Please answer if the following factual statement is either TRUE Or FALSE:

16 comments

• Call.Me.Ishmael

  •

  6 months ago

  #bait
• CJKent_band

  •

  6 months ago

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Just Answer The God Damn Question!
• motorhead

  •

  6 months ago

  Loan me a #2 pencil please
• mogul1985

  •

  6 months ago

  #bait #TDS
• jaybud999

  •

  6 months ago

  True......with a hanging chad.
• rattdog

  •

  6 months ago

  “Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll's rights…” isn't this something a prosecuting attorney would say about someone who decided to act out what was seen from one of the editions of grand theft auto or the remake of i spit on your grave?
• ilbbaicnl

  •

  6 months ago

  For a civil trial, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence (more than 50%). Not 100%.
• CJKent_band

  •

  6 months ago

  @rattdog FYI the Factual Statement is part of questions 2 and 3 in the VERDICT FORM of the Carroll VS Trump case and I quote: “2. In making the June 21, 2019 statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll's rights?” “3. In making the June 22, 2019 statement, Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll’s rights?” The Pics of the Verdict Form are here; so it did happen… Carroll VS Trump Verdict Form 1 Of 2 [view link] Carroll VS Trump Verdict Form 2 Of 2 [view link] :D
• ATACdawg

  •

  6 months ago

  Not sure it's willful on his part, or if he's just a naturally born, malicious, narcissistic, abusive, thieving, vindictive asshole with delusions of adequacy.
• Puddy Tat

  •

  6 months ago

  God this OP is boring.
• TheeOSU

  •

  6 months ago

  Trump is alive, well, and has taken up permanent residence in cj's head which is about to be renamed Trump Dumps, lol
• rawhide2

  •

  6 months ago

  Since E. Jean: 1. Cannot remember the year the assault happened.. 2. Cannot accurately describe the location of the assault 3. the entire lawsuit was financed by Reid Hoffman (Dem megadonor) 4. The dress she claimed she was wearing was not created for another 6 years.. 5. Described APPRENTICE (tv show) as among her favorite (generally rape victims tend to not want anything to do with rapist) 6. changed her story multiple times on exam and cross exam 7. did not tell a single person about the alleged incident 8. and other holes in her story - including filing the lawsuit within minutes of the State of NY special law being passed yea, in any law-abiding country and rule of law country; I am firmly against the DOJ from being weaponized against political opponents. I don't care if that is Frumpy Trumpy or Hunter Biden.
• RonJax2

  •

  6 months ago

  @rawhide2, the Wikipedia article on the E Jean Carrol case contradicts (or completely neglects to mention) just about every one of your numbered claims here. Most prominently incorrect, is your number 7: "did not tell a single person about the alleged incident" Caroll told a bunch people, and those people testified in the trial. The people she told at the time included a good friend (who warned her not to come forward for fear of Trump's retribution) and her psychiatrist (who testified that Caroll squirmed during retelling of the event). Gah. [view link] You can read more at the link above or if you're so inclined, can read the actual depositions and testimony from the trial itself on a site like casetext. Either way, wherever you're getting your information about the case from isn't telling you the truth. To CJ's original question: TRUE. I'm embarrassed to say I once voted for this guy. Never again.
• Jasdoit

  •

  6 months ago

  True.
• skibum609

  •

  6 months ago

  No such thing as an honest progressive. She's a fraud and a liar.
• rawhide2

  •

  6 months ago

  hey RonJax, no worries, WIKI is the most unreliable corner of the internet - easily edited with or without source. the page was probably created by a donor of her's and maintained by that person as owner - therefore that single person has full editorial power. best to do your own searches on the internet - find sources that are trustworthy. Not here to argue with you - but i can provide sources for all statements above. I am independent and find it pointless to argue with the 'bases' of each party. Political bases dont win elections (and this is what most americans' have forgotten), it is the candidate that wins the majority of 'independents' that win elections