International E Jean Carroll Bests Donald J Trump to the Tune of $83 million

[PainIsLIfe]

But it wouldn’t have been. It was only brought because a billionaire democrat donor helped fund the passing of the adult survivor act in 2022, and then funded Carrol’s lawsuit.

Saying it would be brought against anyone else is not true, as anyone else does not have billionaire democrat donors targeting them with lawfare and then a clearly biased judge who wouldn’t let Trump have a defense.

I'm with you until you went with the "judge wouldn't let him have a defense".

 

[cottagecheesefan]

I'm with you until you went with the "judge wouldn't let him have a defense".

Why? He wouldn’t allow Trump and his defense to use her own words and social media. Evidence that the dress she state she wore was not designed yet, etc.

What is the argument otherwise?

 

[Hog-train]

You know it's kind of hard to defend against rape allegations when the accuser can't even name the year or date. You can't even show an alibi.

 

[Bob Gray]

You know it's kind of hard to defend against rape allegations when the accuser can't even name the year or date. You can't even show an alibi.

It doesnt matter how strong the evidence is. The only thing that matters is whether or not Trump can prove it wrong.

This is literally how backwards people have it.

 

[Andy Capp]

good grief, I never really paid much attention to this (nor the Tara Reid/ Biden allegations) but this is just maddeningly suspect. Ridiculous

You don't get the sarcasm either? Really? Interesting.

 

[SKYNET]

You don't get the sarcasm either? Really? Interesting.

You don't find the sarcasm odd? Really? Interesting.

 

[Andy Capp]

You don't find the sarcasm odd? Really? Interesting.

No, not in this context but that's irrelevant anyway.

Whether it's odd or not I think there may be something wrong with you if cannot perceive the sarcasm in her comment.

 

[Bob Gray]

No, not in this context but that's irrelevant anyway.

Whether it's odd or not I think there may be something wrong with you if cannot perceive the sarcasm in her comment.

Just curious. What would she be saying on facebook if she really was a massive fan of something?

Like, if she said:

"Im a MASSIVE Game of Thrones fan"

Would you just see "obvious" sarcasm?

 

[brothir]

It doesnt matter how strong the evidence is. The only thing that matters is whether or not Trump can prove it wrong.

This is literally how backwards people have it.

It's a civil suit, so the standard is who can prove their case relatively strongly compared to the other. Carroll has her story combined with telling at least one, I believe two, other people about it at the time, and one or maybe both of them testified. Trump presented essentially nothing, by comparison. So obviously Carroll's side of the story is relatively more convincing.

 

[brothir]

You know it's kind of hard to defend against rape allegations when the accuser can't even name the year or date. You can't even show an alibi.

Sure you can. First off you can generally present yourself as someone who's highly unlikely to commit rape. You can also paint the accuser as generally deceitful, using concrete examples from her life. You can present evidence of a time you were together at the relevant place, but that things didn't happen the way the accuser claims. Even if the counter-claim becomes that it was another instance, you've managed to present evidence of one time it probably couldn't have been, whereas the accuser has to appeal to a nebulous "another time". All of these would make the case of the accused relatively stronger than the accuser.

 

[Bob Gray]

It's a civil suit, so the standard is who can prove their case relatively strongly compared to the other. Carroll has her story combined with telling at least one, I believe two, other people about it at the time, and one or maybe both of them testified. Trump presented essentially nothing, by comparison. So obviously Carroll's side of the story is relatively more convincing.

A civil suit still has a legal standard to meet. Preponderance of the evidence doesnt mean the same thing as reasonable doubt, but its a much higher burden than simply who tells the best story.

You really think a civil suit having an accusation and two friends of the plaintiff saying she told them he did it is a strong case? Thats not even a strong case for an incident NOW, much less 30 years ago. Number one theres not a specific time that it happened. So Trump cant even attempt to have an alibi for the time period. And then...well thats about it. She said he did it, she has a couple friends that say she told them he did it. Thats basically the entire case. Thats ridiculous even under a lower legal standard of proof.

 

[SKYNET]

No, not in this context but that's irrelevant anyway.
Whether it's odd or not I think there may be something wrong with you if cannot perceive the sarcasm in her comment.

No, it's totally relevant because I'm not a fool like you are.

You see Mandy, that's your issue because I DID detect the sarcasm and it's out of place to post that on social media. That's a tell.

That doesn't mean I assume she's lying and Trump's innocent, just that the victim no longer gets my benefit of the doubt.

If you weren't deranged and mentally unstable like her, you would find the relevancy in the situation.

 

[Andy Capp]

Just curious. What would she be saying on facebook if she really was a massive fan of something?

Like, if she said:

"Im a MASSIVE Game of Thrones fan"

Would you just see "obvious" sarcasm?

If her 50-odd friends reacted the same way I'm sure they'd know why she would make a sarcastic comment.

Doesn't the record show she communicated to people what happened to her about 5 years later or so? This comment was 20 years later.

Edit: If you want to suggest there's no way to know if she was being sarcastic and therefore the post means nothing whatsoever, I can agree with that. You will not convince me it shows she had a favourable view of the Orange Turd.

 

[Andy Capp]

No, it's totally relevant because I'm not a fool like you are.

You see Mandy, that's your issue because I DID detect the sarcasm and it's out of place to post that on social media. That's a tell.

That doesn't mean I assume she's lying and Trump's innocent, just that the victim no longer gets my benefit of the doubt.

If you weren't deranged and mentally unstable like her, you would find the relevancy in the situation.

So, stripping the dumb personal attacks from this your post comes down to, I don't like that she posted it on social media.

I don't think it means anything when it's one comment 20-ish years after the fact to what appears to be a pretty limited audience.

Having said that I wasn't on the jury and never examined all the evidence and testimony so I don't know if the verdict was warranted or not but you are always going to tilt odds toward the accuser if the accused never shows up for the trial as with Trump in this case. You're practically conceding from the outset.

That's the grand total of my take on this subject. You may resume your pathetic ad hominem now but it will only make me feel sorry for you.

 

[SKYNET]

That's the grand total of my take on this subject.

Just because you stopped ignoring me, doesn't mean I'm obligated to engage with any of your bullshit.

 

[Andy Capp]

Just because you stopped ignoring me, doesn't mean I'm obligated to engage with any of your bullshit.

Aww boohoo. Poor little troll is gotten to. Have a hanky.

 

[SKYNET]

Aww boohoo. Poor little troll is gotten to. Have a hanky.

lol you tagged me, if you hadn't I guarantee there was less than zero odds that you and I would have had any interactions here.

Imagine feeling like you're being trolled by someone who gives less than a shit about you. Rent Free.

It's only been a few weeks, but I think the WR deserves better than grumpy toxic asshole like you bud.

 

[Andy Capp]

lol you tagged me, if you hadn't I guarantee there was less than zero odds that you and I would have had any interactions here.

Imagine feeling like you're being trolled by someone who gives less than a shit about you. Rent Free.

It's only been a few weeks, but I think the WR deserves better than grumpy toxic asshole like you bud.

I did't tag you. I responded to your post. lol @ "rent free" and "grumpy toxic asshole" after you posted this and the post below.

No, it's totally relevant because I'm not a fool like you are.

You see Mandy, that's your issue because I DID detect the sarcasm and it's out of place to post that on social media. That's a tell.

That doesn't mean I assume she's lying and Trump's innocent, just that the victim no longer gets my benefit of the doubt.

If you weren't deranged and mentally unstable like her, you would find the relevancy in the situation.

None of my replies to you included personal attacks like this, did they? Bye, sad clown. Have a nice day.

 

[SKYNET]

I did't tag you. I was triggered by your viewpoint, (par for course) so I replied to you with a snarky jab attempting to make it look like there is something wrong with you (this is generally what I do to everyone here not in 100% agreement with my own personal views)

FTFY

if you hadn't *responded to my post* I guarantee there was less than zero odds that you and I would have had any interactions here.

 

[Bob Gray]

If her 50-odd friends reacted the same way I'm sure they'd know why she would make a sarcastic comment.

Doesn't the record show she communicated to people what happened to her about 5 years later or so? This comment was 20 years later.

Edit: If you want to suggest there's no way to know if she was being sarcastic and therefore the post means nothing whatsoever, I can agree with that. You will not convince me it shows she had a favourable view of the Orange Turd.

I'm honestly trying to understand why it's such obvious sarcasm. So it's because of the emoji responses?

Like I said, if she posted "I'm a MASSIVE Game.of Thrones fan", when would it be a legitimate remark vs a sarcastic comment?