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

[PainIsLIfe]

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?

You guys keep saying that about the dress, but I've not seen a credible report of that.

Carrol's original filing saud it happened in late 94 or spring 95.

And taking the stand to say he didn't do it would have been a defense - a lot better one than telling crowds that she wasnt his type or having his lawyers argue that if she didn't scream he thought she wanted it.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

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.

A free piece of advice....

If you are ever wrongly accused of rape do not have your lawyers say you may have thought she liked because she didn't scream as a defense.

 

[Bob Gray]

A free piece of advice....

If you are ever wrongly accused of rape do not have your lawyers say you may have thought she liked because she didn't scream as a defense.

Sure thing. I'd also throw out its best to avoid making things up that never happened to attempt to prove a point.

I know what you're going to say. You'll argue that Trumps lawyers questioned why she didn't scream if the incident happened. Which is not the same thing as arguing that "she liked it" since their defense was that the incident didn't happen, as opposed to they had sex and and it wasn't rape, which is what your post implies.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

This is still deflecting from my point. I'm not arguing whether he did it or not. He may have. But the evidence presented in the trial is absolutely terrible and anyone that actually cares about legal standards being applied equally would point it out instead of just looking then other way because they don't like the accussed.

How terrible was the defense? Confusing the person that's not his type for his wife? Blowing off the trial to play golf?

 

[Bob Gray]

How terrible was the defense? Confusing the person that's not his type for his wife? Blowing off the trial to play golf?

You guys get crazy about this shit. He mistook her for someone else in a 30 year old picture and thats evidence he raped her?

Trump doing or saying something stupid isn't an indication that 30 years ago he raped Carroll.

Theres still an actual standard of evidence in a civil trial and even all this time later, nobody argues the plaintiffs case meets that standard and how. Its just "Trump played golf" or "he said he never met her but there's a photo showing them together 30 years ago" as if this somehow cements a case of rape.

The plaintiffs case is so weak and so non existent that you can't even mount a defense against specific claims. You can't present an alibi because theres no specific time.

Here's something interesting. Not a single person here can argue why this case shouldn't have been thrown out as soon as there was a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. This was BEFORE anything in the trial happened. Before Trump played golf and before he said anything about any pictures. Go ahead and make an argument that there was sufficient evidence presented to meet the standard for a civil trial. Give it a shot.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Sure thing. I'd also throw out its best to avoid making things up that never happened to attempt to prove a point.

I know what you're going to say. You'll argue that Trumps lawyers questioned why she didn't scream if the incident happened. Which is not the same thing as arguing that "she liked it" since their defense was that the incident didn't happen, as opposed to they had sex and and it wasn't rape, which is what your post implies.

Whats the implication of the question? Either she lied or she like it.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

You guys get crazy about this shit. He mistook her for someone else in a 30 year old picture and thats evidence he raped her?

Trump doing or saying something stupid isn't an indication that 30 years ago he raped Carroll.

Theres still an actual standard of evidence in a civil trial and even all this time later, nobody argues the plaintiffs case meets that standard and how. Its just "Trump played golf" or "he said he never met her but there's a photo showing them together 30 years ago" as if this somehow cements a case of rape.

The plaintiffs case is so weak and so non existent that you can't even mount a defense against specific claims. You can't present an alibi because theres no specific time.

Here's something interesting. Not a single person here can argue why this case shouldn't have been thrown out as soon as there was a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. This was BEFORE anything in the trial happened. Before Trump played golf and before he said anything about any pictures. Go ahead and make an argument that there was sufficient evidence presented to meet the standard for a civil trial. Give it a shot.

She said it happened and provided 2 witnesses to verify her claim that she told them at the time it happened.

You don't really need a lot to sue someone.

 

[Snubnoze707]

She had a dog, or a cat, named.... Vagina.

 

[Bob Gray]

Whats the implication of the question? Either she lied or she like it.

The first one is what they're implying. Not the point you made up that never happened.

She said it happened and provided 2 witnesses to verify her claim that she told them at the time it happened.

Like I said earlier, do you really think an accusation that something happened 30 years ago and two friends saying you told them it happened gets to a civil trial? Not even close. Check out what preponderance of the evidence means. It may not be reasonable doubt, but theres still a standard a civil trial has to meet and you guys dont seem to understand what it is.

You don't really need a lot to sue someone.

Again, even a civil case needs to have a claim strong enough to meet a preponderance of the evidence or it gets thrown out on a motion to dismiss before it even reaches trial.

like I said above:
"Not a single person here can argue why this case shouldn't have been thrown out as soon as there was a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. This was BEFORE anything in the trial happened. Before Trump played golf and before he said anything about any pictures. Go ahead and make an argument that there was sufficient evidence presented to meet the standard for a civil trial. Give it a shot."

 

[cincymma79]

She said it happened and provided 2 witnesses to verify her claim that she told them at the time it happened.

You don't really need a lot to sue someone.

You touched my penis ten years ago. I told two people about it. You owe me money anyone who doesn’t agree is an apologist

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

Lots up victims end up having rape fantasies and shit afterwards.

Yikes

 

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

You touched my penis ten years ago. I told two people about it. You owe me money anyone who doesn’t agree is an apologist

I remember that. You definitely told me that.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

i was never sure if people are actually believing this woman or are just so rabid against trump they'd get behind anything that might hurt him.

cause this is such a horseshit case it's unbelievable.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

The first one is what they're implying. Not the point you made up that never happened.

Like I said earlier, do you really think an accusation that something happened 30 years ago and two friends saying you told them it happened gets to a civil trial? Not even close. Check out what preponderance of the evidence means. It may not be reasonable doubt, but theres still a standard a civil trial has to meet and you guys dont seem to understand what it is.


Again, even a civil case needs to have a claim strong enough to meet a preponderance of the evidence or it gets thrown out on a motion to dismiss before it even reaches trial.

like I said above:
"Not a single person here can argue why this case shouldn't have been thrown out as soon as there was a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence. This was BEFORE anything in the trial happened. Before Trump played golf and before he said anything about any pictures. Go ahead and make an argument that there was sufficient evidence presented to meet the standard for a civil trial. Give it a shot."

You are mistaken. There was enough to go to trial, she needed a preponderance of evidence to win the suit.

If Trump didn't sabotage his own defense he most likely would have won the case, but he thought it was more important to play golf than testify under oath.

Curious question about all of this; why didn't Trump sue Carrol for defamation?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

You touched my penis ten years ago. I told two people about it. You owe me money anyone who doesn’t agree is an apologist

I don't owe you money, but you may be able to sue me in court.

Btw, my lawyers are definitely arguing that you begged me to touch your penis.lol

 

[Bob Gray]

You are mistaken. There was enough to go to trial, she needed a preponderance of evidence to win the suit.

If Trump didn't sabotage his own defense he most likely would have won the case, but he thought it was more important to play golf than testify under oath.

Curious question about all of this; why didn't Trump sue Carrol for defamation?

Again, what is the evidence that you think beats the motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence? Even accepting your premise that a civil suit would happen based on an accusation alone.

Lets just get this straight. If someone accuses you of rape 30 years ago, and has two friends say they were told by her that you did it, you think it goes to civil court AFTER a motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Again, what is the evidence that you think beats the motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence? Even accepting your premise that a civil suit would happen based on an accusation alone.

Lets just get this straight. If someone accuses you of rape 30 years ago, and has two friends say they were told by her that you did it, you think it goes to civil court AFTER a motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence?

Yes. I think ir passes initial summary judgement.

 

[Bob Gray]

i was never sure if people are actually believing this woman or are just so rabid against trump they'd get behind anything that might hurt him.

cause this is such a horseshit case it's unbelievable.

I'm literally in the middle of going back and forth with someone who believes an accusation of something that would have been 30 years prior on an unspecificed date and having two friends that say they were told it happened is enough to bring a case to civil court.

 

[Bob Gray]

Yes. I think ir passes initial summary judgement.

Ok. Thats preposterous, but I appreciate the honesty.


Truly? Just an accusation and two people saying they were told it happened bring a 30 year old accusation to civil trial? Good grief, man.

 

[cincymma79]

I remember that. You definitely told me that.

I’m owed millions