Crime Trump loses appeal against E Jean Carroll for sexual abuse and defamation

[Bob Gray]

You've never disagreed with a jury's verdict before, based on the evidence in the case? Interesting. I wonder how consistent you will be about that.

He'd still argue to this day that Rittenhouse was guilty.

 

[HomeCheese]

You've never disagreed with a jury's verdict before, based on the evidence in the case? Interesting. I wonder how consistent you will be about that.

You said there wasn't any evidence against Trump but that turned out not to be true. Evidence was [resented and he was found guilty, lost the appeal.


Why do you disagree with the verdict? Why do you think he is innocent? Do you have any evidence?

 

[fingercuffs]

Process isn’t over yet. A little premature…and we may be using “real judges” loosely here

All that really needs to be understood is that the bitch will never see a dime

The bitch said she'd donate every cent, we all know how charitable and non misogynistic he is so he really should just donate all of her winnings to women shelters pre emptively. That'll learn the bitch!

 

[Bob Gray]

The bitch said she'd donate every cent

Maybe to the Amber Heard Foundation.

 

[Confucamus]

He'd still argue to this day that Rittenhouse was guilty.

Bingo. This was the exact example I was going to use. I agree with the Rittenhouse verdict because I look at the evidence. For the same reason, I disagree with the Carroll verdict because I looked at the evidence (or lack thereof.) Same reason EVERYBODY disagrees with the OJ Simpson verdict. They look at the evidence, as well as the additional evidence about the Italian loafers that came out at the civil trial, and conclude he is guilty.

You said there wasn't any evidence against Trump but that turned out not to be true. Evidence was [resented and he was found guilty, lost the appeal.


Why do you disagree with the verdict? Why do you think he is innocent? Do you have any evidence?

You don't need evidence to prove someone not guilty. That's not how it works. The onus is on the prosecution to present enough evidence to secure a conviction. In this case, they secured a conviction with only Carroll's account, which is vague and contradictory. That's why I disagree with it. That's why Trump was re-elected DESPITE this verdict because America could see how bullshit it was.

Answer my question: You ever disagree with a jury's verdict before? You like to inject race into everything so I'm sure there's cases where you believe a black person was wrongfully convicted, am I right?

 

[UberHere]

TDS, ladies and gentlemen. TDS never dies.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the lizard creatures were laughing, "You see? They'll obsess over it. It's all they're going to talk about all week. These dipshits will probably talk about it for years. Many of them won't even understand what the hell they're talking about. They'll channel all of their anger and disappointment and time and energy and focus into it. They'll gossip, speculate, analyze, psychoanalyze, project, cluck cluck cluck their tongues. We don't even have to do anything."

It’s the same unhinged nonsense some of the right wingers displayed with Obama. only this time it is encouraged by most of the mainstream media.

 

[Madmick]

It’s the same unhinged nonsense some of the right wingers displayed with Obama. only this time it is encouraged by most of the mainstream media.

Indeed. The "birther" and "he's a secret Muslim fifth wall agent" shit was unbearable.

 

[Bob Gray]

It’s the same unhinged nonsense some of the right wingers displayed with Obama. only this time it is encouraged by most of the mainstream media.

It even happened with (Bill) Clinton. Yeah, he perjured himself and whole Lewinsky thing was what it was, but you had people literally arguing he was evil to the core and even though they may have a legit reason to impeach him, it became a complete obsession to "get" him on just about anything. You had stories about all the people he had killed and whatnot. People going crazy about their political opposition isnt a new thing.

 

[HomeCheese]

Bingo. This was the exact example I was going to use. I agree with the Rittenhouse verdict because I look at the evidence. For the same reason, I disagree with the Carroll verdict because I looked at the evidence (or lack thereof.) Same reason EVERYBODY disagrees with the OJ Simpson verdict. They look at the evidence, as well as the additional evidence about the Italian loafers that came out at the civil trial, and conclude he is guilty.



You don't need evidence to prove someone not guilty. That's not how it works. The onus is on the prosecution to present enough evidence to secure a conviction. In this case, they secured a conviction with only Carroll's account, which is vague and contradictory. That's why I disagree with it. That's why Trump was re-elected DESPITE this verdict because America could see how bullshit it was.

Answer my question: You ever disagree with a jury's verdict before? You like to inject race into everything so I'm sure there's cases where you believe a black person was wrongfully convicted, am I right?

You said there wasn't any evidence but there was. These are the "alternate facts" that maga clings to.

What makes you think he's not guilty? Because Trump said so?

I mean, Trump has bragged about doing this exact thing so it's not hard to believe he did it. The guys a creep in the first order, he even bragged about bursting into a dressing room full of teenagers.

Let me ask you a simple question: Do you think Trump respects women?

 

[Bob Gray]

You said there wasn't any evidence but there was. These are the "alternate facts" that maga clings to.

What makes you think he's not guilty? Because Trump said so?

I mean, Trump has bragged about doing this exact thing so it's not hard to believe he did it. The guys a creep in the first order, he even bragged about bursting into a dressing room full of teenagers.

Let me ask you a simple question: Do you think Trump respects women?

Your question is meaningless. It doesnt matter if he respects women or not. All that matters is the evidence presented against him, of which there was virtually none other than an accusation alone.

 

[HomeCheese]

Your question is meaningless. It doesnt matter if he respects women or not. All that matters is the evidence presented against him, of which there was virtually none other than an accusation alone.

Then why did he loose? Did the jury, the judge at the trial and the judges for the appeals all have TDS?

How do you explain the verdict?

 

[Bob Gray]

Then why did he loose? Did the jury, the judge at the trial and the judges for the appeals all have TDS?

How do you explain the verdict?

Are you saying the justice system is perfect and no mistakes are ever made?

 

[HomeCheese]

Are you saying the justice system is perfect and no mistakes are ever made?

I need more to go on, what makes you think the trial wasn't fair?

Of course the justice system isn't perfect, that's why I'm asking what makes you think Trump is innocent?

Take the OJ trial, yeah I think he was guilty but I also understood the decision. I remember the lead detective testified he never used the N word but the defense proved he was a liar and that he was racist. And the glove didn't fit among other items. I could somewhat understand the decision.

Also, OJ lost the civil trial so there was some justice in the end.

What are you so sure Trump is innocent here?

 

[Bob Gray]

I need more to go on, what makes you think the trial wasn't fair?

Of course the justice system isn't perfect, that's why I'm asking what makes you think Trump is innocent?

Take the OJ trial, yeah I think he was guilty but I also understood the decision. I remember the lead detective testified he never used the N word but the defense proved he was a liar and that he was racist. And the glove didn't fit among other items. I could somewhat understand the decision.

Also, OJ lost the civil trial so there was some justice in the end.

What are you so sure Trump is innocent here?

I never said he was innocent. He may have done exactly what she accused him of.

But I know Ive talked with you before and my position has never changed. The evidence put forth in the trial was laughable. The only actual thing that could be called evidence is the accusation itself which is riddled with holes and inconsistencies. Its why no one, including you, ever argues that the evidence in the civil trial is compelling enough in and of itself. Its always appealing to the verdict, or arguments that Trumps behavior may have influenced the verdict. The latter part is probably true, but it doesnt change the fact that the evidence put forth is laughable.

 

[HomeCheese]

I never said he was innocent. He may have done exactly what she accused him of.

But I know Ive talked with you before and my position has never changed. The evidence put forth in the trial was laughable. The only actual thing that could be called evidence is the accusation itself which is riddled with holes and inconsistencies. Its why no one, including you, ever argues that the evidence in the civil trial is compelling enough in and of itself. Its always appealing to the verdict, or arguments that Trumps behavior may have influenced the verdict. The latter part is probably true, but it doesnt change the fact that the evidence put forth is laughable.

You're wrong, I never pay attention to this kind of BS. That as why I asked you why you think the verdict wasn't fair.

To me, it's enough he lost and lost the appeals - So a jury and various judges in different theaters all found it was a just verdict. Why would I pay attention to the details of the trial as the judge and jury are doing that, it's their job.

I'll ask again, why did the jury and multiple judges all say the verdict was just? What do you base your opinion on?

 

[Bob Gray]

You're wrong, I never pay attention to this kind of BS. That as why I asked you why you think the verdict wasn't fair.

Youre literally in this thread bringing up the verdict itself as evidence that the verdict was just.

To me, it's enough he lost and lost the appeals - So a jury and various judges in different theaters all found it was a just verdict. Why would I pay attention to the details of the trial as the judge and jury are doing that, it's their job.

And then literally in this post doing the same thing.

I'll ask again, why did the jury and multiple judges all say the verdict was just? What do you base your opinion on?

The evidence the prosecution brought into the trial. There wasnt any other than an accusation.

 

[HomeCheese]

Youre literally in this thread bringing up the verdict itself as evidence that the verdict was just.


And then literally in this post doing the same thing.


The evidence the prosecution brought into the trial. There wasnt any other than an accusation.

Then why did the various judges and the jury all find against Trump?

You see, there is ample reason to believe he did it because he lost the trial AND appeals.

All you say is they didn't present enough evidence but numerous judges and the jury who all heard/reviewed the testimony all disagree with you. Did you read the full court transcripts? Review testimony of every witness?

If there really wasn't enough evidence then why did the jury convict and why did various judges approve?

Unless you can explain to why I shouldn't, I'm going to trust an appeals judge's opinion of the legal merits of a case over yours.

Do you have anything beside "not enough evidence"?

 

[ermac88]

I was notified by multiple MAGAts in here that this was going to lose on appeal, when "real" judges looked at it. What happened, boys? Were these fake judges too? Better hope Thomas and Alito save him.

• A federal appeals court in New York officially affirmed the jury verdict that found President Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll.
• The action by the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals starts the clock for Trump to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the verdict and its order that he pay her $5 million in damages.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/10/trump-carroll-sexual-abuse-appeal.html

Which sexual assault verdict was this?


The one he was found guilty of rape ?


Its almost impossible to keep up with the pu&&y grabbing

 

[Khaosan]

Rapists gonna rape.

 

[Bob Gray]

Then why did the various judges and the jury all find against Trump?

You see, there is ample reason to believe he did it because he lost the trial AND appeals.

All you say is they didn't present enough evidence but numerous judges and the jury who all heard/reviewed the testimony all disagree with you. Did you read the full court transcripts? Review testimony of every witness?

If there really wasn't enough evidence then why did the jury convict and why did various judges approve?

Unless you can explain to why I shouldn't, I'm going to trust an appeals judge's opinion of the legal merits of a case over yours.

Do you have anything beside "not enough evidence"?

Im not sure why you keep going in circles. You ask me why Im not convinced and I explain that the evidence was weak or non existent, and even people who defend the verdict dont use the evidence, they just appeal to the verdict itself. Then you keep appealing to the verdict and ask me why I dont agree with it, and I say because there was little to no evidence. Then you appeal to the verdict again.

"Not enough evidence" is all I need. Then you could prove me wrong by bringing up the convincing evidence, but you cant because theres isnt any.

My argument is something doesnt exist (strong, compelling evidence from the prosecution ). The easiest way to prove me wrong is show that strong, compelling evidence from the prosecution exists, but you never do that. I cant show you more of something that doesnt exist. I cant point any more to the non existence of something other than to say that it doesnt exist. Someone might believe it exists. Some people believe Bigfoot exists. But its on the person arguing Bigfoot exists to show the person saying theres no convincing evidence, that said evidence does in fact exist. You're not doing that, for the reasons I've already said you can't do it. But then you keep doing exactly what Im saying you're gonna do. Then you ask me to repeat myself.

And, yes, I followed the case. I watched it while it was televised. I saw the witness statements and the evidence put forth.