US Politics Thread

[Bigga]

Jury finds Trump sexually abused Carroll, awards $2 mn​

A federal jury in New York City has found that Donald Trump sexually abused advice columnist E Jean Carroll and awarded more than $2 mn in damage, Reuters reports. However, the jurors did not agree with Carroll’s allegation that the former president raped her, according to Reuters.

• 
  

Updated at 20.10 BST

Trump defamed Carroll, jury finds, orders $3 mn in damages​

A federal jury in New York City found that Donald Trump defamed advice columnist E Jean Carroll with an October 2022 social media post in which he called her allegations a “con job”, Reuters reports.

The jury awarded Carroll a total of $3 mn in damages, $2.7 mn of which are compensatory and $280,000 of which are punitive. They also awarded $20,000 in punitive damages against Trump over a claim of battery made by Carroll.

I find this super interesting how the Dems are, literally, changing laws in order to stop this guy from running as Pres.

Imagine a law being changed, temporarily, that past 'actions/ situations' can be charged. Why is this for a year only?? Kinda coincidental that Carroll's lawyer put this charge into the new system the day after the law was changed.

As for what I've read and watched, there's no evidence of anything, just hearsay; her word against his. By her own volition she was enjoying the attention and was 'laughing along' when things changed. Literally no other evidence that I can see other than her own account.

So the interesting question will be if this is fine for Carroll to win this sort of case against Trump, what's to stop Tara Reade doing the same to Biden and getting the same outcome for, virtually, the same story of 'digital assault'...?

US politics is super messy.

 

[Bigga]

Just heard Trump say he doesn't know E. Jean Carroll and that he has never met her. Here is a photo of him not meeting her - she is the lass he is speaking to right in front of him whilst not meeting her

View attachment 78530

I'm being objective here.

I've seen this pic before.... and it's the only one I've ever seen of the two 'meeting'.

Now, this looks like it's 30/ 40 years old, minimum. Could you say he's lying that he doesn't know her? Possibly, in the high society circles they mix in but, equally, the guy has met thousands of women and, maybe/ possibly, did the same act to hundreds of others so, actually, doesn't remember her.

Not saying that it's right but that's the potential of the situation.

 

[west didsblue]

I find this super interesting how the Dems are, literally, changing laws in order to stop this guy from running as Pres.

Imagine a law being changed, temporarily, that past 'actions/ situations' can be charged. Why is this for a year only?? Kinda coincidental that Carroll's lawyer put this charge into the new system the day after the law was changed.

As for what I've read and watched, there's no evidence of anything, just hearsay; her word against his. By her own volition she was enjoying the attention and was 'laughing along' when things changed. Literally no other evidence that I can see other than her own account.

So the interesting question will be if this is fine for Carroll to win this sort of case against Trump, what's to stop Tara Reade doing the same to Biden and getting the same outcome for, virtually, the same story of 'digital assault'...?

US politics is super messy.

Idiotic post but I’d expect nothing less from a barely disguised Trump supporter like you.

You’re questioning the findings of an impartial jury based on what you’ve read and watched (probably on YouTube). Were you party to all the evidence that they considered?

Then you’re comparing it to Tara Reade whose story was totally dismantled and would never have made it to court because of how ludicrous it was.

 

[Summerbuzz]

I find this super interesting how the Dems are, literally, changing laws in order to stop this guy from running as Pres.

Imagine a law being changed, temporarily, that past 'actions/ situations' can be charged. Why is this for a year only?? Kinda coincidental that Carroll's lawyer put this charge into the new system the day after the law was changed.

As for what I've read and watched, there's no evidence of anything, just hearsay; her word against his. By her own volition she was enjoying the attention and was 'laughing along' when things changed. Literally no other evidence that I can see other than her own account.

So the interesting question will be if this is fine for Carroll to win this sort of case against Trump, what's to stop Tara Reade doing the same to Biden and getting the same outcome for, virtually, the same story of 'digital assault'...?

US politics is super messy.

The Adult Survivors act only affects half of this case - the defamation claim would have stood anyway. Statute of limitations is always a controversial topic. We can only ever try acts committed in the past... why should an offence be unactionable after, say, seven years? That said, NY politics is filled with people who hate Trump. He's operated in the city for a very long time, his father before him, and has a very "mixed" reputation. He's always played hard and fast with everyone, and a lot of these people are in positions to make decisions that affect these things.

As for the case, Trump effectively offered no rebuttal to her testimony in court, just sniped from afar. She has witnesses to whom she spoke about the incident at the time, and the case was made that this is a pattern of behaviour - sudden, forceable sexual acts (up to penetration) - and this is remarkably in line with other people's testimony, the infamous 'locker room' tape, and in fact chimes with his current stance of 'I don't even know this woman'.

 

[Bigga]

The Adult Survivors act only affects half of this case - the defamation claim would have stood anyway. Statute of limitations is always a controversial topic. We can only ever try acts committed in the past... why should an offence be unactionable after, say, seven years? That said, NY politics is filled with people who hate Trump. He's operated in the city for a very long time, his father before him, and has a very "mixed" reputation. He's always played hard and fast with everyone, and a lot of these people are in positions to make decisions that affect these things.

As for the case, Trump effectively offered no rebuttal to her testimony in court, just sniped from afar. She has witnesses to whom she spoke about the incident at the time, and the case was made that this is a pattern of behaviour - sudden, forceable sexual acts (up to penetration) - and this is remarkably in line with other people's testimony, the infamous 'locker room' tape, and in fact chimes with his current stance of 'I don't even know this woman'.

I don't disagree with you and the fact that he's hated by MSM and New York is an issue. I agree the man can be cuntish, but evidence should be evidence and how do you prove these things?

What kind of rebuttal would he seriously offer with 'she said, he said'.

That's like someone in a group photo 25 years ago, you were in cos you're very well known, accusing you of something that happened 25 years ago and you being found guilty on that someone telling her friends that she had an incident with you.

I mean wtf?

The trouble being we've seen PLENTY of stories of false accusations of rape where a guy goes to prison and lost everything due to a story that ends up being false.

It's murky stuff and extremely hard to prove, nevermind on hearsay.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Was it EVER allowed to get to a civil case??

probably because of this.


Reade has misrepresented herself and her life experiences on numerous occasions, including lying under oath and in court proceedings.

Before accusing Biden of sexual assault in 2020, Reade made various other comments that cast her encounters with Biden differently. In April 2019, Reade said that she filed a complaint in 1993 against Biden with a Senate human resources office in which she alleged that Biden had made her feel uncomfortable through comments she deemed demeaning, allegedly including a compliment about her looks and a request for Reade to serve drinks at a Senate event.
However, in her complaint, Reade did not accuse Biden of any kind of sexual misconduct and made no mention of the alleged assault.A few years before she accused Biden of sexual assault, Reade repeatedly praised Biden on her personal Twitter account, retweeting or otherwise endorsing comments which characterized Biden as a leader in combating sexual violence.

 

[BayernMan]

This maybe all true

but watching that live i thought she really held him to task and basically called him out for lying constantly - she kept calm and wouldn't let him sidetrack to other issues.

Unfortunately she was up against an absolute whopping liar and the audience was like a Jerry Springer show - I criticise the CNN allowing that audience more than anything. He played the c*nt role well and they lapped it up.

Na she is complicit of the WWE Wrestling style politics the Trump era has become and her background being a right wing shill writing for Tucker Carlson makes this even more of a joke….no wonder she is one of the few “journalists” CNN’s new leadership have kept on.

 

[pudge]

Folk can argue that nothing is ever black and white but that's bollocks

Trump's a ****

Anyone who defends him is also a ****

 

[BlueHammer85]

Na she is complicit of the WWE Wrestling style politics the Trump era has become and her background being a right wing shill writing for Tucker Carlson makes this even more of a joke….no wonder she is one of the few “journalists” CNN’s new leadership have kept on.

That's disappointing and a bit odd considering how many times she pulled Trump up last night on his lies.

 

[Dubai Blue]

I'm being objective here.

I've seen this pic before.... and it's the only one I've ever seen of the two 'meeting'.

Now, this looks like it's 30/ 40 years old, minimum. Could you say he's lying that he doesn't know her? Possibly, in the high society circles they mix in but, equally, the guy has met thousands of women and, maybe/ possibly, did the same act to hundreds of others so, actually, doesn't remember her.

Not saying that it's right but that's the potential of the situation.

Not categorically, no. But we can all agree that he's lying when he says he's never met her. I mean why even bother saying that when everyone knows it's clearly not true.

These were his exact words last night:

"This woman, I don't know her, I've never met her, I've no idea who she is. I had a picture taken years ago with her and her husband, nice guy, John Johnson. He was a newscaster, very nice man."

He immediately contradicts himself there. And goes to great pains to stress what a top bloke her husband was, so it's a bit of a stretch to believe he honestly has no idea who she is. Given that his deposition was filled with similar nonsense, it's little surprise the jury didn't take his side.