E. Jean Carroll is a rich woman.

The amount will almost certainly be reduced, but the judgment itself could still be overturned. Everything is in play.

I dont honestly care about this. I dont follow it. This doesnt change the reality that appeals are 100% absolutely in play. This means appeals on all levels from reducing the amount to throwing out the judgment.

 

You folks all keep saying this same thing. None of it changes one thing that I have said on the matter. My goodness, it is like I am dealing with a cult.

 

And what have you said, succinctly, on the matter? I don't follow you.
Not a cult, but trump is very unifying, look how many disparate people he brought together in on November 3, 2020. Over 81 million; my goodness!

 

You responded to me. It is strange that you now ask me what I said. As a reminder...

For purposes of stating that there will be very real appeals being looked at by other courts across a wide range of areas, it is not necessary to know and or recite the exact nature of those appeals. Of course there will be. To say or imply otherwise is bereft of reality.

 

I just know what I read in the papers, to put it simply, it's going to be very expensive for trump to appeal the "Carroll" judgement. In the end he's going to be out of pocket a ton; and E. Jean seems to have won because, so far, he's not besmirching her further.

 

She literally had no evidence of her claim. None whatsoever. If that's the standard then I can take a picture of you and me at a public event somewhere say you sexually assaulted me... not even on that day. Just randomly seeing me on the street one day years after that picture. And I don't even have to tell you what YEAR it happened in much less the date. And get millions for it. Then when you say I'm still lying I can sue you for tens of millions more. I would have as much evidence of my claim as she did.

Its absurdity.

 

Again, this changes nothing in regards to what I have said..

Of course he is going to appeal. To imply otherwise is silly. I am not sure why you and 3 others keep saying essentially the exact same thing, especially when considering that reply does not even remotely address what I had just said.

It feels very cultish.

 

Your pretending to overrule a legitimate jury that assessed all the evidence and testimony because you don't like their verdict is noted.

Do you have a little gavel that you can pound?

 

You are pretending that every jury is legitimate and only rules on facts. When dealing with a civil jury, you are looking at a 50% plus determination by only a majority of the jurors as opposed to needing it to be unanimous and beyond any reasonable doubt

Such a situation holds a strong possibility for an illegitimate verdict, especially in a jurisdiction where the person is hated by a large portion of the juror pool. When looking at a he said she said from 20 years prior for a story that is pretty incredulous and not backed up by anything else, is rife for questining its legitimacy.

Deep down, even you folks on the left also know this to be the case. It will probably be a cold day in hell though before you ever even hinted at admitting it.

 

Like that J. Carroll's claim, nearly word for word, exactly followed an old crime show plot?

Maybe you're spotting your own flaws in others.

Trump was falsely accused and had the free speech right to say so and to lambast his false accuser. You claim it's 'self inflicted' because he would not submit to the unjust demands that he not speak his mind.

This Election is coming down to a battle be those who want to impose autocracy and democracy.

Bribed Joe's Corrupt State Dept-Funded "Disinformation" Tracker Hides Tax Filings. Disinformation is 'whatever conflicts with these corrupt bastards false narrative.'

And Americans are responding to Trump bold assertion of ALL of our free speech rights.

Bribed Joe is nearly 9 points behind where he was at this point in the last cycle.



Which is about right, considering that about 10% of his voters last time said that they would have never voted for him with the corrupt FBI and CIA rigging the election for bribed Joe by lying about Crackhead Hunter's laptop.

If you're going from victory to victory here, how come Bribed Joe keep sagging in the polls like a wet adult diaper?



You think Jean Carroll is putting Trump further from the WH, when it looks like all this Lawfare is putting Trump back into the WH. Your thoughts on that?

 

They had zero physical evidence.
Old Jean Carroll's claim almost exactly followed an old Sexual Victims Unit (SVU) show, which the kangaroo court would not allow to be stressed before the Jury.

We'll see what the upper courts think of this circus.

 

The entire thing is off-the-charts crazy.

How the left doesnt understand that this takes away from any credibility for any court case against him just blows my mind.They clearly have not heeded the lesson from the Boy Who Cried Wolf. The entire thing almost falls under the category of comical.

 

They can't think past an opportunity draw blood.

'E. Jean Carroll’s accusations against Trump were dubious at best, yet Trump’s denial of her claims just resulted in a jury awarding Carroll ridiculously high punitive damages. Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her nearly thirty years ago with a story that sounds like she lifted it entirely from an episode of “Law & Order: SVU.”'

https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2...ns-for-her-accusations-against-trump-n4925926

 

Trump couldn't even tell she wasn't his wife

 

'Carroll gave Trump an in-kind contribution of equal worth to the former president’s 2024 election effort. The man is worth many times more than the judgment, Jean. Please stop acting like you financially broke this man. The women of The View took a victory lap as if this would impact his march to the White House in any way.”'

https://instapundit.com/629543/

 

Strange how her book and court petittion doesnt mention this digital penetration.

 

Remember when Republicans used to care about a candidate seeking their vote committing sexual abuse?

Those were the good all days we used to see all the way back to... 8 years ago...

 

yeah! Because in MAGA-world the sexual abuser is the victim, and the villain is the victim.

 

Even she says she was flirting with him. Went into the dressing room with him because she wanted to see him put on the see through body suit. Even she says that when he planted a kiss on her her response was to giggle. After laughing she never said anything more or make a sound.
No, I dont believe Trump is a sexual abuser. Believe he doesnt even remember this woman even if she had some encounter with Trump at Bergdorf's in 96 or whatever year she thinks it might have been. I suspect back in the day women throw themselves at him constantly. Like he says, "they let you" grab them in the *****.
I wouldnt recommend him for dating your sister, but he made a great President and can do so again.

 

And in MAGA-world you have a right to rape any woman that flirts with you, right? I think it's even in the 29th Amendment, right?

 

Prove that he committed a crime against Carrol and I will agree with you.

 

This wasn't a criminal case. Prove you care about the actual topic and then you can be relevant. So far, you are trailing. Badly.

 

Which is precisely my point. It has NOT been proven that he committed a crime against Carrol. Not by a long shot.

 

Which is a different topic. This topic is about his civil liability. Are you expecting some kind of payment to talk about the topic?

 

It is an important point of differentiation. He mentioned something that is widely considered to be a crime, and while saying he has been found guilty of sexual abuse may look like a crime to some, it most certainly is not. Making sure that point is clear is absolutely on topic.

The exact same fact pattern with a criminal standard of proof is miles apart from a civil verdict where a majority of the jury decides that it is a 50% plus likelihood in their mind.

Miles apart.