|
|
|
|||
|
| So much wrong about all that - but let's look at the Carroll case |  | ||
| Re: Re: ah -- meryl | Top of thread | Post Reply | Forum |
|
Rod, it's hard to know where to start with you because, sorry my friend, you really know so little about any of these cases. Yes, they're all, each and every one of them, unprecedented corruptions of the legal process, orchestrated by the monster in the white house now and coordinated with a rabid, far-left Democratic party, a fallen justice system that's abandoning even the semblence of due process with each further ugly step against Trump, a broken media that has long given up even the pretence of objective news reporting leaving people like you hoodwinked like Winston Smith's fellow citizens watching their giant screen "news" broadcasts, culminating in two-minute hate sessions. No, Trump was never "convicted of rape". In fact, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet and certainly not rape so your earlier claim that "[h]e is a convicted sex offender (rapist) convicted of fraud, stealing classified documents" is ridiculous. If you got that from a variety of papers online, you might want to consider their reliability. None of that is true. He was found civilly liable for sexually abusing Carroll but let's just look at this one case for a moment. What, if anything, do you know about it? Do you know, for instance, that the NY state legislature responded to a classic bit of Democrat lawfare to scuttle the statute of limitations to let Carroll sue in the first place? Do you understand why those statutes of limitations exist? Largely, to allow defendants to protect themselves from false accusations.Carroll was admittedly a big Law and Order fan who obviously glommed the story from this episode: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=law+and+order+bergdorf+goodman+episode&atb=v314-1&ia=videos&iax=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dc0q-Vz_Ie68 When asked about the coincidence, she called it "stunning" .Yeah, you bet. I am a criminal lawyer who deals with witnesses all the time. That's my job and on a good day I'm not bad at it. This woman is so obviously lying it's not funny. Never mind that she couldn't even say what year it was, the fact that the dress didn't even exist back then, she neither screamed despite the fact that she claimed it hurt as he forcefully ripped off her tights and raped her or that there wasn't even a lingerie department at all as she described: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/notes_from_a_1990s_bergdorf_shopaholic_the_e_jean_carroll_story_about_trump_doesnt_add_up.html Let alone the outrageous nature of the allegation to begin with. But do you think that any of that matters to New York jurors who have been steeped in Trump hatred for how many years now? And what, this idiotic woman gets to go on national media and brag about how she's going to take 83 plus millions of dollars from Trump and go shopping with all her friends but he can't defend himself in the court of public opinion lest he be sued for libel again in another New York kangaroo court? I don't know what your idea of fairness is but if you think this qualifies, please tell me how. It seems like exactly the opposite to me. Modified by Jim at Sun, Apr 21, 2024, 12:25:05 |
| Previous | Current page | Next |
| Replies to this message |
|
