When advised the dress she was supposedly wearing wasnt made in 1994, the year she alleged she had been raped, Mrs. Carroll responded with "it was sometime in the mid 90s" and you idiots drank it like grape drink.
The DoJ has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
Your right brethren throw phaggot around this board like it is used in every day talk. It's never appropriate. And you seem to agree with that so spare me the ridicule for the left. Hypocrite.
Probably a yes on that question. Especially if Trump was the one pawing at his wife/sister/daughter/mom.
Sometimes there is actually good debate on here.
There is a possibility this conversation my get to that point
You've lost your damn mind if you say the non-magas are worse about name calling than magas. If you insist on calling people out you'll step up and address all the @ssholes who call everybody f****** or ph******.
Those are your people.
As long as you condone that talk from your side while blasting the opposite side for less, it will never get to that point. I don't deal with hypocrites well at all.
It's absolutely absurd and he just can't seem to wrap his head around it. Typical magat pea brain for you.
Maybe I did not say it well. I think I calmly said that verbiage and personal identity attacks do not work well toward a solution to a problem
Its OK for bar testosterone who’s got the biggest dick or locker room trash talking etc and even on here has its place.
Even the lefties on here I am Ok with them losing it
You may want to take a deep breath and reread what I said as apparently you are interpreting everything I write in a very hostile manner and not trying to be open minded based on the attitude I am feeling from you
Or is it my imagination
Your chance to explain in a civil manner
See this is the problem with being an unwelcome **** on a board that you don’t belong on.
A lot of us have been posting on “this” forum predating Rivals. Soooooo you can take your “LOL” and shove it up your Midwest ***. My disdain for Trump is well documented … ***.
it’s always been ok to call people faggots when they are being ****. I would never call a gay person a *** unless they were being a ***. If you are in fact “gay” I retract the label of “***” and will just call you an Iowan … which is synonymous with “***” sooooooo it works. It’s science.
What colors do you think the Russian flag is?
ned is one of the dumbest, most disingenuous pieces of **** on this board. he could watch Hitler burn a bus full of nuns on the 50 yard line, and he would 100% give us some BoTH SiDEs pablum in response.
This brain damaged woman needs to be in the loony bin imo.
The E. Jean Carroll case against President Trump is one of the strangest civil cases in American history. The foundational problem is this: Carroll could not identify when the alleged incident occurred — not even the year with any precision.
That should have killed the case as dead as a skunk on the road right there.
Without a temporal anchor, no defendant — regardless of guilt or innocence — can mount an alibi defense. Trump, who has maintained detailed calendars and staff records for decades, was denied the most basic tool of self-defense: the ability to establish where he was. That is not a technicality. It is a due process violation at the constitutional level.
Then Carroll produced the one piece of physical evidence she claimed corroborated her account — the dress she wore during the alleged incident. It was subsequently established that the dress was designed after the incident could have occurred. The sole corroborating evidence falsified her timeline.
The case proceeded anyway.
The resulting verdict was then weaponized in a defamation suit — where Trump was held liable for denying the allegation, while being procedurally barred from defending against it, because it was already "proven" in another court, regardless how flawed the procedure was. He was punished, in effect, for asserting his own innocence.
Compounding everything: coordinated professional and physical threats so thoroughly intimidated the legal community that attorneys refused these cases regardless of available fees. When you systematically destroy a defendant's ability to retain counsel of choice, you forfeit the right to a legitimate verdict.
An allegation is not evidence. Process without substance is not law. And a verdict produced under these conditions carries no legitimate authority — whatever its formal status.
Not only is it the right move to investigate Carroll, but every other person involved as well. Trump is owed serious damages here, and there may be a few people who belong in prison for their roles in the case.
The E. Jean Carroll case against President Trump is one of the strangest civil cases in American history. The foundational problem is this: Carroll could not identify when the alleged incident occurred — not even the year with any precision.
That should have killed the case as dead as a skunk on the road right there.
Without a temporal anchor, no defendant — regardless of guilt or innocence — can mount an alibi defense. Trump, who has maintained detailed calendars and staff records for decades, was denied the most basic tool of self-defense: the ability to establish where he was. That is not a technicality. It is a due process violation at the constitutional level.
Then Carroll produced the one piece of physical evidence she claimed corroborated her account — the dress she wore during the alleged incident. It was subsequently established that the dress was designed after the incident could have occurred. The sole corroborating evidence falsified her timeline.
The case proceeded anyway.
The resulting verdict was then weaponized in a defamation suit — where Trump was held liable for denying the allegation, while being procedurally barred from defending against it, because it was already "proven" in another court, regardless how flawed the procedure was. He was punished, in effect, for asserting his own innocence.
Compounding everything: coordinated professional and physical threats so thoroughly intimidated the legal community that attorneys refused these cases regardless of available fees. When you systematically destroy a defendant's ability to retain counsel of choice, you forfeit the right to a legitimate verdict.
An allegation is not evidence. Process without substance is not law. And a verdict produced under these conditions carries no legitimate authority — whatever its formal status.
Not only is it the right move to investigate Carroll, but every other person involved as well. Trump is owed serious damages here, and there may be a few people who belong in prison for their roles in the case.
E Jean Carroll is a known actor who agreed to be the "plaintiff" in a totally made up lawsuit that was bankrolled by Trump's biggest enemies.
The goal was to drain him financially and damage his reputation so he couldn't become President again.
Just because they didn't accomplish their goal doesn't mean she gets away with being at the center of a massive CRIME.
JAIL TIME!
Last edited:
Here it is in a nutshell.
Oh sweet, sweet karma ... E. Jean Carroll just got absolutely gutted by her own lying mouth.
This smug lawfare grifter spent years parading around like some victorious #MeToo martyr after dragging President Trump into court over a 25-year-old “dressing room rape” fairy tale at Bergdorf Goodman. Jury rejected the rape charge but still coughed up $5 million for “assault,” then another $83.3 million in defamation cash because Trump had the nerve to call her full of ****.
Under oath ... hand on the Bible, penalty of perjury ... Carroll swore up and down that nobody paid her a dime to launch that hit job. Not one red cent. Pure as the driven snow.
Then her own ******* lawyers were forced to admit in open court that fat-cat LinkedIn billionaire Reid Hoffman ... the Epstein-adjacent Democrat sugar daddy who also allegedly funded the Tesla dealership riots ... secretly funneled her the cash.
Busted. Red-handed. Lying through her teeth.
Now the DOJ has opened a full criminal inquiry and is reportedly gearing up to indict her *** for perjury.
FAFO, baby. You don’t get to weaponize the courts with dirty billionaire money, perjure yourself on the stand, and just stroll away. When you swing at the king and miss, don’t cry when the crown swings back harder.
As Obama loved to preach, “the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice.”
Tick… tock… E. Jean.
Her own legal team dropped the dime on her. Delicious.
The lawfare queen is finally getting crowned ... with an indictment.
(article below)
Oh sweet, sweet karma ... E. Jean Carroll just got absolutely gutted by her own lying mouth.
This smug lawfare grifter spent years parading around like some victorious #MeToo martyr after dragging President Trump into court over a 25-year-old “dressing room rape” fairy tale at Bergdorf Goodman. Jury rejected the rape charge but still coughed up $5 million for “assault,” then another $83.3 million in defamation cash because Trump had the nerve to call her full of ****.
Under oath ... hand on the Bible, penalty of perjury ... Carroll swore up and down that nobody paid her a dime to launch that hit job. Not one red cent. Pure as the driven snow.
Then her own ******* lawyers were forced to admit in open court that fat-cat LinkedIn billionaire Reid Hoffman ... the Epstein-adjacent Democrat sugar daddy who also allegedly funded the Tesla dealership riots ... secretly funneled her the cash.
Busted. Red-handed. Lying through her teeth.
Now the DOJ has opened a full criminal inquiry and is reportedly gearing up to indict her *** for perjury.
FAFO, baby. You don’t get to weaponize the courts with dirty billionaire money, perjure yourself on the stand, and just stroll away. When you swing at the king and miss, don’t cry when the crown swings back harder.
As Obama loved to preach, “the moral arc of the universe bends toward justice.”
Tick… tock… E. Jean.
Her own legal team dropped the dime on her. Delicious.
The lawfare queen is finally getting crowned ... with an indictment.
(article below)
I didn't make any judgements...I only pointed out a fact relative to Trump's guilt. He was not found guilty of rape...we could argue whether or not he should have been, but that was a jury's verdict
Donald Trump was not found guilty of rape, but a federal jury did find him civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation against E. Jean Carroll
well, we want to be factual, don't we. I know it's easier to just go along with the crowd on our statements. But if we're going to do that maybe we should be regurgitating the actual fact.
Donald Trump was not found guilty of rape, but a federal jury did find him civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation against E. Jean Carroll
but it wasn't..No matter how you try to make this more negative about trump, we are still a nation of laws. He was charged, tried and not found guilty of rape....I don't know why a guilty verdict of sexual abuse - a fact - has to be exaggerated with a claim that is not factual.
I'm not saying anything. As I posted, I'm not making judgements, I'm only restating a fact
see, that's where you go off the rails. You, and others are making the case that Trump was found guilty of rape....he was not. That's not defending anybody. He was found guilty of sexual abuse, not rape.
Why are you so eager to attack trump for something for which he was not found guilty? Isn't it a negative that he was found guilty of sexual abuse? You leave yourself open to criticism for stating something that is not factual.
I'm simply restating a fact. Now if you have a fact that proves trump is guilty of rape, I'd be the first to jump on the anti trump train.
I have been surprised at how the board has increased the name calling, the "your mother" jabs, the lack of facts to accompany the definitive statements,.....and the lack of many discussions on the topics of the day.
Before the invasion we could discuss topics in rational ways. We might disagree and lay out facts to support opposite positions, but now we seem to have evolved into name calling, and for sure, denigration of anybody who might have a different point of view than the masses.
Oh, I’m not denigrating dude for different political views, I’m denigrating him because he is from Iowa. F* that guy.
Fine to be legally precise, but recognize you’re splitting hairs.
Some states don’t even have a crime called “rape.” Would you then say there are no rapes in these states?
You failed to answer my question that was in response to this post of yours.
I'll ask again. If your wife, sister or daughter was vaginally penetrated, without her consent, by a man's fingers, would you say she was raped? It's a simple yes or no question.
You are too stupid for words. Just incredible. There isn't anything legitimate about this "investigation" or the DOJ doing it. IT IS GOING NOWHERE.
Funny post. You literally have long time posters on this board using phag and calling people b1tches in virtually every single post including the dude you quoted. The amount of lies spewed by a group on this board is absurd but keep pointing your finger at the new guys. Pretty sure your bias is political.
Hostile manner? Lol.
you called people out for calling people dumb but are ok with the righties calling lefties phags. That makes you a hypocrite. I don’t like hypocrites.
Such a good little bigot. I bet palmetto has a problem with me calling you a bigot even though you have provided all the facts necessary to make that claim.
Do you apply the same science to other words? Do you use anonymously use n***er on the internet, but, only when they really deserve it?
It will be OK dude Will you at least accept my offer on encouraging you to chill out
Life is too short to be wound up tight as you are
Close eyes breathe deep Go to a happy place in your mind
Call each other whatever you desire
I don’t control his or your actions
I just want to encourage we be as civil as possible
Sometimes we have to rant and rave and I get that
You Iowa guys have based on my observations come in hot and heavy
Seems to be a group of you folks
Y’all may consider other options rather than a message board
Maybe a private Facebook wall with all you guys as members to rant and rave
geez, you guys just want trump to be guilty of rape...so, knock yourselves out. I simply pointed out a basic fact..someone posted as statement about trump as a rapist...and that might be entirely true..but in the case of Jean Carroll he was not. He was found guilty of sexual abuse...no more no less.
Isn't it bad enough he was found guilty of sexual abuse???
What were the consequences? To be reenelected president by morons
I don't have any idea of the legal definition of rape....look, you can't make this out to be any more than it is. Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse by a jury...he was not found guilty of rape.
So, let me ask you, do we no longer follow the verdicts of juries? We just decide he was tried on this charge, no matter the verdict, he's guilty? I know you want him to be guilty of rape so you can continue the posts that "trump is a rapist". And you might well be accurate. But in the E Jean Carroll case he was not found guilty of rape.
Why is it so essential that we somehow conflate trump's guilty verdict from sexual abuse to rape? No matter what happened in that changing room, no matter if his finger penetrated, no matter if anything else penetrated, the simple fact remains that he was not found guilty of rape. That's not defending him, that's not restructuring the definition of rape, it's a simple statement of fact...
so we can go back and forth until the cows come home and it won't change the verdict of the jury....he might even have been 100% guilty of rape, but the fact remains...he was not found guilty of rape.
Last edited: