Sounds like a bunch of Trump hating idiots to me. She doesn't even know when it "supposedly" happened! This is exactly why a criminal trial is different than a civil and exactly why all of it will be tossed on appeal once it gets in front of a judge with an ounce of common sense.
Yes, she does. Late 1995 or early 1996. And she knows where... Bergdoff's Department Store. And TWELVE citizens of the USA, a jury of trump's peers, unanimously agreed that she was telling the truth. You can try as you might to blame this on "New York" but New York's population is not so uniformly anti-trump. Instead, a few trump supporters on the jury took their civic duties seriously. Bravo to them.... breaking the cult mindset is not an easy thing to do. Well, you can always hope, I guess. I and many lawyers predict otherwise, but it boggles me why you would want to see a rapist go unpunished. Is that the model an American president should be?
Well that narrows it down to months! Seems like such a traumatic experience would be burned into the brain? Good God you really are stupid!
Already covered in this very thread. It's a lie to say that the jury found that trump didn't rape her. They checked the box that said Carroll had not provided enough evidence to prove it under the narrow technicalities of New York law. The judge in the case clarified this: “The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape’. Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. trump in fact did exactly that.” trump, the rapist. He even admits to the practice, boasting that he grabs women by the pussy without their consent. He's damn lucky that his punishment now is paying off $88 million. The rightful place for rapists such as himself is prison.
- His own mouth, where he brags about doing such things. - His own mouth, where in an effort to demean her he insisted that Ms. Carroll was not his type, but then mistook her in a photograph for his own ex-wife. - His unwillingness to submit a DNA sample to refute the evidence on the dress Ms. Carroll saved from the encounter. None of this would have been enough to convict him in a criminal trial, but this was a civil trial where all the jury needed was to be convinced of the likelihood that the assault occurred by a preponderance of evidence. I'm certain that almost everybody on this planet believes he sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll. For the most part he has his own disgusting mouth to blame.
it was a jury trial, the jury said no on the rape charge. what the judge says is not relevant. it was a jury trial. the judge can want rape to be true all he wants, but the jury said literally no.
