E Jean Carroll is being investigated for allegedly lying about woke DEI billionaire Reid Hoffman funding her attack against Donnie

[West]

 

Wow. Sick

[John Johnston]

40 minutes ago, West said:

 

Wow. Sick

Nobody cares. Trump and his pretend DOJ will not even make it out the gate. whatever. Shrug. 

[West]

4 minutes ago, John Johnston said:

Nobody cares. Trump and his pretend DOJ will not even make it out the gate. whatever. Shrug. 

So you support woke billionaires paying off women to abuse the legal system for political purposes (allegedly but probably)? Sounds about right

[John Johnston]

18 minutes ago, West said:

So you support woke billionaires paying off women to abuse the legal system for political purposes (allegedly but probably)? Sounds about right

Nobody cares about another Trump court loss. 

[West]

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Nobody cares about another Trump court loss. 

The dem lawfare circus is being exposed. 

Supreme Court will toss her frivolous case and she'll end up like the Duke Lacrosse accuser who faked a rape against white kids so that they could title ix the school and bring in Obama's woke agenda 

Edited May 28 by West

[John Stone]

........... the legs is not about Trump .......... it's more about the direction it takes from Trump - totally corrupt. 

No question that it is a vindictive prosecution .......... brought by the DOJ, no less????

ala:

James Comey

Letitia James

Abrigo Garcia

John Bolton

Sean Charles Dunn

Adam Schiff 

Lisa Cook

John Brennan

Jack Smith

Andrew Weismann

Lisa Monaco

.......... to name a few. 

Banana Republic. 

 

 

[WestCanMan]

13 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Nobody cares. Trump and his pretend DOJ will not even make it out the gate. whatever. Shrug. 

Of course you don't care, because you're a cultist, and this doesn't make a dent in your confirmation bias.

The point here is that E J Caroll is now known to have been lying during her court case against Trump, and as such, the credibility of her testimony is 100% shot.

Just remember that Trump denies that any of this ever happened. It's nothing more than her word against his. And we now know that she was lying there.

Bottom line: she had no evidence whatsoever, just her own story, and now we know for a fact that she was lying in court. 

 

This is actually an important case, because people who lie in court, to the extent that E J Caroll lied in court, are guilty of an extremely serious crime. The court isn't supposed to be a political weapon, it is supposed to be a place of justice. E J Caroll is facing real justice now. 

 

NO REPUTABLE COURT ANYWHERE ON EARTH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED HER CASE TO PROCEED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

By the standard that you have accepted with E J Caroll's "case", anyone in the USA can say that they were r4ped by any other person, 30 years ago, and that defendant has to be found guilty by the precedent that you, the Dems, and that farcical judge have set. If Trump wants to pay their legal bills so that they can proceed with that court case, that's fine. 

If Jane from Sacramento accuses Newsom, then Newsom is guilty.

If Susie from Spuzzum accuses Obama, then Obama is 100% guilty.

Whoever runs for the Dems in the next election can be accused of r4pe, and if they are, then they are guilty. 

 

The reason why you're considered "a cultist" is because your judgment is skewed 100% away from reality, towards a devout belief in the words of your handlers, however false you intellectually know them to be. For example: if you see something with your own eyes, and CNN tells you that you saw something different, then you will believe that you saw that exact 'something', and utterly disregard reality. 

You're hopeless, John. Your mind has been hijacked, and you're incapable of getting it back. 

Edited May 28 by WestCanMan

[John Stone]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Of course you don't care, because you're a cultist, and this doesn't make a dent in your confirmation bias.

The point here is that E J Caroll is now known to have been lying during her court case against Trump, and as such, the credibility of her testimony is 100% shot.

Just remember that Trump denies that any of this ever happened. It's nothing more than her word against his. And we now know that she was lying there.

Bottom line: she had no evidence whatsoever, just her own story, and now we know for a fact that she was lying in court. 

 

This is actually an important case, because people who lie in court, to the extent that E J Caroll lied in court, are guilty of an extremely serious crime. The court isn't supposed to be a political weapon, it is supposed to be a place of justice. E J Caroll is facing real justice now. 

 

NO REPUTABLE COURT ANYWHERE ON EARTH WOULD HAVE ALLOWED HER CASE TO PROCEED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

By the standard that you have accepted with E J Caroll's "case", anyone in the USA can say that they were r4ped by any other person, 30 years ago, and that defendant has to be found guilty by the precedent that you, the Dems, and that farcical judge have set. If Trump wants to pay their legal bills so that they can proceed with that court case, that's fine. 

If Jane from Sacramento accuses Newsom, then Newsom is guilty.

If Susie from Spuzzum accuses Obama, then Obama is 100% guilty.

Whoever runs for the Dems in the next election can be accused of r4pe, and if they are, then they are guilty. 

 

The reason why you're considered "a cultist" is because your judgment is skewed 100% away from reality, towards a devout belief in the words of your handlers, however false you intellectually know them to be. For example: if you see something with your own eyes, and CNN tells you that you saw something different, then you will believe that you saw that exact 'something', and utterly disregard reality. 

You're hopeless, John. Your mind has been hijacked, and you're incapable of getting it back. 

It's a vindictive prosecution ............. Next! 

On the other hand 85 mil for one fk seems excessive? 

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, John Stone said:

........... the legs is not about Trump .......... it's more about the direction it takes from Trump - totally corrupt. 

No question that it is a vindictive prosecution .......... brought by the DOJ, no less????

ala:

James Comey

Letitia James

Abrigo Garcia

John Bolton

Sean Charles Dunn

Adam Schiff 

Lisa Cook

John Brennan

Jack Smith

Andrew Weismann

Lisa Monaco

.......... to name a few. 

Banana Republic. 

Consider the fact that REAL charges were brought against those people for ACTUA CRIMES that they committed. FYI that's what the courts are for.

 

James Comey committed some of the most serious crimes in recent US history. He should have been charged for his actual, proven crimes. 

Letitia James committed a more serious form of the exact crime that she accused Trump of, and you LOVED those charges when they were brought Trump. Therefor it's entirely hypocritical of you to pretend that she shouldn't have been charged for the crimes that she committed, when she charged other people for committing those same "crimes".

 

Buddy, Trump was charged for an alleged r4pe in "an unknown year approximately 30 years ago" ffs. By a woman without a single shred of evidence, who never reported it to anyone, anywhere.

FYI you don't get to stand there pretending that all the BS charges made against trump were somehow legitimate, yet the people who were known to have made false accusations against trump should get off for free.

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, John Stone said:

It's a vindictive prosecution ............. Next! 

On the other hand 85 mil for one fk seems excessive? 

She is KNOWN to have committed an extremely serious crime. NEXT!

Cultist dipshit: you took her own evidence-free allegation from "about 29 or 30 years ago" as a serious case. Now you know for certain that she committed a serious crime but you don't think that she should be charged. That's why you are considered a "cultist". 

[Fluffypants]

E. Jean Carroll case was the most ridiculous thing ever.

The State Legislature literally created a temporary law so she could sue.

The venue was in a very hostile area for Trump.

There was literally 0 evidence of any of her claims. She couldn't even say when this allegedly happened.

When they found him liable they specifically said he didn't rape her

She then wins a huge defamation lawsuit because Trump said he didn't rape her based off the jury specifically saying he didn't and the judge made up his own definition of rape and claimed defamation based on that.

The Left acts like this was criminal conviction rather than a civil one.

Edited May 28 by Fluffypants

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

The Left acts like 

That's just it. Right there. 

"The left acts like" is a perfect summary of our civilization at this very moment.

The left never acknowledges reality because they don't have to: the just "acts like", 24/7/365.

The leftist media acts like something happened, their cultists scream "THAT THING ACTUALLY HAPPENED!!!! BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT ON CNN BECAUSE I DON'T WATCH CNN", and then we're all supposed to believe that we saw "Caroll's legitimate r4pe case", "Blasey-Ford's reliable testimony", "mostly peaceful protests", "the murder of a gentle giant who had his hands up", "the implementation of a successful vaccination campaign", "a sea of swastikas", "the US Gov't almost being overrun", "a mentally healthy Joe Biden", "evidence of collusion", "Kamala: the presidential genius whose only barrier to success is her skin colour and gender", "the religion of peace", "Barack the uniter", "honest Mark Carney", "evidence that Florida is already under water", "Renee Good being shot for no reason", "Rayshard shot by blatantly racist cops for no reason", "Jussie was attacked by MAGA supporters", "most terrorists are white males", etc, etc, etc.

If we all started to "see" what CBC/CNN told us we saw, we'd all be certifiable fking nutjobs right now. 

[robosmith]

16 hours ago, West said:

 

Wow. Sick

^STILL hasn't learned to ignore Trump's SHAM INVESTIGATIONS.

What a MAGAt sucker. LMAO

 

[herbie]

The rapist commits a blatant act of office to mete revenge and his lackeys are duped into thinking who paid for the victims lawyer is the real crime.

Convince anyone you're not a spineless sycophant cultist too chickenshit to question a single thing your Glorious Leader says or does.

 

[WestCanMan]

22 minutes ago, robosmith said:

SHAM INVESTIGATIONS

SHAM INVESTIGATIONS ARE YOUR FAVOUTITE, ROBO! You LOVE sham investigations.

Russian collusion: no evidence at all, ever, but it warmed the cockles of your heart for YEARS!

Ukrainian collusion: no evidence at all, ever, but you LOVED it.

Caroll trial: no evidence at all, the accuser couldn't even guess what year it happened, but you LOVED it.

Blasey-Ford allegations during Kavanaugh's appointment proceedings: no evidence at all, the accuser couldn't even guess what year it happened, but you LOVED it.

Trump's Loan: Paid on time, in full, the bank was happy and said that the sq footage recorded on the application didn't make any difference to them, but you loved that Trump was charged for that non-crime.

 

Can you imagine how much joy would have been stripped from your life if those sham investigations never happened?

 

Now there's a legitimate trial going on and you hate it. Do you see a pattern here? You hate legit court cases, and you love sham investigations, robo. That's a fact. 

The FACT is that E J Caroll committed an extremely serious crime, based on what SHE TESTIFIED TO, HERSELF, in court. First she said that she was charging Trump herself, then she admitted that she had someone else actually paying all of her legal bills. Both of those contradictory statements were made by her, under oath. That means that she is known to have lied to the court at least one time, during a case where her only evidence was her own testimony...  

If you were found guilty of something in court, based entirely on the testimony of 1 person, and then that person was found to have been lying there, would you suddenly care? Of course you would. 

If Trump was fund innocent, based on the evidence of 1 person, then it was proven that his witness was lying, would you suddenly care? Of course you would. 

 

So, the fact is:

1. YOU LOVE FAKE COURT CASES AGAINST PEOPLE YOU HATE, AND
2. YOU HATE LEGITIMATE COURT CASES AGAINST PEOPLE THAT TELL LIES WHICH YOU LIKE. 

You're a sham trial, guy, robo. YOU ONLY LIKE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIALS!!!!

 

Case closed!!

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

SHAM INVESTIGATIONS ARE YOUR FAVOUTITE, ROBO!

I don't have ANY FAVOUTITE, lDIOT.

[West]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

SHAM INVESTIGATIONS ARE YOUR FAVOUTITE, ROBO! You LOVE sham investigations.

Russian collusion: no evidence at all, ever, but it warmed the cockles of your heart for YEARS!

Ukrainian collusion: no evidence at all, ever, but you LOVED it.

Caroll trial: no evidence at all, the accuser couldn't even guess what year it happened, but you LOVED it.

Blasey-Ford allegations during Kavanaugh's appointment proceedings: no evidence at all, the accuser couldn't even guess what year it happened, but you LOVED it.

Trump's Loan: Paid on time, in full, the bank was happy and said that the sq footage recorded on the application didn't make any difference to them, but you loved that Trump was charged for that non-crime.

 

Can you imagine how much joy would have been stripped from your life if those sham investigations never happened?

 

Now there's a legitimate trial going on and you hate it. Do you see a pattern here? You hate legit court cases, and you love sham investigations, robo. That's a fact. 

The FACT is that E J Caroll committed an extremely serious crime, based on what SHE TESTIFIED TO, HERSELF, in court. First she said that she was charging Trump herself, then she admitted that she had someone else actually paying all of her legal bills. Both of those contradictory statements were made by her, under oath. That means that she is known to have lied to the court at least one time, during a case where her only evidence was her own testimony...  

If you were found guilty of something in court, based entirely on the testimony of 1 person, and then that person was found to have been lying there, would you suddenly care? Of course you would. 

If Trump was fund innocent, based on the evidence of 1 person, then it was proven that his witness was lying, would you suddenly care? Of course you would. 

 

So, the fact is:

1. YOU LOVE FAKE COURT CASES AGAINST PEOPLE YOU HATE, AND
2. YOU HATE LEGITIMATE COURT CASES AGAINST PEOPLE THAT TELL LIES WHICH YOU LIKE. 

You're a sham trial, guy, robo. YOU ONLY LIKE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIALS!!!!

 

Case closed!!

There's something very sick about a liberals psyche that they lie about being raped 

[CdnFox]

It's not shocking of course but it is still disappointing to see this kind of thing. If true this is yet another in the increasingly growing pile of circumstances where the liberals brought false allegations against the political rival to try and take him out

She lied about this it's a big deal, and she should definitely go to jail for it. People have to learn you cannot lie for profit to attack someone's political opponent just because some billionaire told you to.

And democrats have to learn that if you do allow that kind of stuff and say it's okay then you can't complain when someone else does it to a politician you like.

Either welfare is wrong or it's not and democrats seem to like it both ways depending on whether they like the politician or not. 

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, West said:

There's something very sick about a liberals psyche that they lie about being raped 

There's something very sick about a liberals psyche that they venerate people who lie about being raped.

No decent human being would support a person making false accusations that lead to a criminal indictment, but all leftists do...

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There's something very sick about a liberals psyche that they venerate people who lie about being raped.

No decent human being would support a person making false accusations that lead to a criminal indictment, but all leftists do...

The venerate people who murder others who say things that they don't like. Is it any shock that they celebrate those who are simply willing to lie to take down a political opponent?

[Fluffypants]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

SHAM INVESTIGATIONS ARE YOUR FAVOUTITE, ROBO! You LOVE sham investigations.

Russian collusion: no evidence at all, ever, but it warmed the cockles of your heart for YEARS!

Ukrainian collusion: no evidence at all, ever, but you LOVED it.

Caroll trial: no evidence at all, the accuser couldn't even guess what year it happened, but you LOVED it.

Blasey-Ford allegations during Kavanaugh's appointment proceedings: no evidence at all, the accuser couldn't even guess what year it happened, but you LOVED it.

Trump's Loan: Paid on time, in full, the bank was happy and said that the sq footage recorded on the application didn't make any difference to them, but you loved that Trump was charged for that non-crime.

 

Can you imagine how much joy would have been stripped from your life if those sham investigations never happened?

 

Now there's a legitimate trial going on and you hate it. Do you see a pattern here? You hate legit court cases, and you love sham investigations, robo. That's a fact. 

The FACT is that E J Caroll committed an extremely serious crime, based on what SHE TESTIFIED TO, HERSELF, in court. First she said that she was charging Trump herself, then she admitted that she had someone else actually paying all of her legal bills. Both of those contradictory statements were made by her, under oath. That means that she is known to have lied to the court at least one time, during a case where her only evidence was her own testimony...  

If you were found guilty of something in court, based entirely on the testimony of 1 person, and then that person was found to have been lying there, would you suddenly care? Of course you would. 

If Trump was fund innocent, based on the evidence of 1 person, then it was proven that his witness was lying, would you suddenly care? Of course you would. 

 

So, the fact is:

1. YOU LOVE FAKE COURT CASES AGAINST PEOPLE YOU HATE, AND
2. YOU HATE LEGITIMATE COURT CASES AGAINST PEOPLE THAT TELL LIES WHICH YOU LIKE. 

You're a sham trial, guy, robo. YOU ONLY LIKE SHAM INVESTIGATIONS AND TRIALS!!!!

 

Case closed!!

You forgot about the paying off the porn star based on something way past statute of limitations bringing it back from the dead because they upgraded it to a felony claiming he was committing another crime (that they never named and was convicted of). Judge's daughter was financially benefiting from the case, judge blocked all testimony that favored Trump and gave vague ass instructions giving them a menu of felonies that it could possibly be connected to. Also keeping it in a district that would be hostile to Trump, jury pool voted 85% Democrat.

Edited May 28 by Fluffypants

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

You forgot about the paying off the porn star based on something way past statute of limitations bringing it back from the dead because they upgraded it to a felony because he was committing another crime (that they never named and was convicted of). Judge's daughter was financially benefiting from the case, judge blocked all testimony that favored Trump and gave vague ass instructions giving them a menu of felonies that it could possibly be connected to. Also keeping it in a district that would be hostile to Trump, jury pool voted 85% Democrat.

It's got to be the most blatant example of clear weaponization of the law to go after a political opponent that I've ever seen. The whole thing is just beyond hokey and very clearly intended to be an attack and not an attempt to enforce justice or the laws

After that there wasn't much trump could do that was worse

[Hodad]

11 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Consider the fact that REAL charges were brought against those people for ACTUA CRIMES that they committed. FYI that's what the courts are for.

 

James Comey committed some of the most serious crimes in recent US history. He should have been charged for his actual, proven crimes. 

Letitia James committed a more serious form of the exact crime that she accused Trump of, and you LOVED those charges when they were brought Trump. Therefor it's entirely hypocritical of you to pretend that she shouldn't have been charged for the crimes that she committed, when she charged other people for committing those same "crimes".

 

Buddy, Trump was charged for an alleged r4pe in "an unknown year approximately 30 years ago" ffs. By a woman without a single shred of evidence, who never reported it to anyone, anywhere.

FYI you don't get to stand there pretending that all the BS charges made against trump were somehow legitimate, yet the people who were known to have made false accusations against trump should get off for free.

You managed to be wildly wrong about every single point here. Clearly the infobubble at work.

--Including the fact that Trump was not charged with rape. He was sued for defamation and rape. There was quite a lot of evidence, including a dress with male DNA on it. Trump refused for 3 years to submit his DNA. -- He knew what the results would show. 

Edited Friday at 03:07 AM by Hodad

[John Stone]

21 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

She is KNOWN to have committed an extremely serious crime. NEXT!

Cultist dipshit: you took her own evidence-free allegation from "about 29 or 30 years ago" as a serious case. Now you know for certain that she committed a serious crime but you don't think that she should be charged. That's why you are considered a "cultist". 

I assume ur talking about the 1st trial.. 

The Prosecutors’ theory hinges on a 2022 deposition statement by Carroll that she received no outside funding for her lawsuit, though it was later revealed that a billionaire, Reid Hoffman had paid some legal fees and expenses.

In a 2022 videotaped deposition, Carrol told then Trump attorney, Habba that no one else was paying her legal fees. But two weeks before the trial Carroll’s attorney informed the judge and Trump’s lawyers that they secured funding from Hoffman’s nonprofit.

Carroll’s lawyers further stated that Carroll had never met nor had conversations with anyone associated with the nonprofit.

The judge permitted Trump’s attorneys to question Carroll again in a deposition – which was never released by Trump’s attorneys.

However, when the trial began two weeks later the judge said he saw no issue with Carroll’s credibility.

Next, Indeed. 

Of course Trump couldn't STFU - which led to the 2nd trial - defamation. 

ddd

[Nationalist]

21 hours ago, John Stone said:

It's a vindictive prosecution ............. Next! 

On the other hand 85 mil for one fk seems excessive? 

Hilarious...

The dumb slut lied and now the Tweenkies wanna deflect and ignore.

Slowly but surely, the lawfare of the Demoncrats is being exposed for all to see.