This was a civil defamation suit brought against him by a private individual. Neither the Democratic party nor the government had anything to do with it.While a party has "the power", it attacks people inside their country.
This was a civil defamation suit brought against him by a private individual. Neither the Democratic party nor the government had anything to do with it.
Anyone want to gamble on how long it'll take before he continues to defame her?
We all know Carroll is far from the only person who Trump sexually abused/raped. Without his daddy's money to protect him, he would've been handed a life sentence long before running for president, and that's the only real injustice here. He was born one inch from the finish line, and only ever moved backwards from there. That doesn't make him a victim, it makes him a dipshit.Carroll's lawsuit was funded by billionaire founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman. He is also a major Democratic Party and leftist cause donor. So, technically you're correct the DNC and "government" had nothing to do with it, but a significant source of the DNC's money did. There's nothing legally "wrong" about a major DNC donor bankrolling Carroll's case, but it's probably fair to say the motivations there are a lot more about "getting" Trump, and less about poor Ms. Carroll.
We all know Carroll is far from the only person who Trump sexually abused/raped. Without his daddy's money to protect him, he would've been handed a life sentence long before running for president, and that's the only real injustice here. He was born one inch from the finish line, and only ever moved backwards from there. That doesn't make him a victim, it makes him a dipshit.
Neither rape nor defamation are political by nature, that much is obvious. Attempting to muddy those waters is a means of playing into Donny's victim complex, and I've had more than my fill of that for one lifetime.That's just a bunch of shit-flinging that has nothing to do with the post to which you were replying. When you try to make a point (claiming this lawsuit wasn't political, but just a defamation suit brought by a private individual) and someone has relevant commentary on your statement, you can either stick to the point, or divert the focus. You chose the latter.
That's just a bunch of shit-flinging that has nothing to do with the post to which you were replying. When you try to make a point (claiming this lawsuit wasn't political, but just a defamation suit brought by a private individual) and someone has relevant commentary on your statement, you can either stick to the point, or divert the focus. You chose the latter.
Well this being brought by a private individual, doesn't mean it won't be related to political reasons, that's how politics "work".This was a civil defamation suit brought against him by a private individual. Neither the Democratic party nor the government had anything to do with it.
I can't imagine why anybody would be mad over a billionaire rapist finally facing consequences for his actions. Most of them aren't stupid enough to keep testing the limits by abusing and gaming the justice system for fifty plus years, so this is certainly a rarity. Might even be an infinite money glitch for Carroll if he keeps talking shit.
.... or they believe the assault is false which reflects poorly on their intelligence.
If we're being pedantic about it, one could claim that everything is technically "related to" politics. Trump raped Carroll decades before he decided to turn himself into a political figure, however, and the defamation case came from his distaste for that previous ruling. He doesn't now get to pass the blame on to the entire Republican party, it was his own individual words and actions that put him in hot water.Well this being brought by a private individual, doesn't mean it won't be related to political reasons, that's how politics "work".
Sadly, rape is not listed as disqualifying for a candidate by the constitution. In a less sick society, it would be enough to disqualify him via public opinion, though.One party will take this into even more attention to disprove trumpet's elegibility to be a presidential candidate, and even then they won't succeed, because politics move not by the people's will, but by the money it brings into the game and trumpet has a lot to throw away.
Turns out his entire business empire was fraudulent, too. Wish I could say I was surprised.After all he's a business man and nothing more.
Ah, there's the damage control and whataboutism again.Why is that? What concrete evidence did she present of the event, except for two of her Manhattan socialite friends (who are also vocal anti-Trumpers, i.e. bias) who said she told them about it. It's alleged to have happened almost 30 years ago, and she had no evidence of the specific date, or even any evidence that she'd ever met Trump.
Tara Reade has a much better supported sex assault case against Joe Biden (proof she had regular contact with him, records showing she told others about it at the time) but I don't believe her either, or maybe I should say I wouldn't vote "yes" if I were on a jury. The lapse of time in both cases should make them unsuitable for proof in a courtroom. There's no way a person gets a fair trial when the unverifiable distant past is used as "proof."
Ah, there's the damage control and whataboutism again.
You seem upset that a court has found Trump liable of rape. Makes you look bad for throwing support his way.Ok, so what was the verifiable evidence E. Jean Carroll presented that convinced you that it all happened just as she says?, i.e. what proved her case?
You seem upset that a court has found Trump liable of rape. Makes you look bad for throwing support his way.
Do better.