Jury finds Trump assaulted, defamed E. Jean Carroll... awards roughly $5M

I get this from public records. Nothing slimy. Just pointing out the obvious bias in Wild Bill's post for the most part. To my count, Trump had about 54 cases linking him to women whom he dated while married, slept with while either married, engaged, or dating someone else, etc based on public figures from this link. Some were very public, but most were private and eventually made it to the tabloids and other news sources. William Jefferson Clinton had about 20, including Monica Lewinski.

That is why I used the word "aldulter" which means specifically a person breaking their vows to be exclusively with someone else while either married, engaged, or exclusively dating. That does not mean rape BTW. And why I made my point the way it is.

 

The evidence bar is a lot lower than a criminal trial.

 

I respect the jury's verdict, I do not know what all they saw, sure it will all be released soon enough

 

Hate to say it, but I have to agree with MAGA on this one... Nothing on that tape is indictable, since there are no names used. "THEY let you do it" is just too generic...

I suppose it's fine to be included in this trial as evidence of his predispositions, even though I quested the presence of that audio in this trial myself..

What it should have been is what January 6th should be... Political death penalty.

Because one didn't happen doesn't mean the other won't...

 

Clarification, I should probably have said that the law was passed in response to this case. Not just "so this case could proceed". I'm sure many would nitpick at my original choice of words. But its the same in my book.

 

You brought the mans daughter into it and and strongly implied that he would be okay with her being raped so yes that is a very slimy thing to do.

 

Trump would have a better chance at winning by claiming it was consensual and keeping his mouth quiet after that than anything else. And he would have won. But Trump did not do that. And that is probably a lot closer to the truth than what Trump did on Social Media, among other things.

 

I don't know if there is a distinction in the Rules of Evidence in the USA...criminal trial/civil trial. Maybe @Turtledude can clarify?

 

You respect the Jury's verdict only because you agree with it.

I think they should be required to publicly produce all of the evidence directly

 

That guarantees that it will be overturned on appeal.

 

Because some posters believe Trump can do absolutely no wrong no matter what the evidence suggests. Which was the entire bloody, pun intended, point.

 

Huh? Are you saying the Jury heard evidence that was not given in public at the Trial?

 

There is.

 

So you can't make your point without accusing a poster of being okay with his daughter being raped?

 

Link?

 

We have a bunch of clowns who have hijacked the legal system.

 

Some posters believe he's a Russian agent...lol

 

why do you not respect the jury's verdict?

 

You should respect the jury's decision whether you agree with it or not. You can disagree with how the jury came to their conclusion, but the momemt, the actual moment, you say you don't respect the jury's verdict is the moment you don't respect the judicial system in and of iteself.

If you want to disagree with the verdict, then be specific on what you disagree with and why instead of the usual mumbo jumbo arguments that are starting to perpetuate on his thread specifically and others.

We have had the KR jury verdict, we have had the US Army Sergean'ts verdict, we have had the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard jury verdict, we have had this verdict and many, many more. It is either all or none. Nothing in between.

 

Because of an alleged event that took place what almost 30 years ago that has a clear political motivation behind it.

I do not respect a legal system that has been hijacked to play politics.

 

I never made that claim. I think Russia tried to use DJT. I also think Trump was not really vigilant in who he had business with or lunch with etc. And we do know that two Russian agents visited the Trump campaign twice, once in July and once in December per the Mueller Report.

If you want to know one thing about how Trump operates, when he sees a very shiny object in a glass jar with a narrow opening, he puts his hand into the jar to grab it with sometimes not getting the shiny object out of the jar without breaking it and sometimes breaking the jar and ruining the shiny object.

 

Well, let’s just say the police would be having a quiet talk with him and asking if anyone would want to come forward

 

The problem here is that in this case there was no evidence presented. None. Just claims. The claimants relied solely on Trumps "disposition" or "character" and claims made. The closest they got to "evidence" was even about Trumps character. And that was the deposition of Trump mistaken Carroll for one of his ex-wives. None of which proved he sexually assaulted her. People can have horrible characters without sexually assaulting people after all.

 

I do think the Trump defense team did try to bring that up with E Carroll, but she was resonate on the stand denying that accusation. Again, my personal feeling is that it was consensual 30 years ago. And that would have been the defense that probably should have been used. Trump should had said "I did not rape the woman, yes I know her, we met, had sex, it was great, and we both moved on." But Trump did not do that in any way whatsoever.

 

https://www.askadamskutner.com/pers...oceeding, the,a preponderance of the evidence.