E. Jean Carroll is a rich woman.

"Criminal trials deal in guilt where civil trials deal in liability. Guilt and liability are not the same things. A criminal jury uses trial evidence to make a determination of innocence or guilt. A civil jury will use evidence to make a finding of civil liability."

"Do civil cases determine guilt?
Criminal trials deal in guilt where civil trials deal in liability. Guilt and liability are not the same things. A criminal jury uses trial evidence to make a determination of innocence or guilt. A civil jury will use evidence to make a finding of civil liability."

"In civil cases, the plaintiff must prove there is a 51% or greater chance that the defendant committed all the elements of the wrong. It is possible to find the defendant liable in a civil case even though a verdict of “not guilty” was rendered in the criminal case."
Who determines guilt or responsibility in a civil case? (legalknowledgebase.com)


You are just wrong. This is not that difficult. The difference between liable for a tort and guilty of a crime are MILES APART.

 

Reality isnt semantics.

 

Oh.. for heaven's sake, get a grip! We are not in a trial. We're in a discussion forum. Unless we are in a discussion about the technical use of words (which this thread is not) we use words colloquially.

Your strawman is NOT going to ease your conscience when all this nuttiness is over, and you have to look back at how you acted and what you said in respect to a sexual abuser running for President. You'll have to decide NOW if you're going to be on the side of morality, or on the side of sexual depravity. Later it will be too late.

Sorry to break it to you, but there is no way around it. There is very little time left for you to make the decision that you won't regret for the rest of your life.

 

I realize the leftist hatred for Trump is profound and it will latch on any vehicle that it thinks can be used to attack Trump but did you bother to read that nutcase's claims about Trump? It appears she was a lifetime victim of dozens of alleged sexual assaults: a number that stretches the bounds of credibility. There should be a strict 2 year statute of limitations on this sort of claim-especially if the alleged victim is an adult.

 

....and despite your repeated claims, Trump was not found guilty of a crime. He in fact was not found guilty of anything. He was instead found liable for a civil tort. The two things are MILES APART.

Get a grip indeed.

 

they don't care

 

they are actually committing defamation by claiming he has been found guilty

 

Of course they dont. They instead just want to twist the English language into a pretzel by saying "it has been adjudicated" in order to bogusly imply he has been found guilty of a crime. That is an expression rarely heard previously, which all of a sudden is all you hear from the TDS crowd.

Saying adjudicated is a great way to blur the line between civil and criminal court and pretend as if they are one. "He was found liable" the normal expression for a civil judgment, just doesnt have the same power to twist reality. They are not interested in reality.

 

I'm happy that you do. What I don't understand is why MAGAs don't. How can any living, breathing, moral human being not hate a criminal, sexual abuser, insurrectionist... who separated children from their parents with no intention to ever reunite them and used the Presidency of the United States for Profit. One would think a SINGLE one of those would be enough to hate anybody. So why don't MAGAs? If you could explain that to me, I'd be interested in listening.

 

Makes NO difference to anything I have said.

 

Which takes us full circle back to my original statement to you that you have disagreed with vociferously ever since.

When you prove to me that Trump committed a crime again Carrol, I will agree with you. You have done your level best since claim that he has been found guilty. He has not. For you to claim that him being found liable for a tort makes no difference to your claim that he has been found guilty is yet another misnomer from you.

The difference between being found liable for a civil tort versus being found guilty of a crime, is MILES APART. It does not matter how much you twist the English language into a pretzel with the unusual statement of " it has been adjudicated" rather than the straightforward statement of "he has been found civilly liable". The chasm between these two things is not lessened regardless of how hard you try to blur that line.

 

To YOU? Nobody would prove it to YOU even if they showed you a tape of the act.

Get over it! You're not that important. My point is that, if you are a person of morals, one day... when the incantation is over, you'll look back to this period and wonder how you could EVER support a criminal sexual abuser. But, by then, it will be too late. No amount of remorse will cleanse... whatever you do from here to November.

 

Making this about me changes exactly nothing.

He has not been found guilty of a crime that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He has been found liable for a civil tort which means the jury felt he likely did it. The difference between the two is MILES APART. This is the reality whether I am involved or not.

 

Who made it about you?

 

You did, when you said "To YOU? Nobody would prove it to YOU even if they showed you a tape of the act."

Have you forgotten already? Just look up.






Since you have such a short memory, I will reiterate...

Making this about me changes exactly nothing.

He has not been found guilty of a crime that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He has been found liable for a civil tort which means the jury felt he likely did it. The difference between the two is MILES APART. This is the reality whether I am involved or not.

 

Actually YOU did, when you said "to me"

Have YOU forgotten already? No need to look it up. I quoted it!

It is also true that The Lions didn't make it to the Superbowl. Both facts equally irrelevant to this discussion. But only one of them will not change this year.

 

I call bullshit on this. the Trump hate started long before that. In fact I think most Trump haters refuse to actually admit what really causes their hate.

 

She's already 80 years old. How old will she be when she gets the first installment on the settlement (after all the appeals and challenges go through the courts)?

 

If I had denied directing a comment toward you, your above reply would be a great burn. Since I did no such thing, however, the above does not make a lick of sense. You were the one that denied making your comment about me. Not the other way around. Yeesh.

I think this is another one of those strawman arguments where you argue against a point that has not been raised.

 

When would you say it started? The Access Hollywood Tape in which he admitted he liked to sexually abuse women? Maybe when he abused minors in the Miss Teen America Pageant. I know for some it might have been when he raped his wife. It certainly started the hate by Don Jr... which he then got over when he saw the opportunity to be close to him when he was President. For others it started when he didn't pay them for work he performed for him. I don't know when it started but there is certainly a lot about the Orange Creep to hate.

 

Are you saying that if he IS proven guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal court of law, you won't support him?

 

What did I say that gives you that impression?

I am saying if he were proven guilty of the crime of sexual assault (the topic being discussed) I would not support him. Of course he has not been charged with that crime, so that concept is moot.

You should probably let me speak for my position, and you speak for yours. Deal? I am not a fan of others attempting to put words into my mouth. I find when people do that, their intentions are less than honorable.

 

I see. So insurrection, bank fraud, stealing government secrets and giving them to our adversaries, .... standing in the middle of 5th Ave and shooting somebody... Those are ok.

Don't complain about us interpreting what you say when you REFUSE to speak clearly.

 

Meh.

Very boring and unimaginative. It is as if you have become a caricature. Ply your schtick elsewhere. Not buying. Sorry.

 

Wait for the appeals, they are trying to financially rape Trump for denying false charges. He has every right to deny false charges, printed to sell a book by a sex columnist who is now up to seven different people she claims have 'raped' her, and she has yet to come up with any physical evidence. There is far more evidence that Fani Willis is humping her direct report than that anyone of these seven people every attacked Carroll.

Trump was the 7th man E Jean Carroll has accused of rape. The woman is twisted and obsessed. She's an over-the-hill sex columnist who has also said that rape is sexy.



Interestingly as you look over that list, notice that as she struggles for relevance 'the only 2 people she named are the wealthiest and highly visible in media terms.'

'She claimed 20 men had improprieties w her barmy butt: from her own piece in New York magazine'

https://www.thecut.com/article/donald-trump-assault-e-jean-carroll-other-hideous-men.html

She's an indecent slap in the face to real rape victims.