Not guilty of the rape but of defaming her by denying it?
On what planet does that make sense?
It is just SO crazy.
I don’t know about you, but if someone accused ME of rape, I would strongly deny it, too.
Who wouldn’t?
How can that lead to a guilty verdict?
There is no chance Trump can be found innocent of anything in New York City.
Courts need to recognize that and give him a change of venue to a more impartial area.
New York Jury Finds Trump Not Guilty of Rape, But Guilty of Defaming His Accuser by Denying It – The Last Refuge
Our justice system.
New York Jury Finds Trump Not Guilty of Rape, But Guilty of Defaming His Accuser by Denying It
The nature of our politically corrupt justice system takes on new clarity today as a jury in New York City decided President Trump did not rape E. Jean Carroll, the crazy moonbat funded by political operatives, but President Trump did defame her in his denial of the accusation. Thus, the jury awards damages to the false accuser, while finding the accused not guilty.Presumably the position of the jury was that something ‘may have happened‘ because this was not a criminal trial outcome which would be based on “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard. Instead, this verdict was based on the possibility that something ‘may have happened,’ albeit not proven, and President Donald Trump was defamatory toward the accuser in his strong denials of the accusation.
The jury awarded $2million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for the battery allegation. The jury awarded $1 million in compensatory damages for the defamation and $1.7million for the repair of her reputation. They awarded another $280,000 in punitive damages for the defamation. (read more)Keep in mind that New York wrote a new law specifically to provide E Jean Carroll a pathway to file a lawsuit over the allegation that something might have happened sometime in the past, though the accuser could not identify what year President Trump assaulted her. The accuser, a woman of notoriously odd behavior and remarkably unstable mindset, was funded by billionaire LinkedIn founder and very vocal Trump critic, Reid Hoffman.New York created the new law for Ms. Carroll, Reid Hoffman paid for the legal costs, and Ms. Carroll made her sketchy accusations of something, from sometime, that wasn’t certain to have happened. There were no witnesses to the claimed events, there was no evidence the event took place, there was nothing to indicate Ms. Carroll or Mr. Trump were even in the same place at the same time.However, the judge in the case permitted the presentation of possibility, then blocked President Trump from speaking about the case, and then instructed the jury to consider that Ms Carroll’s claims may have indeed taken place, at some point – although no evidence exists and no one knows when, not even Ms Carroll.In any other situation this case would have been thrown out of court for being ridiculous. However, in the modern era where justice is metered by regional public opinion that is based on Lawfare and political motivation, we get this situation. President Trump responded below:.
