Jury finds Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll

A jury in a civil trial held in lower Manhattan found that former President Donald Trump sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll in a dressing room in a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s, and defamed her after she went public about the incident in 2019, in that he denied that the incident had occurred.

But the jury, which was made up of six men and three women, also found that Carroll did not prove that Trump raped Carroll. The mixed decision, which was unanimous, took the jury less than three hours to reach, and awarded Carroll a total of $5 million in damages.

https://news.yahoo.com/jury-finds-trump-sexually-abused-and-defamed-e-jean-carroll-5-key-moments-from-the-trial-192842003.html

I imagine this will be reduced on appeal. I always find it curious how all these leftist women are popping up with rape claims 40 years after the alleged event.

yet another court case trump has LOST

If they could, New York would convict President Trump of starting the Vietnam War, the Civil War and the Spanish American War. It is no surprise that a New York jury found him 'guilty', they would have found ANY Republican, Conservative or Trump Supporter 'guilty', regardless of what the law said and regardless of what evidence did not exist.

I hope he appeals it or files a motion that it was not a fair trial, BECAUSE IT WASN'T!

RV wrote:If they could, New York would convict President Trump of starting the Vietnam War, the Civil War and the Spanish American War. It is no surprise that a New York jury found him 'guilty', they would have found ANY Republican, Conservative or Trump Supporter 'guilty', regardless of what the law said and regardless of what evidence did not exist.

I hope he appeals it or files a motion that it was not a fair trial, BECAUSE IT WASN'T!

What about th eprevious 30 or so court cases trump lost?
If he loses, does that mean it was an unfair trial?

No evidence. Past the statute of limitations, no witnesses, no date, sketchy details,, she said in an interview with some media twit that there was no rape, she has a history of claiming rape by many celebrities, jury of Trump haters, Obama appointed activist judge, how could the verdict be any different.

Calypso Jones wrote:No evidence.  Past the statute of limitations, no witnesses, no date, sketchy details,, she said in an interview with some media twit that there was no rape, she has a history of claiming rape  by many celebrities, jury of Trump haters, Obama appointed activist judge,  how could the verdict be any different.

Who else has she accused of rape?

Calypso Jones wrote:No evidence.  Past the statute of limitations, no witnesses, no date, sketchy details,, she said in an interview with some media twit that there was no rape, she has a history of claiming rape  by many celebrities, jury of Trump haters, Obama appointed activist judge,  how could the verdict be any different.

If trump had been innocent

Calypso Jones wrote:No evidence.  Past the statute of limitations, no witnesses, no date, sketchy details,, she said in an interview with some media twit that there was no rape, she has a history of claiming rape  by many celebrities, jury of Trump haters, Obama appointed activist judge,  how could the verdict be any different.

""No evidence.  Past the statute of limitations, no witnesses, no date, sketchy details,, ""

factually incorrect , or the trial would never have gone ahead

Keeping in mind it wasn't a criminal trail

Calypso Jones wrote:No evidence.  Past the statute of limitations, no witnesses, no date, sketchy details,, she said in an interview with some media twit that there was no rape, she has a history of claiming rape  by many celebrities, jury of Trump haters, Obama appointed activist judge,  how could the verdict be any different.

""she has a history of claiming rape  by many celebrities,""

You need to be a little careful making those types of accusation, if that was factual, he would not have been found guilty ,

vege57 wrote:

Calypso Jones wrote:No evidence.  Past the statute of limitations, no witnesses, no date, sketchy details,, she said in an interview with some media twit that there was no rape, she has a history of claiming rape  by many celebrities, jury of Trump haters, Obama appointed activist judge,  how could the verdict be any different.

""she has a history of claiming rape  by many celebrities,""

You need to be a little careful making those types of accusation, if that was factual, he would not have been found guilty ,

Right, in a Democrat 'led' state like New York? With a D.A. that got elected on an agenda of 'Get Trump'? With a Soros funded D.A.? With one of the 'witnesses' that were found guilty in a court of law to be liars? There was never a doubt that President Trump would be found 'guilty' regardless of how absurd, compromised or lying the witnesses were. The law was NEVER followed, and no it would never have made him 'not guilty'. Soros paid to have him found 'guilty'!

The sad part of this whole thing is that it sends a message to ANYONE that the Democrats will get you if they want to. They will lie, cheat, come up with 'witnesses', fabricate evidence, concoct 'charges' or do whatever they have to in order to silence, scuttle or go after and financially break ANY opponent that they don't like or disagree with. This is especially true if that 'opponent' is running for the presidency.