New York jury says Trump should pay $5 million dollars to a woman who claims to have been molested.

[BOP]

The Associated Press ran a story yesterday headlined, “Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M.”

Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll sued President Trump for allegedly raping her in either 1995 or 1996, she wasn’t sure, she couldn’t remember exactly when it happened, it was a long time ago. Trump skipped the trial. But even still, the jury found that Trump only “assaulted” the author (touched her without permission) and then defamed Carroll after she started accusing him of raping her.

It was a “he said, she said” case. There was no physical evidence, and what evidence there was pretty much boiled down to Caroll’s testimony. Since Trump never testified, the jury never heard his side. So it was more of a “she said” case, actually.

Publicly, Trump has consistently claimed he never even met Carroll. He called the case a scam, a disgrace, and political witch hunt, and vowed to appeal the verdict.

☕️ POTATO BLUES ☙ Wednesday, May 10, 2023 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Tucker's new Twitter show triggers corporate media; San Fran plans to grab guards' guns; another teen turbo cancer death; study shows jabs increase covid chances; Trump not guilty of rape; and more.

www.coffeeandcovid.com

I bet he could have her whacked for a lot less than $5M, and it would send a message.

 

[GURPS]

 

[CPUSA]

Sapidus will be along shortly asking how Christians could support a convicted rapist

That's because Pagans don't understand how forgiveness works.
When you have no moral compass, you have no sense of compassion

 

[CPUSA]

Boy, your handlers sure do a chit job of explaining the nuance of legal cases to you.

While your handlers keep you ignorant to the nuance of The Constitution to you, you sad cuck...

 

[CPUSA]

Didn't this Hag state that she found rape Sexxy?

 

[Hijinx]

She was an advice columnist who had never had sex with anyone since this alleged rape and who needed advice from a professional herself , but never bothered to get it.

It is said you can indict a ham sandwich, well, in New York you can evidently find that ham sandwich guilty also. If you are a republican and former President and you go to court in Washington DC or New York city you had better plan on finding yourself being adjudicated by leftists.

 

[Kyle]

Yeah.

She's got the Bat#### Crazy Eyes going for her.

 

[SamSpade]

The closer I read this - the more and more it's looking like bullchit. I knew from the number of jurors right away this wasn't a criminal case.

I didn't know there was a statute of limitations on rape - I know there's none for murder. But this is a civil case, and as I understand it, the threshhold for a guilty verdict is much lower -

As I read somewhere else - the entire instance reads almost precisely like an SVU episode which ran many years prior to her suit, right down to the actual store and their dressing rooms. She can't recall what YEAR it took place, there's no attendants (and there always are) there's not a single witness (and there would have to be) and there's no physical evidence whatsoever.

Were it anyone BUT Trump - there's no likelihood of a guilty verdict. Period. The jurors would have been - sorry but for 5 million, you're gonna have to do better.

 

[Clem72]

The closer I read this - the more and more it's looking like bullchit. I knew from the number of jurors right away this wasn't a criminal case.

I didn't know there was a statute of limitations on rape - I know there's none for murder. But this is a civil case, and as I understand it, the threshhold for a guilty verdict is much lower -

As I read somewhere else - the entire instance reads almost precisely like an SVU episode which ran many years prior to her suit, right down to the actual store and their dressing rooms. She can't recall what YEAR it took place, there's no attendants (and there always are) there's not a single witness (and there would have to be) and there's no physical evidence whatsoever.

Were it anyone BUT Trump - there's no likelihood of a guilty verdict. Period. The jurors would have been - sorry but for 5 million, you're gonna have to do better.

I'm with you on the no evidence, no witnesses = no crime bit, but my experience more often than not with high end department stores was that they didn't usually have someone working the dressing rooms. Countless times have I sat in front of one waiting for the misses (before cell phones) just twiddling my thumbs in an eerie quiet not seeing employees and few customers.

Its the discount stores that have 9 security tags on each piece of clothing that post guards in front of every dressing room door.

 

[BOP]

The closer I read this - the more and more it's looking like bullchit. I knew from the number of jurors right away this wasn't a criminal case.

I didn't know there was a statute of limitations on rape - I know there's none for murder. But this is a civil case, and as I understand it, the threshhold for a guilty verdict is much lower -

As I read somewhere else - the entire instance reads almost precisely like an SVU episode which ran many years prior to her suit, right down to the actual store and their dressing rooms. She can't recall what YEAR it took place, there's no attendants (and there always are) there's not a single witness (and there would have to be) and there's no physical evidence whatsoever.

Were it anyone BUT Trump - there's no likelihood of a guilty verdict. Period. The jurors would have been - sorry but for 5 million, you're gonna have to do better.

The standard is: Orange Man bad = guilty.

 

[Hijinx]

With Clinton they had semen on the dress.
With Trump--------- Nothing

 

[vraiblonde]

Didn't this Hag state that she found rape Sexxy?

She's largely gross and mentally ill.

YIKES: E. Jean Carroll tweeted a bunch of creepy stuff including 'sex tips she learned from her dog’

twitchy.com

When you look at the women Trump rolled with, then look at this praying mantis, what makes sense is that Trump snubbed her and she wants revenge.

 

[herb749]

The closer I read this - the more and more it's looking like bullchit. I knew from the number of jurors right away this wasn't a criminal case.

I didn't know there was a statute of limitations on rape - I know there's none for murder. But this is a civil case, and as I understand it, the threshhold for a guilty verdict is much lower -

As I read somewhere else - the entire instance reads almost precisely like an SVU episode which ran many years prior to her suit, right down to the actual store and their dressing rooms. She can't recall what YEAR it took place, there's no attendants (and there always are) there's not a single witness (and there would have to be) and there's no physical evidence whatsoever.

Were it anyone BUT Trump - there's no likelihood of a guilty verdict. Period. The jurors would have been - sorry but for 5 million, you're gonna have to do better.

Anyone but Trump the judge would have thrown out the case.