Please answer if the following factual statement is either TRUE Or FALSE:
CJKent_bandThe truth hurts, but if you accept it, it will set you free
“Mr. Trump acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, or spite, vindictively, or in wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of Ms. Carroll's rights…”
Again, I am asking you to please keep it 100%, because you don’t have to “explain your answer”.l, and your answer will not affect your grades.
Comments
last comment#bait
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just Answer The God Damn Question!
Loan me a #2 pencil please
#bait #TDS
True......with a hanging chad.
“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?
For a civil trial, the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence (more than 50%). Not 100%.
@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
/photo/13718
Carroll VS Trump Verdict Form 2 Of 2
/photo/13719
:D
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.
God this OP is boring.
Trump is alive, well, and has taken up permanent residence in cj's head which is about to be renamed Trump Dumps, lol
Since E. Jean:
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.
@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.
en.wikipedia.org
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.
True.
No such thing as an honest progressive. She's a fraud and a liar.
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