Posted on 01/25/2024 12:22:34 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
That would make sense if she is making this story up.
Thanks for that, and bookmarked.
Of course it was! It’s just the whole “GET TRUMP, NY ANY MEANS! crap.
It WAS, indeed, ONLY done FOR her!
We KNOW who is funding and backing her; that info has now been public and ON FR, for years now.
Isn’t bearing false witness a sin??
She is dreaming. He wouldn’t touch her with a ten foot pole.
So, she kept that same dress from her “attack” in 1994 until 2019, 25 years? Sure......
You’re exactly right.
(Can judges be ‘impeached’? But even if so, I guess not in NY.)
Another lying bitch! Shame on her.
Yeah, I quit lying as a kid because my District Court Judge/Attorney father always spotted it and squashed it like a bug. This monkey eyed whacko never had that upbringing, obviously.
And she used her iPhone to call her friends and tell them the details of the assault. :-P
LOL!
Ironic is this issue with the suit illustrates something that multiple people have observed about deranged liberals is that they have no sense of history.
Paula Deen saying the word “nigger” back in the 1970’s? They acted like this was something that had happened yesterday. There was no sense of the past fifty years between when she was saying this and today.
This woman coming up with a narrative that isn’t chronologically rational would follow. And no doubt a liberal court will listen to her because they too have no sense of of time or history.
To many of these people history happened yesterday. They’re outraged about slavery as if it happened yesterday. They’re outraged about colonialism as if it happened yesterday. They’re outraged about the end of the last ice age as if it happened yesterday.
And etc.
I’m weary of these people.
“True, but he was found guilty of sexual abuse and defamation...
So if the dress story is a lie, does the original go away, along with the second accusation?
Just wondering...”
The general rule is that you can’t retry a case you lost just because you have a new idea about how you might win it.
There’s an exception for newly discovered evidence. The disgruntled litigant must show that the evidence wasn’t available before, despite diligent efforts to obtain it, and that it’s important enough that it could change the prior outcome.
I don’t see how Trump could meet that standard. Presumably, what’s happened here is that someone looked at the dress Carroll said she wore, looked also at publicly available information about when Donna Karan issued various dresses, and concluded that this would undercut Carroll’s story. But all of that could have been done for the first trial.
Trump’s bigger problem is that he didn’t testify the first time. He’s said he got bad legal advice, and I agree with him, but that’s not a basis for reopening the question whether he did assault her. He had his chance to present his evidence and the jury found against him.
Trump’s other problem is the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The jury’s finding in the first case is binding in the second case. That’s why Trump can’t now decide to testify that he didn’t do it, nor can he now bring in this argument about the dress.
22. Being a self-made psychopath seems to be the rage today among Democrat accusers re Republicans/conservatives.
Should be the cover story on “Psychology Today” but I doubt it will ever happen.
Makes sense...thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.