The jury has found that Carroll did not prove Trump raped her, but they did determine that he had sexually abused her. The jurors also found that Trump had defamed Carroll when he called her accusations false. They awarded her $5 million damages....
Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said that for the jury to establish that Trump raped Carroll, she had to prove that Trump engaged in sexual intercourse with her, and that he did it without her consent. The judge said that sexual intercourse includes “any penetration of the penis into the vaginal opening.”...
This means that the jury did not believe part of her testimony. They somehow found her story credible enough to believe partially but not totally. Was this a compromise verdict?
Here is part of the Trump campaign’s first response: “In jurisdictions wholly controlled by the Democratic Party our nation’s justice system is now compromised by extremist left-wing politics. We have allowed false and totally made-up claims from troubled individuals to interfere with our elections, doing great damage." The campaign added: "This case will be appealed, and we will ultimately win.”
ADDED: The jury deliberated for 3 hours and found there was "sexual abuse" but not rape. The NYT says, "Sexual abuse is defined in New York as subjecting a person to sexual contact without consent."
AND: I thought of the best answer to how the jury could do that: They could have understood Trump's Access Hollywood remark to mean he had a practice of grabbing women's crotches. So that tipped the evidence with respect to sexual abuse but did not support the claim that he penetrated the vaginal opening.
पोस्ट्स
१६४ टिप्पण्या:
Really? What a surprise!
Expect Special Counsel Jack Smith to indict Trump in DC within the next 60 days. A conviction is assured. No evidence or law needed in front of a DC jury.
“In jurisdictions wholly controlled by the Democratic Party our nation’s justice system is now compromised by extremist left-wing politics. We have allowed false and totally made-up claims from troubled individuals to interfere with our elections, doing great damage."
This is 100% true.
Even more true when voter fraud is taken to the courts for relief. We are now here forever.
Blaming the refs is the number one sign of a loser.
Well, I didn't follow the trial but I think it will be tough to win an appeal.
The jury is the finder of the facts and the judge of credibility. The appellate court will have to find (on this issue) that no reasonable jury could reach this conclusion. Possible, but I doubt it.
Maybe the judge made some error of law that merits a remand, but I sure didn't see anything.
At this point, we deserve 4 more years of Joe Biden selling us out since the Progressives, the media and the Never Trumpers are celebrating this, whilst there is an invasion at the border and Joe is selling us to China and Ukraine as fast as he can.
She claims rape (the inserting of the penis)which would seem to be a memorable event in a rape accusation.
The jury lowers in to sexual assault based on what??
Basically the jury is saying she lied about the rape, but he must have done something.
$5 Million dollars please, and a corrupt victory for the Lincoln Project.
If you brag about grabbing women by the pussy and then admit under oath they don’t always let you, it turns out a jury may well take your word for it.
So Trump didn’t get to grab Carroll by the pussy just because of his “stardom”, fortunately for women, unfortunately for him. It cost him $5 million. Maybe the other women he sexually assaulted will come forward and sue him too.
That's about as ridiculous as I expected; the award is lower, I guessed $15M.
Stupid.
Althouse you left out Trump's claim made this afternoon on Truth Social:
“Waiting for a jury decision on a False Accusation where I, despite being a current political candidate and leading all others in both parties, am not allowed to speak or defend myself, even as hard nosed reporters scream questions about this case at me...”
https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/e-jean-carroll-rape-suit/on-cusp-of-deliberations-trump-falsely-claims-on-truth-social-that-hes-not-allowed-to-speak-or-defend-himself/
It's another Trump lie. A 100% pure, total, absolute, stone-cold lie.
Take solace in the Orange Fanboi Two-Step: Trump would never have done that and isn’t it badass he did?
"determine that he had sexually abused her"
Lacking any specific evidence, even as to the year it supposedly happened, how could they "determine" that?
The jury has found that Carroll did not prove Trump raped her,
Can't prove he raped her? Hell, she can't prove a single thing she alleges.
A two-tiered justice system won't work, leftists. And it's too bad you'll have to find that out the hard way.
Actually, it's not too bad. It's exactly what you deserve.
To hell with the people of NYC. I'm going to go watch 9/11 videos and laugh.
This was he-said/she-said and when he has said shit like "grab 'em by the pussy" and "I'm not attracted to the woman who I confused for my wife" he has a bit of a credibility problem.
I hate Trump, but I have major problems with many of the procedural issues. For example, how is a statute of limitations amnesty Constitutional? Once the SOL has lapsed there is no need for a defendant to preserve evidence or maintain contact with witnesses. It's incredibly unfair to then after the fact let plaintiffs sue civilly. In this case, no one could even pin down key dates. This is why SOLs exist.
It also seems like a lot of cherry-picked character evidence made its way into the trial.
Hopefully these women find a way to confront Trump in court too.
At least 26 women have accused President Donald Trump of sexual misconduct since the 1970s.
Renewed attention was brought to the allegations amid the #MeToo movement and a national conversation concerning sexual misconduct.
Trump has repeatedly denied the accusations, denouncing his accusers as "liars."
And in September 2020, model Amy Dorris said that in 1997 Trump forcibly kissed her, groped her all over her body, and gripped her tightly so she couldn't get away.
Quelle suprise. Fuckers...
Grabbed him by the wallet.
I'm shocked! SHOCKED! The jury did EXACTLY what any reasonable legal observer would have expected when a defendant doesn't bother to put on a defense.
This is Trump's own fault.
Nobody is surprised but even that jury stopped short of the "rape" charge. He could appeal but probably won 't. She got a bit more than Stormy Daniels for the same level of evidence or less. The judge decided the case with his "assault" instruction.
No rape. but sexual battery.... and it's a civil case not a criminal case-
For those of you named Inga.
But yay - celebrate. right, leftists! you got a scalp.
All R's in politics - never be alone with a woman not your wife. and film everything - or the corrupt left will do this to you.
"We have allowed false and totally made-up claims from troubled individuals to interfere with our elections, doing great damage."
So, they are inviting Carroll's lawyers to serve them process with ANOTHER lawsuit for defamation. Which they should do TOMORROW.
Trump is absolutely correct. Nooyawk is inhabited by barbarians, and you can't expect justice from such knuckledraggers.
With rhyme, and without reason.
That said, the first rule of social liberal club is that you don't speak of social liberal club. Trump blew the whistle on the liberals and they feel compelled to burn the witch.
All R's in politics - never be alone with a woman not your wife. and film everything - or the corrupt left will do this to you.
You don't really believe that would be enough to protect someone, do you?
I broke out the $ components of the verdict in a comment to the prior post on the trial. I'll add, Carroll's attorneys gave the jurors three choices on the sex charge, and they went with the middle one. Preponderance of the evidence on sex assault and part of the defamation element, but clear and convincing standard on falsity of his statement concerning Carroll.
Three hours the jury deliberated. What took them so long? Were they endlessly replaying the nonexistent video of the imaginary encounter to determine whether their fever dream of his hallucinated organ actually crossed the plane of her phantasmagoric body part, as instructed by Judge Kaplan?
This result guarantees two things. One, Judge Kaplan and his court will be enshrined in legal history as the person and place where the law became a complete joke. Two, hundreds of other delusional gold-diggers will be filing suit in the coming weeks. Heck, I may do so myself. What’s to lose, right?
"To hell with the people of NYC. I'm going to go watch 9/11 videos and laugh."
The people of NYC don't know who you are and don't care. (When you reach adulthood you may be embarrassed about such adolescent online comments.)
The jury lowers in to sexual assault based on what??
Micro... inferred aggression ("burden") characterizes the temperament of witch hunts of olde, and human rites of progress NOW.
I think it may not have helped that he claimed Carroll was not his type and then confused a photo of her with a photo of his ex- wife. So we pretty much know he was not yelling the whole truth about that. He certainly wasn't going to get the benefit of the doubt from this jury but he made it pretty easy to find against him.
Earnest Prole: "Take solace in the Orange Fanboi Two-Step: Trump would never have done that and isn’t it badass he did?"
Ah yes, the old Earnest Prole Two-step.
As with the previous times Prole pushed this same talking point, we ask again: provide a single example of anyone, anywhere, making that argument.
Of course, no one has, so we'll just say that Prole is our own Althouse blog E. Jean Carroll.
Earnest Prole: "If you brag about grabbing women by the pussy and then admit under oath they don’t always let you, it turns out a jury may well take your word for it."
Your "precision" in quoting is on a par with LLR-democratical Chuck's.
If the jury didn't find rape, then she lied on the stand.
But they believed the rest of her story?
This was an easy wager to win. Hardest thing to handicap was the payout.This will be moot compared to JACK and FANI.and their whoopins!
At this point we should all accuse trump of rape, it's a guaranteed verdict. Our country and especially our judicial systems is corrupted beyond recognition.
Sound like a compromise verdict by a split jury.
A jury comprised of Trump haters in NY found him guilty.
Color me shocked. SHOCKED I tell you...
"All R's in politics - never be alone with a woman not your wife. and film everything - or the corrupt left will do this to you."
Never be alone, never hire, never do business with, etc. If you do you are asking for it. But of course they never ask for it.
The OJ jury was a harbinger, not an outlier. If you're not a militant Trump hater, this is patently wrong and wrong in a way that is enraging. Trump lovers won't take to the streets like they did after the Rodney King verdict, but there will be a reaction. A sizable portion of the country now distrusts our legal system. Our justice system doesn't work unless people think it works....Who does Juanita Broderick get to sue?
The jury found, apparently beyond a 'reasonable doubt', that Trump sexually abused this neurotic woman, but they couldn't tell you how or when - not the time, day, month, not even the year. But it definitely, definitely happened. With no witnesses or any form of corroborating evidence presented - just a pointed finger and a shrill accusation.
I grieve for my country, that a part of society could reach this point.
The judge seems to know what rape is, which is unusual.
And the lady's feminine modesty is restored by the $5 million.
...so now we slow walk this and the yet to be guilty verdicts to the powers what add the names to the ballots. Sorry, there's a pattern here Republicans...we can't let you vote for him...
"Blogger Mark said...
I'm shocked! SHOCKED! The jury did EXACTLY what any reasonable legal observer would have expected when a defendant doesn't bother to put on a defense.
This is Trump's own fault."
Yes that innocent until proven guilty thing is so passé when applied to republicans.
Not only was it compromise verdict, but it was a fast verdict, which is highly contradictory.
Inga - now do Tara Reade.
Let's see. A NY jury does not find by a preponderance of the evidence that he raped her as she testified. But the NY jury finds by a preponderance of the evidence that he defamed her by denying that he raped her as she testified.
Makes perfect NY sense.
Clay Travis
@ClayTravis
So a New York jury found Trump didn’t rape this chick, but gave her $5 million for defamation because Trump said he didn’t rape her & she was lying?! What a broken brain verdict. Honestly, still a pretty big win for Trump. A NYC jury found he didn’t rape her. That would be the headline if we had an honest media.
4:07 PM · May 9, 2023
We are getting closer and closer to the old Soviet Union show trials.
The sad thing is that the GOPe seems to be OK with this because it serves their interests.
It doesn't matter what the Evil Eddy Haskell and Resident Dullard think/feel about the verdict. What matters is that citizens who believe in fair trials do not protest the increasing politicization of the courts in order to produce outcomes that should be left to the voters to decide.
Clay Travis
@ClayTravis
So a New York jury found Trump didn’t rape this chick, but gave her $5 million for defamation because Trump said he didn’t rape her & she was lying?! What a broken brain verdict. Honestly, still a pretty big win for Trump. A NYC jury found he didn’t rape her. That would be the headline if we had an honest media.
4:07 PM · May 9, 2023
Blaming the refs is the number one sign of a loser.
It's sort of like dealing with the East German judges. You can be pretty sure you're fucked when you go out onto the balance beam unless your name ends in 'ski' or 'lov' or 'vich'.
In this case, if your name ends in 'ump', a Manhattan jury made up of folks with a name ending in 'ark' is waiting to carve you up like a roast.
- 'orn'
If her claim was rape and the jury decided it wasn't rape, how do they get decide it was something else? It amounts to them guessing that Trump must have done something bad!
I would think he'd appeal only if he thinks he can get the judgement reduced.
How are you liking the legal system that you created, Ann?
A woman can claim - without any evidence - that a man (her absolute political demon, which CAN be proven) raped her and win $5 million dollars, granted to her by others who share her hatred in that person. Can't remember any details that would allow the person to defend themselves. Can't say the day it happened, can't say the month. Cannot even say the year. Because then he could prove to everyone that not only did he not do it, it was IMPOSSIBLE to have done it.
Doesn't matter. Facts don't matter in our legal system that you created.
This is what you spent your entire life creating, Ann. You must be very proud.
And no one knows when the "battery" happened.
Seems legit.
So she perjured herself, but she still gets $5 million?
Here's a good appeal issue: NY's changing of the statute of limitations denied Trump due process. That's a winner!
She provided no proof she was "sexually assaulted". I keep bringing this up, and no one seems to care BUT - she could not name the day, month or year this "sexual assault" happened.
Please explain to me, how (1) a woman can remember all the details of attempted rape (2) claim she was "traumatized for life" by it and (3) can't remember what day, month, year it happened.
And has no contemporary records that it occured.
The Jury deliberated for 3 hours. A republican - especically someone on the DNC hitlist like Trump - cannot get a fair trial in DC/NYC or any other blue-state city.
They let killers and antifa go free. Conservatives/Republicans get convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. Lawfare. Not the law.
The stupid dumbshit republican establishment sits back and does nothing. They hate Trump. They completely misunderstand that no one is going to go to bat for THEM, when their turn comes. And these kangaroo courts make any INTELLIGENT conservative understand the USA is not governed by the rule of law. One day, the Controlled opposition will just be the OPPOSITION, and then we will have a war. That they brought on by their cowardice and lies.
Ah, so they convicted the ham sandwich, but decided to hold the mayo. It is an admission this is BS, but they wanted to punish Trump anyway.
It is difficult to argue that there is no voter fraud, when we get to watch judicial fraud in real time.
What about Trump's feelings.
THe political system now keeps running on a civil basis, because the Center-right is determined to take the Left's abuse and grin and bear it. But the day of the DUMB BOOMERS who think it a virtue to lose, and be Christian Gentlemen at all costs, is coming to a close.
Mark said... Blaming the refs is the number one sign of a loser.
Or persecution. Could be either. Usually, we laugh off that sort of thing as some conspiracy theory, but the conspiracy theorists are more reliable than the news media these days, and conspiracies are out in the open now but it is rude to notice. It is not paranoia when they are out to get you, and the "they" haven't been keeping a low profile.
I find this especially hilarious given that the refs in the NFL can decide the winner with one critical call in a large percentage of games. Do you sports?
Trump never said that he grabs women by the crotch, just that when you are famous that you can. Now given how crude and crass he is, maybe it's not a stretch to think that he does that, but we should try to be accurate.
This means that the jury did not believe part of her testimony.
You’re thinking in criminal, not civil, terms. The jury could well have believed there was a 51 percent preponderance of evidence Trump sexually assaulted her and a 49 percent non-preponderance of evidence he raped her.
As I noted above, when you testify under oath you believe you’re free to grab women by the pussy but occasionally that proves to be a miscalculation, you’ve just admitted to the behavior the jury found was more likely than not to have occurred in this case.
After suffering said undocumented "battery", she asked her readers about having sex with Trump.
Seems legit.
“We have allowed false and totally made-up claims from troubled individuals to interfere with our elections, doing great damage."
—————————————
“So, they are inviting Carroll's lawyers to serve them process with ANOTHER lawsuit for defamation. Which they should do TOMORROW.”
That in itself would be poetic Justice.
If Carroll now claims Trump raped her, he can then sue her for defamation and liability is already established.
The jury determined she lied about Trump raping her.
Victory for Trump.
Inga,
What do you think about the Tara Reade accusation?
Should she sue and win a few million?
So, they are inviting Carroll's lawyers to serve them process with ANOTHER lawsuit for defamation.
They didn't name Carroll in that statement. Maybe they meant Sidney Powell.
Was this a compromise verdict?
No, it was a bullshit verdict.
Trump said 'when you are a star etc.' [without evideence]
did this lady believe he was a star? do the jury believe he is a star?
Here is a clip of Tara Reade's mother calling into Larry King about what Reade says was a sexual assault by Joe Biden.
That's a thousand times more evidence than Caroll had, but this is America, and the power of the justice system is just a plaything for the Democrats.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clip-surfaces-of-tara-reades-mother-phoning-into-larry-king-live-alluding-to-biden-assault-claim
Is not the headline factually inaccurate? Was not the case one for defamation, and they found him liable for defamation, not abuse. The liability would be for damage to reputation, not for the injury of sexual abuse.
The real reason Carroll never said when the "rape" occured is because Trump could then produce evidence that he was not in NYC or somewhere else. Since the whole thing was made up, no date could be given.
Its not possible to defend against a female fantasy with no time identified and no other evidence. The Jury hated Trump and ignored all the facts. Just like the OJ jury did.
But..but.."Trump gave them the Ammo". How? he didn't even know the woman except as broadest sense of the word.
"Lacking any specific evidence,"
She testified. That's evidence. And the contemporaneous statement to her friend or whoever it was is pretty good allowable hearsay.
That's evidence too.
He may have to go BK again.
"All R's in politics - never be alone with a woman not your wife. and film everything - or the corrupt left will do this to you."
I doubt very much that Donald Trump was ever alone with this psycho, but that doesn't seem to have helped much.
It is the verdict you reach when you really, really want to stick it to Trump, but don't want people think you are dishonest and stupid at the same time. It doesn't work.
If there was no rape, then how is there defamation? The jury must have found that he made a statement denying her claim of sexual abuse that was false and malicious; that claim harmed her $5 million more than just saying she made a false rape claim would.
GOP(MAGA) front runner for nominee for next president in 2024, 2x impeached,1st time ever indicted former president with 34 charges, CEO of a criminal organization struck by the courts, sexual abuser and defamatory individual with RICO AND seditious conspiracy charges in the background from Georgia and Florida and a partridge in a pear tree, Hey Just like Israel and the infamous BIBI. Loser of presidency, Senate and House in 2020,and facing more "charges" then the ever ready bunny and beat by non other than sleepy Joe by an electoral and popular vote slaughtering. This is their guy? Hmmm Well they haven't convicted the lefts guys "weekend at Bernies " MAN for hair sniffing but 6 men and 3 women call the tort/perp/ (don) a sex abuser and a defamer! Documented facts. Next up Jackie and Fani lookout. RWDS folks may be getting some company Stewart up next to break the sentencing record of Enrique and posse! STAND BACK AND STAND BY. This is their guy?
His claim he will appeal because he was prevented from commenting in the trial is nonsense. It's as if he is admitting he was trying to influence the jury without testifying in court.
He was properly prevented from introducing testimony of financing for the lawsuit. It is of a piece with barring evidence of a contingency fee or of insurance carried by the defendant.
Retroactively extending statute of limitations is a problem in criminal cases but generally not civil. And does not impact the defamation verdict.
10 years ago Trump would have testified. But he has lost executive function. Says whatever pops in his head.
“This means that the jury did not believe part of her testimony. They somehow found her story credible enough to believe partially but not totally.”
Is that necessarily so? I understand Jean Carroll testified she couldn’t tell if it was Trump’s finger or his penis.
I don't care about Trump at all. The bending, breaking and ignoring the law to get Trump is terrible for all of us. Who's next?......you are.
I certainly hope Trump's lawyers raised and preserved the constitutional issue re: due process. I learned that from my con law professor at Creighton.
Calling a liar a liar is defamation, right? I mean, it's true, but it's still a bad thing to say about somebody.
What is hilarious is people who vote dem pretending to be upset by misbehavior.
What bugs me is the she swore under oath with graphic details that he raped her. He either did or he didn't. She didn't prove her claims at all but the jury decided they had to give her the win (for her performance?) and Trump had to lose (because that was the whole point of this charade.) It was that or their life in NYC was over. Kind of a disgusting abuse of our legal process.
Trump was not going to get an impartial jury in Manhattan.
His best hope in the Stormy Daniels case is a hung jury.
His lawyers should be working on change of venue for the documents case. A DC jury would convict him of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping if given the opportunity.
Until just now, I preferred DHT not be a candidate in 2024 - based on his age.
Now, in spite of age, it is TRUMP 2024!
Trump's sin is not being a career politician. His error was failing to understand the magnitude of that sin, underestimating the hatred of the political class and the Power of the Swamp.
I will wager he has learned from this. If DJT gets another chance at it, it's gonna be NO MORE MR. NICE GUY. Serious housecleaning in the Executive Branch.
They could have understood Trump's Access Hollywood remark to mean he had a practice of grabbing women's crotches.
If so, they are ignorant and don't understand English. Trump's remark clearly was meant to convey the idea that he didn't have to grab women by the crotch, or even pursue them; because he is famous, women throw themselves at him.
All R's in politics - never be alone with a woman not your wife. and film everything - or the corrupt left will do this to you.
Oh, boo fucking who. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Al Gore, John Edwards, Al Franken (remember him), etc. etc. have all been accused of sexual misconduct with varying degrees of credibility. It's hardly a witch hunt against "republicans." Trump just happens to be the only man stupid enough to say "grab 'em by the pussy" while he was on camera.
You losers can piss and moan about the jury all you like but Trump's team had a hand in selecting them. If it was an unfair jury, it's still Trump and his lawyers' fault so stop whining. Trump was arrogant shithead in his deposition and it blew up in his face. Don't cry for him, Argentina.
Of course they would, it's New York.
Same reason why they wanted to move Kyle Rittenhouse to Chicago so the union paid juries could lynch him.
Same reason why no federal corrupt buearaucrat is ever convicted in DC because the jury pool is always tainted with federal union employees.
The only way is this madness stops is when goverment employees are no longer allowed to serve on juries. And when government unions are peoperly declared organized crime.
They could have understood Trump's Access Hollywood remark to mean he had a practice of grabbing women's crotches.
If so, they are ignorant and don't understand English. Trump's remark clearly was meant to convey the idea that he didn't have to grab women by the crotch, or even pursue them; because he is famous, women throw themselves at him.
Disappointing but not surprising.
We now know where all the lonely people belong.
Suing Trump for rape in NYC.
Payday for the Trolls. Collect your ZuckBucks!
Next... NYC fails as Sanctuary City. Maybe Madison can help.
OK, can we now decide that those who don't want a doddering fool (or her boss) as our next President should focus on nominating DeSantis?
OK, can we now decide that those who don't want a doddering fool (or her boss) as our next President should focus on nominating DeSantis?
It was clear that Trump would lose this civil case the moment the judge allowed character evidence on unrelated claims into the trial. The jury understood there was no evidence of rape, but they decided to punish him for his alleged behavior in cases not before the court. Unjust
Interesting to see the excitement from the left of finding a person guilty of sexual abuse on preponderance of evidence, that didn't include time, date, or third-party witness that the two people were ever together at the location provided. This doesn't seem like a good development to me.
Blogger Hunter Biden's tax payer funded Hooker said...
All R's in politics - never be alone with a woman not your wife. and film everything - or the corrupt left will do this to you.
Perhaps when it happens to the husbands and sons of college educated white women who support this bullshit, people might wake up.
I doubt it though.
I am not surprised. I mentioned that this would happen and was told that NY juries are meticulous about the facts. Not facts in this case. She literally had no evidence that anything happened. No data or time, no witnesses, nothing. The burden of proof is there for a reason and she had ZERO. Just a memory that remembered nothing other than it happened. There is no defense against that. You can't even put the two people in the same building at the same time and still you say there was sexual abuse? And THEN the accusation of rapist is apparently not enough provocation for the accused to call you a liar such that he defames the false accuser by calling the accusation false?
The grand experiment is over.
E.Jean Carroll in New York Magazine, 2019: Hideous Men Donald Trump assaulted me in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room 23 years ago. But he’s not alone on the list of awful men in my life.
Why were there no sales attendants in the lingerie department?
Bergdorf Goodman’s perfections are so well known — it is a store so noble, so clubby, so posh — that it is almost easier to accept the fact that I was attacked than the fact that, for a very brief period, there was no sales attendant in the lingerie department. Inconceivable is the word. Sometimes a person won’t find a sales attendant in Saks, it’s true; sometimes one has to look for a sales associate in Barneys, Bloomingdale’s, or even Tiffany’s; but 99 percent of the time, you will have an attendant in Bergdorf’s. All I can say is I did not, in this fleeting episode, see an attendant. And the other odd thing is that a dressing-room door was open. In Bergdorf’s dressing rooms, doors are usually locked until a client wants to try something on.
Then there is the interview with Anderson Cooper where E. Jean giggles about rape being sexy…..
It appears the left is satisfied to find guilt based on the distaste of the individual.
Specifically:
Ernest Prole. claims that people allow you to grab them, is not an admission that you did such a thing, much less did it to a person who did not let you. Fucking specifics matter. I cannot fathom how people can be so obtuse as to knot know the difference between words and actions and facts.
Mark
A defense can only be made if you have something to address. The accusation was without facts. What could he refute or defend? There is also the fucking 5th amendment. Not saying anything is still a right. Do you say then that all people are guilty if they don't say anything? The burden was hers and she had zero evidence. He should not have had to say anything at all. It should never have gone to court based on the lack of any facts. but in your mind he is guilty because he didn't vigoroulsy attack his accuser like other defendant might have in their "defense"? you'd have castigated him for hat as well. Like all the lefties on this board, you give not one shit about truth, justice or rights. you only care about hurting the right and cheer when injustice is done to your political opponents.
DD Drive.
A voice of sanity
Inga
Maybe I should hope that dozens of people take you to court with accusations way beyond your ability to even recall the circumstance, on claims that you can neither refute nor address simply because they don't like your politics.
"Once upon a time..." is the hallmark of a common narrative genre.
So the jury says he didn't rape her, but he did defame her by calling her a liar when she said he raped her? Bit of a logical contradiction there! If he didn't rape her, she was lying when she said he did. Unless she actually believes that something that didn't happen did happen, in which case she's crazy, and her testimony on other forms of sexual misbehavior is therefore utterly worthless.
Should be grounds for appeal. Also, didn't the statute of limitations expire before the state legislature voted to 'extend' it? Again, how is that in any way constitutionl?
One more thing: I generally find disgusting the modern trend for jury members to blab a lot of stuff that's none of the public's business. In this case, I'm hoping one or more of them will be stupid enough to tell us what kind of horse-trading went on and admit that they all knew he was innocent but hated him so much they had to find him guilty of something anyway.
So, they are inviting Carroll's lawyers to serve them process with ANOTHER lawsuit for defamation. Which they should do TOMORROW.
Lefty Mark already has the papers drawn up. How about making this your life's work? You could draft lawsuits all day. I'm sure nothing else occupies your time.
What Dr Weevil said.
Rape is rape . Anything less is... not rape .
You losers can piss and moan about the jury all you like but Trump's team had a hand in selecting them. If it was an unfair jury, it's still Trump and his lawyers' fault so stop whining. Trump was arrogant shithead in his deposition and it blew up in his face. Don't cry for him, Argentina.
DD are you a New Yorker ? You sure sound like it. I didn't know the defense picked the jury, although in New York it might not matter.
Blogger Inga said...
So Trump didn’t get to grab Carroll by the pussy just because of his “stardom”, fortunately for women, unfortunately for him. It cost him $5 million. Maybe the other women he sexually assaulted will come forward and sue him too.
The dullard is expecting an accusation from Christine Blasey Ford any day now. No facts. Just "believe all women." Brian Banks disagrees.
Okay, maybe she didn't prove he raped her like she claimed to every news outlet, but we know he's an avowed 'pussy-grabber' because he once said so in a private conversation near a hot mike, so a 5 million dollar settlement seems reasonable for all she was put through. And because he's a horrible man clearly capable of rape and because he probably raped other women and was never charged because he's a rich white man and a threat to the nation. That about cover it?
It appears the left is satisfied to find guilt based on the distaste of the individual. Specifically: Ernest Prole. claims that people allow you to grab them, is not an admission that you did such a thing, much less did it to a person who did not let you. Fucking specifics matter.
If you’re somehow under the impression I’m on the Left I invite you to read my comment on the Althouse post that follows this one.
The jury’s task was to decide who they believed more, the plaintiff or the defendant. The defendant’s official position, taken under oath, was ‘Yes, I said you can grab women by the pussy, and no, they don’t always let you.’ As the saying goes, You’ve gotta give your lawyers something to work with.
Having a hand at picking jurors from a stacked deck
Totally not a kangaroo court. Gosh, I feel much better now. We have a thoroughly corrupt judicial system, especially in places like New York and California, but let's pretend it's ok because the left is protected from and by it. Cruel Neutrality.
We can infer that she was above the age of consent, so in following social justice it couldn't have been rape, and the jury decided it wasn't rape-rape. We must therefore reluctantly conclude that it was harassment, perhaps a micro aggression against the infidelity of her social orientation. Take a knee, beg, donate. No acquittal for you. Next!
“Is that necessarily so? I understand Jean Carroll testified she couldn’t tell if it was Trump’s finger or his penis.”
Stormy Daniels described Trump’s penis. I won’t go into detail ( it’s kind of freakishly disgusting), but she did include the word “small”.
You losers can piss and moan about the jury all you like but Trump's team had a hand in selecting them.
I take back the nice things I said about you. The air ain't so fresh.
I don't think you understand jury selection. Lawyers don't get to pick their favorite 6. They get nullification of a certain number, but when 93% of the pool is rabid anti-trump, you have little chance of getting a balanced jury because the best you can do is eliminate only the ones with prodigious foam in the mouth, but you run out of options and have to accept the ones where the foam is barely visible. that is "Hand" they have in the selection process. 100 in the pool, 93 rabid anti-trump, 6 nullified, leaving 87 of the 94 still rabidly anti-trump. Maybe the 1 person on the jury who wasn't was the person who held out against the rape charge and forced them after 3 hours, to settle on the compromise. Who knows?
Bu don't think that there is any kind of fairness in the venue. Should have held it in Upstate NY, where the politics is a little more balanced. You should hope that you are never put on trial for your politics...er...unsubstantiated crime in Tyler Texas.
Finally, this is over. We need to move on from Trump.
The Godfather: "OK, can we now decide that those who don't want a doddering fool (or her boss) as our next President should focus on nominating DeSantis?"
You are free to do just that.
Good luck!
Stormy Daniels described Trump’s penis. I won’t go into detail ( it’s kind of freakishly disgusting), but she did include the word “small”.<
The dullard loves these fact fee accusations by women with, at best, sketchy histories.
No evidence is necessary to the dullard.
"Trump just happens to be the only man stupid enough to say "grab 'em by the pussy" while he was on camera. "
He was not on camera.
Carroll didn't hear it until bts recording was released.
And it was after that..and after Trump became an R when Carrol began her accusations.
rcocean said...
The real reason Carroll never said when the "rape" occured is because Trump could then produce evidence that he was not in NYC or somewhere else. Since the whole thing was made up, no date could be given.
Its not possible to defend against a female fantasy with no time identified and no other evidence.
--
Pretty sound reasoning. She learned a lot watching L&O and fielding/formulating questions for her column.
I am so tired of all of this Trump drama queen sexual assault/rape whatever. Let's move on, whether it be DeSantis or someone else. Please.
It has now occurred to me that a brand new strategy is available in certain civil cases.
Wait AS LONG as possible, even past the SoL limit (if you are lucky in location) before filing.
See, the new legal principle is that the farther into the mists of the past one has to remember, the MORE PLAUSIBLE it is that you legitimately cannot remember specifics. Like when, in this case, or where, in Blasey-Ford's case. Thus, apparently, making the parts you do claim to remember also more plausible. Magically.
Awesome! Can't wait for the sequels!
“So, they are inviting Carroll's lawyers to serve them process with ANOTHER lawsuit for defamation. Which they should do TOMORROW.”
————————————————————————
“Lefty Mark already has the papers drawn up. How about making this your life's work? You could draft lawsuits all day. I'm sure nothing else occupies your time.”
That’s not Lefty Mark.
Michael K,
Perhaps you should learn how to distinguish Lefty Mark from Righty Mark, it’s not that difficult, even for senile coots, like you.
Good work Carrol. Trump, the only person on the planet Biden can beat, might now get whipped in the primaries. It is an I’ll wind that doesn’t blow someone some good
I'm not seeing much for appeal. Procedural, they had his deposition, what more could he have added via live testimony? If it were an actual rape conviction, then yes, he's entitled to be allowed, but the jury gave him a break anyway, so he wasn't harmed procedural.
Like, Althouse said, they have the Access Hollywood tapes, and that shows abuse, so they didn't pull that out of thin air.
The defamation stuff is weird, and he may very well get that overturned on appeal, I don't think it would reduce the judgment any ---- even with no defamation, he's still got an abuse verdict which justifies the 5 million.
This verdict is actually a win for Trump. Public outraged, and justice system takes a hit. Why bother appealing and losing, the day before 2024 election no doubt
Seems like that Texas abortion judge didn't have any issue ignoring SoL and no one here minded then.
Sorry, but hypocrisy is a bad look. Even for admitted pussy grabbers.
"Let's move on, whether it be DeSantis or someone else. Please."
Nobody is stopping you from moving on. Giddyap, cowboy!
Inga: Stormy Daniels described Trump’s penis. I won’t go into detail ( it’s kind of freakishly disgusting), but she did include the word “small”.
I find it interesting that supposedly high minded liberal women like our Resident Dullard would resort to insults about the alleged size of a man's penis.
Most of us got over that stuff right after junior HS.
Then again, most of us with half a brain or better know that Inga is simply a childish liberal idiot - the kind that Democrats prefer.
Why didn’t she sue Bergdorf’s? Or at least find a witness who could verify that she and the Donald were in the store?
What actual “abuse” took place?
This was not a "compromise" verdict in the normal sense of the word, where each side wins on one or more claims or there is a compromise verdict amount. The judge, for reasons I don't understand, included an interrogatory to the jury asking them, if they ruled for plaintiff on the battery claim, to answer whether it was rape, sexual abuse, or unwanted touching. It was not a finding necessary for the verdict. The jury just had to pick one. I doubt if they worried much about it. But it is a break for Trump - opponents can only say "sexual abuse" and not "rape." And, technically, it is a verdict that Carroll failed to prove rape, only proved sexual abuse.
BELOW IS SUMMARY FROM REUTERS:
Before the jurors began deliberating, Judge Lewis Kaplan defined rape for them as non-consensual "sexual intercourse" through "forcible compulsion." He described sexual abuse as non-consensual "sexual contact" through forcible compulsion.
Jurors awarded Carroll $2 million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for her battery claim, and $2.7 million in compensatory and $280,000 in punitive damages for her defamation claim.
There's a Law and Order episode that is almost exactly like Ms. Carroll's allegations.
Fred Drinkwater said...the new legal principle is that the farther into the mists of the past one has to remember, the MORE PLAUSIBLE it is that you legitimately cannot remember specifics.
--
Right. Even as a 60 yr old with sexual abuse history who was so traumatized she gave up dating...but liked toying around with the idea of sex with the guy who raped her.
Seems legit.
But hey, what about Ole Joe with contemporary montages of him creeping on girls in midst of a diary by his daughter alleging showering with her into inappropriate age? I guess that conflicts with the allegations of the adult at the time Tara Reade, per her mom on Larry King recording.
Ah..but those rules are very, very different for Joementia.
..and imagine for a moment if one of Trump's kids referred to him as "Pedo Pete" with all that.
In my opinion, the most significant moment in the trial was at Trump's deposition when he displayed severe cognitive impairment. He was shown a photo of Carroll, Carroll's husband, and Trump's wife Ivana talking to him at some type of event. The photo had been in the public for over a year. Trump had seen it. His lawyers no doubt used it in deposition preparation. Incredibly, when shown the photo in deposition, he first said he did not recognize the people and then identified Carroll as his second wife, Marla Maples. Thus, he is so cognitively impaired that when shown a photo he had already seen, he initially said he was unable to identify anyone in the photo (including his first wife) and then misidentified Carroll as his second wife Maples.
When his lawyer leaned in, pointed to Carroll, and said it was Carroll, Trump then immediately lied that the very clear photo was "very blurry."
Sounds like a verdict that a so-called professor would like because Orange Man Bad. And SHE taught law?
This will have as much effect as the two meaningless impeachments. Voters who are not brain-dead (or dead, in the case of Democrats), will not be bothered by this and will support DJT even more.
Disgusting liberal filth.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
DD are you a New Yorker ? You sure sound like it. I didn't know the defense picked the jury, although in New York it might not matter.
Where did I say that? They do get to ask voir dire questions and strike jurors. If Trump doesn't like the jury his legal team should have done a better job.
https://pappalardolaw.com/2022/02/voir-dire-selecting-jury-ny/
DD are you a New Yorker ? You sure sound like it. I didn't know the defense picked the jury, although in New York it might not matter.
Where did I say that? They do get to ask voir dire questions and strike jurors. If Trump doesn't like the jury his legal team should have done a better job.
https://pappalardolaw.com/2022/02/voir-dire-selecting-jury-ny/
LLR-democratical Chuck mini-me, lonejustice: "I am so tired of all of this Trump drama queen sexual assault/rape whatever. Let's move on, whether it be DeSantis or someone else. Please."
You were the guy just the other day advising the republicans to abandon the field and surrender across the board to the radical trans agenda.
You are a very "surrender-y" fella, aren't you?
"...sexual assault/rape whatever..."
LOL
You arent even subtle with your pro-dem spin!
You are going to have to do better than that.
I suggest you huddle up with Chuck and come up with a new strategy for your 5th column movement.
We'll be watching to see if you can improve!
Good luck!
lonejustice: "Finally, this is over. We need to move on from Trump."
LOL
"we"
You gotta "Chuck" in your pocket or something?
I wasn't expecting to take this jury decision personally because the whole thing seemed so blatantly political and absurd. Frankly I never believed a rape even happened. I wasn't sure how the jury would rule and was hoping they would be rational and deny this claim. But the jury did what a lot of people expected and which was the whole purpose of this trial. Then I started reading comments over at yahoo and twitter and saw people were celebrating that Trump was convicted of rape, forget about any accuracy, and I started feeling angry.
Personally, I was raped and I wonder if other rape victims are feeling the same as me. This happened to me fifty years ago, in the Spring of 1973 and was a very terrorizing and traumatizing experience. I don't have the exact date but I certainly remember the year and what I was doing at the time -- I was in graduate school and just starting finals. So if I had to I could narrow down the date to within a couple of weeks, by just checking the finals schedule. And I did call the police immediately after the rapist left my apartment. They came and took me to a hospital. So if police and hospitals keep old records, I assume they do, we could come up with the exact date. Plus the rapist was arrested the following year attempting to rape another woman and the police called and asked me to identify him which I did. This is what an actual and not fictional rape of a non-consenting adult woman is recalled and how it is processed in the real world.
The idea that this woman, E. Jean Carroll, actually got away with not remembering even the year, or the time of the year the rape happened, for me is frankly just incredible. The fact that she never reported it to the police or went to a doctor or hospital afterward, considering how she described being brutally attacked, is also unbelievable. That she had the audacity to file this suit all these years later, and be awarded $5 million dollars and be treated like a hero, for me is absolutely dispicable and simply hard to accept has really happened. Again, I am wondering if other rape victims are responding this way or if this is just me?
Michael K: "The dullard loves these fact fee accusations by women with, at best, sketchy histories.
No evidence is necessary to the dullard."
Quite true. She STILL believes Kavanaugh led a roving rape gang around Maryland for a decade!
I thought of the best answer to how the jury could do that: They could have understood Trump's Access Hollywood remark to mean he had a practice of grabbing women's crotches. So that tipped the evidence with respect to sexual abuse but did not support the claim that he penetrated the vaginal opening.
If that’s how the Second Circuit sees it, then the admission of the AH tape was quite prejudicial. It might have been a proper exercise of discretion to admit it anyway, but it’s something to talk about on appeal.
hombre said...
So she perjured herself, but she still gets $5 million?
=============
Congress critters perjure every day and keep their jobs and perks >> what is the big new deal?
We have a thoroughly corrupt judicial system,
========
can any jury pool be considered part of judicial system? in all seriousness!
instead of term judeo-christian much better to use judicio-political to describe things
Calling a liar a liar is defamation, right? I mean, it's true, but it's still a bad thing to say about somebody.
==========
turns out wise advise to not speak ill of the dead >> civil rights violation of vote suppression attempt
Martha said...
Why were there no sales attendants in the lingerie department?
" Bergdorf Goodman’s perfections are so well known — it is a store so noble, so clubby, so posh — that it is almost easier to accept the fact that I was attacked than the fact that, for a very brief period, there was no sales attendant in the lingerie department. Inconceivable is the word. Sometimes a person won’t find a sales attendant in Saks, it’s true; sometimes one has to look for a sales associate in Barneys, Bloomingdale’s, or even Tiffany’s; but 99 percent of the time, you will have an attendant in Bergdorf’s. All I can say is I did not, in this fleeting episode, see an attendant. And the other odd thing is that a dressing-room door was open. In Bergdorf’s dressing rooms, doors are usually locked until a client wants to try something on."
If this is true it would have been easy enough for Trump to have called witnesses who could have testified to this fact- like former employees of Bergdorf. But he chose to call no witnesses. So there were no facts in evidence on this point for the jury to consider.
rcocean said...
"The stupid dumbshit republican establishment sits back and does nothing."
Sort of like the way Trump defended this case.
I thought of the best answer to how the jury could do that:
That's easy: they're dishonest left wing piles of shit
They could have understood Trump's Access Hollywood remark to mean he had a practice of grabbing women's crotches.
Except that Trump did NOT say he DID grab them by the pussy
He said they would LET a star grab them by the pussy.
And, given all we learned about Weinstein, this was a clearly true statement
Well said, Rosalyn.
And yes, other victims or rape and molestation are reacting the way you are
Juanita Broderick should sue Bill Clinton in NYC. At least she remembers the date, and she has witnesses to back her up. It should net her more money because it was an actual rape.
TickTock said...
Is not the headline factually inaccurate? Was not the case one for defamation, and they found him liable for defamation, not abuse. The liability would be for damage to reputation, not for the injury of sexual abuse.
5/9/23, 4:20 PM
Then he should sue her back for lying about him, and defaming HIM in her book.
Blogger DINKY DAU 45 said...
GOP(MAGA) front runner for nominee for next president in 2024, 2x impeached,1st time ever indicted former president with 34 charges, CEO of a criminal organization struck by the courts, sexual abuser and defamatory individual with RICO AND seditious conspiracy charges in the background from Georgia and Florida and a partridge in a pear tree, Hey Just like Israel and the infamous BIBI. Loser of presidency, Senate and House in 2020,and facing more "charges" then the ever ready bunny and beat by non other than sleepy Joe by an electoral and popular vote slaughtering. This is their guy? Hmmm Well they haven't convicted the lefts guys "weekend at Bernies " MAN for hair sniffing but 6 men and 3 women call the tort/perp/ (don) a sex abuser and a defamer! Documented facts. Next up Jackie and Fani lookout. RWDS folks may be getting some company Stewart up next to break the sentencing record of Enrique and posse! STAND BACK AND STAND BY. This is their guy?
5/9/23, 4:37 PM
It's cute that you still believe all the propaganda they spew to you.
lonejustice said...
Finally, this is over. We need to move on from Trump.
5/9/23, 7:17 PM
Who are you kidding. YOU moved on long ago. You may as well vote for Biden.
SO sorry that happened to you, Blogger Rosalyn C.
I agree. This is not going to be easy to people like you who really went through it. Everybody in America knows this was a sham to get Trump, but it made it harder for real rape victims to be believed.
How did this case get passed the pleadings with no year, no week, no month, no day specified for the alleged acts?
My big problem with the verdict is what it showed the left has learned. She cannot remember the date, or even the month, it happened. But is really sure it happened. But since she cannot remember the day or month or year, then there is no way a defense can be presented. No alibi possible. Does no one else understand just how bad this is for our system of supposed justice? Crazy Years indeed. I think I will lay in some more ammo. The breakdown is getting closer.
This jury verdict would have made more sense if the case was Tara Reade versus Joe Biden. (Although Tara Reade's explanation of how she and Biden ended up in the same place is far more credible than Jean Carroll and Donald Trump.)
I have to laugh when I see people post links to articles claiming "over 30 women 'credibly' accuse Trump of sexual assault". Few people actually read the article and fewer still the individual stories. In some cases the people making the accusation do not claim Trump ever spoke to them let alone touched them.
Personally I want the list of the names of politicians who got taxpayers to fund their settlements with people claiming sexual assault, etc, released before the 2024 election.
Althouse: "he penetrated the vaginal opening"
Carroll: "sexy"
Thanks, wendybar, and all. I appreciate it. I saw an article at CNN this AM, "E. Jean Carroll says verdict in Trump abuse case is a victory for all victims of sexual assault" and felt like barfing. Such a turd. So revolting. Just further divides people, because for those who know, she proved that women do lie about rape.
Finally, this is over. We need to move on from Trump.
No. It's just starting. And it has nothing to do with Trump.
That's what people like you don't get.
Even a far left New York appellate court might have trouble affirming this verdict.
Jim at "No. It's just starting. And it has nothing to do with Trump."
Exactly, the degradation of our legal standards and system is much bigger than Trump.
wendybar said...
"Juanita Broderick should sue Bill Clinton in NYC. At least she remembers the date, and she has witnesses to back her up. It should net her more money because it was an actual rape."
Nothing has stopped Broderick from suing Clinton. But she hasn't, so that's that.
Of course if she did, the first thing Clinton would do is ask her about the affidavit she signed under oath in 1997 "denying that Clinton had made "any sexual advances". Wiki
"Ms Broderick, are you lying now or were you lying when you signed the affidavit"?
Goldenpause said...
"Even a far left New York appellate court might have trouble affirming this verdict."
Goldenpause has clearly never litigated a case before "a far left New York appellate court". (sic). In any event in order to appeal, Trump will have to post a $5 million bond to stay enforcement of the judgement pending appeal. even $ says no appeal.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा