Trump's trial in E. Jean Carroll defamation case begins

From Jeans petition-
"Trump then pushed his fingers around Carroll's genitals and forced his penis inside of her"

THAT would be considered rape but the jury, even with the civil standard of proof, didnt believe her.

 

They believe that Trump penetrated her (thus the finding of sexual assault) but even Carroll could not definitively say Trump penetrated her with his penis which would be required to find that he raped her.

It's not a question of "not believing her" it's a question of not being able to definitively say what Trump penetrated her with.

Do you think its so much better that Trump penetrated her with "something" without her consent than Trump penetrated her with his penis without her consent?

 

You're commenting on a case you know little about.

On the day of the sexual assault, Ms. Carroll told a friend who testified for her at the trial about the assault.

 

LMAO.... THAT is funny....

Do you have any clue what "hush money" is??

I know Trump does and even HE knows this wouldn't go into the "hush money" category...

Hush money... Awesome!!

 

Which we might actually get tomorrow... What a day of cross examination that will be...

If you've ever seen Law and Order, one of the prosecutors inevitably says 'Well, he/she opened the door (to this line of questioning)'

Almost guaranteed to happen tomorrow.... Trump will ramble (Ding Ding Whosh) and say something that will allow Kaplan to pouce when it's her turn.

Again, assuming he drags his fat ass up there in the first place (I'm putting it 25%-75% myself)

 

She has repeatedly and unequivocally stated he penetrated her with his penis and never claimed she could not definitively say Trump penetrated her with his penis
From her book
I am astonished by what I’m about to write: I keep laughing. The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I’m not certain — inside me.

 

Yes I do know what hush money is. Make a relevant point if you can

 

Uhhh.. this wouldn't be hush money....

Patently obvious to just about everybody here...

 

Just for the record … in the first trial, trump didn’t deny Carroll’s version of events.

 

And importantly, he never took the stand to deny any of the testimony. Her evidence stands without contradiction.

 

Exactly.

And juries interpreted that as a form of contempt on Trump's part.

Which was confirmed by his subsequent defamatory remarks.

 

What I wanna know is how any of them can come to a finding about a supposed sexual encounter, decades past with basically no physical evidence. Obviously they did, but this whole thing was a he said/she said trial and well, we live in the age of #believeallwomen.

So no doubt, he lost the civil case but that doesn't make her story any more objectively believable.

 

String together a few words if you can, and make your argument.

 

She didnt provide evidence.

 

Oh no.. I defer to the poster making the claim.. tell the class how EJC giving her presser after the award will be talking about her "hush money"

 

No you are 100% dead wrong. It was not “he said / she said”.
It was “she testified”. And that’s it. She testified under oath about what happened, and he didn’t deny it. That’s quite important.

He
Didn’t
Deny
It

 

So, if that happened to your daughter, you would consider it rape. But not so much for this woman…got it.

 

This woman thought the rape was in 1994, though she didnt know the date. Then she finds out that the Donna Karan dress she claims to be wearing that day, didnt exist, in 1994, so then said it must of been 1995. In her book and court petition she claims Trumps fingers moved "around her genitals" but in tv interviews she claims the fingers were up in and around inside and that it hurt. She claims he penetrated with his penis. The jury didnt believe her.
George Conway, rabid anti Trumper convinced her to file the suit 28 years after the fact. Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn and rabid anti Trumper funded the lawsuit because evidently there werent any attorneys willing to take the case on a contingency fee basis. The friggin law on statute of limitations were changed for ONE year just so Jean could sue 28 years after the fact.
IMHO clearly it "is more likely than not" that this incident never happened. That in fact she hasnt suffered any damages and in fact she has profited from her book AND Trumps comments that increased the sale of her books.

 

Were you a jury on this case?

 

Juror is the word. No. I have advantage of evidence they were excluded from.

 

For example?

 

Everything above in my post 293 for example.

 

And why was the Jury unaware of all this....um......material?

 

Plaintiffs' attorneys and favorable rulings from the judge doing everything they could to prevent the jury from becoming aware.
Instead of the twenty questions, why not just jump to your conclusion of a rolling on the ground laughing emoji?

 

There are rules of evidence. Developed over hundreds of years to balance the rights of the parties. To exclude evidence that may be unreliable, irrelevant etc.

If there was information that wasn’t presented to the jury, it’s because a party chose not to present it, or because it didn’t meet the standards required for it to be presented.

Do you know what other evidence wasn’t in front of the jury? Trump denying that this assault occurred. Think about that. She says it happened. He didn’t deny it.