Jury finds Trump sexually abused, defamed E. Jean Carroll
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 май 2023
- The verdict was an undeniable victory for writer E. Jean Carroll, who testified during the trial that former president Donald Trump violently assaulted her and, years later, unleashed further trauma by ridiculing her as a liar once she spoke out. #shorts
Приколы
When he said 'that's my wife' he lost.
except he didn't. she had over 12 different stories. lol moronic braindead braiwashed member of the masses.
No it isnt. That was about a blurry picture that he admitted wasnt clear, and that others admitted wasnt clear. He wasnt definitive and it was ridiculous to allow it in the trial. The judges in NYC are very biased. That city generally leans heavily Democrat and is notoriously corrupt.
That's no doubt stupid of him, but why exactly is it an auto loss?
@JackBlack-qn7us it wasn't stupid, look at my response. The media is misrepresenting the issue.
He lost as soon as the jury was made up of New Yorkers
"Punishable by fines" = "Only illegal for poor people"
Final fantasy tactics was ultra based
You can't get jail time in a civil case.
He was already cleared of criminal charges because there just wasn’t enough evidence. This is just her pressing charges which you can’t get jail time for
This isn’t a “let’s punish Trump” thing, it’s a “give the woman compensation” thing
@@thekingsugar He was not CLEARED of criminal charges. In legal terms, cleared means there was evidence proving his innocence.
The Jury RULED OUT said charges due to a lack of evidence.
Any form of Sex Crimes should immediately blacklist someone from holding any government position for the rest of their life
What?! Are you trying to get the republican party entirely blacklisted?! Because if so then you are a good person! Thumbs up to you!
@@GrahamChapman If you really think sexual assault doesn't go across the isle in the United States you're just useless politically.
Peeing in public is a sex crime
byebye biden then
Not a crime, she was looking for a pay day.
Thanks for mentioning how the right media phrases things like this. Please keep doing that
Lying by omission as a news company should be punishable by law
@@BigRed1595044💀 well goodbye to every news station, such as Fox and CNN
@@BigRed1595044Okay, I hate the bullshit "free speech" argument right wingers make, but that would kill literally every news channel.
@@Deadflower019Yes. That is exactly the point. I want news, I want facts, And to form my own opinions.
@@milokiss8276 It is impossible for a statement of facts to be unbiased, and neutral does not equal unbiased.
Take the war in Ukraine for instance. You cannot reasonably portray both sides of the fight; Ukraine and Russia, as equally justified, and if you do, it is propaganda.
Wait a sec, the guy who bragged about sexually assaulting women got busted for sexually assaulting women?? Well, I, for one, am shocked. SHOCKED.
how shocked
@@SourGummiWyrm69 obviously a SHOCKING amount
Say Tara Reade
“When you’re this rich you can do whatever you want-“ to quote the line you’re talking about.
You mean like how bill clinton raped 5 women? I remember that. Oh and how Biden gropes children? I remember that too!
Oh, but we gotta make that orange man pay! *shakes fist*
This is a civil trial not a criminal one. So all they can do is make him pay money. But he'd spend as much as possible fighting the ruling until it's dropped
And the silly part is he won't pay a dime. Even though his fanbase will raise 2 to 3 times that amount for him.
He cant appeal. He literally said he would appeal no matter the ruling. You cannot premeditate an appeal as it shows youre not even appealing q certain misconduct that happened in the trial.
Civil trial only means the defendant can't file a countersuit for liable or slander.
Oh! And it also means that the proceedings can be made public regardless of the outcome!
You can always apeal.
@@MikeBrin96 yes you can. How the hell can she say she was raped...jury says she wasn't but then somehow finds him liable for sexual assault. She said she was raped. Adding a ton of allegations for the plaintiff just to see if you can get something to stick is bullshit.
One of Prince Andrew’s victims sued him, and I don’t think she got any monetary settlement, but she got something even better. He can never deny that he sexually abused her (when she was a 17 year-d girl).
I wish Carol could’ve added that to her lawsuit.
Nah cuz it never happened
If she did she could literally just sue him montly for breaking that clause, lol
Andrew paid 12 millions pound to his accuser! Seem you only read what you like and ignore the other facts!
@@realsrvbhtngrobviously did other wise he'd haven't been convicted
@@realsrvbhtngrobviously did other wise he'd haven't been convicted
well this aged well.. now it's 83 million!
I kinda love that instead of saying "I would not rape people. It ain't my style" or something
He said
"She's not my type."
Which to me does say he ia willing to force people into such positions if they were his type.
The line of thinking was probably: “even if I wanted to rape someone, she’s not my type”
👀🍿
People mistaking humor for malicious intent shall always make me laugh. Thank you:)
@@johnnybravo2873you really should be avoiding humor during a deposition for a civil lawsuit. Just a thought.
@@Bea-a-deer if that's "humor" that joke cost him 5 million bucks lol
Funny, his wife isn't his type?
Isnt that most rich guys though 😂
Well it was his Ex wife for a reason.
Ex-wife actually and in a photo from 20+ years ago at that she didn't age well LoL 🤣
@@zekecooper6055 Isn't it strange he referred to his ex wife as "my wife"
That actually got used to prove Carroll was his type in the trial
In a civil case you don't need the without a doubt effect. You just have to convince more than half the jury that it possibly happened.
There is no without a doubt standard, in criminal cases they have a beyond reasonable doubt as a standard.
The civil case is preponderance of the evidence and a simple majority. So you get your jury pool from NYC that has been bombarded with anti Trump messages for years and you have an easy win. Even with all the fuckery of the judge not allowing any character witness against the accuser and all kinds of them against the defendant they still did not get the sexual assault finding they wanted.
What is something you would find in a dictatorship, for sure not in a democracy.
@@miriamweller812 well, a democratic option is just more than 50%. It's never 100%. And in a criminal case you need 100% proof without a doubt. Whereas you could be found to be civilly liable for damages that may have been out of your complete control but a percentage of that liability could still fall on your choices and actions.
@@miriamweller812that’s literally what democracy is
@@jacobwright9483 we're not a democracy, we're a republic
Holy shit how many more charges can he get AND avoid jailtime for?!
Please stop eating lead paint. I give you the democratic voter. It was a civil trial honey. Why did your parents not let you read books?
@jwatson181 You republicans literally think he is jesus. I am just a rando Canadian who wants the guy who tried to screw us over locked up for his crimes.
Yeah! I'm definitely more conservative now but I still don't like Trump and things like this are the reason why!
@@keagaming9837 I am not conservative, but I do agree with some things they say, and I miss when the only difference between the parties was purely economical. I hope Nikki Haley can help save the Republican Party, but I doubt it :(
Only had to pay a "small lone" in his eyes 😂
Loan
Laws aren’t laws for the rich, their fees. When you get enough money, you can stop playing by the rules
@@tak4215 thank goodness spell check is here. Lighten up.
OK dipwad. Let's see you turn $1000000 into $1000000000.
Difference between one million seconds and one billions seconds is years.
It pains me to be more knowledgeable on these things than most
It is a fairly small loan
My issue is how can ANY juror claim to be unbiased in that case? I know I couldn’t.
It was still a unanimous decision. Though it was a *New York* Grand Jury.
Easy, jury duty sucks no one wants to be there and either side can disqualify anyone for any reason so its fair to game the system on both sides.
@Cory Young the same judge that approved the fake russia dossier, the same judge that disallowed that information from being admitted into court. Against the same woman that says "r*pe is sexy" ..."I've heard most people think". The same judge that refused to allow DNA testing on the dress... yes totally fair. A NOTORIOUSLY WELL STAFFED extremely high end designer store having NO CUSTOMERS AND NO STAFF ANYWHERE in a place you have to HAVE STAFF UNLOCK A DRESSING ROOM FOR YOU somehow she gets in and with a HUGE CELEBRITY AND NOT ONE COMMISSION motivated sales person was around to see or hear a thing. THe stores CCTV saw nothing. magic that is.. the woman can't remember any details esp when it happened other than an approximate year.. her "witness" had her texts displayed in court by the defense and said that EJ CARROLL has began using accusations of grape as a "lifestyle to live off of" then recanted in court saying those texts were from a time in her life she felt differently about carroll" a time when she wasn't going to ruin the single person democrats hate more than anyone. ... funny that right?
@@RightWingRefiree you know there's both democrats and republicans in every town in every state in the US right?
The democrats just don't make supporting a candidate their entire personality.
@@darkhobo
1.) The likelihood of getting a Republican is astronomically lower in New York. You’d make the same argument about republicans if this case was held in Alabama.
2.) You are absolutely delusional if you don’t think democrats stake their identity on politics. Yes republicans do it too, and I don’t care because that how politics works. There are very little criticisms of one side that doesn’t apply to the other, and identity politics isn’t one of them.
How is it possible to get an unbiased jury for people like trump
True. But how can the unbiased vote for someone whos been convicted ofnthis in good conscience too?
Believe it or not lots of people respect the basic idea of the law and the justice system, even when it's being applied to a particular person they like or hate.
Plus, juries are given extremely specific instructions about what decisions they are making; you're not just going off vibes.
@@williammanning5066 that is… honestly hilarious
Humans are vile, especially with the constant bombardment of propaganda and using hate as a weapon against those you disagree with is rampant in todays society, to think people wouldn’t abuse the justice system for their own benefit is dull.
I have no ill will towards you but I wholeheartedly disagree with what you’ve said
@@williammanning5066except you are.
In a case like this where the only evidence is two people in he said she said if is only vibes.
Honestly imo cases period shouldn't be able to ever convict, or fine someone without actual hard evidence.
Find some people from a third world country that have no idea what America is
How do you confuse someone for your ex? Is that seriously the best excuse he could come up with?
So mistaking someone in a grainy photo 30 years ago proves hrape?
@@potatoman8609 wait how grainy was the picture? I’ll admit I just heard the story on the news. Still though it sounds kinda unbelievable. Oh and let’s not forget that he also said she wasn’t his type but then confuses her with his ex.
@@drguineapig8755 The picture was from the early 80s and the lady's fantasy story is a direct copy from a Law And Order episode from season 2.
So Trump didn't do it, the Jury ruled by literally no evidence just personal opinion on his character. 😮 Kinda messed up
Are you going to cover the 9 accusers who came forward the last two years, against Biden?
they literally havent been on the news except for a handful of interviews where the talking heads basically spoke over them the entire time and called them liars.
They don't believe those women, or even the video evidence of his creepiness.
@@learningtocrash4030 He straight up admitted on camera, in '87, that he 'slept with' a woman who told police he gave her the choice of sex with him, or losing her job and 'destroying her entire life'.
Two weeks later, he denies even that, and the Democrats take it as gospel truth.
Bill Clinton straight up lied about getting sexual favors, and was impeached for perjury in regards to it.
but not one democrat bats an eye at the fact Hillary went from a rally where she said 'all victims should be believed first and always', to speak to the press about how Lewinsky was a liar, and Bill would NEVER look at another woman.
They'd be able to cover it if there was a civil or criminal case against him. The DOJ doesnt indict sitting presidents and they're immune to civil cases while in office. So any kind of coverage by the Post would have to wait until Biden left office.
Course not they mite actually have evidence and witnesses too much work LoL
If they had a case it would be moving forward. Like this case did. Keep trying. Keep failing.
The goal post keeps moving at ridiculous speeds.
"Grab her by the ------" was just locker room talk.
"These accusations were so old they should be thrown out"
And now it's "they weren't even charging him with this stuff first. "
So which one was it?
It was a civil trial he wasn’t “charged” with anything….
@@Kyle68655Way to prove the point buddy
@@Kyle68655 Deflecting: something Kyle Reber did rather than answering the question
@@corsh2715 lol I hope you guys can’t vote, if you don’t know the difference between criminal and civil court… then wow
@@cheesyboygouda it’s not “moving the goalposts” to point out a factually incorrect premise…
He will never pay a dollar, not like he's ever before.
Just like all the other rich and powerfull.
It's insane how uninformed everyone is.
Incredible, even. Everyone saying he was found guilty of something when, in a civil case of this nature, there is no conviction of guilty or non-guilty. It is literally a means to extort and defame people with little to no evidence. Regardless if you think he is actually guilty of it or not.
@@Keys879 I honestly feel like I'm living in clown world now, but everyone is super serious about sticking to the act of clowns
He was found guilty of deformation
@@BilalKhan-kv7ti Defamation.
@@Keys879 there's literally evidence dumbass he was convicted because of it if there wasn't any he wouldn't have paid a dime, also you say about evidence but they said sexual abuse and not rape because of evidence
“What does this mean for him?”
A slight pain in the wallet that’ll be swept under the rug by 3X that amount of money
It's never his wallet. He'll be grifting that money from his Magats without scrupules, and the Magats will be more than happy to pick up this tab.
@@wolfsongmoondancer1428tds
@Wolfsong Moondancer awww, are you still crying over lower taxes, gas prices and grocery bills? Cry some more, Sally, we love it when you get in your feelings
@@wolfsongmoondancer1428 she had no proof, guess what women can lie and she is, after this they need to striking down believe all women laws
@@jarrrr69reasonable people tend to be upset when they see grifters wrap them selves in the flag yes.
Civil, not criminal and a civil conviction only needs a majority, not unanimous like a criminal trial. Plus this was in NY, so in other words this is completely irrelevant
Proof required is far less in a civil trial. It's basically a free for all, say what you want...
plus, they tried to have a "MAGA juror" thrown off because he watched Tim Pool. New York's whole court system is equal to a communist country at this point
Its a civil trial because they know it would not hold up in criminal court.
@@jasziegl8983 No, not in the slightest.
it was a civil trial that he lost.
She was just awarded 83 million in damages for defamation...who knows if he'll pay anything...I hope there is a legal means to extract the funds.
This is the guy the Republican's intens to champion family values.
Yup. That shows they have no values whatsoever.
Americans have terrible ideas of what makes a good politician.
@@brianransom16 thats funny, cause a guy who overcame a stutter still speaks more coherently than mustard boo boo
@@MikeBrin96 wtf is mustard boo boo??? 😵💫😵💫🤣🤣
@@brianransom16
To be honest, you can't exactly fault him for that. I find Joe pretty sad. He was like.. the youngest senator, now, (I think), the oldest president, and he's so old he can't form coherent thoughts. I just wonder how he would be like if he was still at an age where he could function like the regular person.
@@ibelieveingaming3562 its like honeybooboo but a stale crusty old man
@@nuttynutsnutstache if he was still at an age when he could function he'd still be fighting school bus desegregation in the south and praising his KKK mentor Robert Byrd.
Hard to believe anything from someone who writes articles labeled "why do we need men"
Couldn’t agree more
Hard to believe a guy who said he's never met her, and actually met her. Same guy who confused her for his ex-wife in a picture, then stating she's not his type.
Yup just bunch of click bait and more garabge against trump to push orange man bad no vote him. Vote our old senile old man
@@Uridien I like how he pointed out the illegitimacy of this page and you couldn't say one sentence without crying about Trump lmao
@@eyeswydeshut359 Yeah, it's like I mentioned Trump in a video that mentioned Trump.
Sorry for going off topic?
I’d put a lot of money on the fact that no right winger will give this even the slightest bit of thought before concluding that Trump has done nothing wrong
Left vs Right is just funny to watch.
All politicians should be sent to prision
Corruption corruption. Big liars.
Look up who funded Jean e carrols lawsuit and you’ll be in for a big surprise 😂
The guy from LinkedIn? I guess I’m surprised
Statue limitation lifted for 1 year just for this...
@@bigcarl2001 a billionaire buddy of Epstein
@@m.firdausshaharum3860 yup lawsuit filed days after.. must be a coincidence
ok and? how does that change the fact that he abused her
She sued other dudes!!!
omg you mean a woman can be raped more than once? Who knew.
True.
And given a generous donation from some democrats just before claiming sexual assault.
Nope. She _accused_ one other dude, and that dude was… Les Moonves.
If you don’t know who that is, you should really, really, really look him up. Here’s a hint: Carroll sure ain’t the first woman with a story about him, and name-dropping him sure ain’t the slam dunk you think it is.
@@nw42 3 other guys
Add another $83.3M for defaming her again right after this trial wrapped
Your editing and the parsing of this topic is fantastic!
I really hope you are being facetious.
to be honest its a pretty good hatchet job. he cuts out alot but keeps it just straigh enough that someone not up to speed could belive it without any bells going of telling them its bs.
>only evidence was her story
>the greatest evidence against him was confusing her for his wife
>statute of limitations lifted for 1 year
>coincidentally a suit was filed against him a few days later
Totally fair trial boys, keep up the justice system!
Right? None of these brainlets will actually address this though, or the obvious fact it's designed to tank his chance at reelection, especially since the story didn't come out:
-When it happened
-When he ran
-When he won
Or
-When he left office
Amazingly coincidental!
@@therobustempyrean1436 they are pathetic toolbags for the dominant government/corporate system. Anything and everything that goes against the system they will die for like sheep.
Complete sham trial
These people keep leaving out that he made absolutely no effort to put up defense against against this allegation because he insisted it’s just that false
To be honest, there was no defense he could put up. No way to prove a negative. It didnt happen, how do you prove it didnt happen 30 years later? Theres no evidence since it didnt happen lol
And sadly no video of the dressing room area that far back.
They came to that conclusion without the evidence of the coat she herself said she was graped in. The judge also refused to allow other evidences of character.
Nothing would be on it at this point, one wash and it's useless. Also charictor assassination of the victim is classic shit so of course it wasn't allowed.
He refused to submit DNA until the trial had begun.
@@Judithica Why would he? You know that whole "You have the right to remain silent" Miranda Right? It goes beyond just sitting in a squad car. Never give them anything.
@@Keys879 except after the discovery phase? Because that's when he changed his mind. Also, Miranda rights are for criminal Cases, not guaranteed and also not part of civil cases where denials can be used as adverse inference, like pleading the fifth.
@@Judithica Miranda Rights only apply when you're being arrested. The point was to suggest that in any case, not giving the opposition too much to use against you is a wise idea.
The judge disallowed testing the dress, because it would "influence the jury"
You’ve been played. The dress was tested, DNA was found from an unidentified male, and Trump spent *three years* fighting requests to submit a DNA sample. When he finally agreed, it was with a bunch of ridiculous conditions. The judge decided that Trump’s behavior showed that he wasn’t serious and was just using it as a tactic to delay and derail the trial.
WTF! NEEDS Disbarred IMMEDIATELY!!!
As evidence naturally does.
@@RowdyBoy82 lmao
That's not what happened. They tested the dress, found a man's DNA, and hounded him for 3 years while he dodged it. He only offered his DNA after discovery and the court thought it was another ploy to hold the court up longer, like how at the end he said he would testify, they gave extra time for him to file for it, and he never did.
But they found no evidence of sexual assault but found liable for sexual abuse? How that work ?
Probably different legal definitions. Like the difference between murder, homicide and manslaughter.
The rewrote the law and she filed the suit the following day seeing how the law now would cover her claim. Red state justice against Blue state justice at this point.
He was found guilty in spite of the lack of evidence because he's orange man.
@NoodleDoodle Carroll’s team did a DNA test of her dress, which found DNA from an unknown man, and then Trump spent three years fighting requests to submit a DNA sample. Trump had three years to provide what would have been exonerating evidence, yet fought it tooth & nail.
It's a civil trial in a democrat run state, in a democrat run city, with a democrat judge, and a demkcrat jury. They were never going to let him off without paying some money regardless if there was evidence or not.
i find it odd that he’s being directed on all these charges as soon as election season is about to start.
This was 3 years in the making and he has had I believe 40 separate allegations since bush
That's why he said he was going to run so much earlier than people usually do.
Get through all the carp and tire them out before election time.
Smart play
Found innocent three times in criminal court. Found guilty in civil court. Does anyone else see a problem here? We live in a banana republic.
Reality confuses uneducated children like you.
None of the libs do, you know how that goes.
He wasn’t indicted or found not guilty. Innocent isn’t even a possibility in the court if law lmao
@@AnarexicSumo okay... well the current seditious lie of an indictment is so Fn weak, they already made an offer to drop all charges in exchange for not running in 2024 because this was never about justice. This is brazen nazi persecution to prevent Trump from holding office. The DNC are Fn nazis and apparently will do anything to remain in power.
Trump was never a threat to America, he is a threat to our corrupt government's power hold and warhawk profits.
Civil courts have a lower standard for evidence.
Do you know what I don’t understand there’s no evidence how was he charged with anything?
Civil case not a criminal one
@@chakradarrat8832 so if my launch a civil case against you with no evidence, I could still get a pay out of $5 million
@@Troollls depends on a lot of stuff
@@Troolllsdepends on the mood of the jury. That’s all there is to it in cases like this
@@yudistiraliem135 so if I got a jury that hated my guts but had no evidence then I could owe someone 5 million
Why was the only evidence her story?
Cause that's all they had and her story mite even be plagiarized go figure
@@zekecooper6055 well not so much plagerized but reused, she accused Les Moonves of the same thing. Yeah you read that right, as in Ex-CEO of CBS Les Moonves.
Well, there was also the DNA evidence on her dress. But Trump fought against providing a DNA sample for three years, until after the discovery phase had passed.
@@AgentExeider I mean, she said that Moonves assaulted her, but that’s kind of where the similarities between the two stories end.
@@nw42 that’s weird considering during this trial he offered for dna testing to compare to the dress and h to a judge denied his request.
I find it preposterous that in the American legal system you can be found "civilly guilty" for what is essentially a criminal/felony accusation, without actually having the prerequisite success of criminal conviction.
If an act constitutes a sexual offence, which societally is incredibly frowned down upon, why aren't all types os sexual offences seen as criminal? And supposing if it is criminal, and thus resulting in a prison sentence, should civil liability even be allowed? Once imprisoned the guilty party has no means of upholding financial obligations.
Lastly, if you can successfully hold someone financially liable for a sexual offence, without the prerequisite criminal conviction, doesn't that open up an avenue for litigious abuse for financial gain on the accusers side?
Am I stupid, what am I missing here?
Lol they said there’s nothing to prove the sexual assault
...except witnesses, his own words and more witnesses.
@@Judithica the jury said that he defamed her when he said that the thing the jury also said didn’t happen didn’t happen. There was no rape
@@steveblankenship7643 rape has a legal standard but sexual assault was found by the jury and evidence.
This took place in a busy dept store, in a dressing room where others would be coming and going, and no one heard anything. YEH, RIGHT!!!
You ever been in a busy dept store? They're pretty loud places. And most decent people specifically don't go checking out who's in the dressing rooms. I have no trouble believing it could go entirely unnoticed.
@Desk Fan things that didn't happen for a thousand alex.
@@ynotdrewans4957 ???
People dont get raped?
Jesus mate, it's not that implausible, sadly a lot of people get raped and molested in so many places
@Desk Fan ya, if it did happened I doubt you would be so willing to talk about it. But like most antitrumpers, you gotta make shit up to be a victim...kinda of sick, and you ought to be ashamed.
@@ynotdrewans4957What the hell.
What’s really weird is she’s made other accusations against men like this but what is really REALLY weird is that her story about Trump assaulting her in a lingerie dressing room at Bergdorfs is almost an exactly the same as a storyline from Law and Order SVU. Things that make you go hmmm.
That and she finds "R@PE S3XY"
The “men like this” was actually just one man, Les Moonves. If you don’t know who that is, you should really take a minute to read up on him. Carroll wasn’t the only person to make accusations about him, not by a long shot.
Not sexually abusing her. He's convicted of battery and defamation of a woman who claimed he "hurt" her 100 years ago. Well, it might as well be since the statue of limitation had run out on these allegations. He claims he never met her and doesn't know her.
The better question is how could the jury clear him of rape and sexual assault, yet still say he sexually abused her. Dude is a douche, thay verdict just makes no case.
Thats cause she had zero proof of anything he will win in appeals cause she lying through her teeth
Civil cases allow character evidence, basically meaning “if you act like ur guilty thats evidence” (this is super duper simplified ofc) but he basically just lied which made him look guilty
Maybe, the lack of physical evidence like rape kit or statue of limitations for rape charges.
@@JeremiahDouglas yeah just another grifter hungry for that sweet book deal.
@xenosayain1506 Cause theirs a difference between rape sexual assault and sexual abuse I think would be the reason
I wonder if any other politicians are doing things like this lmao
Lol politicians are committing horrible crimes all the time. Even kidnapping minors and trying to rape them. Democrat of course.
I've no doubt there are... the difference is what sort of consequences that they're going to face based on which political party they're a part of.
@@Skydron if any of them ever face anything
Like Tara Reede?
Of course the Washington Post leaves out that she couldn't remember what year this happened in
And that is relevant because...
If you ask anyone about an event ~30 years ago, remembering the exact year is fonna be difficult.
Do you rember year and day of every single horrible life event that happened to you? Most people don't, most people indeed actually supress the memory as much as possible.
@@hunterblane610 not a rape, you clown.
@@nograe yes. The day I enlisted. The day I went to Afghanistan, the day I came back, major deaths. You all are full of shit and you know it
@@nograe suppress the memory into a book? Right. Then go on the "respect my privacy" media tour?
You forgot to mention a jury in New York. 😂😂😂
And you think there aren't republicans in New York? He literally had the opportunity to pick his jurors
@Bespoke Penguin What percentage of New York do you think are Republican? 🤣🤣🤣 He doesn't pick his jury alone. The platinff has to sign-off on it. This will not work on me.
@@juansuarez705 46% looking at polling statistics. Also that’s not how jury selection works. Basically anyone who voted against him can be selected off and the plaintiff doesn’t sign off on anything, only the Judge and defense attorney. He was found guilty of sexual battery and defamation. Next he’ll be found criminally guilty for stealing top secret documents including nuclear secrets. After that he’ll likely get found guilty for threatening the life of the governor of Georgia for refusing to alter election results and again for trying to get his vice president murdered for refusing to change the vote. So strange to idolize criminals and traitors.
@AnarexicSumo This is how confused leftists' minds are. No, voting against him is not a criterion to get off serving for jury duty. The actual vote count was 86.74% Democrat and 12.25% Republican. This is an example of someone who has an elementary understanding but think they are an expert. This is a classic case of the Dunning Kruger effect. It's an embarrassment how far the leftists have gone and are unable to recognize how they are literally prosecuting their political opponents. This is the kind of thing that happens in a banana republic. You should be ashamed.
@@juansuarez705Most corporate executives are republicans, New York has republicans, mostly living in the more affluent parts of New York
She also had other witnesses who described similar assaults and two people she told within a day of the event. And then, there's the tapes of how he gets to do this because he's a star.
Sure, because women dont gang up to lie for each other...
Despite the unlimited amount of cases that can be pointed out where they do.
But just look at the Kavanaugh accusations where some women admitted they lied about his abuses just so they could support Ms Ford.
Hearsay is useless for a reason. We have no way to prove that they were told at that time.
By the way, at least one person who testified for her said first that they didnt believe her and it didnt happen, but changed their mind later.
And none of the other women had anything provable either. Its all so convenient the timing of all of their accusations also. As the Dems have been pulling out all the stops to get him to stop running.
And this isnt even new for Dems. They have been using rape as an allegation against Republicans at least since Clarence Thomas when he was being nominated and they do it a lot. Always ridiculous unprovable outlandish claims.
Nope he said they will let you do because you are famous. If you don't think that is correct may I introduce you to the massive legions of starfuckers out there.
They couldn't even place him at t the scene and let's not forget that New York Lifted their statute of limitations laws for one year and one year only to allow this case. Doesn't that just scream equal protection violation?
Let's be real this is a kangaroo court drummed up because their are a lot of people who don't like Trump and are desperate to try to get something on him and are convinced that he must be getting away with something so violating the law in order to tag him with something is considered acceptable. Ironically this desperation to stop him has only made him fans. That is why I am going to vote for him. Any one who is hated by so many corrupt insiders tells me that he is the man for the job (Plus he was actually good at running the nation and surprisingly at diplomacy as well)
@@Snipergoat1 "I don't even ask"
You Literally can't even admit to the stuff caught on tape that he doesn't deny but I'm supposed to believe all your other bullshit excuses, Good try But victim blaming got old after the Weinstein conviction.
A little coincidental she filed the suit the day after they placed that law into the books lol.
Refused to let them do DNA testing on her dress that she kept,. What a Fraud
@@bryanmcfadden4071 They *did* DNA test the dress, and found traces of an unknown man’s DNA.
Trump avoided submitting a DNA sample for *three years,* and when he eventually appeared willing he attached a bunch of conditions to it, so the judge found that it was yet another attempt to delay & disrupt the trial.
“His conditional invitation to open a door that he kept closed for years threatens to change the nature of a trial for which both parties now have been preparing for years. Whether Mr Trump’s application is intended for a dilatory purpose or not, the potential prejudice to Ms Carroll is apparent.”
It’s a “little coincidental” that she went after her attacker once the law allowed her to go after her attacker?
@Nathan Winant
to be fair the timing isn't coincidental that she filed within a year of a law giving you a year to file passed
@@nw42 little coincidence she finds gr@pe sexy and her story matches a episode of law and order: SVU a little 2 closely
They didn't have evidence for rape sp they gave him sexual abuse??
That just means they had evidence something sexual happened, but it can be very hard to prove rape. If she never got pregnant and didn't get swabbed or whatever right after, and there was no one watching, then there would be no evidence of rape.
Its all he said she said...
@@theduckyninja1086exactly. And the problem with a lot of sexual crimes is that people can be traumatized and not report it for a very long time... at that point most of the evidence is gone
@@theduckyninja1086 no they didn't that's why people are pissed miss "r@pe is sexy" is getting $5 million for ripping off law and order SVU episode
So what is evidence that he did it ?? I can not find any
Confusing someone with his wife. How is that evidence for anything ?
He was found guilty of Libel, not the assault
Lets be real she just wanted money
She wanted money and the Democrats want him gone. It was a match made in Hell.
If trump was democrat you wouldn’t have said that
Let’s be real
@@elliot20 If Trump was a democrat there would never have been any accusations. She would have been silenced to cover for him. But regardless what we have here is not a Repiblican vs Democrat problem. We have a career politician and deep-rooted corruption problem.
Wait until you learn a law was bent for a year to open a window just long enough to let this circus happen. Then it was presented in NY in front a biased judge.
When did this happen? can't even narrow it down to a month.
Where did it happen? At a store where you get assigned an assistant to help you shop. Not hat day though, guess they were on lunch for both of them.
Any witnesses spotting a man included in rap songs walking in, or out? Nah.
Carroll even said those changing rooms were typically locked and the assistant unlocked them. Must have been a free for all that day.
How would you even defend yourself against this mystery day with zero witnesses?
For one thing, you could submit a DNA sample to prove that you aren’t a match for the unidentified male DNA on the dress she wore that day. That’d be a pretty good defense! Yet trump fought against doing that for three years 🤔
if he didn't actually do it then he shouldn't be paying a dime
more expensive to fight it likely...
@@leanercleaner698 no way is more than 5 mil to fight it. Plus, if she's doing it just for the cash then it would be way more effective to fight it even if it was over 5 mill. Trump just knows what he did is indefensible
Someone swerved and crashed their car into my car in my lane. A witness says I swerved over and crashed into them. I had to pay for most of the damages. Paying money dosent always mean your guilty in some cases.
Of course he shouldn't. But when the courts are rigged against you, you don't have much choice.
@Bennett Bush Ok, but please tell me how you can see that the testimony of two people seems more trustworthy than one. Not saying you did it, but if the witness saw it like, that seems way more believable.
Can you tell me what day, month or year this assault happened?
The fact you can get found guilty for something with absolutely zero evidence is crazy
Na; pretty normal in civil cases like this for guys; sad but true. All the women have to do is make the claim, and the burden of proof is so low for evidence and all you really need is a jury majority.
There was actually a fair amount of evidence, including DNA evidence, but a lot of media outlets don’t want you to know that.
@@nw42 Evidence presented included testimony from Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin (who both said Carroll told them about the alleged incident shortly afterwards), a photograph of Carroll with Trump in 1987,[a] testimony from Natasha Stoynoff and Jessica Leeds (who both had previously accused Trump of sexual assault), and footage from the Trump Access Hollywood tape as well as his October 2022 deposition.[b].I dont see anything about dna evidence
nw42 trust you bro 🤡🤡
DNA old 20+ years 🤡🤡🤡 she held semen in refrigerator and just when he became president she went to court lol 😆😂🤣 instead of going to court police when she was abused bruh but nah she was paid for it now to ruin his image paid by Biden and other corrupt politicians friends of Epstein kids
Omg I hadn't seen the clip where he mistakes her for his wife lmaooooo that guy is such a clown...
He skipped over most of the facts of the case. It's actually kind of concerning that everyone is doing this. It took me like 2 hours to find out what actually happened during the suit.
Anybody else think that's weird?
why do you think. this post is from the washington post. guess which side of the aisle they lick the boot of?
facts and journalistic integrity dont matter for these guys.
There’s a Wikipedia article that lays it out in a pretty neutral, straightforward fashion. “On this date, Carroll claimed this” “On this other days, Trump said that” and so on.
To your point, I think it’s sad but I don’t think it’s weird. It takes a few minutes to lay out all of the details, and most media outlets don’t take that much time with _any_ case. And of course, some media outlets care more about catering to their viewers biases than informing them (we know this is true about Fox, for example, from the Dominion lawsuit.)
Apparently the better alternative is a guy that chases children.
Yeah, Trump is bad but Biden is definitely way worse!
You should see how many settlements this man has paid out of court for incidents involving children in his hotel.
When evil has money, nobody is safe or happy.
The massive friend of Jeffrey Epstein had issues with children color me shocked
with NO EVIDENCE AT ALL ....
Audio of trump admitting to sexual assault and a testimony saying that he did is enough in civil court.
@@workingbum omg, there is no audio of Trump admitting anything and he never admitted to anything in a deposition ...
Imagine lifting the statue of limitations just for this 😂
Yup, this is completely a set up political attack...and all it did was boost Trump's numbers. LOL
"You might hear some right-wing news outlets saying the jury rejected the rape case." Proceeds to show why they rejected the rape allegations - because there was no evidence for it.
Also, since when is saying someone is "not my type" considered defamation? Literally every person alive who has broken up with someone could be dragged to court if that's the precedent we're setting.
The defamation part was because he said she made it up to boost sales, not that she was unattractive to him
@@rayh.8456 Well, I wouldn't exactly say he's wrong in that regard. She didn't come forward when it first happened. She didn't come forward when MeToo laws went into place, and she didn't come forward when other women came forward with allegations. Instead, when she finally did come forward, she didn't report it to police but instead published it in her book.
@@cowboycurtis2229 hahaha report to police you’re funny
@@Blue_910 that's who you report gr@pe too so they can investigate and charge the gr@peist
If it happened more than a decade ago, you usually won’t get much of a case in many instances…
Civil trial not criminal. Burden of proof is different. Far easier to prove a civil case instead of a criminal case. Also 3 hours of deliberation for the jury? That jury knew the verdict before the trial began.
Sounds like its just for money. Why wouldn't she take him to criminal court? Unless your not allowed to
She had zero creditable evidence and couldn't PROVE they were in the same store at same time or even what day it happened or month for that matter
@@zekecooper6055 alright then she just wants to defame and get money from trump I'm assuming?
Just remember that they changed the statute of limitations to be limitless right before this happened.
Yep had to pull something out they @$$ cause they keep failing to actually get him on anything they accused him of they desperate
I wonder how much bais against or fir trump from the jury played into this
Funny how they made a court case a jury trial on something so specific…
NY had to make a special law last year just to take this to court, there were no witnesses, the judge allowed all of her lawyer's motions, and none of his. It will absolutely be tossed on appeal.
Not only did he lose on appeal he now has to pay her more money.
@@DeniseDDS Trump's appeal hasn't been submitted yet. Are you mixing up the NYC attack on Trump Enterprises?
So.....there was no hard evidence, but he was guilty....right.
I know! It’s not like we have a tape of Trump admitting to sexually abusing women or anything.
So you don’t think about shit before you comment do you?
@@robertmurphy6566 If someone is run over by a a Ford F150, you don't convict some random guy who owns one, you need physical evidence to testimony that it was that SPECIFIC one. I mean it's not like people are presumed innocent until proven guilty...oh wait, they are.
@@MerryMrMassacrethis isn't the same thing if someone says he sexually abuse women this is a very great reason to suspect from him when someone accuse him with sexual abuse
@@mr.dudbud4551proof he admitted it?
Just cuz you keep getting away with crimes doesn't mean you're not a criminal just means they haven't caught you yet .
This is a civil case, the use of the word "guilty" is about the most disingenuous thing I have heard from the propaganda, and that's saying something. Also this proceeding took place in NY state so anyone who is paying attention knows how fraudulent this all this. The propaganda will drop this where it stands and not cover the inevitable end result when he wins in higher courts and financially punishes all involved.
Please make a video about the Biden bribery scandal
You mean the one you still have no evidence for?🤣
Oh yeah the bribery scandal where the only witness is a woman who died 5 years before the bribe allegedly took place? The scandal where republicans are still begging people to come forward with evidence? The one the FBI already deemed false years ago?
Hmm waits over 30 years no criminal charges were filed against him she just sued him for money, yeah she's totally believable.
Right before election season
Stormy should have asked for more 💰
Just a reminder this is the chick that described r@pe as sexy and made Anderson cooper visibly uncomfortable with how she was describing it
They also disallowed exculpatory evidence and it's a civil trial. They'll indict a ham sandwich there just like in grand juries.
They don't care. They want it corrupt.
How about you tell us her story and the evidence of it? Wouldn't be because there is zero evidence and her and the story are BS?
Her story is an EP of law and order SVU LoL 🤣
Gotta love how she waited until now to tell everyone.
it will be tossed when he appeals it
God bless Donald Trump for 2024 !
So instead of going to law enforcement she wrote a book?
Ya almost like its bull.....
The elephant in the room... Was there any evidence for this? police report?, witnesses?, DNA? blue dress?
What was the jury smoking?
$5M -> Now 27/01/2024 $83.3 M.
She changed her story like twelve times and said on one interview it wasnt even sexual. The jury found him NOT GUILTY of rape, so they made him pay 5 million in damages
But they found him guilty of sexual abuse?
@@mysidianrabite7826 Due to lack of evidence.
@@mysidianrabite7826 she said she was raped. Which is it
@@stevenp25100 That's what the jury found. Ask them.
Just to be clear, they couldn’t find him guilty of anything, not because of a lack of evidence, but because it was a civil trial. *It was not a criminal trial.* It takes a preponderance of the evidence (which was apparently fairly substantial) to be able to hold him liable. It isn’t the same thing as saying he is guilty. Though her testimony and other evidence along side multiple allegations and admissions would likely also support a guilty verdict for one of his many crimes. In this case, the jury found him liable - not the same thing as guilty - for sa as well as defamation.
This is all in the name of not getting him to run again. Just another witch hunt.
Fine with me. He doesn't deserve to be in office, anyway. Neither does Biden, though.
In fact, we SHOULD be going on a witch hunt for like 80% of our elected "leaders."
Can't be a witch hunt when the accused is a witch
@@jasonbolding3481 what? Mite want to re-read your post their buddy LoL 😅
@@jasonbolding3481 Average leftist IQ at full display here folks
Who watching after trump ordered to pay 83 mil??? 2024 ticket -->
So you telling me they Saul Goodmaned him
Ok now do snffy joe
MAGA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👍🏻😎
Trump 2024 🇲🇾🇲🇾🇲🇾🇲🇾🇲🇾 owned them libtards
You are implying that it used to be great...
@@juliusdauksys2183 making america great again means getting rid of awful trade deals and replacing them with smart logical trade agreements. It means not relying on China for so many goods when American workers can be producing the same products. It means drilling for oil and not relying on foreign oil therefore keeping gas affordable for Americans. It means making other countries pay their debts so that we can once again become a rich nation. It means teaching our kids math reading science history economics etc instead of indoctrinating our youth making them focus on pronouns and race and gender and anything else that's a waste of time that won't help them compete against other countries. It also means not being woke. It means a dominant military like we had in the 40's. It means little inflation and affordable goods because of low taxes. The list goes on and on. Making this country great again also means making it great for you and your family. This is President Trump's goal for this nation. No race. No prejudice. No discrimination. Great for all Americans. MAGA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👍🏻😎
@@juliusdauksys2183 you saying it wasn't one of the worlds superpowers with a booming economy and industry
@@zekecooper6055 yeah, the place where the healthcare, public transport and tax systems are all garbage
So the evidence was "preponderous" meaning it couldn't be verified but the jury thought it was "more likely than not" but still not proven true. How is that not OPINIONATED??? I thought juries were supposed to focus on the facts.
After everything thats happened recently, can we say anything is true anymore?
We all know that a lot of people have it in for Trump, especially those in power. I cant trust anything they say about Trump anymore.
Tell yourself whatever you need to. Bush W was an extremely disliked Republican president. And yet, no charges were every filed against him.