Writer tells jury in lawsuit trial: 'Donald Trump raped me'

While it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump did rape her - it works hardly be surprising behaviour from a self-entitled malignant narcissist - what has the jury got to go on other than their competing claims?

While it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump did rape her - 

Based on what? Feeling? A hunch? More liberal speculation?

bass4funk

While it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump did rape her - 

Based on what? Feeling? A hunch? More liberal speculation?

He's a known predator. There are many more allegations like this. He also openly talked about grabbing women by their ....

*You can grab 'em by the p***y and they won't do anything because you're a star.*

Yeah, Trump more than likely raped her, and he probably did it without any guilt and with mucho gusto.

I just don’t believe that they hadn’t any police or jurisdictional system at the time when it happened, if it happened. It’s very hard to believe that there was no possibility at all to tell all the decades time in between, also not before the first two election campaigns, but just telling now the public and just propaganda fitting when there’s soon another election campaign. Do they distribute those allegations, so that they every four years have some cases available? Well, obviously it’s exactly that.

Huh...

She consented to that in a public department store with a married man?

I knew victim blaming would come up and exactly who it would come from.

Ok, so we can talk about Trump and the mods want to glance over Biden as usual. 

I knew ‘whattabout’ would come up and exactly who it would come from.

How odd neither of you want to talk about the accused rapist.

Yeah, Trump more than likely raped her, and he probably did it without any guilt and with mucho gusto.

Based on…

Based on her testimony, his own words and the testimony of contemporaneous witnesses she told at the time.

The jury will likely find it persuasive, as will the roughly 1 in 6 women voters who’ve been raped.

How odd neither of you want to talk about the accused rapist.

It’s not odd that you, BF, only want to talk about “accused rapist” rather than “man accused of rape”. I wager heavily that you know the difference.

It’s not odd that you, BF, only want to talk about “accused rapist” rather than “man accused of rape”. I wager heavily that you know the difference.

We all know that Trump is the accused rapist.

If he is found liable, the GQP will have a man found liable, essentially a convicted rapist, no longer accused, running for president.

Yeah, THATS a great look.

So Trump is a disgusting pervert...Gee, learn something new every day...

It's not like 25 other women have accused him of sexual assault...

https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12

Or he openly bragged about his status as a "star" lets him assault women...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYqKx1GuZGg&ab_channel=NBCNews

Or that he has admitted to walking in on undressed beauty pageant contestants, some teenagers...

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/300551-report-trump-walked-into-teen-beauty-pageant-changing/

Or has affairs with porn stars and Playboy Bunnies, while his wife is at home with their 10 month old son...

Yep, he sure is a good Christian...

It’s not odd that you, BF, only want to talk about “accused rapist” rather than “man accused of rape”. I wager heavily that you know the difference.

I don’t know the difference. Please explain.

Some people may want a short relationship with the most powerful man in the world. His mating is with supermodels and top porn stars. It’s like when I was a kid, to have a short relationship with a girl one year older made me a star/hero/cool guy. Same for women maybe?

Rodney - this happened in 1996. He wasn't POTUS then.

Some people may want a short relationship with the most powerful man in the world. His mating is with supermodels and top porn stars. It’s like when I was a kid, to have a short relationship with a girl one year older made me a star/hero/cool guy. Same for women maybe?

True, some people can’t figure that out. They’re so much in a bloodlust to see the guy swing they’ll believe and say anything.

Some people may want a short relationship with the most powerful man in the world. His mating is with supermodels and top porn stars. It’s like when I was a kid, to have a short relationship with a girl one year older made me a star/hero/cool guy. Same for women maybe?

You should forward this to Tacopina. It could form the backbone of his defense and would be sure to sway the minds of even the most hard hearted jury.

Huh...

She consented to that in a public department store with a married man?

Victim-shaming. "The wench had it coming!" Defense, eh?

I am sure that will play well with the jury....

oh now she kinda knows when it supposedly happened, thats new.

The state of New York passed a brand new law entirely to allow this lawsuit to be filed in the first place.

True, some people can’t figure that out.

Please please use the  “to have a short relationship with a girl one year older made me a star/hero/cool guy. Same for women maybe?” line in court.

2 people here at least seem to think it’ll work.

I’m sure it’ll be an epiphany for any women jurors.

better than that "earwitness" nonsense you misunderstood yesterday.

you know the part that you have to be there to hear it, not that someone just told you about it later.

I must say this writer--she does tell a story.

better than that "earwitness" nonsense you misunderstood yesterday.

you know the part that you have to be there to hear it, not that someone just told you about it later.

You’re wrong reply guy. Let it go.

Regardless of what one calls them, they ARE going to testify. The Judge has already ruled on this. The jury IS going to consider their testimony.

Why is it that the people who are ignorant of basic facts, instead getting obsessive about minor points are always the Trump supporters?

as usual the damage here is in the (false) accusation.

The prominent Dem donor who is funding this has admitted he is paying the bills for the lawsuit but the judge wont allow them to hear this information in the court room.

if Trump wins the case, Dems will just pay for someone else to sue him

if trump loses the case, then its just another example of our two tiered justice system.

creating that martyr, the lead in the polls just keeps getting bigger as Joe fumbles and stumbles around the world.

Please please use the “to have a short relationship with a girl one year older made me a star/hero/cool guy. Same for women maybe?” line in court. 

2 people here at least seem to think it’ll work. 

I’m sure it’ll be an epiphany for any women jurors.

It will either be dismissed for lack of evidence or a small settlement or nothing at all.

While it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump did rape her - 

Based on what? Feeling? A hunch? More liberal speculation?

what’s to speculate? He bragged about doing this sort of thing to Billy Bush. He also bragged about abusing his position to cruise beauty pageant changing rooms. Speculation?

Pretty sure Carroll loses this case. She waited far too long to come forward.

that in no way proves she’s lying, rather she missed the window of opportunity.

could she be lying? Of course she could be. But sorry fanboys, your guy brags about having done this sort of thing. Adds a certain element of credibility to her accusation.

he actually bragged that "they let you" do things.

Not that you non consensually do anything.

which we know to be true of other famous people being allowed by most women to do things that others arent allowed to do.

But dont let the actual words stop you.

"And when you’re a star, they let you do it. "

Seems highly unlikely this ever happened. But even if it did, the court in 2023 isnt a place for some regrets from 1995 or 1996 (she didnt even know what year until today)

So if you say making sexual accusations is wrong, why is Trump making one against DeSantis?

if Trump does it, it’s not wrong. Trump is physically and psychologically incapable of wrongdoing. If he does it, it is correct and proper, whatever it is.

We have all heard what Don said about "grabbing women by the P".

There is no intimation that the women want this to happen to them nor that they consented to it. Therefore, it is an admission of sexual assault.

And I gotta say that attempting to parse words to read in meaning, when we have all heard what he said is almost, ALMOST as stupid as trying to argue that January 6th wasn't really the attempted overthrow of American government that we all saw.

It's just clueless, almost beyond belief.

He sarcastic comment was "He would never do such a thing!"....which means he is accusing him of doing it...

actually no, as the word sarcastic means:

marked by or given to using irony in order to mock or convey contempt.

then what does irony mean?

the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

signifies the OPPOSITE of what was said.

oops.

It will either be dismissed for lack of evidence or a small settlement or nothing at all.

Again, proving that you know very little about the law.

As this is a civil and not a criminal case, it is very unlikely to get dismissed once a trial has started. If there was insufficient evidence to conduct a trial, motions to dismiss would have been made and granted in the pre-trial phase.

Cheeto Jesus's "lawyers" (for them, the term demands air quotes) made several motions to dismiss and/or delay, all rudely swatted aside by the Judge. This case is going to trial for the full term. No dismissal.

She is not going to settle. For her the money is not the issue per say. While it would be nice to be awarded compensation for her injuries (even nicer to collect but it's Trump, so.....), her primary motivation is a judgment that finds that the rape happened and that Trump did it.

So she is not settling.

We have all heard what Don said about "grabbing women by the P". 

To libs, it seems like it was the first time that was ever said by a man in human history. 

There is no intimation that the women want this to happen to them nor that they consented to it. Therefore, it is an admission of sexual assault.

Based on what? An accusation.

And I gotta say that attempting to parse words to read in meaning, when we have all heard what he said is almost, ALMOST as stupid as trying to argue that January 6th wasn't really the attempted overthrow of American government that we all saw. 

Well, there are many different opinions on that one

It's just clueless, almost beyond belief.

This trial is, lucky for Trump he has deep pockets.

This shows you just how stupid Trump is....

"The judge overseeing the trial of a New York author’s civil sexual assault suit against Donald Trump criticized the former president over a new post on social media disparaging his accuser and her lawyer, saying it “seems entirely inappropriate.”

The post on Trump’s Truth Social platform calls E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegation a “made up SCAM” and accuses her attorney, Roberta Kaplan, of being a “political operative.” Kaplan complained about the post at the start of the trial’s second day on Wednesday, before the jury was brought in.

Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina said it was the first he had heard of the post.

“What you’re trying to do is get away from a statement by your client that seems entirely inappropriate,” 

“I will ask him to refrain from any other posts about this case,” Tacopina said. “I will do the best I can do, your honor.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-social-media-post-rape-154518341.html

So Trump is doing his best to lose his case and throw his lawyer under the bus....

Keep it up Don - it will just add zeros to the check you'll have to write...

What an imbecile...

There is no intimation that the women want this to happen to them nor that they consented to it.

they LET you do it.

consent.

To libs, it seems like it was the first time that was ever said by a man in human history. 

Actually, it's one of the only times someone was stupid enough to say it out loud, when he knew that he had a microphone attached. Stable genius indeed!

Based on what? An accusation.

And an established pattern of behavior as well as the testimony of women experiencing the same type of unprovoked and unwanted sexual assaults AND the testimony of women that Carrolle told at the time.

Well, there are many different opinions on that one

No, there are facts and evidence. Besides, this is one of your weakest cop-outs "Well, I believe otherwise. Well, there are different opinions"

There are different opinions one which is the better movie: The Big Sleep or The Big Lebowski (Lebowski). There are opinions about the best flavor of ice cream. Here we have patterns of established behavior, witness testimony and evidence.

Actually, it's one of the only times someone was stupid enough to say it out loud, when he knew that he had a microphone attached. Stable genius indeed!

And?

And an established pattern of behavior as well as the testimony of women experiencing the same type of unprovoked and unwanted sexual assaults AND the testimony of women that Carrolle told at the time.

Ok, so more hearsay. 

No, there are facts and evidence. Besides, this is one of your weakest cop-outs "Well, I believe otherwise. Well, there are different opinions"

Facts according to? Do you mean like DNA or blood stains? 

There are different opinions one which is the better movie: The Big Sleep or The Big Lebowski (Lebowski). There are opinions about the best flavor of ice cream. Here we have patterns of established behavior, witness testimony and evidence.

Ok, so they really don't have anything on the guy.....again.

There is no intimation that the women want this to happen to them nor that they consented to it.

they LET you do it.

consent.

This is a nominee for the dumbest thing you have ever written (and that is a tough bar to clear). Unwanted sexual contact is sexual assault BY DEFINITION. Failure to resist in not consent.

And in this case, her own testimony says that she did resist.

I have heard a lot of mysoginistic things in my life, but twisting the words of a man bragging about getting away with multiple counts of sexual assault into somehow being consenting behavior, well......

Yeah, that's not going to age well.

Actually, it's one of the only times someone was stupid enough to say it out loud, when he knew that he had a microphone attached. Stable genius indeed!

And?

This one means "I got nothing left."

And an established pattern of behavior as well as the testimony of women experiencing the same type of unprovoked and unwanted sexual assaults AND the testimony of women that Carrolle told at the time.

Ok, so more hearsay. 

Whao! You better tell the judge because he is allowing their testimony and Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law! Proving once again that you know next to nothing about the law, civil, criminal or elctoral.

Facts according to? Do you mean like DNA or blood stains? 

There are different opinions one which is the better movie: The Big Sleep or The Big Lebowski (Lebowski). There are opinions about the best flavor of ice cream. Here we have patterns of established behavior, witness testimony and evidence.

Ok, so they really don't have anything on the guy.....again.

This part is jibberish and no matter how you try to gaslight it, they have rather a lot on what amounts to a serial sex predator.

Those young women 

answered your own "question".

they cant consent due to their age.

If I LET you borrow my car, can I then call the police and claim you stole it?

but twisting the words of a man bragging about getting away with multiple counts of sexual assault 

no he was clearly saying they LET you do it.

thats not unwanted and is not assault. if you let someone do something that means you are in agreement that it is ok to be done.

that would be you twisting the words.

why do these standards you make up not apply to Tara or Juanita?

no he was clearly saying they LET you do it. 

thats not unwanted and is not assault. if you letsomeone do something that means you are in agreement that it is ok to be done.

Despicable. What a perpetrator of sexual assault fantasizes the victim is feeling is in now way an indication that it is consensual.

’they wanted it’ is a common ‘excuse’ used by rapists.

speaking of the dictionary, Blacklabel,

Shameless

not ashamed, especially about something generally considered unacceptable:

being something you should be ashamed of:

leave it to you to wear the word shameless as a badge of honor.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/shameless

she is also claiming some TV executive did the same thing to her in a public elevator. in "the mid 1990s"

and some unnamed dentist did something as well.

and she calls her own husband an "ape" for some reason, the judge wont allow it to be heard in court because....there is a mixed race jury and that might prejudice them against her. huh?

the credibility is already stretching reallllllly thin.

’they wanted it’

which is totally and completely different from when someone LETS you do something.

thats consent and agreement.

Trump didnt say "they wanted it" he said "they let you do it" in his infamous comments.

If I LET you borrow my car, can I then call the police and claim you stole it?

If someone steals your car can they claim you ‘let’ them do it and did nothing to stop them?

If I walk up to someone in the street and punch them can I claim they ‘let’ me do it and did nothing to stop me?

If someone sexually assaults a person who freezes and doesn’t fight back can the perpetrator claim ‘they let me do it’?

Here’s another dictionary entry for you, Blacklabel.

sophist

noun [ C ]   

a person who uses sophistry (= clever but untrue arguments) in order to deceive people:

but nothing I said was untrue.

how odd.

If someone steals your car can they claim you ‘let’ them do it and did nothing to stop them?

If I walk up to someone in the street and punch them can I claim they ‘let’ me do it and did nothing to stop me?

If someone sexually assaults a person who freezes and doesn’t fight back can the perpetrator claim ‘they let me do it’?

You file a police report for theft of your car. not 3 decades later, by the way.

You file a police report for assault. right after it happens.

You call a witness (for example a worker at the store), show them what has just happened while the person who did it is still there, then you file a police report for sexual assault.

If you dont do these things, then yes you LET it happen to you.

This one means "I got nothing left."

So nothing then?

Whao! You better tell the judge because he is allowing their testimony and Hearsay is not admissible in a court of law! Proving once again that you know next to nothing about the law, civil, criminal or elctoral. 

So anecdotal evidence?

Facts according to? Do you mean like DNA or blood stains? 

She kept it all those years?

This part is jibberish

That is pretty much the liberal ideology in a nutshell.

You file a police report for theft of your car. not 3 decades later, by the way. 

You file a police report for assault. right after it happens. 

You call a witness (for example a worker at the store), show them what has just happened while the person who did it is still there, then you file a police report for sexual assault. 

If you dont do these things, then yes you LET it happen to you.

You should just stop now.

yeah all the truth I am dropping is just super inconvenient to your desire to just "get Trump" isnt it?

no evidence at all, almost 30 years later. her weird "I like it" CNN interview. her claim another famous person did the same thing to her in a public place?

THIS is your "gonna get him this time!" moment? because she supposedly told 2 friends.

How sad.

but enjoy your moment while it lasts.

And then we wonder why women hesitate reporting that they were raped.

Blacklabel

yeah all the truth I am dropping is just super inconvenient to your desire to just "get Trump" isnt it?

no evidence at all, almost 30 years later. her weird "I like it" CNN interview. her claim another famous person did the same thing to her in a public place?

Isn't the main thrust of the case about defamation, which isn't 30 years old, it was while Trump was president:

Carroll's federal lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and a retraction of his allegedly defamatory comments.

Isn't the main thrust of the case about defamation

yes, which isnt defamation if Trump is telling the truth that its a made up con job funded by Democrats.

the funded by Dems part is already proven true.

no one has defamed her if this actually never happened and she is lying.

Blacklabel

Isn't the main thrust of the case about defamation

yes, which isnt defamation if Trump is telling the truth

Which is why this case has gone to trial.

that its a made up con job funded by Democrats.

No it isn't.

the funded by Dems part is already proven true.

Which is irrelevant.

no one has defamed her if this actually never happened and she is lying.

Sure. The jury can decide based on the evidence.

How sad.

but enjoy your moment while it lasts.

Is that what Trump told her as he pushed her into the dressing room?

Or did he say, "Woops. I'm sorry, i thought you were Marla"...

https://nypost.com/2023/01/19/trump-confused-photo-of-rape-accuser-e-jean-carroll-for-his-ex-wife-marla-maples-during-deposition/

No it isn't.

it is. Democrat donor Reid Hoffman publicly announced he funded the lawsuit.

Blacklabel

No it isn't.

it is. Democrat donor Reid Hoffman publicly announced he funded the lawsuit.

That part I agree with.

It was this part that was wrong:

that its a made up con job

This part is jibberish

That is pretty much the liberal ideology in a nutshell.

And there it is. After the "and?" part where it gives away the game about having no functional argument, It projects.

It is a worn-out weak rhetorical device that lays bare the absense of any kind of real subsitive argument because it knows that it is defending the indefensible in a serial rapist.

And the other one trying to gas light us into not remembering what we all heard Trump say over and over again, while trying to twist the meaning to something it clearly is not and implying - more or less stating - that any woman that does not actively resist sexual assault consents to it, well, it is worthy of contempt rather than discussion.

What i do not understand is that if this is a rape trial how can the accused deny giving a DNA sample.

And there it is. After the "and?" part where it gives away the game about having no functional argument, It projects. 

You just summed up the liberal playbook, now I have even more confidence that this is all a farce

It is a worn-out weak rhetorical device that lays bare the absense of any kind of real subsitive argument because it knows that it is defending the indefensible in a serial rapist.

Translation: these cases are going nowhere.

but nothing I said was untrue.

who defines “let? Trump says they “let” him.

ok, nothing to see here. Move along please.

lillibet

What i do not understand is that if this is a rape trial how can the accused deny giving a DNA sample.

It's not a rape trial. It's a defamation trial.