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

Then answer the question. How do you find the democrats?

 

Jesus....

Go and reread what I've written and try to understand.

 

I have read what you said. What questions are you going to ask them to find the democrats?

 

Unless they find him innocent they they will be the most loyal, illustrious American's ever whelped.

Being a "victim" is his stock in trade, the bigger victim he can be the more rent money his followers will send him. Thirty million $1 dollar at at time is still $30 million.

 

Post #48

I couldn't care less.

 

And you.

 

The exact same statement made by EVERY person arraigned and/or then convicted of a crime.
It seems it depends on what side of the fence the individuals are , at all times.

 

This is a complete crock of ****.

There's no chance that this 'assault' actually happened.

None.

Zero.

The bitch can't even "remember" what year it happened.

 

I sincerely hope the Orange Stain keeps shooting his mouth off and slandering her thereby generating more and more lawsuits against him.
Even if he gets elected, the lawsuits can proceed OR just wait until he is out of office and then proceed.

LMAO

 

Uh... yeah, there was... if by assault you mean sexually abuse. That's the check in the YES area for question 2. It was part and parcel of the defamation case...



https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/09/jury-verdict-form-e-jean-carroll-defamation-trial-00096059

 

This oaf is just about to get his oversized ass kicked out of the courtroom...

https://deadline.com/2024/01/trump-sexual-abuse-court-e-jean-carroll-1235795423/

It's what he wants.... Hell, it's what everybody wants, so let's get it over with and get to the 8 figure damages verdict...

 

Thanks, i did some research and you are correct. But the burden of "proof"in a civil case is much much lower, and basically requires "reasonable doubt". I have to be honest here tho, when 2 people tell a story, how do they come to a conclusion that one is right, and one is wrong without evidence, for a something that happened over 30 years ago ?

Sorry, I just cant wrap my head around two people tell their side of a story that happened 30 years ago, and then a jury defines guilt or innocence without any evidence

 

Without being on the jury that made the call, I cannot respond to most of that...

The burden in a civil case is preponderance of evidence.... > 50% chance it happened.

There was testimony from a couple of EJC's friends from back in the day who said EJC told them contemporaneously about the event. That's pretty good evidence to get to > 50% to me....

All of that aside, this seems to be part of a lifetime M.O. with women, so it's certainly shouldn't be incredulous news to anybody..

 

What you’re arguing is that politicians should have total immunity..:r is it just ones you like?

 

What's amazing is that people decide to comment when they can't even factually state what happened in the last trial.

This woman is bat **** crazy and the extremely biased "judge" rigged the case by disallowing the evidence of the crazy **** she's said. She said she thinks that, "most people think rape as being sexy. "



The "judge" wouldn't allow the Bergdorf staff to explain that when Trump entered a place like that, that he would have a personal shopper assigned to him and that there was no way the alleged scenario could have happened.

The "judge" also ensured that the jury was as biased as possible against Trump.

The verdict should have been set aside, since the jury came back with a logically impossible verdict. They said that Trump didn't rape her, but she did sexually assault her. Considering the fact that the only evidence of either act is her statement, the fact that they thought she was lying about the rape, but not the sexual assault belies any common sense.

There's a reason that there are statutes of limitation. The fact that this was only allowed because a law was specifically passed to make this garbage possible shows how ridiculous this case is.

 

Yep..... and all with no witnesses, not one shred of evidence, and one crying wailing woman on the stand that could not tell the court exactly when it happened
"approximately 27 years ago".... how would a person mount a defense when he could not check his records with a date and time to see if he was even in the city at that time...

 

The issue is when he was asked about the tape, he basically said he meant it for real. Had he called it a joke, that likely would have reduced its impact. Couple that with his zero credibility for saying things like that he didn't know her (false), or that she's not his type (false, mistook her for his ex wife in a picture).

 

And rightly so. Your Orange Leader has a mouth, people listen to the moron and act on his words, violently.

 

A pointless hollow offer given the circumstances/what happened (digital penetration) and time lapse, and Humpty knows that well. What would it prove one way or the other? That is just faux defiant heroic grandstanding at its finest.

 

Incorrect.

 

Well if you let in her crazy comments, we have to allow trumps and then the trial last 3 years with stuff like windmills cause cancer, Romney won the popular vote…or his complete fabrications like the birth certificate investigators he sent to Hawaii…

 

Sure, but it proves he said it.

 

And if she was making it up, don't you reckon she at least could make up a year?

 

Knowing their names would not have made any difference.

Without an anonymity order, they wouldn't have known their names until the very day of jury selection - at the very moment when the clerk called them into the courtroom for voir dire examination. Voir dire and selection are completed in the same proceeding.

So, the only difference was that they were called in by number.

 

Trumps, "crazy comments" are literally irrelevant. Trumps "crazy comments" had nothing to do with this case whatsoever. He didn't even testify in the trial.

I notice you didn't even comment about the bias of the judge...