The DoJ has opened a criminal investigation into E. Jean Carroll

[DFSNOLE_rivals]

according to laws in VA and Florida the answer is "no" no matter what I call it....so No.

No. According to Virginia and Florida, the answer would be yes. New York differed from the common definition you supplied requiring the penetration to be with a penis.

Why wasn't Trump charged with rape.

Expired Statute of Limitations: Most of the credible allegations of sexual assault against Donald Trump date back to the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Criminal charges were not filed at the time, and by the time the accusations became public, the criminal time limits had long since passed.Narrow Legal Definition of "Rape" in New York: In the 2023 civil case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll (who accused Trump of assaulting her in the 1990s), a Manhattan federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and battery, but stopped short of checking the box for "rape". The judge later clarified that this was solely due to New York's narrow, technical penal code at the time, which legally defined rape strictly as vaginal penetration by a penis. Because the jury concluded Trump forcibly used his fingers, it met the federal and common definition of rape but failed to meet New York's strict statutory definition.

 

[baltimorened]

You think you are talking facts. I’ve noticed you are often mistaken.

But you do use a lot of words, I give you that.

that's a good one....I do have a good vocabulary - that means a total set of words

I never professed to be right all the time, (unlike some), but I also know I'm not wrong all the time.

 

[baltimorened]

No. According to Virginia and Florida, the answer would be yes. New York differed from the common definition you supplied requiring the penetration to be with a penis.

Why wasn't Trump charged with rape.

Expired Statute of Limitations: Most of the credible allegations of sexual assault against Donald Trump date back to the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Criminal charges were not filed at the time, and by the time the accusations became public, the criminal time limits had long since passed.Narrow Legal Definition of "Rape" in New York: In the 2023 civil case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll (who accused Trump of assaulting her in the 1990s), a Manhattan federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and battery, but stopped short of checking the box for "rape". The judge later clarified that this was solely due to New York's narrow, technical penal code at the time, which legally defined rape strictly as vaginal penetration by a penis. Because the jury concluded Trump forcibly used his fingers, it met the federal and common definition of rape but failed to meet New York's strict statutory definition.

so, just so I'm sure, what law was trump tried under - NY or the federal and common definitions ? Nothing you have posted has refuted the statement that Trump was not found guilty of rape.

So, if you knew the answers, why the questions?

 

[DFSNOLE_rivals]

so, just so I'm sure, what law was trump tried under - NY or the federal and common definitions ? Nothing you have posted has refuted the statement that Trump was not found guilty of rape.

So, if you knew the answers, why the questions?

He was found liable for sexual assault. He would have been found liable for rape in both of the states were you reside. So make sure the women in your life are in New York when they're assaulted so they won't technically be a victim of rape.

 

[RockyMtNole]

He was found liable for sexual assault. He would have been found liable for rape in both of the states were you reside. So make sure the women in your life are in New York when they're assaulted so they won't technically be a victim of rape.

If he had used a beer bottle, do you suppose Ned would be here asserting Carroll wasn’t actually raped?

 

[Jfcarter3]

So, you believe all verdicts are proper? OJ, the Central Park Five, McCollum brothers, Scottsboro Boys, Anthony Ray Hinton, Andre Davis, Johnathan Barr, Kristine Bunch, James Hill, and I could go on for days with wrongful convictions. A liberal like you, who is probably against the death penalty, and supports the ACLU, and the Innocence Project, should be more honest. Now, go look up those cases like a good little leftist sheep. The innocence Project has cleared over 250 people themselves.

Sigh. Not a leftist or a liberal. Do not support the ACLU. Am for the Death Penalty (and pro choice). Understand that not all verdicts are proper, but this has morphed. Oh, she lied. Got her, TACO exonerated! Accept she misspoke about who was paying her legal bills and nothing else. Oh, the law was changed just to allow this opportunity - okay, but that does not change the veracity of the claim that was allowed to be brought. And adjudicated in her favor. And upheld on appeal. Someone needs to be honest, it's you. I've seen you argue about the difference in the crime he was found guilty of, but you have not really said he did not commit a crime at all.

 

[baltimorened]

If he had used a beer bottle, do you suppose Ned would be here asserting Carroll wasn’t actually raped?

boy you guys can sure come up with hypotheticals instead of just sticking with the real. There are more than enough real issues with trump why would you feel the need to exaggerate what is a matter of public record? You can yell "rape" all you want, and you can rationalize about beer bottles and what the law should say, and what it says in other states, and even what a judge says, but, you can't get around the fact that in NY, in this particular case Trump was not found guilty of rape.

He was found guilty of sexual abuse. Is it such a stretch to say trump is a sexual abuser....isn't that bad enough for a president? And, if you said that you'd be on firm ground.

 

[lucas80]

Weird that the DoJ is investigating Carroll, but not investigating anyone over the Epstein files.
Priorities.

 

[dpic73]

You call people you don't know, Nazis. You're a little authoritarian. Sit down.

This is by far the most authoritarian administration in our country's history and it's not close. If your sickening level of man-love wasn't so profound, you might be able to see it for yourself. Can you at least admit that pursuing the identities of anonymous social media users who criticize ICE and deportations is going too far and at the very least Nazi-esque or do you love him too much to admit that it's wrong and wholly un-American?

The DOJ Wants to Know Who on Reddit and X Is Criticizing ICE's Tactics

In seeking identities of those behind anonymous social media posts, the Trump administration is intensifying its pursuit using grand jury subpoenas.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[baltimorened]

Sigh. Not a leftist or a liberal. Do not support the ACLU. Am for the Death Penalty (and pro choice). Understand that not all verdicts are proper, but this has morphed. Oh, she lied. Got her, TACO exonerated! Accept she misspoke about who was paying her legal bills and nothing else. Oh, the law was changed just to allow this opportunity - okay, but that does not change the veracity of the claim that was allowed to be brought. And adjudicated in her favor. And upheld on appeal. Someone needs to be honest, it's you. I've seen you argue about the difference in the crime he was found guilty of, but you have not really said he did not commit a crime at all.

If this is aimed at me, I haven't said he did not commit a crime, I said he was convicted of sexual abuse.

And, not a lawyer, but I don't think that even if Carroll is convicted of perjury, that would be significant enough to overturn Trumps conviction. The perjury, if that's what it was, doesn't really have any impact on the abuse claims...IMO.

 

[baltimorened]

This is by far the most authoritarian administration in our country's history and it's not close. If your sickening level of man-love wasn't so profound, you might be able to see it for yourself. Can you at least admit that pursuing the identities of anonymous social media users who criticize ICE and deportations is going too far and at the very least Nazi-esque or do you love him too much to admit that it's wrong and wholly un-American?

The DOJ Wants to Know Who on Reddit and X Is Criticizing ICE's Tactics

In seeking identities of those behind anonymous social media posts, the Trump administration is intensifying its pursuit using grand jury subpoenas.

www.bloomberg.com

first I've seen or heard of this. Why would the administration want to know who's critical of ICE or their tactics? I think even Trump has said ICE needed to tone it down after the Minneapolis events. Plus, there are so many people critical of either ICE or their tactics, that it would be impossible to investigate all of them.

Besides, people are free to criticize who they want.

 

[dpic73]

first I've seen or heard of this. Why would the administration want to know who's critical of ICE or their tactics? I think even Trump has said ICE needed to tone it down after the Minneapolis events. Plus, there are so many people critical of either ICE or their tactics, that it would be impossible to investigate all of them.

Besides, people are free to criticize who they want.

Exactly Ned, why would they do that?

 

[baltimorened]

Exactly Ned, why would they do that?

that's what I said!

 

[DFSNOLE_rivals]

boy you guys can sure come up with hypotheticals instead of just sticking with the real. There are more than enough real issues with trump why would you feel the need to exaggerate what is a matter of public record? You can yell "rape" all you want, and you can rationalize about beer bottles and what the law should say, and what it says in other states, and even what a judge says, but, you can't get around the fact that in NY, in this particular case Trump was not found guilty of rape.

He was found guilty of sexual abuse. Is it such a stretch to say trump is a sexual abuser....isn't that bad enough for a president? And, if you said that you'd be on firm ground.

What we're amazed by is your need to be technically correct in this case even over empathy for any women in your life.

"Dear, even though you were violently penetrated, you weren't raped because he used his fingers and we were vacationing in New York. Isn't it enough for you to just be sexually assaulted?"

 

[Jfcarter3]

If this is aimed at me, I haven't said he did not commit a crime, I said he was convicted of sexual abuse.

And, not a lawyer, but I don't think that even if Carroll is convicted of perjury, that would be significant enough to overturn Trumps conviction. The perjury, if that's what it was, doesn't really have any impact on the abuse claims...IMO.

Not aimed at you, quoted Hotshoe.

And agree on the potential perjury having no impact on the abuse claims.

 

[baltimorened]

What we're amazed by is your need to be technically correct in this case even over empathy for any women in your life.

"Dear, even though you were violently penetrated, you weren't raped because he used his fingers and we were vacationing in New York. Isn't it enough for you to just be sexually assaulted?"

How do you get a lack of empathy out of my pointing out a simple fact that is part of the public record? I can be totally empathetic to both Caroll and all women, but that doesn't alter the facts of trump's conviction. I'm not denying he did it, I'm not blaming the jury, or the victim, I'm simply stating the obvious verdict of the jury. Aren't juries supposed to determine guilt or innocence on the basis of the law and not their feelings?

I can't understand why you hold firm to the "rape" claim when in spite of the law in NY and the jury verdict, trump was not found guilty. Like I said, isn't it bad enough when the presidents of the US has been convicted of sexual abuse?

 

[RockyMtNole]

How do you get a lack of empathy out of my pointing out a simple fact that is part of the public record? I can be totally empathetic to both Caroll and all women, but that doesn't alter the facts of trump's conviction. I'm not denying he did it, I'm not blaming the jury, or the victim, I'm simply stating the obvious verdict of the jury. Aren't juries supposed to determine guilt or innocence on the basis of the law and not their feelings?

I can't understand why you hold firm to the "rape" claim when in spite of the law in NY and the jury verdict, trump was not found guilty. Like I said, isn't it bad enough when the presidents of the US has been convicted of sexual abuse?

It was not a criminal case so word like conviction, guilty, innocence, etc aren’t really applicable. Just to clarify a bit.

 

[DFSNOLE_rivals]

How do you get a lack of empathy out of my pointing out a simple fact that is part of the public record? I can be totally empathetic to both Caroll and all women, but that doesn't alter the facts of trump's conviction. I'm not denying he did it, I'm not blaming the jury, or the victim, I'm simply stating the obvious verdict of the jury. Aren't juries supposed to determine guilt or innocence on the basis of the law and not their feelings?

I can't understand why you hold firm to the "rape" claim when in spite of the law in NY and the jury verdict, trump was not found guilty. Like I said, isn't it bad enough when the presidents of the US has been convicted of sexual abuse?

I clearly, THREE TIMES, asked you to put Trump’s case aside and apply the actions to your female family members. You are totally incapable of doing that. You would rather be technically correct than show common empathy to those in your life.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Weird that the DoJ is investigating Carroll, but not investigating anyone over the Epstein files.
Priorities.

She lied under oath. Its very simple.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[LunchBox50]

So she's eligible for compensation from Trump's slush fund?

Great call.

 

[baltimorened]

I clearly, THREE TIMES, asked you to put Trump’s case aside and apply the actions to your female family members. You are totally incapable of doing that. You would rather be technically correct than show common empathy to those in your life.

and I told you that empathy has nothing to do with the law..or it's not supposed to. Why do you want to conflate the law with empathy. You want me to say that I would not be happy trump was not guilty of rape if he did to my wife or daughter what he did to Carroll? Of course I would not be happy. And if the prosecutor told me that any verdict would only be sexual assault not rape, I would wonder who in the world came up with these laws. But, no matter how I felt, if the law said that the sole verdict could be sexual assault, well, that's what it is. I don't know why you can't accept that. But, maybe you can, and just want to twist the law to empathy...

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what the law says, and what the jury verdict was, in your mind it was rape and nothing will change your mind. And, while you won't or can't accept that, you turn the discussion from what it was into empathy....which I guess has relevance in your thinking, but has nothing to do with the NY law.

So, as Urhuckleberry would say..."I'm out"

 

[Ferentzin04]

NO ONE better call Trump a rapist while Ned’s around you guys. He is very passionate about this subject for some reason.

 

[DFSNOLE_rivals]

NO ONE better call Trump a rapist while Ned’s around you guys. He is very passionate about this subject for some reason.

At first, I thought he was this board's Bins. But, he takes his righteous BS far beyond anything Bins ever did.

 

[lucas80]

She lied under oath. Its very simple.

Howard Lutnick and Donald Trump have lied about their associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Why doesn't that bother you?
You'd s**t a brick if someone investigated Lutnick or Trump for a similar mistake that Carroll made.
What is it with guys like you working so hard to defend pedos that think you're something to wipe off of the bottom of their shoes?

 

[TigerGrowls]

Howard Lutnick and Donald Trump have lied about their associations with Jeffrey Epstein. Why doesn't that bother you?
You'd s**t a brick if someone investigated Lutnick or Trump for a similar mistake that Carroll made.
What is it with guys like you working so hard to defend pedos that think you're something to wipe off of the bottom of their shoes?

Do you understand the concept of lying under oath??? They got her.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Do you understand the concept of lying under oath??? They got her.

So if it turns out the lawyer took the case on a contingency and she had no idea some of the initial fees were being covered, and say, idk, a judge looked at this in 2024 and found no issues, would you come back and apologize for being wrong?

 

[DFSNOLE_rivals]

Do you understand the concept of lying under oath??? They got her.

Allegedly about who financed her defense not about the facts of the case. Nothing will change with the verdict. Trump will remain an adjudicated sexual abuser. The sad thing is you're okay with that.

 

[baltimorened]

It was not a criminal case so word like conviction, guilty, innocence, etc aren’t really applicable. Just to clarify a bit.

thanks for the clarification. I guess the correct word is "liable". Here's an excerpt of an article on the verdict..."
A jury found Donald Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House.

The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. The judgment adds to Trump’s legal woes and offers vindication to Carroll, whose allegations had been mocked and dismissed by Trump for years."

 

[yoshi121374]

How do you get a lack of empathy out of my pointing out a simple fact that is part of the public record? I can be totally empathetic to both Caroll and all women, but that doesn't alter the facts of trump's conviction. I'm not denying he did it, I'm not blaming the jury, or the victim, I'm simply stating the obvious verdict of the jury. Aren't juries supposed to determine guilt or innocence on the basis of the law and not their feelings?

I can't understand why you hold firm to the "rape" claim when in spite of the law in NY and the jury verdict, trump was not found guilty. Like I said, isn't it bad enough when the presidents of the US has been convicted of sexual abuse?

Apparently Sexual Abuse wasn't enough to keep you from voting for him.

 

[baltimorened]

NO ONE better call Trump a rapist while Ned’s around you guys. He is very passionate about this subject for some reason.

well seemingly the jury didn't call trump a racist either....

A jury found Donald Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House.

The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. The judgment adds to Trump’s legal woes and offers vindication to Carroll, whose allegations had been mocked and dismissed by Trump for years.

NOTE THE JURORS REJECTED THE CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED...So the people judging the case didn't know as much as you guys...so why not just make up the verdict you want....

Now, this doesn't mean trump isn't a rapist, you just have to come up with another case. Not passionate at all. Just trying to be accurate...I read lots of posts claiming no facts..well, this is one with facts, that some just can't seem to accept.

 

[Ferentzin04]

well seemingly the jury didn't call trump a racist either....

A jury found Donald Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House.

The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. The judgment adds to Trump’s legal woes and offers vindication to Carroll, whose allegations had been mocked and dismissed by Trump for years.

NOTE THE JURORS REJECTED THE CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED...So the people judging the case didn't know as much as you guys...so why not just make up the verdict you want....

Now, this doesn't mean trump isn't a rapist, you just have to come up with another case. Not passionate at all. Just trying to be accurate...I read lots of posts claiming no facts..well, this is one with facts, that some just can't seem to accept.

Nothing like a 172 word essay on the technicalities of the case to prove you aren’t passionate about people calling Trump a rapist. Keep fighting the good fight big dog. Whatever makes you feel better

 

[DFSNOLE_rivals]

well seemingly the jury didn't call trump a racist either....

A jury found Donald Trump liable Tuesday for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996, awarding her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House.

The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. The judgment adds to Trump’s legal woes and offers vindication to Carroll, whose allegations had been mocked and dismissed by Trump for years.

NOTE THE JURORS REJECTED THE CLAIM SHE WAS RAPED...So the people judging the case didn't know as much as you guys...so why not just make up the verdict you want....

Now, this doesn't mean trump isn't a rapist, you just have to come up with another case. Not passionate at all. Just trying to be accurate...I read lots of posts claiming no facts..well, this is one with facts, that some just can't seem to accept.

BECAUSE IN NEW YORK AT THAT TIME, IT'S ONLY RAPE IF THERE IS PENETRATION BY A PENIS. THE ACT TRUMP WAS FOUND LIABLE FOR MET BOTH THE FEDERAL AND MAJORITY OF STATES DEFINITION OF RAPE! MY GOD, YOU'RE DENSE.

 

[Hotshoe]

Why so agitated?
Settle down a bit.

I produce legal facts which you cannot counter, then you gaslight. Get lost. You folks are all the same. Lies and drama queens.

 

[Hotshoe]

You think you are talking facts. I’ve noticed you are often mistaken.

But you do use a lot of words, I give you that.

More gaslighting with no evidence. It's all you do, because you cannot counter his argument. You have nothing.

 

[Hotshoe]

I need you to calm down. It was clearly a joke and @TigerGrowls took it as one as we’ve always been cordial. This paragraph response to a joke is wild.

Lmao, you folks can spew lie after lie, then gaslight everyone who proves you wrong. What a little authoritarian you are. Meanwhile, y'all call people Nazis. Get lost. Done with your dribble.

 

[Hotshoe]

What Right-Wing Influencers Actually Said in Those Tenet Media Videos

A WIRED analysis shows that right-wing stars like Tim Pool and Benny Johnson focused on topics like Elon Musk and supposed racism toward white people in hundreds of videos allegedly paid for by Russia.

www.wired.com

Like I said. Show your proof, not some left wing opinion, because that's all this nonsense is. Show a single charge from the Biden DOJ against Tim Pool. Just one. Answer the question. You can't. You can get lost with your nonsense as well. Clearly, you believe opinion is above the law to suit your case. lmao

 

[baltimorened]

BECAUSE IN NEW YORK AT THAT TIME, IT'S ONLY RAPE IF THERE IS PENETRATION BY A PENIS. THE ACT TRUMP WAS FOUND LIABLE FOR MET BOTH THE FEDERAL AND MAJORITY OF STATES DEFINITION OF RAPE! MY GOD, YOU'RE DENSE.

Yelling at me doesn't change the basis facts.

I understand completely what you're saying...and have for about the last 25 times you've posted it. But I ask the question again...where was this trial/hearing held and what were the laws being considered? You just can't seem to get beyond you trump hatred....The new York jury REJECTED the rape claim....Look, I understand what point you're trying to make. really, really do. And, you're 100% right that had trump been tried in a federal court or any of many other state he might have been liable for a rape charge. But here's what we can't seem to get beyond...he was tried in NY. Where apparently the jury REJECTED a rape charge for some reason..I don't know why, the law, not enough evidence, whatever. Can we just agree that had trump be tried anywhere but NY he would have been liable for rape and rapist, by definition. But as he was tried in NY, he was not found guilty of rape.


I know facts are hard to digest when they go against the TDS, but ...the fact still remains Trump as not found guilty of rape. You want to call him a racist, knock yourself out.

 

[Hotshoe]

Weird that the DoJ is investigating Carroll, but not investigating anyone over the Epstein files.
Priorities.

Yes, you're absolutely right how no one from the Obama and Biden DOJ prosecuted only 2 people over 16 years. Why didn't Biden release the Epstein file? Trump has released 3.5 million pages. Try harder.

 

[Hotshoe]

This is by far the most authoritarian administration in our country's history and it's not close. If your sickening level of man-love wasn't so profound, you might be able to see it for yourself. Can you at least admit that pursuing the identities of anonymous social media users who criticize ICE and deportations is going too far and at the very least Nazi-esque or do you love him too much to admit that it's wrong and wholly un-American?

The DOJ Wants to Know Who on Reddit and X Is Criticizing ICE's Tactics

In seeking identities of those behind anonymous social media posts, the Trump administration is intensifying its pursuit using grand jury subpoenas.

www.bloomberg.com

You're simply a clown and disingenuous liar at this point. Biden couldn't even take unscripted questions from the media. He specifically worked against Americans to censor and shut down free speech. He pressured every platform to do so. Sit down pup.