Jury says no on rape, yes on groping, and award $5 million
I suspect this is as good as Trump could have hoped for and I am a little surprised that the jury only fell hook, line but not sinker for the story.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is the basic legal idea that if someone is lying in one thing, then their entire testimony can be questioned. In this case the Jury apparently believed some of the story, but not all of it. That seems to run counterintuitive to how a jury should really see things. Certainly considering this was all about believing the testimony of the plaintiff. After all, the woman in question (E. Jean Carroll) could not only not tell the jury the day this happened, or the month it happened, but could not even provide the year it happened.
So the question becomes why would a jury (in general) believe a portion of a story, but not the whole story? Wouldn't you suspect that the plaintiff is either telling the whole truth or none of the truth?
If I had to formulate a guess, I would suggest that the plaintiff was not all that convincing, but the idea of a Manhattan jury (87% voted against Trump) finding in favor of the bad orange man was certainly a bridge too far. So they decided that in spite of a less than truthful Carroll giving less than truthful testimony, that they would compromise and decide to split the difference and say no rape, but certainly some groping.
Apparently they believed that she lied... but still wanted to punish Trump.
halfbaked@yahoo.com
MESSAGE...
He's a pussy grabbing rapist and seditious insurrectionist.
Isn't this just going to be the problem - If you read WaPo or NYT or watch CNN or MSNBC - you probably will not be told that the jury found that Trump did not rape her.
But apparently a "grope" in a dressing room is worth $5 million.
The left wing propaganda media will just say he was guilty... and old geezers who cannot think for themselves will fall for it!
Well Trump now has a jury that determined that she lied about being raped.
Since it was a national public statement, he could sue her in Florida (where he lives) and look for a nice red/conservative jurisdiction to do the suing!
Think about how much Stormy Daniels has suffered financially after crossing Trump legally. She is still paying him in 2023 for violation of her NDA and other legal issues. Maybe Trump decides to let it slide... but I wouldn't bet on it!
"LOL - you can’t get more “defamatory” than someone lying about you raping them. Which a far left NYC jury just said didn’t happen. Trump should counter sue for a billion dollars." / Twitter
He probably got handsy but stopped when she refused. But that's an assumption. It's all the jury would have.