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

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

I'm smart enough to know that she's NOT paying the lawyers in a CONTINGENCY CASE.

Do you know what that means? LMAO

Oh my god.

She is absolutely paying her lawyers in a contingency case. She just pays them at the end.

And if they receive money from another source then they're supposed to reduce their contingency and they are required by law to disclose it

So she absolutely would have known who is paying her legal bills. The fact that the bill hadn't come in yet doesn't change that

You have no idea how long works do you

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm talking about specific, known crimes that need to go to trial, you're talking about your own personal preferences.

No you're pretending that allegations about an investigation are proven FACTS.

You don't even understand that Carroll would never pay her lawyers in a CONTINGENCY CASE.

NOR that it's NOT UNUSUAL for a client to NOT KNOW/REMEMBER about the financing her lawyers get for something she will never pay for.

IF you were a lawyer, you  might understand what CONTINGENCY means, but you're NOT. LMAO

[User]

18 hours ago, robosmith said:

No one cares what you're "sure" of when you never have real evidence.

OTOH, Trump BRAGGED about doing what he did to Carroll

You just keep pushing this lie, you little cowardly weasel. 

[WestCanMan]

50 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I'm smart enough to know that she's NOT paying the lawyers in a CONTINGENCY CASE.

Do you know what that means? LMAO

Why would lawyers take her on as a client, knowing that they would only get paid if they won, with her he said, she said case from 30 years ago, a complete lack of evidence, and a non-r4pe story, where she couldn't even name a year?

The lawyers were getting paid to represent her by a left4rd activist or they wouldn't have represented her. The contingency money was just a side-bet.

If they did take it on as a contingency case, that would mean that they felt like they had a reasonable chance of winning, which would imply that the judge was 100% corrupt, because that was not a winnable case.

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Oh my god.

She is absolutely paying her lawyers in a contingency case. She just pays them at the end.

And if they receive money from another source then they're supposed to reduce their contingency and they are required by law to disclose it

So she absolutely would have known who is paying her legal bills. The fact that the bill hadn't come in yet doesn't change that

You have no idea how long works do you

So in this he said, she said case, where her own word constituted 100% of her evidence, the judge decided that discussing her lies/perjury was not allowed.

Judge: "It's her word vs his, and she has already lied to the court regarding this case, but we won't allow anyone to diminish her credibility by discussing these facts."

• If you think about it, the ONLY thing they knew for certain in this case - the fact that she had already lied to the court about this trial - was the one thing that wasn't allowed to be discussed. 

E J Carroll's win was arguably one of the worst rulings in the entire history of the courts, all over planet earth. By her precedent, anyone can accuse anyone else of a r4pe from 30 (or 31) years ago, provide zero evidence, and they win.

Any of us in this forum could be found guilty of r4pe, facts be damned. If an E J Carroll-type accuses you, then you will be found guilty, period, regardless of her providing zero evidence and whether or not the judge knows that she is committing perjury. 

Edited June 2 by WestCanMan

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Why would lawyers take her on as a client, knowing that they would only get paid if they won, with her he said, she said case from 30 years ago, a complete lack of evidence, and a non-r4pe story, where she couldn't even name a year?

The lawyers were getting paid to represent her by a left4rd activist or they wouldn't have represented her. The contingency money was just a side-bet.

If they did take it on as a contingency case, that would mean that they felt like they had a reasonable chance of winning, which would imply that the judge was 100% corrupt, because that was not a winnable case.

Fortunately for Carroll she had Trump confessing to routine sexaul assault ON TAPE. AKA SLAM DUNK CASE, doofus.

CONTINGENCY is NOT "just a side-bet," it means she doesn't PAY the LAWYERS, so she has no REASON to pay attention to THEIR BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS.

[User]

50 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Fortunately for Carroll she had Trump confessing to routine sexaul assault ON TAPE. AKA SLAM DUNK CASE, doofus.

CONTINGENCY is NOT "just a side-bet," it means she doesn't PAY the LAWYERS, so she has no REASON to pay attention to THEIR BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS.

Once again you are a liar. A cowardly, sad, pathetic little liar. 

 

[WestCanMan]

44 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Fortunately for Carroll she had Trump confessing to routine sexaul assault ON TAPE. AKA SLAM DUNK CASE, doofus.

Wrong, stupid.

Trump admitted to grabbing girls by the ****. That's not even close to the same thing. 

"30 or 31 years ago a guy grabbed my ****!" - lol

Quote

CONTINGENCY is NOT "just a side-bet," 

Correct, but in this instance, it was... Her lawyers were already getting paid by someone else.

If they weren't already getting paid by someone else then this wouldn't be a topic, would it?

Are you trying to say that "No one was paying Carroll's lawyers anything, it was only a contingency case"? 

Quote

it means she doesn't PAY the LAWYERS, so she has no REASON to pay attention to THEIR BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS.

It means that "no one is paying the lawyers." Not "someone is secretly paying the lawyers but the client doesn't know about it". 

And Carroll admitted that she knew about it. 

Why do you want her to weasel out of her legal problems? She's a person who committed a serious crime, plain and simple.

If Trump committed perjury you would be adamant that he was charged.

You're being a disgusting little hypocrite here. Grow up. 

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Why would lawyers take her on as a client, knowing that they would only get paid if they won, with her he said, she said case from 30 years ago, a complete lack of evidence, and a non-r4pe story, where she couldn't even name a year?

The lawyers were getting paid to represent her by a left4rd activist or they wouldn't have represented her. The contingency money was just a side-bet.

If they did take it on as a contingency case, that would mean that they felt like they had a reasonable chance of winning, which would imply that the judge was 100% corrupt, because that was not a winnable case.

You're just trumpeting your ignorance to the world? No evidence? Unwinnable case? 

The lawyers must know A LOT that you don't know. They secured unanimous jury verdicts--twice. And they have won the appeals cases--twice.

Unwinnable? lol 

Stick to your day job.

[robosmith]

48 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Wrong, stupid.

Trump admitted to grabbing girls by the ****. That's not even close to the same thing. 

"30 or 31 years ago a guy grabbed my ****!" - lol

Correct, but in this instance, it was... Her lawyers were already getting paid by someone else.

If they weren't already getting paid by someone else then this wouldn't be a topic, would it?

Are you trying to say that "No one was paying Carroll's lawyers anything, it was only a contingency case"? 

It means that "no one is paying the lawyers." Not "someone is secretly paying the lawyers but the client doesn't know about it". 

And Carroll admitted that she knew about it. 

Why do you want her to weasel out of her legal problems? She's a person who committed a serious crime, plain and simple.

If Trump committed perjury you would be adamant that he was charged.

You're being a disgusting little hypocrite here. Grow up. 

Your amateur legal OPINIONS mean NOTHING HERE (or anywhere).

Thanks for proving you don't even know what a contingency case is.

The lawyers get A SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT. Duh

And in this case, so do the investors which is NOT UNCOMMON.

 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Fortunately for Carroll she had Trump confessing to routine sexaul assault ON TAPE. AKA SLAM DUNK CASE, doofus.

CONTINGENCY is NOT "just a side-bet," it means she doesn't PAY the LAWYERS, so she has no REASON to pay attention to THEIR BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS.

In contingency she absolutely pays the lawyer. It just means he's willing to wait until the trial has been done in order to receive payment and is paid on commission

Your argument is as stupid as claiming that a car dealership doesn't pay a commissioned car salesman. Of course they do

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

In contingency she absolutely pays the lawyer. It just means he's willing to wait until the trial has been done in order to receive payment and is paid on commission

Your argument is as stupid as claiming that a car dealership doesn't pay a commissioned car salesman. Of course they do

Trump pays the lawyer the whole amount, who deducts his fee and disburses the rest of the settlement to the client.

You seem to be under the ILLUSION that lawyers trust the client to write them a check. LMAO

Quote

When a contingency case settles, the defendant issues payment to the law firm. The lawyer deposits the full settlement amount into a strictly regulated Client Trust Account (e.g., IOLTA). They then deduct their agreed-upon percentage, reimburse case expenses, and disburse the remaining net proceeds to you. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

This process follows a strict ethical and legal protocol required by entities like the State Bar of California. [1, 2, 3]

Strike THREE, YOU'RE OUT!

[CdnFox]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Trump pays the lawyer the whole amount,who deducts his fee and disburses the rest of the settlement to the client.

 

 

Absolute lie. The lawyer has no authority to charge trump anything. He's not the one that won the lawsuit. Trump never agreed to pay him. The judge can't order trump to pay him without a trial

He has a signed agreement with HIS CLIENT.  That agreement specifically states that the client agrees to pay him a percentage of the judgements collected.  That is the only legal way that the lawyer can receive payment.

It would be illegal for a lawyer to receive payment from trump who is not his client. 

I have signed these contracts. I know exactly what they say and the law around them

You are 100% entirely wrong absolutely. You do not understand this stuff and you talk as if you do but it just makes you look like a twat and an uneducated twat at that.

Further the lawyer has to disclose any remuneration he gets to the client from any source. If he refers her to a doctor and gets a kick back from the doctor he has to disclose that. If somebody else gives him money for the legal bills he has to disclose that

So she absolutely must have without a doubt known about the money

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Hodad said:

You're just trumpeting your ignorance to the world? No evidence? Unwinnable case? 

The lawyers must know A LOT that you don't know. They secured unanimous jury verdicts--twice. And they have won the appeals cases--twice.

Unwinnable? lol 

The judge also blocked the defence from posting the one and only FACT of the entire case.

Be honest: no real judge would let a case with absolutely NO evidence, from an unknown year, go to trial.

Just think about all the violent crime that DAs didn't prosecute since 2020... Actual violent felons left to wander the streets. 

Yet a judge took on "I brought him into the changeroom to model lingerie for him, then he pushed me against the wall and kissed me and I giggled, then he put a bunch of fingers in my snatch and I giggled, then when he started to pull out his Biden I pushed him with one arm and left. That happened in about '95 or '96. One of my friends said it was probably a r4pe." 

The case was "unwinable", outside of a kangaroo court. 

Quote

Stick to your day job.

Stick to your left4rd echo chambers, where you seem normal. You just look ret4rded here. 

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Your amateur legal OPINIONS mean NOTHING HERE (or anywhere).

Thanks for proving you don't even know what a contingency case is.

The lawyers get A SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT. Duh

And in this case, so do the investors which is NOT UNCOMMON.

A contingency case, from the lawyers' POV, means that they don't get paid unless they win. But they were getting paid by a Demonrat donor, who probably donated something to the judge as well. 

[Hodad]

45 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The judge also blocked the defence from posting the one and only FACT of the entire case.

Be honest: no real judge would let a case with absolutely NO evidence, from an unknown year, go to trial.

Just think about all the violent crime that DAs didn't prosecute since 2020... Actual violent felons left to wander the streets. 

Yet a judge took on "I brought him into the changeroom to model lingerie for him, then he pushed me against the wall and kissed me and I giggled, then he put a bunch of fingers in my snatch and I giggled, then when he started to pull out his Biden I pushed him with one arm and left. That happened in about '95 or '96. One of my friends said it was probably a r4pe." 

The case was "unwinable", outside of a kangaroo court. 

Stick to your left4rd echo chambers, where you seem normal. You just look ret4rded here. 

Blah blah blah.  Please, just keep repeating your ignorant nonsense. -- Two unanimous jury verdicts. Two appellate cases won. And you call it "unwinnable." Maybe for a loser like you. 

[WestCanMan]

59 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Blah blah blah.  Please, just keep repeating your ignorant nonsense. -- Two unanimous jury verdicts. Two appellate cases won. And you call it "unwinnable." Maybe for a loser like you. 

Outside of a kangaroo court, that case was unwinable.

When an accuser has no evidence, no witnesses, and can't name the year that an incident allegedly occurred, that's not a case that should even be allowed to go to court. 

The trial was held in a county where less than 6% of voters were registered as republicans, and the judge was a democrat. AND, the only piece of verified evidence in that whole trial was the fact that Carroll lied during her deposition, but that fact was withheld from the jury.

Aside from that one fact, there is just a story that Carroll allegedly told some friends. FYI that doesn't count as "a bunch of witnesses", it counts as "a completely unverified story that was allegedly told by a known liar to some friends". 

If Trump tells some people that he did something, do they all count as witnesses in court? Is that what the word "witness" means to you, little boy? 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Outside of a kangaroo court, that case was unwinable.

 

Were there 4 kangaroo courts? 🤣

Were there 18 kangaroo jurors? 🤣

Just keep flailing around, toolbag. 

[robosmith]

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The judge also blocked the defence from posting the one and only FACT of the entire case.

Be honest: no real judge would let a case with absolutely NO evidence, from an unknown year, go to trial.

Just think about all the violent crime that DAs didn't prosecute since 2020... Actual violent felons left to wander the streets. 

Yet a judge took on "I brought him into the changeroom to model lingerie for him, then he pushed me against the wall and kissed me and I giggled, then he put a bunch of fingers in my snatch and I giggled, then when he started to pull out his Biden I pushed him with one arm and left. That happened in about '95 or '96. One of my friends said it was probably a r4pe." 

The case was "unwinable", outside of a kangaroo court. 

Stick to your left4rd echo chambers, where you seem normal. You just look ret4rded here. 

You just wasted your time writing ^this because it's ONLY your amateur legal opinion which means NOTHING HERE.

The JUDGE talks and YOU WALK. You're not even smart enough to cite real experts. LMAO

4 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

A contingency case, from the lawyers' POV, means that they don't get paid unless they win. But they were getting paid by a Demonrat donor, who probably donated something to the judge as well. 

He was an investor in the case, who gets a share of the settlement. It's called RISK MANAGEMENT.

Do you even know what that is? LMAO

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Were there 4 kangaroo courts? 🤣

Were there 18 kangaroo jurors? 🤣

Just keep flailing around, toolbag. 

I believe it was a bench trial, which means no jurors. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, that would mean that Trump agreed to a bench trial when he could have had a jury trial.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

I believe it was a bench trial, which means no jurors. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, that would mean that Trump agreed to a bench trial when he could have had a jury trial.

There's no jury trial for civil cases.  This wasn't a criminal case

[robosmith]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

There's no jury trial for civil cases.  This wasn't a criminal case

Thanks for proving AGAIN that your amateur legal OPINIONS are WORTHLESS.

Quote

That is technically incorrect because the U.S. Constitution's Seventh Amendment does not apply to state courts, meaning states set their own rules and almost all states actually do provide the right to a jury trial for civil cases. [1, 2]

Constitutional Breakdown

• The Federal Rule: The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that this requirement does not apply to state courts. [1, 2, 3]
• The State Rule: Because the federal government doesn't mandate it, states decide for themselves. Every state except Louisiana allows jury trials for civil cases in state courts. [1, 2, 3]

Common Exceptions Where Juries Are Not Used
Even though civil jury trials exist in state courts, judges decide many disputes without a jury in scenarios such as:

• Equity Cases: Disputes involving requests for injunctions, restraining orders, or specific performance rather than monetary damages.
• Family Law & Probate: Divorces, child custody disputes, adoptions, and estate administrations are handled directly by a judge.
• Small Claims: Minor financial disputes (often up to a specific dollar amount) are generally resolved by a judge or commissioner. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Jurisdiction Note (San Diego)
If you are filing a civil case in California, the right to a civil jury trial is explicitly guaranteed under state law (Article I, Section 16 of the California Constitution), although both parties can mutually agree to waive it in favor of a bench trial. [1, 2, 3]

 

[John Stone]

On 6/1/2026 at 8:50 PM, WestCanMan said:

You run your mouth like a stupid child, but all you have is baseless insults, doofus.

Who cares if you don't like people? That's got nothing to do with the state of the DoJ.

I'm talking about specific, known crimes that need to go to trial, you're talking about your own personal preferences.

Buddy, if you had your way, everyone that you didn't like would just go to jail. FYI that's the exact opposite of the way the DoJ is supposed to work. 

 

Both of Trump's appeals in the Carroll cases have failed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit affirmed the 5 mil verdict on Dec, 2024 and affirmed the 84 mil verdict on Sept 2025, finding the damages 'fair and reasonable' in light of what the court called 'extraordinary and egregious facts. 

The last option for 'bone spurs' is SCOTUS, where a petition has been filed and repeatedly rescheduled. 

Rule the courts, rule the land. 🙃

[Hodad]

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

I believe it was a bench trial, which means no jurors. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course, that would mean that Trump agreed to a bench trial when he could have had a jury trial.

You are indeed wrong. Jury trial in both cases. Unanimous verdicts in both cases. 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, John Stone said:

Rule the courts, rule the land. 🙃

That's a really pathetic thing to say. You're just admitting that the goal of your party is to thwart justice by weaponizing the DoJ. You said the quiet part out loud.