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

Cha-CHING!!!

 

Meaningless to me.

 

Yeah, the dress was used before the lawsuit was filed in Jeans shake down operation trying to extort millions in hush money from Trump.

 

I know, they're all lying.

All these women who claim to have been sexually assaulted by Trump would be telling the truth if they accused anyone else.

 

That trial is over.

Trump has continued his disgusting assault on her for a long time now, and that's what the issue is today.

 

No one claimed otherwise. Not sure of the relevance of your point. Round 2 in the courts has begun.

 

In the current case, Trump's previous conviction for his sex crime is not in question.

Again, that conviction is just a fact in the current trial.

 

The objective reality is that Trump has no "conviction" for ANY "crime" in this case. But of course as a committed post modernist "claims to objective fact are dismissed as naive realism.[4]". You "considers "reality" to be a mental construct", and so work feverishly to craft a different mental construct where Trump is a convicted rapist.
Postmodernism - Wikipedia

We can certainly see this judge doing his best to ensure that this is the case.

 

That's the law.

He's still not going to let Trump take control of his courtroom when he still denies sexually assaulting Ms Carroll.

 

D Trump has been found guilty of rape and defamation of Carroll. Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages and Trump was ordered to end his defamation of Carroll.

That was last year.

What is before the court now is a defamation suit brought by Carroll against Trump based on Trump's active violation of the order against defamation.

She is asking for a sum that would deter Trump from continuing defamation. It's believed that the $10M she is asking is not nearly adequate to accomplish that.

 

Cant help yourself can you, post modernist. He was found liable for sexual assault, NOT rape. He was found "guilty" of nothing.

 

MAGA and their attempt to minimize the indefensible.

Trump owes Ms Carroll $5 million because he pushed her into a fitting room, forcibly kissed her and put his fingers in her vagina.

How well do you visualize the scene?

Now, does it make you proud to want a woman abuser like POTUS?

 

So do tell. What was the sexual assault they did find against Humpty?

 

Yes. Now, describe the sexual assault.

 

Correcting false statements isnt a minimization, it is an elimination of the allegations made.

 

They didnt "find" anything.

They took 1 persons word over another without any supporting evidence.

This is a banana republic nonsense.

 

Are you Dixon76710?

 

You would need to rely upon jeans description. Who knows which parts the jury believes. My description of what she describes wouldnt be of much use. Is there some point to be made or did you just want to read something about her vagina?

 

Yeah. Its a civil standard. Nothing more than their guess at what is "more likely than not".

ESPECIALLY the part where they changed the state law on statute of limitations for ONE single year, specifically so Jean Carroll could sue Trump civilly for something that happened 28 years ago.

 

No thats Moolk. I am Dixon. Did you have a relevant point or just stupid questions to avoid the relevant?

 

Yeas, I wanted you to tell me what the sexual assault was, given you claim there was no rape. I'll tell you what it was.

Carroll said she was raped by Humpty. The Jury accepted that there was penetration, but could not determine if it was by finger or penis. What does that tell you? (Hint...ask Stormy.)

 

The jury accepted one persons word over another. No evidence was necessary.

 

If that kind of contact had been committed on your daughter, or sister, or wife, or mother, how would you characterise it? Would you not say that she had been raped?

 

The women in my life wouldn't lie like these women.

 

Is her sworn testimony from the witness box not evidence, Moolk? Did Humpty get in the witness box and deny what she alleged...under oath? If he did not, why did he not do that?

If I was on a Jury and I saw one person say another raped them and that other wanted to tell me they did not, then I'd expect them to get in the box, swear and oath to tell the truth, and deny it. I'd especially expect that if the said person boasted about how he would do it....and then....not do it.