Announcement

**Ming** · January 28, 2024, 09:48

Let's be clear... A jury found that he had sexually abused her and defamed her in the first trial.
Your comment that he couldn't get a fair trail is total opinion and BS. He lost the case based on the FACTS. The jury did their job.
The law was changed to remove the statue of limitations to help VICTIMS, NOT to prosecute Trump as you imply.
And he wasn't just claiming he was innocent.. He went totally overboard and to this day continues attacking her, even after two losses in court (talk about a total moron)
And I see you failed to mention all the other women who have claimed similar activities on his part.

But as usual, you defend him by just reposting things you've seen in internet videos as if it was all true.
For a person who "claims" he doesn't like Trump, you sure defend him all the time... even when he's acting like a total ass.

**Dauphin** · January 28, 2024, 13:00

If Trump wants to clear his name, maybe he can counter-sue Carroll for defamation by her saying that he sexually assaulted her. He won't win, but he can try.

**Berzerker** · January 28, 2024, 15:36

x.com

https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1751310414460190937

X fact checks Snopes

Joe Biden wore a construction helmet backwards, Snopes said 'false'.

**Berzerker** · January 28, 2024, 16:06

Originally posted by Ming View Post

Let's be clear... A jury found that he had sexually abused her and defamed her in the first trial.
Your comment that he couldn't get a fair trail is total opinion and BS. He lost the case based on the FACTS. The jury did their job.
The law was changed to remove the statue of limitations to help VICTIMS, NOT to prosecute Trump as you imply.
And he wasn't just claiming he was innocent.. He went totally overboard and to this day continues attacking her, even after two losses in court (talk about a total moron)
And I see you failed to mention all the other women who have claimed similar activities on his part.

But as usual, you defend him by just reposting things you've seen in internet videos as if it was all true.
For a person who "claims" he doesn't like Trump, you sure defend him all the time... even when he's acting like a total ass.

How a new law allowed E. Jean Carroll to seek justice against Trump years later

https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-survivors/

Survivors of sexual assault and advocates helped pass the Adult Survivors Act in New York that was instrumental to Carroll’s civil case.

The law created a 1 year window and she filed on the 1st day. Now if the goal was helping victims of assault why a 1 year window? They would have done it for 1 day if they could get away with it.

**Ming** · January 28, 2024, 20:59

Blah blah blah... you make it sound like it was for ONLY her. It was for MANY VICTIMS. But you don't care about any of the victims... just Trump. Again, your opinion is just that... not fact. But feel free to promote the maga agenda and supporting Trump.
And I notice you still haven't mentioned all the other women that testified against him.

**Berzerker** · January 28, 2024, 21:38

If they cared about victims they wouldn't limit this to 1 year... Tara Reade? Thats the only other name I know.

**Ming** · January 28, 2024, 22:56

There were multiple women... but you don't care about the victims... only Trump

**Geronimo** · January 29, 2024, 00:39

Originally posted by Dauphin View Post

His instructions included a clear explanation of the meaning of preponderance of evidence. So I do not think this framing is accurate.

Did you find a link to the complete instructions?

**Geronimo** · January 29, 2024, 01:22

Originally posted by pchang View Post

I’m innocent!

You douchebag!!!!

Do you see the difference between those 2 statements?

It can't matter in this case or frankly in the first case either. Obviously Trump and anyone else should be free to insult a public figure like Carroll and even to essentially ruthlessly libel and slander her with the same freedom extended to do so towards any public figure. Thanks to the grossly inappropriate result of the first case and legal abominations called estoppel and defamation per se, the situation has been created where even if Trump only asserted his innocence he will incur damages even if that is all he does and refrains from otherwise saying bad things about his accuser no matter how much more painfully obvious her public figure status has become.

**Geronimo** · January 29, 2024, 01:38

Originally posted by Ming View Post

There were multiple women... but you don't care about the victims... only Trump

You mean multiple cases not involving Trump that moved forward only because of the change in law that also allowed Carroll's case against Trump to proceed? You're correct. The passage of the Adult Survivors act has already allowed several cases not involving Trump to proceed.

I do not, however, understand what was special about that one particular year that made it makes sense to disregard statute of limitations during it but not to do so after it. It's almost like lawmakers were especially anxious to see cases move forward that year. Why not make it permanent?

**BeBMan** · January 29, 2024, 13:55

Evil Finland was voting yesterday. They liked it so much they go into a second round. Evil, evil.

Finland: Ex-PM Stubb wins first round of presidential vote – DW – 01/28/2024

https://www.dw.com/en/finland-ex-pm-alexander-stubb-wins-first-round-of-presidential-election/a-68105177

Alexander Stubb and former Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto will meet in the runoff election on February 11.

**Berzerker** · January 29, 2024, 17:19

"It's hard to find on Google, so here's what you need to know about E. Jean Carroll, most of which was deemed "inadmissible" by the judge:

- She couldn't recall the date, month, season, or year the incident happened
- She never told anyone about it, despite being publicly obsessed with her own sexuality.
- The dress she claims to have been wearing didn't exist at the time
- Her description of the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman was inaccurate, making her sequence of events impossible
- Her lawsuit was bankrolled by Jeffrey Epstein pal and Democrat (and Nikki Haley) mega-donor Reid Hoffman
- Democrats created a law (The Adult Survivors Act in 2022) to enable her lawsuit to proceed
- Her accusation is the exact plotline of an episode of Law & Order (one of her "favorite shows")
- Trump's Apprentice was also one of her favorite shows
- She has a history of falsely accusing men of r*pe, including Les Moonves
- She told Anderson Cooper, "most people think of r*pe as being sexy. Think of the fantasies."
- She made a career promoting promiscuity, even writing glowingly of sexual assault and naming her cat Vag_na"

Politically targeted retribution under the guise of justice..."

from No Jo From Jerz on X

**Berzerker** · January 29, 2024, 18:15

“They are in front of my house all the time. I have a feeling for what feelings they have. But we have to think about what we’re doing. And what we have to do is try to stop the suffering in Gaza. This is women and children, people who don’t have a place to go, so let’s address that. But for them to call for a cease-fire is Mr. Putin’s message, Mr. Putin’s message. Make no mistake, this is directly connected to what he would like to see. Same thing with Ukraine. It’s about Putin’s message. I think some of these protesters are spontaneous, and organic and sincere. Some, I think, are connected to Russia. I say that having looked at this for a long time.”

When Bash followed up to ask whether she was actually stating that these protesters are “Russian plants,” Pelosi doubled down and said that the groups and their financing “should be investigated.”

and she represents San Francisco! Holy shi'ite

**Dauphin** · January 29, 2024, 18:22

Originally posted by Geronimo View Post

Did you find a link to the complete instructions?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18418220/carroll-v-trump/?order_by=desc

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.280.4.pdf

See Section III of the second link.

As point of law, the jury were not being instructed to assess if Trump was guilty of sexual assault, or that prior statements were defamatory. That had been settled by a prior civil jury trial - and is where a lot of the garbage about 'inadmissible evidence' is coming from - the case was settled, the facts were already determined in that case and were not open for re-litigation. They were being asked specific questions about the level of damages, as set out in the instructions, and the jury verdict form

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.280.1.pdf

**Dauphin** · January 29, 2024, 18:24

As a practice, I like to read the actual trial documents, rather than news coverage. Media often lie by omission.

Announcement

Politics Thread

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment