*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10900 on: November 15, 2023, 09:28:43 PM »
It's not a strange move. Next year is an election year. It helps them to have Trump under indictments and tied up in these cases.

No, these indictments aren't really helping Democrats politically. They're endearing Trump to his fans even more, adding fuel to his "They're out to get me" narrative, giving him a new topic to rant about at his rallies, and most importantly of all, aren't dissuading anyone from supporting him at all. You commented on this yourself a few months ago. If the goal is to hurt Trump politically, it's clearly not working, there's no indication that it's suddenly going to start working, and yet they keep pushing forward with these prosecutions anyway.

Quote
Rape victims do not say that they will consider dropping charges if their rapist agrees that the sex was consensual. There are a series of red flags here, of which you say it was 'possible' she was still raped. The fact is that the jury rejected her claim of rape and said that she was not raped.

Where did you see that she'd consider dropping charges if Trump agreed that the sex was consensual? I'm not seeing that anywhere, and it doesn't even make sense. Her entire claim was that what happened wasn't consensual, so how from her perspective could Trump be agreeing that it was consensual? I have read that Carroll said she expected Trump to claim that what happened was consensual, and was surprised when he flatly denied the entire incident, but that's obviously not the same thing. As to your other points, no, those aren't red flags, they're just your arbitrary, unsupported assertions of what is or isn't normal or suspicious. Everyone responds to sexual assault differently, and there's no right or wrong way to do it. Like I said before, a determined skeptic can twist any element of a victim's story to sound suspicious. She went out with friends after the alleged rape? You'd think she'd be shaken up and in no mood for socializing, how suspicious! She didn't go out with friends after the alleged rape? Imagine a rape victim not wanting to be supported by her friends, how suspicious!

Quote
Actually the jury consensus in that link is that she wasn't raped, but she was 'sexually abused' in some manner.

I specifically avoided using the term "rape" so that we could avoid the tedious "ehrm actually they said it wasn't rape" nitpick, but I guess a minor detail like me not needing to be corrected isn't enough to stop you from correcting me.

Quote
No money was awarded for that. The money that was awarded was for the other items in the sheet dealing with defamation. Read that document.

Okay, I can see your confusion. The link you posted for some reason cuts off the end of each page. If you look at the original document, which I'll link here, you can see the whole thing. The jury awarded Carroll $2,020,000 for the incident itself, and $1,980,000 for the defamation.

Quote
The case is still in appeal. Your claim that they would have gotten a mistrial is premature.

Right then and there they would have gotten a mistrial, I mean. The judge has to explain the law to the jury and what exactly it is that they have to decide on before they retire to deliberate. It's not like the only clue they have is the form they filled out. Trump may not have the best and brightest legal minds working on his behalf, but even they would have been all over it if there were any question or possibility that the instructions to the jury weren't crystal clear as to what exactly was their job. They did not retire thinking that it was up to them to award Carroll money because Trump called her ugly, nor for any other broad definition of "sexual abuse" that didn't actually correspond to what allegedly happened on the day in question.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7709
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10901 on: November 15, 2023, 09:58:12 PM »
The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -
I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Please try to understand that the judge already determined that there was enough evidence to find Trump guilty of fraud even before Cohen took the stand.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1172
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10902 on: November 17, 2023, 03:32:48 AM »
The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -
I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Please try to understand that the judge already determined that there was enough evidence to find Trump guilty of fraud even before Cohen took the stand.

Actually, they had plenty of ammo without Cohen. They only put Cohen up at that specific time to rattle Trump prior to his testimony.

Trump's lawyers are idiots and the prosecutors are playing him the same same way Putin did.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7526
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10903 on: November 18, 2023, 07:54:41 AM »
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/colorado-judge-rules-trump-gop-primary-election-ballot/story?id=104994897

Big takeaway:
The judge ruled Trump did engage in insurrection but also ruled that the 14th amendment doesn't apply to presidents.

This is an unfortunate blow to future cases.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10541
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10904 on: November 18, 2023, 08:41:02 PM »
It's not a strange move. Next year is an election year. It helps them to have Trump under indictments and tied up in these cases.

No, these indictments aren't really helping Democrats politically. They're endearing Trump to his fans even more, adding fuel to his "They're out to get me" narrative, giving him a new topic to rant about at his rallies, and most importantly of all, aren't dissuading anyone from supporting him at all. You commented on this yourself a few months ago. If the goal is to hurt Trump politically, it's clearly not working, there's no indication that it's suddenly going to start working, and yet they keep pushing forward with these prosecutions anyway.

The people voting in 2024 will not be 100% composed of Trump fans.

Quote from: honk
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Rape victims do not say that they will consider dropping charges if their rapist agrees that the sex was consensual. There are a series of red flags here, of which you say it was 'possible' she was still raped. The fact is that the jury rejected her claim of rape and said that she was not raped.

Where did you see that she'd consider dropping charges if Trump agreed that the sex was consensual? I'm not seeing that anywhere, and it doesn't even make sense. Her entire claim was that what happened wasn't consensual, so how from her perspective could Trump be agreeing that it was consensual? I have read that Carroll said she expected Trump to claim that what happened was consensual, and was surprised when he flatly denied the entire incident, but that's obviously not the same thing.

See the statements of this MSNBC legal analyst covering the case. Carrol said that if Trump had said the sex was consensual she would have considered not suing him.



Quote from: honk
As to your other points, no, those aren't red flags, they're just your arbitrary, unsupported assertions of what is or isn't normal or suspicious. Everyone responds to sexual assault differently, and there's no right or wrong way to do it. Like I said before, a determined skeptic can twist any element of a victim's story to sound suspicious. She went out with friends after the alleged rape? You'd think she'd be shaken up and in no mood for socializing, how suspicious! She didn't go out with friends after the alleged rape? Imagine a rape victim not wanting to be supported by her friends, how suspicious!

Yeah, no. Rape victims don't consider dropping charges if the rapist says that the rape was consensual.

Quote from: honk
I specifically avoided using the term "rape" so that we could avoid the tedious "ehrm actually they said it wasn't rape" nitpick, but I guess a minor detail like me not needing to be corrected isn't enough to stop you from correcting me.

The alleged victim said that she was raped. So the fact that the court said that she was not raped is not a minor detail.

Quote from: honk
They did not retire thinking that it was up to them to award Carroll money because Trump called her ugly, nor for any other broad definition of "sexual abuse" that didn't actually correspond to what allegedly happened on the day in question.

They retired thinking that it was a strange verdict because the primary claim of rape was rejected -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65566501

    Mr Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina told reporters outside the courtroom that it was "a strange verdict".

    "They rejected her rape claim and she always claimed this was a rape case, so it's a little perplexing," he said.

The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -
I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Please try to understand that the judge already determined that there was enough evidence to find Trump guilty of fraud even before Cohen took the stand.

That's... not how court cases work. Judges don't judge defendants before the case is over.

If he did make such comments, it will only be used as fodder for an appeal. The judge in that case has already been slapped by an appeals court regarding his actions in this case: New York appeals court judge lifts gag order in Trump civil fraud case
« Last Edit: November 18, 2023, 10:35:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4147
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10905 on: November 18, 2023, 11:05:25 PM »
Tom loves expressing opinions as absolute facts. Bonus points for it being something he has no personal experience with. He just knows, somehow.  :o
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7709
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10906 on: November 19, 2023, 12:52:35 AM »
That's... not how court cases work. Judges don't judge defendants before the case is over.
Actually, he already did.  It's called a summary judgement.

If he did make such comments, it will only be used as fodder for an appeal. The judge in that case has already been slapped by an appeals court regarding his actions in this case: New York appeals court judge lifts gag order in Trump civil fraud case
Oh, I'm sure that Trump will appeal.  Probably all the way to the Supreme Court (if they're willing to hear it).  Personally, I think that this civil fraud trial is the least of his worries compared to the criminal charges that he's looking at.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10907 on: November 19, 2023, 01:01:24 AM »
See the statements of this MSNBC legal analyst covering the case. Carrol said that if Trump had said the sex was consensual she would have considered not suing him.



...

Rape victims don't consider dropping charges if the rapist says that the rape was consensual.

Not knowing whether or not she would have sued if Trump had claimed the encounter was consensual instead of nonexistent is entirely different to "considering dropping charges," as if she were actively floating that out there as a threat or an attempt at negotiation. You framed that very misleadingly. My own more charitable interpretation of this - although of course I can't prove it - is that Carroll may have been doubting herself or her recollection in the aftermath of what happened (as rape victims often do), but when Trump denied the entire incident, it helped push her into realizing that what Trump had done was definitely wrong and that was why he was denying everything. I'm sure Trump's lawyers pushed her on this point as much as they could, and clearly the jury didn't find it convincing, or else they wouldn't have returned the verdict they did.

Quote
The alleged victim said it was rape. So the fact that the court said that she was wrong and it was not rape is not a minor detail.

I was talking about the fact that you felt the need to say "actually it was sexual abuse not rape" in direct response to me deliberately not using the word rape precisely so we could avoid the "actually" correction from you. Clearly you were just bursting to say it and correct me regardless of whether or not I even needed to be corrected. But whatever, it's really not important.

Quote
They retired thinking that it was a strange verdict because the primary claim of rape was rejected -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65566501

What? I was talking about the jury there, not the lawyers. Lawyers don't "retire" in a case, and they certainly don't have the power to award money. To be clear, the jury knew what they were there to pass judgment on. They knew because it was the judge's job to tell them exactly what they were passing judgment on and the lawyers' job to make sure that the judge told them that. The jury did not award Carroll two million dollars because Trump called her ugly. Trump was not being sued for calling Carroll ugly; he was being sued for the specific incident that allegedly occurred between him and Carroll in a department store in the nineties. What we're left with is something that I just can't see as logically consistent - embracing the fact that Trump wasn't found liable for rape and seeing it as a repudiation of Carroll's story while simultaneously downplaying the fact that he was found liable for sexual abuse. Which is the bigger discrepancy here - that she said it was rape but the jury said it was sexual abuse, or that Trump said he did nothing wrong but the jury said he committed sexual abuse?
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10541
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10908 on: November 19, 2023, 06:18:42 PM »
Quote from: honk
My own more charitable interpretation of this - although of course I can't prove it - is that Carroll may have been doubting herself or her recollection in the aftermath of what happened (as rape victims often do), but when Trump denied the entire incident, it helped push her into realizing that what Trump had done was definitely wrong and that was why he was denying everything.

Considering that the explanation you came up with here involves her not being raped, I don't see any further need to argue the point. This does cast doubt on the rape story, and exists as a red flag.

Indeed, there were many red flags in this case. Another one is the scheme email, in which prior to the rape accusation Jean Carroll's friend Carol Martin discussed stopping Trump with her in an unspecified "scheme".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyers-e-jean-carroll-174843340.html

    While asking about how Carroll developed her book, which marked the first time she made that startling accusation, Trump’s lead defense attorney pointed out an exchange she had with a close friend, the fellow journalist Carol Martin.

    “This has to stop,” Martin suggested in a Sept. 23, 2017 email about Trump. “As soon as we’re both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again.”

    “TOTALLY!!! I have something special for you when we meet,” Carroll responded.

    Two weeks later, Carroll started a cross-country road trip to gather material for an upcoming book in 2019 about nasty men—one that ultimately included a bombshell account of Trump allegedly raping Carroll in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman.

Coincidentally Carol Martin also happened to be Jean Carroll's alibi she allegedly confided in at the time of the event, who corroborated the story in court that she was raped by Donald Trump.

Of course, in your mind these are not red flags at all, and all of this exists as one explainable coincidence after another.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2023, 01:14:29 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10909 on: November 20, 2023, 03:47:09 AM »
Quote from: honk
My own more charitable interpretation of this - although of course I can't prove it - is that Carroll may have been doubting herself or her recollection in the aftermath of what happened (as rape victims often do), but when Trump denied the entire incident, it helped push her into realizing that what Trump had done was definitely wrong and that was why he was denying everything.

Considering that the explanation you came up with here involves her not being raped

No, it doesn't? I said that Carroll may have been doubting herself or her recollection in the aftermath of what happened, not that Carroll wasn't raped.

Quote
Indeed, there were many red flags in this case. Another one is the scheme email, in which prior to the rape accusation Jean Carroll's friend Carol Martin discussed stopping Trump with her in an unspecified "scheme".

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyers-e-jean-carroll-174843340.html

    While asking about how Carroll developed her book, which marked the first time she made that startling accusation, Trump’s lead defense attorney pointed out an exchange she had with a close friend, the fellow journalist Carol Martin.

    “This has to stop,” Martin suggested in a Sept. 23, 2017 email about Trump. “As soon as we’re both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again.”

    “TOTALLY!!! I have something special for you when we meet,” Carroll responded.

    Two weeks later, Carroll started a cross-country road trip to gather material for an upcoming book in 2019 about nasty men—one that ultimately included a bombshell account of Trump allegedly raping Carroll in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman.

Coincidentally Carol Martin also happened to be Jean Carroll's alibi she allegedly confided in at the time of the event, who corroborated the story in court that she was raped by Donald Trump.

Of course, in your mind these are not red flags at all, and all of this exists as one explainable coincidence after another.

Is the fact that she used the word "scheme" really a major point of suspicion here? Because literally nobody, not a single person in the world, would ever actually unironically use the word "scheme" if they were genuinely taking part in what could be described as a criminal or fraudulent scheme. Sometimes friends will use the term among themselves to simply mean making plans together, which I'm sure is what was meant in this case. This is almost like saying that an accused murderer's use of the term "slay" in text messages to friends indicates a murderous nature.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that Carroll discussed coming forward with her story with Martin, and I'm sure that both Trump's election and Carroll's desire to hurt him politically played a role in her making her story public and filing her lawsuit. So what? Isn't that natural? I'm strongly reminded of the people in this thread some years back who made similar arguments about the several women who came forward to make their own accusations about Trump before the 2016 election. "Oho, so they expect us to believe that it's entirely a coincidence they're talking about this right before the election!" No, of course it wasn't a coincidence. "They're just trying to stop Trump from being elected!" Of course they were trying to stop him from being elected. Why is that suspicious? But they, like you, weren't interested in actually following through with their argument and taking it to its logical conclusion. These women tried to hurt Trump politically and/or stop him from being elected, which means they were lying. Therefore, only a liar would want to hurt Trump politically or stop him from being elected. Therefore, a genuine rape victim wouldn't actually care if Trump were elected president...wait, what? Of course a rape victim wouldn't want to see their rapist be elected president! The logic breaks down once you follow it through, which the pro-Trump skeptics never do. They'd rather just say, "Huh, nice coincidence you've got there, very convenient!" and use insinuation rather than logical arguments to cast doubt on their credibility.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10910 on: November 20, 2023, 11:56:18 AM »
"Sometimes friends will use the term (scheme)among themselves to simply mean making plans together...
^Srsly...just srsly...
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10541
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10911 on: November 20, 2023, 02:51:06 PM »
There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2023, 03:35:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #10912 on: November 20, 2023, 03:26:49 PM »
i can't wait for tom's next post, The Phrenology of Liars
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10913 on: November 20, 2023, 04:09:15 PM »
There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10914 on: November 20, 2023, 10:56:50 PM »
There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.
In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7709
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10915 on: November 20, 2023, 11:15:56 PM »
In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.
1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10541
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10916 on: November 21, 2023, 03:16:03 AM »
There are several elements there that do suggest an actual scheme.

1. The phrase "This has to stop", reportedly in relation to Trump

2. A suggestion to scheme

3. The suggestion to scheme is immediately followed by phrase "we must do our patriotic duty again"

Honk wants us to believe that they were not suggesting an actual scheme against an elected official and were merely making plans to hang out.

See item 3. It would be incredibly odd to tell friends that it was our "patriotic duty" to hang out. This does not make sense at all under the honk narrative.

Like I said, I'm sure that they did in fact discuss Carroll coming forward with her story with the goal of politically hurting Trump. I'm just saying that the fact that one of them used the word "scheme" does not indicate that what they were up to was in fact a criminal or fraudulent scheme.

You are supposed to be arguing why it's not a red flag, not merely how you can stretch your imagination to see if you can make it work with the rape narrative with creative interpretations.

We have two people who came up with a premeditated plan to hurt Trump politically because they didn't like his politics. The friend is also an alibi who verified that she was told about the rape at the time it happened.

Jean Carroll did not scream when it happened. She did not tell the police. She did not write about it in her ongoing diary that she was keeping. The first we hear she started speaking about it is in a book she wrote shortly after plotting with her friend on a scheme to get Trump.

A jury, too, also assessed this and rejected the claim that she was raped.

All of this exists as one red flag after another, and is counter to the idea that she was raped. In the end we are supposed to believe that in a 1996 department store a 50 year old billionaire named Donald Trump, who could and did get models much younger than himself, could not resist forcing himself upon a 52 year old liberal sex advice columnist named E. Jean Carroll.  ::)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2023, 07:00:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2583
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10917 on: November 21, 2023, 10:02:14 AM »
In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.
1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.
^markjo is seriously claiming this.

Unbelievable.
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3271
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10918 on: November 23, 2023, 03:22:40 PM »
In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

That's exactly why nobody who truly meant it would ever describe what they were doing as a scheme. It's just not how criminals talk.

We have two people who came up with a premeditated plan

Accusing the President of the United States of rape is a serious matter, and one that I'd expect to see some premeditation over.

Quote
to hurt Trump politically because they didn't like his politics

The excerpt you quoted says nothing about them being motivated by their dislike of Trump's politics. They certainly wanted to hurt Trump politically - because of the rape.

Quote
The friend is also an alibi who verified that she was told about the rape at the time it happened.

Presumably that's the whole reason Carroll contacted her in the first place, because she was there and she knew about it. There's no suspicious "also" here that needs an explanation. You're basically pointing to someone already involved in the case and saying "What are the odds that this person involved in the case...would turn out to be involved in the case?"

Quote
Jean Carroll did not scream when it happened.

Many rape victims don't. Trauma and paralysis often take hold during such an encounter, as well as the fear that their rapist will retaliate against them if they scream or resist.

Quote
She did not tell the police.

Many rape victims don't. They often fear that they won't be believed by the police, or feel ashamed that they ever "let" it happen to them.

Quote
She did not write about it in her ongoing diary that she was keeping.

Again, shame and embarrassment can lead to rape victims trying to "omit" the incident by pretending it never happened, which would lead to them not mentioning it in a diary. Not that you'd even believe it happened if she had written about it in her diary.

Quote
The first we hear she started speaking about it is in a book she wrote shortly after plotting with her friend on a scheme to get Trump.

Yes, she wrote her book and sued Trump after he was elected. I repeat, this line of argument only sounds suspicious if you don't take the time to think about it. Of course a rape victim who had up to that moment kept quiet could be compelled to speak out after their rapist had become the most powerful person in the world. Of course a rape victim could be more invested in stopping their rapist from being the most powerful person in the world than in seeing their rapist as a private citizen be punished for their crime.

And yes, she discussed and made plans with her friend who partially corroborated her story before she took the momentous step of accusing the President of the United States of raping her.

Quote
A jury, too, also assessed this and rejected the claim that she was raped.

I don't know how you can in good faith keep repeating this point while completely ignoring the rest of the story. Carroll said she was raped, and the jury disagreed and said she was sexually abused. Is this a significant repudiation of her story? I would say no, but setting that subjective point aside, we then have Trump's side of the story. Trump said that nothing between him and Carroll ever happened. The jury disagreed and said that not only had Trump sexually abused Carroll, but that he had been lying and defaming her as a liar when he denied the incident happened. Who comes out of this exchange looking better? The woman whose charge of rape was downgraded to sexual abuse, or the man whose claim of complete innocence was downgraded to being found liable for sexual abuse and defamation?

Quote
In the end we are supposed to believe that in a 1996 department store a 50 year old billionaire named Donald Trump, who could and did get models much younger than himself, could not resist forcing himself upon a 52 year old liberal sex advice columnist named E. Jean Carroll.  ::)

Men of all ages, appearances, and occupations have committed rape, and women of all ages, appearances, and occupations have been the victim of rape. Rape is an act of power, not passion. That being said, though, it was amusing during the trial when Trump first insisted that Carroll wasn't his type, mixed up Carroll with his ex-wife Marla Maples, and was forced to admit that Maples (and presumably Carroll too, by extension) was in fact his type.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10541
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10919 on: November 27, 2023, 01:34:22 AM »
You are mainly just claiming things like it is possible that someone doesn't scream when they are raped. This possibility does nothing to erase that red flag.

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable. If you were to go and rape a woman in a store bathroom tomorrow against her will how likely is it that the woman will scream for help? Very likely, obviously.

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2023, 01:59:26 AM by Tom Bishop »