit on something here …
And here is why you don’t try to impress someone who is openly recording you by saying increasingly stupid things.
Access Hollywood was the cause of this verdict which was a civil verdict that was not about beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ask any woman or girl what she thinks of a Hollywood big wig bragging about how they could touch women whenever and however they want and that he says it is consensual see if she believes him.
I don’t think Trump is a rapist, I do however think he delivered the verdict against himself trying to impress THE Billy Bush.
I also can’t disprove the allegations against him, which does amount to more baggage.
Trump lost in court today because they heard the Access Hollywood tapes in his own words.
BTW, the AH tapes should not have been admissible
Why would those tapes have been used at trial? I don’t mean because they’re technically inadmissible, I mean because they don’t show Trump saying what most believe he said. People have such a strong (and wrong) sense that they already know what he said, that they can listen to the tapes and still not perceive Trump’s actual words.
Ask anyone, “Who said ‘I can see Russia from my front yard’?” Most Americans believe they know the correct answer to the question, yet most would be dead wrong. And you could not persuade a large portion of them that they are incorrect.
“It’s not that liberals don’t know anything. It’s that most of what they know is wrong.”
The AH tape of women and girls let you grab them by the pussy when you are celebrity, done as women and girls talk and they knew Hollywood celebrities are handsy without consent and worst and that Hollywood is the land of creeps that one?
People know that Hollywood celebrities have confused not screaming and breaking out the pepper spray with consent, so they came to the conclusion they did from the tape.
That is why you don’t desperately try to impress a gossip columnist with a camera with a statement that any amount of thought will reveal to you is going to really hurt how people think of you.
You would not defend the AH tape coming from any other Hollywood celebrity.
That doesn’t mean Trump did it but it does mean Trump was desperate to impress Billy Bush because he was in his vicinity, and that hurt him down the line.
He said what he did on Access Hollywood trying to impress Billy Bush.
Billy Bush the gossip columnist who was openly recording everything for an employer who could leak it at any time……
We don’t disagree the AH tape along with lack of a competent defense came back to haunt Trump.
A Manhattan jury would convict Trump of causing the next earthquake, if they had the opportunity. It’s the Land of Bragg. Any questions?
Like I’ve said, don’t depend on the courts to save us..
Because there is no law in America anymore … just lawfare.
This country is DOOMED if the UNIPARTY remains in power.
And we’re not going to get them out the way were proceeding.
Trump did not mount a defense or testify in a case where the plaintiff had a compelling bit from Trump’s own mouth (the access Hollywood tape) and a jury in purely civil case found for the plaintiff.
This is not a case that indicts the justice system. Maybe Trump had bad lawyers, or maybe Trump just ignored their warnings about how the case would end if he didn’t try and mount a defense.
The defendant is not required to mount a defense, Danny. And he did, after all, make a sworn deposition that was shown to the kangaroo court. In it, he denied any contact with her. He said he never met her, and her lawyers never produced any evidence to prove he did. In fact, Danny, her lawyers clearly didn’t prove what she publicly claimed happened. She claimed she was raped and the jury specifically found against that claim. It’s not even clear that the jury found that he did more than kiss her since all that was needed for a finding of liability was a unwelcome kiss per the biased judge’s instructions to the biased jury.
If anything, that result proves that SHE seriously defamed Trump in calling him a rapist, not the other way around. Given that, he had every right to call her a liar back … the reason the biases jury concluded Trump defamed her. Trump should appeal and then sue her for defamation … and bankrupt her, like he did Daniels. Too bad he can’t sue the jury.
Do you know Danny that she didn’t even know the year, day or time this claim rape occurred. Rape victims tend to remember those sorts of detail. And suspiciously, her description of the rape sounds a lot like a rape that occurred in a popular TV show of the era. There are lots of reasons to be suspicious about that, including the fact that her lawyers were paid for by a democRAT mega donor.
And the fact that she (or the donor) got (perhaps paid?) someone to back up her squirrelly story means nothing these days. We all saw the completely bogus testimony the democRATS generated in the case against Kavanaugh. We all saw the complete bogus testimony by democRATS generated in the Russia collusion case against Trump.
To sum this all up, it’s clear to everyone here but you, Mr UNIPARTY democRAT, that a great injustice has been done against Trump AND against our legal system. You’re just too blinded by your leftist politics to see or admit it.
Holy crap you made a lot of sense in this post!
Hear, hear!!
It was a civil case you idiot.
In a civil case a defense is expected because it is not beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury will draw a very negative perception from no defense.
Not know the year? Or date?
Wonderful that is the type of thing your DEFENSE shows and that you could emphasize while putting on a defense!!!!
If Trump had mounted a defense he would have won the case and would be 5 million dollars richer.
You have no clue how our courts work.
Today’s verdict proves the adage: You can’t beat something with nothing, at least in a civil case.
Trump complained he was silenced by the judge (he wasn’t), the fact is that he declined to attend the trial and testify, opting instead to play golf in Scotland.
How was it not infuriating to the jurors that Trump blew off the trial when they had to put their lives on hold to attend?
More to the point, though, in a civil case, the litigants are expected to testify. If a defendant declines to testify, the jury usually draws a negative inference — that Trump had no compelling defense, or was unwilling to have his story and his credibility subjected to cross-examination. That was the gambit and Trump lost.
At the end, Carroll’s lawyer Michael Ferrara reminded the jury — which needed no reminding — that “Donald Trump never looked you in the eye and denied” the allegations.
E. Jean Carroll told the jury a disturbing story, but Donald Trump’s silence spoke volumes.
Like it or not, Trump lost more than $5 million today. This verdict will undoubtedly spur the NY AG, the Fulton County DA, and Jack Smith to indict Trump.
I am NOT happy to write this but the piling on lawfare starts right now.
Well put and I agree. If the judge really did not allow his defense to bring in testimony from the store of employee attentiveness, Trump could have done so himself by testifying he was one of the most famous people in NY at the time and could not go anywhere in a high end store without plenty of “assistance”. Quiet presentation of obvious points would have done him a world of good, but that appears not to be in his wheelhouse.
“How was it not infuriating to the jurors that Trump blew off the trial when they had to put their lives on hold to attend?”
It’s not Trump’s fault they had to do that and I’ll bet you most of them voted democRAT.
“More to the point, though, in a civil case, the litigants are expected to testify.”
That is not supposed to be a factor in the decision. The California civil jury system instructions specially state that (https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/200/216/_) the defendant “has an absolute constitutional right not to give testimony”. It says “do not consider, for any reason at all, the fact that” the defendant “invoked the right not to testify. Do not discuss that fact during your deliberations or let it influence your decision in any way.” I imagine the NY civil jury instructions are similar. That being likely, the jury violated its instructions if what you say is the reason they found against Trump.
By the way, Trump did make an under-oath deposition in which he denied Carroll’s claims. That should have been enough for the jury. All you are pointing out his how broken our system of justice has become thanks to politics. It’s sad and probably spells the end of our Republic and the beginning of a dictatorship.
OR, what is likely the reason, his decision to participate as minimally as possible in this absurdity. I think he knew what the result would be regardless, so he stepped back and let it happen. Intelligent people can put this together. The entire debacle was in fact, beneath him. This doesn’t happen to presidents – just Trump the President.
We exist in the most corrupt times in American history. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out Biden’s son has been selling his dad’s influence to China and Ukraine. Hell, there might even be a record of this somewhere – maybe on a laptop even.
I bet his daughter may even have some dirt on Joe – like – I don’t know – maybe taking inappropriate showers with him as a little girl. It’s crazy sounding I know, and sure, we know Joe would never kiss his grown up granddaughter on the lips, but taking showers with his daughter – nah come on, If it did happen, the daughter might have mentioned in in some sort of “diary” or something.
In any event, the media gramps is suddenly screaming about, will STILL run cover for him regardless.
If he had participated he would have significantly less baggage right now, and would be 5 million dollars richer.
If he doesn’t mind losing money fine, but if he wants to be our nominee…..why collect extra baggage?
Trump did not testify in person.
However, his deposition was shown as evidence. The plaintiff’s attorney was given the opportunity to ask what ever questions they wanted.
Also, the plaintiff decided not to call Trump as a witness.
If you had shown this case to a lawyer turned director as a movie pitch he would immediately tell you it is unrealistic because no lawyer would put on a defense that badly, and that no self respecting lawyer would permit his client to go golfing while the Jury has to hear testimony so it is being rejected.
Remember Jack Smith is a lawyer and he saw the sheer incompetence and is thinking “this will not be anywhere close to what it looks like when I bring charges”.
He and the Fulton County DA will bring charges but both of them made that clear before this case.
“If you had shown this case to a lawyer turned director as a movie pitch he would immediately tell you it is unrealistic because no lawyer would put on a defense that badly”
Mind you, Danny also believes that Biden really got 81.5 million votes in 2020 and probably thinks Biden and Hunter haven’t committed a single crime over the years. LOL!
Go find the post where I claimed Hunter was innocent you jackass.
Biden did get 81 million votes, you are just a cultist.
If you believed Biden lost but won by unstoppable fraud you would not be here you would be doing something productive with your time.
This is chum for the media for the foreseeable future … does this mean Hunter gets indicted in the next day or 3, or Biden China influence scandal is about to blow up?
I think so, too. Hunter goes to trial, gets convicted, Joe pardons Hunter and himself
Gonzotx & Danny:
Watch this video and pay close attention to what Alan Dershowitz is saying here. I think he is right.
https://rumble.com/v2mxk2u-alan-dershowitz-on-e.-jean-carroll-case-decision-proves-theyre-out-to-get-t.html
Some think it matters little that they are out to get him because they are happy about it. It comes through in the comments. Who cares if the rule of law is abused. It’s Trump! He deserves it! These some have TDS, pretend as they must that thye do not.
They are out to get everyone on our side.
This case however…..I don’t think any lawyer thinks the Trump defense team did a good job.
Especially when you remember the Access Hollywood tape.
“They are out to get everyone on our side.”
You mean the UNIPARTY’S?
There’s no evidence she ever even met Trump.
No witnesses willing to testify to it either.
What a farce.
Our courts are a pathetic joke.
Trump is past trials are to prove guilt or not, it’s how can the Marxists get him with the best odds having the players in place.
This wonderful site is one of the very few places ACTUALLY allowing criticism of this embarrassment of the justice system. I posted things on the corrupt Guardian such as you are not news and was threatened that I was promoting hate speech. We have no more avenues – no Rush – no Tucker – no common sense – or very little.
They indeed passed that law and it would seem the main reason was to get Trump. Now the non news degenerate sites such as the Guardian, BBC, AP, Reuters, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, PBS, and on and on we can go – ALL OF THEM ARE REJOICING.
Biden stories of ACTUAL CRIMES AND A COMPROMISED PRESIDENT BOUGHT BY CHINA – CRICKETS, CRICKETS, AND MORE CRICKETS.
Your mistake was going to the guardian. The only thing they guard against is free expression.
This is a place that is unabashedly lying about free expression. Check out this giant polished turd from their editor I came across the other day.
“I hope you appreciated this article. Before you move on, I was hoping you would consider taking the step of supporting the Guardian’s journalism.
From Elon Musk to Rupert Murdoch, a small number of billionaire owners have a powerful hold on so much of the information that reaches the public about what’s happening in the world. The Guardian is different. We have no billionaire owner or shareholders to consider. Our journalism is produced to serve the public interest – not profit motives.
And we avoid the trap that befalls much US media – the tendency, born of a desire to please all sides, to engage in false equivalence in the name of neutrality. While fairness guides everything we do, we know there is a right and a wrong position in the fight against racism and for reproductive justice. When we report on issues like the climate crisis, we’re not afraid to name who is responsible. And as a global news organization, we’re able to provide a fresh, outsider perspective on US politics – one so often missing from the insular American media bubble.
Around the world, readers can access the Guardian’s paywall-free journalism because of our unique reader-supported model. That’s because of people like you. Our readers keep us independent, beholden to no outside influence and accessible to everyone – whether they can afford to pay for news, or not.
If you can, please consider supporting the Guardian today. Thank you.”
Notice that they try to sound like they are neutral but then dog whistle to their echo chamber with their spectrum of opposition conveniently bounded from ‘Musk to Murdoch’
I want to thank 90%+ of the people here for settling me down., I was sort of losing my mind over the dearth of material supporting Trump.
If you try to find a single source critical of this jury, the judge, or this “new law created just to get Trump”, you will find nothing thus far. To see common sense from brave people speaking their restores my faith that there are a few of us still not compromised by the complicit and disastrous worldwide media.
FTA “a federal jury in Manhattan”
Wasn’t this a city case?
This was a federal case because of diversity (NY vs. Florida resident.)
The jury found that Trump did not rape her, but somehow defamed her when he said what the jury determined.,,,,only in NYC
Only because it was DJT [or, insert the name of any notable, infamous conservative firebrand here].
And all across this land of ours …
ham sandwiches tremble in fear.
Any law that allows one to reach back decades like this is unjust and immoral. If on the jury I would have voted for Trump. However, despite voting for Trump twice, I think he did have an encounter with this drama queen (who allowed herself to be alone in a public changing room 5 minutes after meeting a man) and did force himself on her boorishly. So what! I am not supporting this idiot for other good reasons.
” I think he did have an encounter with this drama queen (who allowed herself to be alone in a public changing room 5 minutes after meeting a man”.
If you really thought what they did is unjust and immoral, you wouldn’t added the rest … because it’s just as unfair. There is no proof he was ever in that establishment, much less met her. That’s just your dislike of him, for other reasons, showing. We do know for sure, however, that leftists have on several occasions made up stories to try and smear noted conservatives … especially Trump. In fact, so have some Never Trumper republicans. This is a travesty.
I looked at the evidence the jury saw. She contemporaneously told her friends of the event. I do not believe these friends perjured themselves. I chose Trump over the alternatives. I don’t hate him. I do recognize that he is lazy and egotistical, doesn’t take advice and cannot stick to a plan. I find him too personally repulsive to hate. Hillary and Obama I hate. Joe too.
New York State shredded the statute of limitations to permit a party who claims that she was raped or sexually abused to bring a civil suit thirty years after the alleged incident. Because statutes of limitations do not confer rights on an alleged tortfeasor, they can be changed after the fact to authorize parties with preferred claims to proceed, undermining the premise on which such limitation statutes have been traditionally grounded.
Statutes of limitations are virtually universal because at some point evidence becomes unavailable and memories fade. Unreliability is the essential if not universal hallmark of litigating 30 year old claims, especially when there is no evidence other than the testimony of the alleged victim and the denial of the alleged perpetrator.
Because sexual abuse and battery claims are now considered more important than insuring that a defendant gets a fair trial, they have been repealed in certain cases. When the plaintiff cannot recall when the alleged incident happened, the defendant who might have had an alibi for a specific date is denied adequate specificity on which to base a defense. This does not seem to be justice in action.
The way the population views the courts as institutions of justice is not enhanced by allowing 30 year old claims to be litigated. With such time lapsed uncertainty is the common characteristic of the litigation.
And then there is Trump himself who gave a deposition in the case that seemingly justified ugly conduct if committed by a star, which he considered himself to be. Trump will have a hard time attacking a two-tier justice system, when it appears he favors one as long as he is among the beneficiaries.
“And then there is Trump himself who gave a deposition in the case that seemingly justified ugly conduct if committed by a star, which he considered himself to be. Trump will have a hard time attacking a two-tier justice system, when it appears he favors one as long as he is among the beneficiaries.”
Irrational. Trump was not describing a legal privilege to be presumptuous, but a social one. He was speaking (however boorishly) about “manufacturing consent” on a one-on-one basis
There is no “two-tiered justice system” that justifies Harvey Weinstein getting much more (consensual) strange than I could, despite the fact that I am marginally much more attractive.
I swear to god Americans get stupider by the year. “Idiocracy” was prophecy.
Has anyone brought up the fact that Carrol also accused Hunter Thompson of rape after she lived with him off and on over a period of months while writing his biography? Read it to get an idea of the sort of mind and character is being awarded a victory by a gaggle of asshats from Madhattan. Evidently she has become prudish in her old age.
She also accused some CBS bigwig named Moonves of “sexual assault” on an elevator in the late ’90s. I’d say that her newfound candor in revealing the constant assaults on the fortress of her precious box is good advance publicity for her book, “What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal.” I would not have known of this latest literary effort were it not for her Rape Victim Tour that culminated in this bit of Political Theater of the Absurd.
Were these two incidents brought up at the trial?
Caroll won’t see a dime and the Teflon Don will not suffer from greater infamy or lose any of his base. In fact, this might draw others into his camp because nobody likes to see a liar win in a Kangaroo Court.
I think it says a lot when the only tarted-up charge to be found against him is this one–a case well past any statute of limitations that is obviously politically motivated and vague, in keeping with today’s feminist hysterics queefing about their precious, gold-lined gashes or how they have a right to murder children so their miserable lives can proceed unencumbered. It’s enough to turn a man to stone . . . or gay. Feminism has definitely made me a misogynist.
This brief W for the left is a temporary illusion, like all their other perversions of American political life and culture. There will be a backlash; the pendulum is reaching its high point, and with the Carlson sacking, the Bud Light boycott, and the scorched-earth policies of DeSantis getting favorable results, I’m willing to bet we are at the beginning of a reckoning.
Those are the things the defense has to bring up in a civil trial.
There is no way to sugar coat it, the Trump defense was a how to on how not to conduct a defense in a civil trial.
Were you aware that the judge limited Mr. Tacopina in his cross examination about the setting where she alleged the attack occurred, the dressing room, the people around, etcetera? I heard a lawyer explain that the limited cross examination is a winnable issue on appeal. The defendant is usually given leeway for intense cross examination because the standard is so much lower for the plaintiff to prevail in a civil case. If Trump had testified, I have no doubt that there would be the argument that it was a huge error.
Carroll: “Trump…”
Jury: “Say no more, we hate him too. We find for plaintiff.”
I wonder if she will go after Les Moonves or some of the other men on the list of Men who’ve raped her now that she’s on a roll?
Yeah, I don’t think so either.
More evidence, as if we need it, that the USA has no rule of law. The Only justice any wil leceive wil come out of the muzzle of their guns.f course this lawsuit has no merit. It is frivolous and should be dismissed .You have forgotten that we do not live any longer in the USA of our ancestors and birthright. You are trapped in the United States of Pedophilia. I wish you were correct and if there remains any trace of the Rule of Law you would be correct. However, the United States is ruled by an organized crime syndicate masquerading as the Democratic Party and the mob bosses want our children. They want to sissify our boys and prostitute the girls. They own the courts who are as much a part of the mob as any politician. These black robed demons are the consigliere to the ruling mobsters. The courts are not going to protect your children or mine. In fact, they are there to carry out the satanic desires of the mob bosses. There is no way to stop them because they count the votes, they select who can and cannot vote. They run the United States of Pedophilia and they dare you to stop them. Speak up against them and you are canceled or disappear into their gulag. I hope that’s clear to you and all others who read my words.
If Trump had said nothing upon hearing her accusation, she would have had no defamation case. Did the abuse accusation come as proof of the defamation, or was that a separate consideration?
Maybe its better to just keep your mouth shut?
Since I doubt she knows anyone who gives credence to anything Trump says, how was she damaged for defamation?
So, next time, she should accuse him or murdering her, and even if the jury doesn’t believe her, they can hold him liable for assault and battery.
The media and the Donks (but I repeat myself) got what they wanted.
ALL of the newscasts today are starting off this story with “Trump found guilty of sexual abuse.”
How about this hot take from “journalist” Gayle King:
“E. Jean Carroll says Gayle King revealed off-camera she yelled ‘hooray’ in reaction to Trump verdict”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/e-jean-carroll-gayle-king-yelled-hooray-off-camera-reaction-trump-verdict
Trump lawyer grills E. Jean Carroll about similarity between her rape claim, ‘SVU’ episode : https://nypost.com/2023/05/01/trump-lawyer-asks-e-jean-carroll-about-svu-episode-at-trial/
A brief moment of the episode — titled “Theatre and Tricks” — involves a character talking about role-playing a rape fantasy in Bergdorf Goodman.
“Role-play took place in the dressing room of Bergdorf’s. While she was trying on lingerie I would burst in,” the character says.