I don't think any of these libs know about the dress Carroll was flaunting.
Gaetz
- Thread starter nsacpi
- Start date
I don't think any of these libs know about the dress Carroll was flaunting.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
the judge and jury
First of all, he was never convicted in a criminal case, just a civil trial.
If you go through the evidence from Carroll lying about her dress to the actual case resembling an episode of one of her favorite shows nobody in their right mind can come to the conclusion that he raped her.
Carroll lied and even deleted subpoenaed evidence.
If you're too stupid and/or uninformed to understand this that's your problem.
I don't particularly like Trump. I wish we had a better option. But I do like the truth. And calling Trump a pedo/rapists is not true, at least to the extent of our knowledge.
When did facts ever matter to BL?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’ Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Judge Lewis Kaplan
Judge Lewis Kaplan
Makes a lot of sense to do that in a dressing room in public.
Only you’d believe these things. Just like credibly accused kav.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
He had good lawyers defending him. The jury found in her favor.
y'all sure do love your pedos and rapists
They also ignored every lie she told. What part of this do you not understand?
Carroll said that she was raped in 1994 and told people the dress she was raped in.
The designer of the dress came out said that dress wasn't made yet in 1994. Oops! That should have ended it right there.
Now the story came to be she didn't know the exact year and one of her friends remembered it was 1996. If my memory serves me the judge did not allow the first story in court.
Last edited:
This was a CIVIL lawsuit. It's much easier and requires much less evidence to find a person (particularly a polarizing rich person) guilty when the only penalty is losing money.
Had this been a criminal case, there is a zero percent chance a DA's argument would have held up in court. Hell, there probably wouldn't even be enough evidence to formally bring charges.
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It is indeed true that a civil case has different evidentiary standards than a criminal case. It requires that a jury or judge find a preponderance of the evidence favors one side or the other. And a unanimous jury found that the preponderance of the evidence indicated that very poorly chosen one raped E Jean Carroll.
There is also a well-known recording in which he bragged about grabbing women by the pussy and being able to get away with it.
There is also a well-known recording in which he bragged about grabbing women by the pussy and being able to get away with it.
Last edited:
You posted a long couple of sentences of word garbage that do not refute even one thing I said. It requires significantly less evidence to find someone guilty in a civil case. It was a he said/she said case. There were no eye witnesses. And Carrol's story has changed like the wind.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
The judge and jury did.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There is also his infamous recording about grabbing women by the pussy and getting away with it.
And sadly for him he got confused on the witness stand and after saying Carroll was not his type reacted to a picture shown of her that it was Marla (who apparently was his type).
Last edited:
More like idiots infected with TDS.
Part of the utter bull**** that occurs in blue courts.
And? Was he serious or talking smack?
The fact is that Kooky Carroll changed her story and that should have ended the case before it started. That's what happens in sane courts who are not politically driven.
Last edited: