Enjoy your kangaroo courts going forward. They obviously have your stamp of approval.

Antoninus said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

There were not 12 peers.

---

Elitism rears it ugly head.

---

Irony rears it's ugly head.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Donald Trump wants to be the presumptive Republican nominee and we’re talking about $83 million in damages. We’re not talking about fixing the border. We’re not talking about tackling inflation. America can do better than Donald Trump and Joe Biden.

— Nikki Haley (@NikkiHaley) January 26, 2024

---

It's not what people want to hear when they see injustice. But you can't deny she's right.

bobbranco said:

---

Enjoy your kangaroo courts going forward. They obviously have your stamp of approval.

---

Trump is certainly going to be in quite a few of them going forward

93MarineHorn said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

I didn't see those. Nor do I have the time to go through real-time tweets. Please provide a legal summary if you know of one.

Btw, if you are Trump and trying to argue that you sexually assaulted her, but that wasn't rape--that distinction isn' particularly meaningful to me. Although we already know that it means zero to his supporters.

---

If you're Carroll and you're trying to argue that Trump is guilty of assault, you ought to be able to provide the date it happened without changing your story when it's shown you were lying.

Why do YOU think Trump is guilty? What would you base that decision on? You libs on this thread got NOTHING and you know it. Play semantics and keep deferring to some liberal kangaroo court, it's all you've got. This travesty came about because of weak minded, emotionally driven partisans that don't give a damn about justice, only getting Trump. It's pathetic.

---

I have no personal opinion or basis of judgment of whether he should be civilly liable for sexual assault. I only know that a jury held him liable for doing so and defaming her. And then Trump decided that was not enough and he must make the very same kind of statements he was just held liable for, which set up this latest big payday. I guess he's too chicken to try it again. That's all I know.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Carroll originally came out with her story in 2019, detailing the alleged incident, claiming that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s: "Carroll said Trump followed her to a fitting room at the store, shoved her against a wall, pulled down her tights and, 'forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his ***** halfway or completely, I'm not certain inside me.'"

---

Travesty of justice that this bat **** crazy old lady sniffs a courtroom with this.

Travesty of justice that jury awards damages for defamation and repetitional repair to an old lady driving around in a Subaru painted to look like a Gateway computer box.

One of the wildest cases of all time!

---

For what reason does a woman who writes a sex advice article for Elle end up in a department store dressing room with an adult male who is not her husband in the first place? Was she simply lost looking for the bathroom?

shiftyandquick said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

I didn't see those. Nor do I have the time to go through real-time tweets. Please provide a legal summary if you know of one.

Btw, if you are Trump and trying to argue that you sexually assaulted her, but that wasn't rape--that distinction isn' particularly meaningful to me. Although we already know that it means zero to his supporters.

---

If you're Carroll and you're trying to argue that Trump is guilty of assault, you ought to be able to provide the date it happened without changing your story when it's shown you were lying.

Why do YOU think Trump is guilty? What would you base that decision on? You libs on this thread got NOTHING and you know it. Play semantics and keep deferring to some liberal kangaroo court, it's all you've got. This travesty came about because of weak minded, emotionally driven partisans that don't give a damn about justice, only getting Trump. It's pathetic.

---

I have no personal opinion or basis of judgment of whether he should be civilly liable for sexual assault. I only know that a jury held him liable for doing so and defaming her. And then Trump decided that was not enough and he must make the very same kind of statements he was just held liable for, which set up this latest big payday. I guess he's too chicken to try it again. That's all I know.

---

So, you've got nothing? No opinion on whether her case has merit? No need to question any of it, right? Carry on comrade, you're playing your part well.

MASAXET said:

---

ShaggySLC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

Can't believe anyone is defending the judge and jury in this. Crazy the judge can twist it to mean whatever they want.

---

And what if what you are responding to never actually occurred?

---

I'll trust Hawg. The whole thing is just as disgusting as the Kavanaugh hearings.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

bobbranco said:
Enjoy your kangaroo courts going forward. They obviously have your stamp of approval.

---

Trump is certainly going to be in quite a few of them going forward

---

When the sheep don't question it and are all in favor of injustices for those they hate, why shouldn't they keep bringing bs charges until Trump's in the grave. They've already lost all credibility with half the country and the other half could care less.

From one of Carroll's own pleadings, motion to dismiss Trump's counterclaim.

Quote:

---

At the end of the two-week trial in Carroll II, on May 9, 2023, the jury deliberated for approximately two and a half hours. On the first count of battery, the jury was asked to evaluate whether Trump had, by a preponderance of the evidence, committed an ASA predicate sex offense, thereby reviving Carroll's claim. See C.P.L.R. 214-j. Consistent with the parties' proposals, the jury was presented with three possible ASA predicates under New York's criminal code: rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching. Carroll II, ECF 174. The Court instructed the jury to address each predicate in that order until they found that Trump's conduct fit one of those offenses, if at all. Id. The jury answered "no" on rape and "yes" on sexual abuseand it awarded Carroll a total of $2.02 million in damages on that claim

---

Quote:

---

As the Court instructed the Carroll II jury, under the New York Penal Law, rape requires proof that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Carroll II Trial Tr. at 1416. "Sexual intercourse" is defined as "any penetration, however slight, of the ***** into the vaginal opening." Id. at 1417. Sexual abuse, by contrast, similarly requires proof that the defendant subjected the victim to sexual contact and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Id. at 1418. "Sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either person." Id. "Sexual part" is defined as "an organ of human reproduction." Id.; see People v. Blodgett, 37 A.D.2d 1035, 1036 (3d Dep't 1971).

---

LINK

Despite the definitions within NY statutory law, the judge deemed "digital penetration" to be rape.

jrdaustin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Carroll originally came out with her story in 2019, detailing the alleged incident, claiming that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s: "Carroll said Trump followed her to a fitting room at the store, shoved her against a wall, pulled down her tights and, 'forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his ***** halfway or completely, I'm not certain inside me.'"

---

Travesty of justice that this bat **** crazy old lady sniffs a courtroom with this.

Travesty of justice that jury awards damages for defamation and repetitional repair to an old lady driving around in a Subaru painted to look like a Gateway computer box.

One of the wildest cases of all time!

---

For what reason does a woman who writes a sex advice article for Elle end up in a department store dressing room with an adult male who is not her husband in the first place? Was she simply lost looking for the bathroom?

---

I don't know .. i guess the story is that she was young and impressionable. Teflon Don somehow tricked her into modeling underwear for him inside a dressing room.

A real rookie mistake it took E Jean 30+ years and the State of New York changing the law for her to come to finally terms with.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Carroll originally came out with her story in 2019, detailing the alleged incident, claiming that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s: "Carroll said Trump followed her to a fitting room at the store, shoved her against a wall, pulled down her tights and, 'forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his ***** halfway or completely, I'm not certain inside me.'"

---

Travesty of justice that this bat **** crazy old lady sniffs a courtroom with this.

Travesty of justice that jury awards damages for defamation and repetitional repair to an old lady driving around in a Subaru painted to look like a Gateway computer box.

One of the wildest cases of all time!

---

For what reason does a woman who writes a sex advice article for Elle end up in a department store dressing room with an adult male who is not her husband in the first place? Was she simply lost looking for the bathroom?

---

I don't know .. i guess the story is that she was young and impressionable. Teflon Don somehow tricked her into modeling underwear for him inside a dressing room.

A real rookie mistake it took E Jean 30+ years and the State of New York changing the law for her to come to finally terms with.

---

She was 52 at the time.

Quote:

---

digital penetration

---

....and now I have a name for my techno band.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Carroll originally came out with her story in 2019, detailing the alleged incident, claiming that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s: "Carroll said Trump followed her to a fitting room at the store, shoved her against a wall, pulled down her tights and, 'forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his ***** halfway or completely, I'm not certain inside me.'"

---

Travesty of justice that this bat **** crazy old lady sniffs a courtroom with this.

Travesty of justice that jury awards damages for defamation and repetitional repair to an old lady driving around in a Subaru painted to look like a Gateway computer box.

One of the wildest cases of all time!

---

For what reason does a woman who writes a sex advice article for Elle end up in a department store dressing room with an adult male who is not her husband in the first place? Was she simply lost looking for the bathroom?

---

I don't know .. i guess the story is that she was young and impressionable. Teflon Don somehow tricked her into modeling underwear for him inside a dressing room.

A real rookie mistake it took E Jean 30+ years and the State of New York changing the law for her to come to finally terms with.

---

She was 52 at the time.

---

Trump dreamed for years to grab that stuff.

The self righteousness and those free from sin will be along shortly to proclaim it true and cast the demon straight to hell.

Lol.

Fifty-two years old and danged ol Trump so hard up couldn't keep his hands off her!

An incredible story!

One of the wildest cases of all time!

aggiehawg said:

---

From one of Carroll's own pleadings, motion to dismiss Trump's counterclaim.

Quote:

---

As the Court instructed the Carroll II jury, under the New York Penal Law, rape requires proof that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Carroll II Trial Tr. at 1416. "Sexual intercourse" is defined as "any penetration, however slight, of the ***** into the vaginal opening." Id. at 1417. Sexual abuse, by contrast, similarly requires proof that the defendant subjected the victim to sexual contact and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Id. at 1418. "Sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either person." Id. "Sexual part" is defined as "an organ of human reproduction." Id.; see People v. Blodgett, 37 A.D.2d 1035, 1036 (3d Dep't 1971).

---

LINK

Despite the definitions within NY statutory law, the judge deemed "digital penetration" to be rape.

---

What is digital penetration?

Also, the jury found proof of sexual abuse? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Also, the jury found proof of sexual abuse? Interesting.

---

But said no on the rape question. For all we know, the jury might have been thinking about his allegedly kissing her without her consent as the sexual abuse.

aggiehawg said:

---

From one of Carroll's own pleadings, motion to dismiss Trump's counterclaim.

Quote:

---

At the end of the two-week trial in Carroll II, on May 9, 2023, the jury deliberated for approximately two and a half hours. On the first count of battery, the jury was asked to evaluate whether Trump had, by a preponderance of the evidence, committed an ASA predicate sex offense, thereby reviving Carroll's claim. See C.P.L.R. 214-j. Consistent with the parties' proposals, the jury was presented with three possible ASA predicates under New York's criminal code: rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching. Carroll II, ECF 174. The Court instructed the jury to address each predicate in that order until they found that Trump's conduct fit one of those offenses, if at all. Id. The jury answered "no" on rape and "yes" on sexual abuseand it awarded Carroll a total of $2.02 million in damages on that claim

---

Quote:

---

As the Court instructed the Carroll II jury, under the New York Penal Law, rape requires proof that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Carroll II Trial Tr. at 1416. "Sexual intercourse" is defined as "any penetration, however slight, of the ***** into the vaginal opening." Id. at 1417. Sexual abuse, by contrast, similarly requires proof that the defendant subjected the victim to sexual contact and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Id. at 1418. "Sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either person." Id. "Sexual part" is defined as "an organ of human reproduction." Id.; see People v. Blodgett, 37 A.D.2d 1035, 1036 (3d Dep't 1971).

---

LINK

Despite the definitions within NY statutory law, the judge deemed "digital penetration" to be rape.

---

Where in the jury instructions (or anywhere else) during the latest proceeding did the judge instruct the jury that Trump raped EJC?

This is the second time you've stated this despite seeing the jury instructions so maybe it's something beyond confusion.

1939 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

From one of Carroll's own pleadings, motion to dismiss Trump's counterclaim.

Quote:

---

As the Court instructed the Carroll II jury, under the New York Penal Law, rape requires proof that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Carroll II Trial Tr. at 1416. "Sexual intercourse" is defined as "any penetration, however slight, of the ***** into the vaginal opening." Id. at 1417. Sexual abuse, by contrast, similarly requires proof that the defendant subjected the victim to sexual contact and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Id. at 1418. "Sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either person." Id. "Sexual part" is defined as "an organ of human reproduction." Id.; see People v. Blodgett, 37 A.D.2d 1035, 1036 (3d Dep't 1971).

---

LINK

Despite the definitions within NY statutory law, the judge deemed "digital penetration" to be rape.

---

What is digital penetration?

Also, the jury found proof of sexual abuse? Interesting.

---

Fingers in the who haa, again zero proof other than the word of a nut job liberal (a bat **** crazy nut even by liberal standards). This woman makes Nancy Pelosi seem level headed and "her truth" made no sense, yet a NYC jury took her word for it, because OMB.

A middle age billionaire forcibly finger banged an ugly 52 year old woman in a department store sometime in the mid 90s.

A lunatic leftist made up a story to get Trump and sold it in front of a like minded jury and judge in the most hostile venue in the country.

After everything we've witnessed the left throw at Trump since 2015, which of these two versions of events seems more plausible?

Why would anyone right of center believe anything a leftist has to say about Trump in light of the events that have transpired since 2015?

It is not possible to have less credibility than a modern day leftist.

Most of this post was not directed at you 1939 other than answering your question about digits.

1939 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

From one of Carroll's own pleadings, motion to dismiss Trump's counterclaim.

Quote:

---

As the Court instructed the Carroll II jury, under the New York Penal Law, rape requires proof that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Carroll II Trial Tr. at 1416. "Sexual intercourse" is defined as "any penetration, however slight, of the ***** into the vaginal opening." Id. at 1417. Sexual abuse, by contrast, similarly requires proof that the defendant subjected the victim to sexual contact and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Id. at 1418. "Sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either person." Id. "Sexual part" is defined as "an organ of human reproduction." Id.; see People v. Blodgett, 37 A.D.2d 1035, 1036 (3d Dep't 1971).

---

LINK

Despite the definitions within NY statutory law, the judge deemed "digital penetration" to be rape.

---

What is digital penetration?

Also, the jury found proof of sexual abuse? Interesting.

---

'If the orange finger doesn't fit, you must acquit.'

Probably woulda been a better legal strategy but hindsight 20/20.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Carroll originally came out with her story in 2019, detailing the alleged incident, claiming that Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf-Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s: "Carroll said Trump followed her to a fitting room at the store, shoved her against a wall, pulled down her tights and, 'forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his ***** halfway or completely, I'm not certain inside me.'"

---

Travesty of justice that this bat **** crazy old lady sniffs a courtroom with this.

Travesty of justice that jury awards damages for defamation and repetitional repair to an old lady driving around in a Subaru painted to look like a Gateway computer box.

One of the wildest cases of all time!

---

For what reason does a woman who writes a sex advice article for Elle end up in a department store dressing room with an adult male who is not her husband in the first place? Was she simply lost looking for the bathroom?

---

I don't know .. i guess the story is that she was young and impressionable. Teflon Don somehow tricked her into modeling underwear for him inside a dressing room.

A real rookie mistake it took E Jean 30+ years and the State of New York changing the law for her to come to finally terms with.

---

She was 52 at the time.

---

Not sure about impressionable, but for some of us, that does qualify as young.

Why was E Jean 52-years old working at a high-end lingerie store?

Seems like a young woman's game, no?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Why was E Jean 52-years old working at a high-end lingerie store?

---

WTF?

Assuming you mean Bergdorf, it is not a lingerie shop, and she was not an employee.

Antoninus said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Why was E Jean 52-years old working at a high-end lingerie store?

---

WTF?

---

Lane Bryant.

Talbot's

But a high end lingerie store in NYC in the early 90s?

Really stretches the bounds of credulity you'd think, but thats the province of the jury, no?

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, the jury found proof of sexual abuse? Interesting.

---

But said no on the rape question. For all we know, the jury might have been thinking about his allegedly kissing her without her consent as the sexual abuse.

---

Uh,,,,it is

Antoninus said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Why was E Jean 52-years old working at a high-end lingerie store?

---

WTF?

Assuming you mean Bergdorf, it is not a lingerie shop, and she was not an employee.

---

I thought this whole time that E Jean was working at the store and offered to try on underwear for Trump.

How was Trump alleged to have lured E Jean in the dressing room?

Seems like after a trial on the merits these facts would be more clear.

2040huck said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, the jury found proof of sexual abuse? Interesting.

---

But said no on the rape question. For all we know, the jury might have been thinking about his allegedly kissing her without her consent as the sexual abuse.

---

Uh,,,,it is

---

Duh.

The judge came up with the digital penetration as the reason that first jury voted yes on the sexual abuse count. That was not specified on the verdict form, nor do we know which of Carroll's accusations qualified as "sexual abuse" to them during their deliberations.

Weird how the Biden interests always align with China's, isn't it?

Prior to the defeat of the Biden-backed regime in Argentina the country planned to purchase China's JF-17 jet fighters. Today President Milei announced Argentina is cancelling the deal and buying 24 F-16s. Why are Biden's and China's interests always aligned? pic.twitter.com/anj0QrUViy

— @amuse (@amuse) January 30, 2024

Going into a lingerie store dressing room with a stranger is a bad idea.

We know this.

But if that stranger is a billionaire, that changes things a bit now doesn't it?

A real teachable moment if I've ever seen one.

Agree. Going in a dressing room with a woman not your wife is a bad idea.

If you are a billionaire, it's a REAL bad idea.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Going into a lingerie store dressing room with a stranger is a bad idea.

---

Remember that discussion about how "wrong facts" spread?

By the end of the day, ten posters will be utterly convinced that Carroll was an employee at Bergdorf and that Bergdorf was merely a lingerie shop.

Shame on you.

Ags77 said:

---

Agree. Going in a dressing room with a woman not your wife is a bad idea.

If you are a billionaire, it's a REAL bad idea.

---

True. I have yet to see any proof at all that it happened.

Sounds like Russian collusion to me.

Antoninus said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Going into a lingerie store dressing room with a stranger is a bad idea.

---

Remember that discussion about how "wrong facts" spread?

By the end of the day, ten posters will be utterly convinced that Carroll was an employee at Bergdorf and that Bergdorf was merely a lingerie shop.

Shame on you.

---

To clarify for the board...

E. Jean Carroll was a writer of a sex advice column for Elle Magazine in the mid to late 1990s. She was NOT a clerk at Bergdorf Goodman.

Bergdorf Goodman is a high-end department store in NYC, like a Macy's or Dilliard's, only with more high end designers. More like Saks Fith Avenue or Bloomingdale's. It does have a lingerie department, where the incident is alleged to have taken place.

HTH.

Ags77 said:

---

Agree. Going in a dressing room with a woman not your wife is a bad idea.

If you are a billionaire, it's a REAL bad idea.

---

To be fair, the timeframe is large enough that Trump very well could have been separated from Marla Maples and going through the divorce process. But since Ms. Carroll couldn't figure out the year it happened, we don't really know for sure.

jrdaustin said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Agree. Going in a dressing room with a woman not your wife is a bad idea.

If you are a billionaire, it's a REAL bad idea.

---

To be fair, the timeframe is large enough that Trump very well could have been separated from Marla Maples and going through the divorce process. But since Ms. Carroll couldn't figure out the year it happened, we don't really know for sure.

---

In April 1996, Marla was caught with a Trump bodyguard on a beach near Mar A Lago at four in the morning. She was cheating on Trump with him and Trump fired him.