This was written before Trump was found guilty, albeit not of the rape. In PJ Media:
E. Jean Carroll is suing Donald Trump for battery and defamation; her claims are based on her initial contention that Donald Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in Manhattan in 1996. In determining Trump’s guilt, however, the jury doesn’t have to decide whether or not the rape, which Trump denies, ever took place. U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan has instructed the jury that all they have to do is conclude that Trump gave Carroll an “unwanted peck on the cheek” in order to find him guilty. Yes, really.
Although this is not actually a rape trial, a guilty verdict will be for Leftists the next best thing to convicting Trump of rape, and will further their efforts to demonize and destroy him. They’ll be able to close off any possibility that he could be reelected in 2024 without actually having to go to the effort of defeating him at the ballot box. Yet the legal chicanery that has been required to get the trial even to this point is off the charts.
First, there was the manipulation of the statute of limitations. As Ben Bartee noted in late April, Carroll was only able to file her civil case at all because of “an exception carved out in the New York state legal code that many speculate was crafted especially to enable the prosecution of Trump. New York Magazine explained that Carroll was able to file her suit “because of the Adult Survivors Act, a new New York state law that went into effect that same month giving adult survivors of sexual misconduct a one-year window to file civil cases that would otherwise be outside the statute of limitations.”
How convenient that New York State decided to make an exception to the statute of limitations for old sexual misconduct allegations right after E. Jean Carroll popped up with her evidence-free he-said-she-said claims against the man whom Leftists hate most in the world, about something that supposedly happened over a quarter-century ago.
And as you no doubt expect, it gets worse. The New York Post reported Sunday that the jury “will have wide latitude in deciding the truthfulness of the allegations against the former president.” Kaplan told the jurors: “The law does not draw a line between different degrees of violence. It totally prohibits all unconsented-to touching from the least to the most violent that a reasonable person would find offensive. In other words, anything from a gentle but unwanted peck on the cheek to stabbing somebody with a knife could be battery for purposes of a civil case like this one.” So if the jury decides that Donald Trump likely gave E. Jean Carroll an unwanted peck on the cheek, it could find him guilty, and all over the world the international establishment media would trumpet the claim that he was a rapist.
There is more. Read the rest here.
Percival Sweetwater says
Trump is the only man on the planet that has to go through this slanted “justice” with no evidence. It’s disgraceful. The same leftist losers in New York that loved him 10 years ago will go to any lengths to destroy him now. Where’s an asteroid that can slam into the Big Apple when you really need one?
sukabumi jojo says
Where I come from, if you don’t appear in court, you risk a default verdict, because the allegations are uncontested, so I’m sorry to say that, whatever may or may not be true of the allegations, it’s rather dumb not to appear. I know of people who have run into massive amounts of damages by not appearing, and they can’t do jack *** about it.
I’d go for the exception in the statute of limitations, claiming it is unconstitutional, but I’m not a NY attorney.
Paul says
Personally I think President Trump should have appeared, but given the fact that no matter what he does the MSM will find something wrong. Not appearing is a lesser “evil”, thus providing less opportunity for MSM NONSENSE.
MD Anthony says
The asteroid is coming….Trump moved to Florida to avoid the eventuality
࿗Infidel࿘ says
So he’s not guilty of rape, but he has to pay her $5M for sexual assault? How does that work again?
At any rate, it won’t contribute even a bit in their efforts to prevent him from running again
terry says
Well, it works, sadly against Mr. trump. BUT, it could work against all the Marxist, Islamist, and Globalist in the democratic party as well! We all well know them. For once these shady laws by bribed judges get used, they become precedent to ‘get used’ by anyone and everyone! May the traps, pits, and snares these crookedly bribed people be used of God to ‘ catch’ them- for they are all knowingly guilty….
Transmaster says
With crappola like this what male is going to date any woman at anytime when in the years to come they can accuse you of rape. VP Pence has it down right. He is never alone in a room with a strange woman his wife is alway there as a witness. This has to stop when a woman can accuse anyone at anytime of rape with zero evidence, and if proved wrong there is no consequences for such accusations.
David M says
The Democrat billionaire funding it was one of Jeffrey Epstein’s buddies on his little island.
https://www.infowars.com/posts/billionaire-who-funded-e-jean-carrolls-lawsuit-against-trump-visited-epsteins-island/
Hoi Polloi says
“The law does not draw a line between different degrees of violence. It totally prohibits all unconsented-to touching from the least to the most violent.…”
So the entirety of New York’s bureaucracy should be prosecuted for its failure to pursue the violent savages on its streets. And for even entertaining the idea of the travesty of restorative justice.
somehistory says
No adult should be given a “year window” to file suit against something like this.
The woman may have found pleasure in the “peck,” but decided later that she didn’t like it that he didn’t request more from her, or give her more attention. Knowing how much money he has, and the attention she would get from saying he had assaulted her, was the motivation. And she had a year to decide the peck was assault.
It is true that any unwanted touching is considered assault. But it shouldn’t take an adult a year to decide he/she didn’t like it.
And the “degree” should matter.
If one steals a ring worth ten dollars, it’s much less of a crime than stealing a Corvette. It should be the same with assault.
Assault with a deadly weapon is certainly different than assault with a fly swatter. So a “peck on the cheek” should be seen as different from rape, or even forcible touching of the victim’s person.
People in power positions are becoming drunk with it. With drunkenness, comes irrational decisions.
Rarely says
It isn’t a question of how severe the assault was but rather if an assault took place in the first place. She provided evidence that one had. Trump’s lawyers were unable to break down her evidence or that of the corroborating “witnesses”. Since Trump put on no defense whatsoever the outcome is not surprising. Trump claimed all over the media that he didn’t know this woman. It would have helped to do so under oath in court.
The severity of an assault should be reflected in the award and clearly $5 million is about $4,999,999 too much for a “peck on the cheek if that’s what it was.
Does this mean that every politician that kisses a baby during a campaign is a pedophile and liable to be sued for assault or, worse yet, criminally charged?
Fortunately, there is an appeal procedure available at which time many questions should be clarified.
In any event it would help if Trump took the stand in any retrial — if he can.
David M says
Creepy Joe Biden & his wandering hands & propositioning young girls on camera should be criminally charged now if this is the standard they want to hold politicians to.
Rarely says
The bar may be so low (an unwanted pat on the shoulder or peck on the cheek?) that virtually everyone is guilty.
John Smith says
Well it seems to me, if your a woman without morals and you want to make a quick buck. All you gotta do is say, “Donald Trump raped me,” and low and behold tomorrow you could be five million dollars better off.
This is seriously the way things are going in the US at the moment, as the alleged rape took place almost 3 decades ago. One also asks the question, was it a hand picked jury that came to this conclusion, as the names of all the jurors have been kept anonymous.
Who knows, maybe Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden were sitting on the jury. I wouldn’t be at
all surprised.
somehistory says
What is really rotten, John, in actual rape cases where the perp is a stranger to the victim, if they cannot retrieve DNA and issue a warrant for that, after some few years, usually about three, even if they later find the perp due to another rape, he can’t be prosecuted for the first one.
And here is this woman….who can really trust what she says? …gaining because she could accuse a very rich man whom others in power want to destroy.
John Smith says
Yes Somehistory they are out to destroy him. This Biden administration will stop at nothing to get Trump. At the end of the day Biden knows that if he doesn’t destroy Trump, Trump could well destroy him.
This Jean Carroll’s main witness has just been on the TV. She explained how Jean phoned her up just after the alleged rape, and how she has managed to keep this alleged assault a secret until now. It all sounds a bit suspicious to me.
somehistory says
John,
One of the things about cases such as this, is whether others knew about it at the time; whether the victim told others, saw a doctor, etc.
In the days when aids was talked about a lot, women would want to make sure they didn’t contract it from such an encounter. As well as other std’s.
And most people can’t keep a secret for very long. People gossip and things come out.
I don’t believe it happened, but that’s just my feelings.
James Lincoln says
John Smith says,
“At the end of the day Biden knows that if he doesn’t destroy Trump, Trump could well destroy him.”
Even though Biden is not working on all cylinders, he knows this much.
John Smith says
Somehistory,
This to most people might sound a terrible thing to say, but we all have our flaws. Even if Trump did rape this lady, ( which I have my doubts about) that doesn’t mean he is incapable of running the country.
Trump may well be a lecherous old pervert we just don’t know, but one thing I’m certain about is that he wants to improve the lives of the ordinary American people.
Biden on the other hand is a crook that couldn’t care less for the ordinary American, he’s selfish, his politics awful, and if he continues in office he will eventually destroy your country.
In spite of his flaws, Trump is the man to make America Great Again.
somehistory says
Yes, John, all people have flaws. We are all imperfect humans. It’s the evil dealings done on purpose that will be punished.
It’s easy enough to accuse someone of a crime. It seems that many famous people are accused if it’s against a person…such as a crime of rape…in order to profit from other’s belief that the charge is true.
Every one is supposed to be considered innocent until a jury decides…based on the evidence presented…that a crime was committed by the accused. That rule is hardly followed if the accused is disliked for some reason.
Even then, some juries have made mistakes when deciding…some to free the guilty and some to punish the innocent.
We may never know if Trump is a rapist; he has made crude remarks, but that’s a whole lot different than actually attacking a woman physically.
And you are right; we have seen evidence of biden molesting, and saying things he shouldn’t to, little girls.
Every one sows seed and everyone will reap accordingly. That’s a given.
Rob (Robin) Blair Harris says
I though the ‘carve out’ was to do with historic abuse within the Catholic Church? These peope were children in the care of the church, or subject to its cultural influence. Their reticence in coming forward is understandable. The accuser in Trump’s case was an adult high-profile executive with a NY magazine. There was no impediment to her coming forward. She presents herself as a blushing naive convent girl who was too ashamed to speak out.
I wonder what her intimate background is?
somehistory says
Once upon a time, her “intimate background” would have been available for the defense to use in court. That kind of thing was used against real victims…if they had dated, had a regular boyfriend, were married, divorced, etc. but because it was used wrongly, laws were changed to protect the victims.
she has profited from that.
ncrdbl1 says
The law used is unconstitutional and everything that went on should be tossed.
This woman will never see a dime as eventually the jury instructions will lead to the verdict being overturned. However the damage will have already been done.
If what we all know is true could be proven, this woman and those behind the mockery should end up behind bars.
MD Anthony says
E Jean Carroll has now bragged that the law was made just for her to be able to charge Trump and that she lobbied for the changebut iother women can also use it but must use it befor thanksgiving 2023 because it is only available for ome year
Goofy says
I take this case as proof that the USA has no longer rule of law, nor has it democratic processes.
The USA seen from Europe appears to be a corporatist, fascist empire, and the quicker the European countries can reclaim their independence the better. That will take a revolution in Europe as the politicians are all bought and paid for by the corporatist, fascist empire which is pushing the world into a nuclear Holocaust triggered by the USA proxy warfare on Russia with its theater in Ukraine.
OLD GUY says
Let’s apply this same legal system to the men and women involved in the Epstein cases of sex with under aged girls.
I wonder who has the list?