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

[DoctorTaco]

question. Do you think Biden should be in civil court due to Tara Reades accusation?

Whataboutism.

 

[Hog-train]

Where is the link to that claim?

She originally claimed she was assaulted in 1994 and posed for a Magazine cover with the supposed dress on in New York Magazine.

Then Trump's lawyer argued in court the Donna Karen dress was not even made at the time. E. Jean Carroll had to testify under oath that the jacket-dress was not even sold at the time of the alleged attack.

She also got caught lying when she said no one was funding her lawsuit. But it came out billionaire Reid Hoffman was funding Carroll’s lawsuit.

HUGE! New York Magazine's Guessing Game - E. Jean Carroll's Jacket Dress Comes into Question - Trump Accuser Stumbles During Testimony | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

E.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Bob Gray]

Whataboutism.

It's a comparison. Just like how your remark is a deflection because you don't want to address the point the comparison makes. Whataboutism would be if I tried to move the conversation to Biden instead of Trump.

Now you'll continue to double down on how it's "ak-choo-ally" a whataboutism, and ignore the point completely. Which is, ironically, whataboutism.

 

[Confucamus]

Then Trump's lawyer argued in court the Donna Karen dress was not even made at the time. E. Jean Carroll had to testify under oath that the jacket-dress was not even sold at the time of the alleged attack.

She also got caught lying when she said no one was funding her lawsuit. But it came out billionaire Reid Hoffman was funding Carroll’s lawsuit.

That is completely bonkers.

 

[Andy Capp]

I like how my framing is disingenuous after you're saying Trump should face the consequences of his actions, thereby completely accepting the accusation as fact despite the laughable evidence supporting it.

I dont expect anything. Im saying that both of these allegations are flimsy, and thats being as generous as possible. Take away any political aspect of it at all and just say its you or a family member. A woman says you raped her 30 years ago on a date she cant name. She has two friends that say she told them 30 years ago that you did it. Do you think this should be enough to get you into civil court? You should have to hire an attorney and be out of pocket all the expenses based solely on this accusation? Of course not. Its complete nonsense.

Oh, yeah, and they create an entirely new law just because the accusation was outside the statute of limitations.

The right did the same thing with Paula Jones. It didnt matter if the story was true or not, all that mattered was the political gain they hoped to get out of it.

Just be honest about it, thats all. Anyone who spends any amount of time looking at this accusation and the evidence supporting it can see how ridiculous it is that such a flimsy accusation got an ex president into a courtroom, even without creating an entirely new law for the sole purpose of navigating around the statute of limitations.

It's not up to me to decide whether or not a civil suit gets to trial. But once it does, credibility counts for a great deal and you have none when you decline to appear to defend yourself.

As for the rest of this it just looks like you sticking out your finger and going, "Look, look over here, yes here, no, not there, over here, look at this!" Correlation does not equal causation. Shitty people in politics doing shitty things means there's going to be a political component to media spin. Film at 11.

Once a case goes to the jury I generally toss aside my opinion and wait for the verdict because it's moot. Here, the verdict has stood up to appeal making it all the more pointless to challenge further.

 

[cincymma79]

Hey can we rehash the same arguments every few days

 

[Andy Capp]

This has literally nothing to do with the E Jean Carrol Case.

Nothing?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

She originally claimed she was assaulted in 1994 and posed for a Magazine cover with the supposed dress on in New York Magazine.

Then Trump's lawyer argued in court the Donna Karen dress was not even made at the time. E. Jean Carroll had to testify under oath that the jacket-dress was not even sold at the time of the alleged attack.

She also got caught lying when she said no one was funding her lawsuit. But it came out billionaire Reid Hoffman was funding Carroll’s lawsuit.

HUGE! New York Magazine's Guessing Game - E. Jean Carroll's Jacket Dress Comes into Question - Trump Accuser Stumbles During Testimony | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

E.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

A- Gateway Pundit? Really?

B- They just repeat the attorney's claims.

C- The original filing stated that the incident occurred in the fall of '95 or spring of '96.

So, where does '94 keep coming from other than this one lawyer who said it after the original filing?

 

[Bob Gray]

It's not up to me to decide whether or not a civil suit gets to trial. But once it does, credibility counts for a great deal and you have none when you decline to appear to defend yourself.

As for the rest of this it just looks like you sticking out your finger and going, "Look, look over here, yes here, no, not there, over here, look at this!" Correlation does not equal causation. Shitty people in politics doing shitty things means there's going to be a political component to media spin. Film at 11.

Once a case goes to the jury I generally toss aside my opinion and wait for the verdict because it's moot. Here, the verdict has stood up to appeal making it all the more pointless to challenge further.

I never said it was on you to decide. You can certainly have opinions on trials, cant you? You've never disagreed with how the justice system has worked? Never had an issue with any ruling or any jury decision? C'mon now.

Yes, I am saying look at this because it demonstrates the exact point Im making that you're still ignoring, but even that is one small part of what Im saying.

The evidence was laughable and no civil trial should should happen due to the evidence presented prior to the trial. You can either agree with this or not, but you won't make a stance on it and that's just something I find odd. Like, you can't just look it and say "yeah, that seems like enough/not enough evidence to have a civil trial"? The whole idea of "Well, I just trust the process" comes off kind of hollow because everybody has problems with the system now and then, and the system makes mistakes.

The point Im making isnt about anything other than the evidence put forth for the civil suit. That's it. I might mention one thing or another, but the point is always the same no matter how much you want to say Im making it about something else. The evidence for making a civil trial out of this was pathetic to the point of being practically non-existent. This is a point you can either agree with or not. What do you, Andy Capp, think about this evidence and whether or not people should go to civil trial based on this amount of evidence?

 

[Hog-train]

That is completely bonkers.

According to court documents, Carroll admitted during questioning that she may have bought it in 1995 because Donna Karan did not make the dress in 1994 as she believed.

Before the magazine published the article, they helped E. Jean Carroll figure out that the dress was not made in 1994 as she originally stated.

Based on what she said as she was sitting for the deposition, E. Jean Carroll has no recollection of when the alleged assault occurred. All she can say today is that it happened sometime after 1995.

How the fuck do you defend against allegations when your accuser doesn't even know the year the alleged assault occurred?

This is the most ridiculous case of weaponizing the Justice System for political purposes I have ever seen.

1. New York changes the statute of limitations so you can sue in civil court (only) for rape or sexual assault. This law is only valid for a one year window.

2. Carroll sues within hours of this law passing. And the lawsuit is funded by a billionaire.

3. The only evidence she has is her claiming it. And then testimony from two people who said that Carroll told them this happened. That is normally hearsay and completely useless in any other trial. It wouldn't have been allowed to even be uttered in court.

4. Carroll claims the assault happened in 1994. But later changes her tune when NY magazine tells her the dress was not manufactured at the time. Now claims some vague time after 1995.

5. Trump agrees to give his DNA for the test but then the judge rejects it as too late. And later rules the dress will not be used at all in the trial. So the dress is ultimately not even considered.

6. Carroll wins 5 million dollar judgment. Trump calls her a nutcase. And the judgment turns into 80 million because they say he's defaming her. LOL

Tell me that doesn't sound like a complete hit job.

 

[Bob Gray]

She originally claimed she was assaulted in 1994 and posed for a Magazine cover with the supposed dress on in New York Magazine.

Then Trump's lawyer argued in court the Donna Karen dress was not even made at the time. E. Jean Carroll had to testify under oath that the jacket-dress was not even sold at the time of the alleged attack.

She also got caught lying when she said no one was funding her lawsuit. But it came out billionaire Reid Hoffman was funding Carroll’s lawsuit.

HUGE! New York Magazine's Guessing Game - E. Jean Carroll's Jacket Dress Comes into Question - Trump Accuser Stumbles During Testimony | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

E.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

The absolute truth of it is, they dont care that she lied. They dont care about any sort of evidentiary standard. They dont care about consistency with the legal system (in this case). The only thing they care about is they got the verdict they wanted. That's literally the only thing that matters.

 

[Hog-train]

A- Gateway Pundit? Really?

B- They just repeat the attorney's claims.

C- The original filing stated that the incident occurred in the fall of '95 or spring of '96.

So, where does '94 keep coming from other than this one lawyer who said it after the original filing?

On the Wiki page.

" Additionally, Carroll said she initially thought the incident happened in 1994 or 1995."

E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I like how my framing is disingenuous after you're saying Trump should face the consequences of his actions, thereby completely accepting the accusation as fact despite the laughable evidence supporting it.

I dont expect anything. Im saying that both of these allegations are flimsy, and thats being as generous as possible. Take away any political aspect of it at all and just say its you or a family member. A woman says you raped her 30 years ago on a date she cant name. She has two friends that say she told them 30 years ago that you did it. Do you think this should be enough to get you into civil court? You should have to hire an attorney and be out of pocket all the expenses based solely on this accusation? Of course not. Its complete nonsense.

Oh, yeah, and they create an entirely new law just because the accusation was outside the statute of limitations.

The right did the same thing with Paula Jones. It didnt matter if the story was true or not, all that mattered was the political gain they hoped to get out of it.

Just be honest about it, thats all. Anyone who spends any amount of time looking at this accusation and the evidence supporting it can see how ridiculous it is that such a flimsy accusation got an ex president into a courtroom, even without creating an entirely new law for the sole purpose of navigating around the statute of limitations.

They didn't create a new law to target Trump.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

On the Wiki page.

" Additionally, Carroll said she initially thought the incident happened in 1994 or 1995."

E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Read the whole quote.

Additionally, Carroll said she initially thought the incident happened in 1994 or 1995, until realizing Lisa Birnbach visited Mar-a-Lago to write a February 1996 New York story on Trump (after 5–6 months of communicating by phone), which Carroll said would not have occurred if her friend knew about the alleged attack.[109][110]

So the law suit always said fall of '95 or Spring '96

 

[LangfordBarrow]

This has literally nothing to do with the E Jean Carrol Case. Sounds like you're just throwing shit at the wall hoping it sticks.

How could Trump had supposedly ejaculated on this dress like she claims if the dress wasn't even manufactured at the time?

You can grab them by the pussy has nothing to do with her case? I don't know the specifics of the dress but in the vein of your reasoning how could OJ have killed those people if the gloves did not fit?

 

[Hog-train]

Read the whole quote.

Additionally, Carroll said she initially thought the incident happened in 1994 or 1995, until realizing Lisa Birnbach visited Mar-a-Lago to write a February 1996 New York story on Trump (after 5–6 months of communicating by phone), which Carroll said would not have occurred if her friend knew about the alleged attack.[109][110]

So the law suit always said fall of '95 or Spring '96

Exactly. She changed her story and dates.

Explain how someone could defend against alleged rape allegations from 30 years ago when the accuser can't even name the actual date?

And there's no actual evidence other than her just claiming it.

You can't name an alibi so how do you disprove it?

You can grab them by the pussy has nothing to do with her case? I don't know the specifics of the dress but in the vein of your reasoning how could OJ have killed those people if the gloves did not fit?

He was having semi joking locker room talk to a guy during Access Hollywood. You can't use that as "evidence" in a rape case.

This is the actual audio.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

She originally claimed she was assaulted in 1994 and posed for a Magazine cover with the supposed dress on in New York Magazine.

Then Trump's lawyer argued in court the Donna Karen dress was not even made at the time. E. Jean Carroll had to testify under oath that the jacket-dress was not even sold at the time of the alleged attack.

She also got caught lying when she said no one was funding her lawsuit. But it came out billionaire Reid Hoffman was funding Carroll’s lawsuit.

HUGE! New York Magazine's Guessing Game - E. Jean Carroll's Jacket Dress Comes into Question - Trump Accuser Stumbles During Testimony | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

E.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Gateway Pundit states it comes into question but what are the specifics? Is there a link to an article I'm missing?

 

[Deleted member 592570]

Imagine being so incapable of engaging with reality that within hours of a terrorist attack on your country that has killed at least 12 of your countrymen and injured dozens of others, that you're hiding out in this thread to dunk on a guy for losing a lawsuit over a year ago.

 

[Confucamus]

1. New York changes the statute of limitations so you can sue in civil court (only) for rape or sexual assault. This law is only valid for a one year window.

2. Carroll sues within hours of this law passing. And the lawsuit is funded by a billionaire.

Say the fuck what?! How did I miss that this law was only valid for a year. They literally passed it to aid her case. No doubt at all.

3. The only evidence she has is her claiming it. And then testimony from two people who said that Carroll told them this happened. That is normally hearsay and completely useless in any other trial. It wouldn't have been allowed to even be uttered in court.

4. Carroll claims the assault happened in 1994. But later changes her tune when NY magazine tells her the dress was not manufactured at the time. Now claims some vague time after 1995.

5. Trump agrees to give his DNA for the test but then the judge rejects it as too late. And later rules the dress will not be used at all in the trial. So the dress is ultimately not even considered.

6. Carroll wins 5 million dollar judgment. Trump calls her a nutcase. And the judgment turns into 80 million because they say he's defaming her. LOL

Tell me that doesn't sound like a complete hit job.

Who are these people that were on the jury that found Trump liable for sexual assault with this evidence? This is wild.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Imagine being so incapable of engaging with reality that within hours of a terrorist attack on your country that has killed at least 12 of your countrymen and injured dozens of others, that you're hiding out in this thread to dunk on a guy for losing a lawsuit over a year ago.

i know it's tragic, but a car plowing into a crowd of people does not make zesto molesto any less of a rapist and sexual predator. it is also very much possible to condemn both rapists and terrorists, rather than to twist yourself into a pretzel trying to defend one or more of them.