Release All Files! - Part 1

[chr0naut]

Judge’s opinion doesn’t mean shit.

Umm, if a judges opinion on matters of law has no weight, then who's opinion does, in your world?

It’s no different than mine or yours.  He wasn’t even tried for rape, besides she had absolutely ZERO proof of anything. He was convicted of a civil suit on hearsay.   The whole trial was a sham.  You should read the facts of the case and then make an unbiased and educated decision.   No unbiased, court could’ve or would’ve ever found him guilty of rape without no evidence.  You can take that to the bank.

Carroll directly accused Trump of rape in 2019.

In Carroll's first lawsuit against Trump, she argued that he had publicly defamed her. That case was deferred for years.

Carroll's second lawsuit against Trump also claimed defamation, but added a claim for sexual damages.

Trump's defence presented no evidence at all, and tried (without evidential basis) to impugn the 11 witnesses for Carroll and Carroll herself.

During the case, Trump initially said that it was a hoax, and that the incident never happened. During the trial he began suggesting that it never went as far as penetration and that he had only felt her up through her clothes. That change in approach is telling.

Is Trump just a liar, or a liar and a self-implicating rapist - and also rather stupid into the bargain?

CARROLL v. TRUMP (2023)
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
E. Jean CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. Donald J. TRUMP, Defendant.

Additionally, Trump filed an appeal that the damages were excessive, not one that he was falsely convicted on the basis of hearsay. I will take that to be an admission that the sexual abuse incident actually occurred.

[chr0naut]

#1 Your first question isn’t legible or in context

Did Epstein commit paedophile acts after his 2008 conviction for paedophilia? Or was there some re-prosecution of the exact same acts, with the exact same alleged victims, he was tried for in 2008?

#2 neither is your 2nd

What are you trying to say???

He probably was but wasn’t?

Make it make sense.

Perhaps your assumption that Epstein must have committed new or different prosecutable crimes (because you cannot keep prosecting someone for the exact same incident of crime over and over again - it is a legal rule called double-jeopardy) is blinding you to other possibilities?

In all the evidence that has become public, and all the victims that we know were involved, all the accounts were of things that happened before 2008 i.e. before Epstein was convicted the first time!

The time-lines of the two cases are important to the prosecution of the case - there can't be any cross-over.

I imagine that, if Epstein could not be convicted due to such a technicality, and if he had evidence that implicated someone else in those crimes, presenting that evidence in a court of law during a high-visibility case, makes that evidence more legally credible while exposing co-offenders to prosecution which Epstein was exempt from.

Which would make Epstein's death, and probably even his arrest, the political hatchet job it is starting to appear now to be.

There's just too much that makes you go hmmmm?

[cherokeetroy]

Thats true Executive, Legislative, AND Judicial, financially but there is the sleaze factor

Merry Christmas BTW 

between all the fraud, corruption, graft, and the "Congressional Lawsuit Slush Fund," it's probably approaching 60-70% maybe more.

All governments worldwide deal with human vices.

Sure, there are more corrupt less corrupt but I'd imagine 70-80% are corrupt AF 

  [Image: https://media0.giphy.com/media/hiDtJ7ruy.../giphy.gif]

It's been that way since Nixon if not longer. Just now, we have MORE mega corporations and PACs; there's so much money at stake 

If a politician is championing a cause, they are likely getting some form of compensation, legal or otherwise.

Furthermore, the honest and forthright candidates get eaten up, corrupted themselves, or become disillusioned.

Merry Christmas

[cherokeetroy]

[cherokeetroy]

Link

[FlyersFan]

Carroll directly accused Trump of rape in 2019.

Carroll is a crackpot and a liar.
She couldn't remember key details of the so-called rape.
There was no evidence to support the claim
and her behavior afterwards was not that of someone supposedly raped.

The jury found him guilty because .... 'get Trump'.

She's now a rich liar.

I pity her cat. 
Poor thing going through life with a name like that.
The woman is a whack job.

[Truthhurts]

[Oldcarpy2]

A friend says you can fairly easily edit the redacted pictures by removing the black this revealing the original.

I'm not techie savvy, so is this true?

[quintessentone]

A friend says you can fairly easily edit the redacted pictures by removing the black this revealing the original.

I'm not techie savvy, so is this true?

Oh yes. The stupid they are...it must hurt them a lot.

I watched one guy copy/paste the redacted text (from which original format I don't recall) and simply pasted into a blank word document and voila, all the redactions disappeared revealing the once blacked out text.

[Oldcarpy2]

Oh yes. The stupid they are...it must hurt them a lot.

I watched one guy copy/paste the redacted text (from which original format I don't recall) and simply pasted into a blank word document and voila, all the redactions disappeared revealing the once blacked out text.

Oh dear......can we expect a knock on the door?