Well…Trump is guilty. Agree?

[OddBeMe]

Agreed.

Nah, he’s innocent

[abc3643]

I don't know the details of the case and I certainly wasn't in the courtroom to hear the evidence so, officially, I have no comment.

Unofficially, I am slightly surprised that Trump sexually abused her; years ago, I would have thought he would be diplomatic enough to control himself.

However, after 50 years of watching him, I've discovered his level of narcissism, self-righteousness to believing he can act with impunity, and the almost complete antithesis of empathy - especially towards people he can't use - has made me no longer shocked by anything he does or says. So I can believe he sexually assaulted her and definitely believe he defamed her - as did the unanimous 9-person jury in this civil trial.

For the record:

The jury in this civil trial consisted of 6 men and 3 women who UNANIMOUSLY determined Trump sexually abused her and defamed E. Jean Carroll.

The jury awarded her $5.0 million:

• $2.0 million for sexual abuse.
• $20,000 for disregarding her rights.
• $1.7 million for damage to her reputation.
• $1.0 million additional for other damages.
• $280,000 in punitive damages.

You can read the verdict form here:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury/1cdce306f192d420/full.pdf

[Leapfrog00]

As someone who was in the foster care system, I saw what sexual assault did to other people. A jury does not find someone guilty of sexual assault, unless there is a good amount of supporting evidence.

Most people never come forward when they are raped or molested because the suspect puts fear into them. Only a small amount come forward.

I don't know myself if he is guilty, but I do know for a fact that there has to be hard evidence to back it up if someone is found guilty.

I'm putting my political views aside and looking at this as a person coming from a history of abuse. In cases like this, where they can't use a rape kit for obvious reasons, there are other ways to get supporting facts.

My opinion means nothing though because trump supporters are going to say he's innocent, regardless of the facts and I'm going to sound bias because that's always the excuse with these people.

[BrookeAZ90]

It is laughable to think that anyone not in that courtroom knows enough to make any kind of educated determination. The anti-Trump folks will say he's guilty and Trump-loving folks will say he's innocent as both sides automatically do in all instances with little to no actual knowledge.

[goaded]

The difference being that one side knows for a fact that the jury that was "in that courtroom" agrees with them. That's not a minor detail.

[Friendlybro79]

@goaded Agreed. It really doesn't matter what anyone thinks. Supporter of his or not. When we think what we think we know to be true is true because we just think it, that doesn't always make it true. Too many people say well I don't think... blah blah... and I'm like yes that's correct you don't think lol. Evidence in a courtroom presented to a jury that can't be disputed what matters lol.

As people we need to stop saying well I feel and I think be more powerful than actual evidence.

[chicken_nugget24]

I don't care what political party or whatever standing anyone has. A person who has been found guilty of sexual assault should not be in power. And yes that goes for all people who abuse power like that.

[Friendlybro79]

100% Now we just need to explain to people the difference between allegations, actual evidence, and then when a guilty verdict comes in. No politicians should be above the law but we can't forget innocent until proven guilty. All politicians go after each other before having evidence. Those conversations should not be made to the public until there is actual evidence and someone gets arrested. This will lead to less confusion.

[exitseven]

A 30 year old case with not a shred of evidence is nothing. No other courtroom in the country would take this case. There was a democrat DA, a democrat attorney, democrat donors who paid ethe legal bills, a democrat jury and Jean Carroll is a nutcase.

Biden is down in the polls and he is about to go down for corruption and they are getting desperate. Trump is putting together a team that will use mail in ballots. ballot harvesting and early and late voting to take advantage of the lax oversight in some of the swing districts. This will level the playing field. They need to find another way.

[abc3643]

That's a bunch of horseshit.
Plenty of evidence was presented.

Furthermore, Trump had a chance to defend himself but didn't and his lawyers called NO witnesses in his defense.

The jury - made up of 6 men and 3 women - UNANIMOUSLY determined Trump sexually abused her and defamed E. Jean Carroll

They awarded her $5 million:
$2.0 million for sexual abuse.
$20,000 for disregarding her rights.
$1.7 million for damage to her reputation.
$1.0 million additional for other damages.
$280,000 in punitive damages.

[msc545]

@abc3643 There was no evidence other than what she said. Pretty damn weak.

[exitseven]

@abc3643 what evidence was presented? No witnesses, no forensic evidence, no videos, no physical evidence of any kind. Jean Carroll could not even remember the date. How could Trump come up with an alibi if she could not remember the date? She was unsure of the year it occurred. If I was assaulted I would remember r at least what year it happened. This was a crowded department store and they could not come up with e en one person that would at least say that they at least saw Donal Trump who is a celebrity in New York in the store. If Trump was not the front runner in the next election this thing never would have seen the light of day.

[abc3643]

Um, there were quite a few witnesses. And, actually, yes, part of the reason there is no video is that one of the witnesses who worked for Bergdoff-Goodman says there were likely no surveillance cameras on the floor at the time where the event took place.

www.politico.com/.../trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179

====
Cheryl Beall
A former employee of Bergdorf Goodman who worked on the sixth floor

WHAT SHE SAID
She testified that on Thursday evenings during the 1990s, the sixth floor of the luxury department store wasn’t very busy, that an attendant wasn’t always present in the lingerie department and that the dressing rooms were sometimes unlocked.

WHY IT MATTERS
Beall’s testimony backed up aspects of Carroll’s account, including that she and Trump found the sixth floor free of customers or salespeople and that Trump led her into an unlocked dressing room.

Robert Salerno
A former employee of Bergdorf Goodman

WHAT HE SAID
He testified that, in the 1990s, Bergdorf remained open late on Thursday evenings and that he didn’t think there were security cameras on the sixth floor.

WHY IT MATTERS
His testimony supported Carroll’s recollection that the alleged assault occurred on a Thursday evening. Trump’s attorneys have sought to raise questions about why Carroll didn’t seek security camera footage from the night in question.

[abc3643]

And the reason why this case is happening now is due to a 2022 New York State law enacted to enable victims of rape whose time limit for criminal charges has passed may sue in civil court.

[supercutebutt]

Fats already admitted he did it. Pay attention, please. :)

[msc545]

The politics of the attorneys is irrelevant. Nobody knows the politics of the jury including you.

[Avicenna]

Legal genius Odd needs to be informed that in a civil trial, you are liable or you aren"t. "Guilty" is for criminal trials.

Then again, leftists do try their best to criminalize their political opponents for not going along with leftists totalitarianism.

[PeanutbutterAnd]

Hey, judge Kavanaugh liked beer in college, and the tard left brought that up.. Only rapists like beer.

[Friendlybro79]

@Avicenna you're correct about guilty being for criminal trials. Now let's cut through what being liable for sexual assault means. It means you committed sexual assault in the eyes of the law. Personally the word guilty in a non lawful way still is applicable. That said you are correct with the legalese of liable or not for civil cases. Him being liable means he's guilty of those things as well.

[Stoner710]

No, it’s between 1995-1996 fall or spring. “Rape is sexual” what about rape fantasies 2019 with anderson Cooper even he didn’t know how to deal with it. It’s New York they would try Trump and find him guilty for Jay walking.

[ShadezMcgee]

Cool. Now let's see if they have the balls to do that to Biden peer Tara Reade.

[Friendlybro79]

Now let's see if they have the evidence... this has nothing to do with balls lol.

[ShadezMcgee]

@Friendlybro79 I say it does. It should be looked into and this was a case presented and coming to the surface before Biden even got elected. Tara Reade deserves to be heard and the trial judged upon the events that happened.

Right up there with Hunter's laptop and the Ukraine money Biden's family had as hush money.

[Friendlybro79]

They're investigating it and if anything can prove his guilt don't you think the Republicans would be all over it. They don't evidence as of now and it's been years looking at this laptop lol. I can't say what's on it because well none of us officially know.

[Friendlybro79]

And you say it does have to do with balls means nothing. Why do they need balls? What's going to happen to the FBI if they find him guilty? Nothing other than they'd be heros for doing their job and saluted for it. The allegiance is to the country not one man

[ShadezMcgee]

@Friendlybro79 when I say balls in this context it comes in the sense they either ignore it or are afraid to do so. Those examples I gave were additional things that could be investigated as well.

Their allegiance SHOULD be to the country, I agree. But if we are to be real I would say it is interesting from before when Trump was elected up until after he left, the smallest things he did be it a comment "grab them by the p*ssy" or something like the Russian Collusion is automatically believed and needs to be investigated. So if that is the case, why the double standard?

[summiter]

I agree and I'm sure he is guilty for a lot more.. he just has not been caught yet.

[Siri137]

Guilty of what? Being a good president? In that case yes, I agree :)

[Friendlybro79]

Wow. So you discount the trials findings? You're saying this is all fake and he's not liable here?

[Siri137]

@Friendlybro79 Well, what were the trial's findings exactly? Do you know? And how has this story been reported on in the mainstream press, who are obviously partisan and don't care about justice at all, but revenge? I'll admit I haven't been following this particular story, and when I wrote my comment above I knew absolutely nothing about it; I thought the question was about that silly prostitute payment scandal once again.

[Friendlybro79]

I know that it's hard to keep up because Trump has messed up so many things so it's easy to be like is this for this lawsuit or the other one lol. This is the one where he was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll. The jury was unanimous in their decision and the jury was a mix of men and women democrat and Republican. I'm not trying to be sarcastic but it will sound it on written text. If you have an opinion without understanding the entire context or actual results of something like this. Google it before saying things like guilty of what being a good president lol. You liked him as president.. that's fair. Fine. This was a civil case that awarded his victim 5 million dollars and he does what? Soon after the verdict he defames her again over what he was just found guilty for opening him up to yet again another lawsuit. Whether you think he was a great president or not he's an idiot who never faced consequences for his actions and believes he is always a victim. Funny how he victimizes people and tries to always turn it around and say nope not me it's all of you. He convinced millions everyone else is lying and not him lol.

[Friendlybro79]

apnews.com/.../trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

Here is one of the thousands of articles explaining the case. This has been headlines so not sure how you can't figure out how you don't know what happened.

This has nothing to do with main stream media the findings in the article above are fact. Do you think they are lying and he was found not liable of these things? If so defend your argument with evidence or just don't have an opinion then. You admit you didn't follow it so why say he's a great president? You don't even investigate the question asked?

The silly prostitute thing is more to do with the fact that he is being tried for 34 felony counts of falsified internal business records regarding the hush money. Not silly to commit 34 felony counts.

[Siri137]

@Friendlybro79 "This has been headlines so not sure how you can't figure out how you don't know what happened."
Well, it could be that this story has NOT been headline news in the country within which I live (NZ), because, you know, WE DON'T ALL LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES!
And why is the question worded the way it is, if he HAS been found guilty as you say? That would constitute a fact, and it wouldn't matter one bit whether or not someone thought, based upon what they knew about this case, whether they thought he was still innocent.
As for the "felonies" regarding his business records and/or payments, as I understand it, most of those are complete BS and barely even register as misdemeanours, and are a complete waste of time in pursuing.

[Friendlybro79]

If you live in NZ and comment how Trump is a good president I figured you live here lol. If you dont live here and didn't follow the trial, don't know which trial the original question is about, then your opinion is not really based in anything factual. This is where people should do research before having an opinion or at least not engage in a conversation which you're ignorant of the topic. Please don't respond with another ignorant uninformed opinion. I also never used the word guilty. I said liable. It was a civil lawsuit. I don't know why I even replied lol

[Siri137]

@Friendlybro79 Trump was the president for four years, during which time we had a horrible prime minister name Ardern. D. Trump WAS a good president, because among other things, he made your nation energy independent to a large degree, brought peace to the Middle East and almost single-handedly did the same for the Korean peninsula, and didn't pay any attention to the deranged Washington hawks who kept on pushing for war with Iran, Russia, and anyone else they didn't like. This story, what's happening now, is simply irrelevant as far as I'm concerned, because to me it seems like just another lame attempt to get Trump out of the way so he can't contest the next election in 2024.
Now, please don't respond with another ignorant, uninformed opinion. You may have not actually used the word guilty... oh wait, you did, when you asked "So you discount the trials findings?" What were the trials findings?
I don't know why I'm even talking to you. Good bye!

[Sevenpointfive]

i'm so disgusted by the democrats. they should be ashamed of themselves.

[abc3643]

The Democrats didn't find Trump liable in this case.
A jury of 6 men and 3 women unanimously did.

[abc3643]

... and they weren't all Democrats.

[Sevenpointfive]

@abc3643 yeah, and I bet all of them were bought

[abc3643]

Apparently, you don't understand the process of voir dire in which case lawyers from all sides have to approve the jurors before a trial can commence.

In other words, Trump's lawyers approved those jurors...

Or are Trump's lawyers "bought" too?

[Jay3344]

@abc3643 exactly juries are selected by both sides out of a pool of potential jurors. So for people to just say the jury was bought or of course a jury in New York would find Trump guilty are just making excuses that are based off nothing

[Sevenpointfive]

@abc3643 so what. both sides approve but which side can buy them? a political party or a broke ex president?

[Jay3344]

I don’t see a point in indulging your arguments. Your frustration seems to be so powerful that it’s causing a degree of delusion. You seem to think because you believe that the jury was bought by a political party. Your words portray this belief as fact despite having no evidence, except that the man tried in court was found guilty and that the court was in New York. Maybe consider the true facts of a thing before arguing that it is corrupt or dismissing it as false. Beliefs are powerful for sure but they are not always correct.

[Friendlybro79]

And I bet if he was found not liable you would have agreed with the courts when it aligns with your paranoid beliefs lol.

[Sevenpointfive]

@Friendlybro79 i think the fact that your beliefs trump mine. that's not the case. you can pick and choose what you want to believe as fact or opinion to align with your beliefs.

[Dargil]

Guilty of being Trump. That's all the swamp needs. Appeal will overturn his conviction.

[LiamJHayden]

Nope. Liable is civil, guilty is criminal. The standards are completely different.

[Friendlybro79]

Yes being found liable on a civil case does mean he is a sexual absuer, in this case. He isn't guilty of it criminally only because the statute of limitations ran out.

[LiamJHayden]

@Friendlybro79 No, it does not mean that at all. Civil is preponderance of evidence, slightly more likely than not is sufficient. Criminally guilty requires beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Friendlybro79]

It technically means it's more likely true than not which is more than slightly more than not sufficient. Sure call it that then he was unanimously voted by a jury of his peers to be more than likely a sexual abuser than not. Not one person doubted the evidence. Hang on to your boy as long as you got him. Father time or prison will be in his near future.

[Friendlybro79]

Nothing pointed that he didn't sexually abuse her.

[LiamJHayden]

@Friendlybro79 You, like most, clearly do not understand the difference between civil and criminal. 50.000000000000001% is enough to win civilly. A 1% reasonable doubt is enough to defeat a criminal guilty. And that she was found untrustworthy by the civil jury on her rape claim screams "reasonable doubt" on any criminal charge.

[LiamJHayden]

@Friendlybro79 He's not my boy, by the way. He's a dumbass, just like you for making that assumption.

[mommymommymommy]

45, was a sexual harrasser, and he lied about it

What else isn't new

[Joker_]

Trump is guilty of making America great again

[msc545]

In this particular case, I don't believe that woman.

[goaded]

Did you see Trump's testimony? He mistook a picture of Carroll, who's "not his type", for a picture of his wife, who presumably is. He doubled down on his Access Hollywood claims and said he's a star.

Look, the justice system's far from perfect, but it does sometimes convict the right person.

[msc545]

@goaded I have no love for Trump, but in this instance, I think the woman lied.

[abc3643]

This wasn't a "He said. She said." trial.

Lawyers for E. Jean Carroll called almost a dozen witnesses including E. Jean Carroll herself.

Trump's lawyers called no witnesses and that includes Trump who wasn't even in the courtroom. Frankly, Trump couldn't take the stand because then my either would have sank his case or perjured himself which __IS__ a criminal act.

TITLE: 11 witnesses testified in Donald Trump’s rape trial. Here’s what they said.
www.politico.com/.../trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179

[msc545]

@abc3643 It was still he said - she said. She lied to her friends and on the witness stand.

[goaded]

Then she's been planning this for thirty years. Seems unlikely.

[msc545]

@goaded I think she planned it when the whole metoo thing began and she needed to and she needed to promote her book. Trump was a perfect target since he has a long history of lying and being nasty toward women. People mostly hate this guy.

[abc3643]

Why would she have lied to her friends... in ___1996___?

One of those two friends who took the stand is Carol Martin. She's retired now, but she is a popular and esteemed former long-time TV anchor at the local NYC CBS affiliate WCBS. Her credibility with that jury anyone old enough to have seen her would be beyond question.

E. Jean Carroll's testimony and those of her witnesses were highly consistent which is why the jury verdict form has...
int.nyt.com/.../full.pdf

======
Battery
Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that...
1. Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll?
NO
2. Mr. Trump sexually abused Ms. Carroll?
YES
3. Mr. Trump forcibly touched Ms. Carroll?
No vote
4. Ms. Carroll was injured as a result of Mr. Trump's conduct?
YES
If "Yes", insert a dollar amount that would fairly and adequately compensate her for that injury or those injuries.
$2,000,000
5. Mr. Trump's conduct was willfully or wantonly negligent, reckless, or done with a conscious disregard of the rights of Ms. Carroll, or was so reckless as to amount to such disregard?
YES
If "Yes", how much, if any, should Mr. Trump pay to Ms. Carroll in punitive damages?
$20,000

======
You can't plan something like that 30 years in advance because that requires oceans of assumptions - that all the conspirators would be alive; that the laws would not change; that Trump would still be alive... et cetera. No, that's not feasible which is another reason why her testimony and that of her witnesses were believed and they were able to shoot down Trump's lawyers in cross-examination.

[abc3643]

FYI, this is likely the real reason why she sued in 2022:
===========
www.nytimes.com/.../...rroll-verdict-campaign.html

On what grounds is Carroll suing Trump for rape?
In 2022, New York passed a law giving adult sexual assault victims a one-time opportunity to file civil cases, even if the statute of limitations has long expired. Carroll subsequently filed a lawsuit, accusing Trump of rape and seeking damages. On May 9, a jury found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.

Why did she also sue him for defamation?
In 2019, Carroll filed a defamation lawsuit against Trump in New York for making disparaging comments and branding her a liar after the publication of her memoir. On Oct. 19, the former president was questioned under oath in the case. That suit is currently tied up in an appeal.

[exitseven]

@msc545. I think that she believes that she was assaulted. She has accused 12 other guys of rape including CBS president LesMoonvies. There wad an episode of Law and Order SUV that portrayed a rape in the same department store. It was almost the exact same story. I think she is just a nut that the democrats somehow talked into doing this. She is like that nut case that testified against justice Cacanaugh. In dact I heard that the both of the go to the same psychiatrist.

[msc545]

@abc3643 She didn't need to plan it 30 years in advance. All she had to do was backdate things a bit and promise her friends a share of the proceeds to go along with her lies.

@abc3643 You keep using the appeal to popularity fallacy in your posts here and it is not persuasive. What the jury form says is not probative, and "consistent testimony" is as much a sign of a conspiracy as it is anything else.

[abc3643]

I keep appealing to reasonableness.
You keep appealing to conspiracy theories.

[msc545]

@abc3643 It would be very close to a conspiracy except the truth is that a lot of women have done things like this. It would not be unusual for a woman to devise this scheme and persuade her friends to lie for her in order to get money. With the courts favoring women, defending something like this would be nearly impossible.

[abc3643]

You wrote:
"It would be very close to a conspiracy except the truth is that a lot of women have done things like this."

I don't disagree.
But that's irrelevant.

In a court of law, the only thing that is relevant are the facts at hand.

You wrote:
"It would not be unusual for a woman to devise this scheme and persuade her friends to lie for her in order to get money. "

I won't disagree here either. In this case, I do disagree. Because the witnesses included people who worked at Bergdoff-Goodman in 1996 - people E. Jean Carroll likely did not know but that her legal team found during their discovery process.

You wrote:
"With the courts favoring women, defending something like this would be nearly impossible."

That's false and the Duke Lacrosse Scandal is an example of that.

Furthermore, in this case, the jury - which had to go through voir dire and thus was approved by Trump's lawyers - consisted of 6 men and 3 women. Don't you suppose at least 1 man might have had the same empathy you and even me and others might have? Nonetheless, the jury was unanimous. This illustrates that, to them, the weight of the evidence was sufficient in their minds that Trump committed sexual assault and defamation.

He'll appeal anyway; he has too. The real question now is what legal team is he going to use? I doubt he will retain this one.

[msc545]

@abc3643 That were no actual FACTS that were corroborated by anyone in this matter. Nobody saw Trump do or say anything to her. Nobody knows when or how she actually met the women who testified.

She lied.

[abc3643]

She lied because you say she lied.
What evidence do you have that she lied?
(I'll answer that: You don't. It was a rhetorical question anyway.)

Besides, 9 jurors believed her and feel accordingly that she deserved $5,000,000.

If you don't like living in a nation with a jury-based judicial system, then move.

I am muting the question.

[msc545]

@abc3643 I don't like living in a Nation where gender determines the outcome of a trial.

[exitseven]

@abc3643 they were not really witnesses. i heard there were witnesses. They were only friends of Jean Carroll who said that Jean Carroll said that she was assaulted by Trump. They were not eyewitnesses. They were just relaying the original story which was never based in fact.

[msc545]

@exitseven absolutely correct. Thank you!

[Quackthulu2]

It’s a start, but still not nearly enough.

[gorydetails]

Liable, not guilty. It wasn’t a criminal trial.

[Friendlybro79]

Liable of sexual abuse means he sexually abused her. We know this was a civil case. He's a sexual abuser and defames people. He's a loser and I hope he gets sued again for defaming E. Jean Carroll immediately after the verdict lol. What an idiot. He was proven he lied in not knowing her , proved he sexually abused her, and defamed her unanimously by a jury that wasn't all democrats or women. Your semantics are hilarious

[gorydetails]

@Friendlybro79 You don't know it's a civil case when you use terms like "guilty". So you're such a moron you think someone should get sued for defamation because they say words you don't like. Your TDS is actually embarrassing at this point.

[Friendlybro79]

You can't be talked to. You're an idiot. You don't you know he was liable for defaming and sexually abusing her. He defamed her immediately again after the verdict. Out of habit people say guilty and not guilty but that's not going to distract from the verdict. He defamed her in the same way he was just found liable for. Lol this isn't about words anyone doesn't like you fool

[gorydetails]

@Friendlybro79 bahaha. defending your self is now defaming someone to you clowns. But don't worry, he'll appeal and it will be overturned. And once again you'll have to cope

[Friendlybro79]

You can't defend yourself by defaming another. Defamation isn't protected free speech.

constitutionallawreporter.com/.../

[Friendlybro79]

Done engaging with your stupidity. Go back to lunch with Putin.

[gorydetails]

@Friendlybro79 lmao. Here's some defamation for you. Go fuck off you piece of shit.