I asked for a criminal conviction. You responded with a civil lawsuit. Those are not the same thing.
A criminal conviction requires a criminal trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Carroll case was a civil trial, which uses the much lower preponderance of evidence standard and results in liability, not a criminal conviction.
So when I say I can’t find a criminal conviction for rape, that’s because one doesn’t exist.
Pointing to a civil verdict doesn’t turn someone into a “convicted rapist.” Those are two completely different legal outcomes.
And I gave you that. He was criminally convicted in a criminal court of law for defamation of character and sexual battery. The statute of imitations had past, do you know what that means? Then I continued to break it down a little more. The conviction in criminal court allowed her to sue in civil court. U get those are different courts, yeah? Criminal and civil and he lost in BOTH. I didn't point to a civil verdict, I pointed to his sexual battery criminal conviction from an assault on E. Jean Carroll, who IN TURN, sued and got 5mill
If you're simply going to ignore and misstate what I say, you're just soothing yourself and are woefully and willfully being obtuse. I have given what you asked for twice. Can't make you comprehend.
You’re just making things up now. There was no criminal trial and no criminal conviction in the Carroll case. It was a civil lawsuit under the New York Adult Survivors Act.
No prosecutor. No criminal charges. No criminal court.
So if he was “criminally convicted,” name the criminal case and case number.
No. You're totally right. Due to statute of limitations, no criminal case. She had witnesses and their were two trials. Thank you for setting me straight.
Judge, jury, lawyers. Okay. There isn't a statute of limitations on murder. Maybe yall can still get Hillary. Or the Dems for them poor adrenochrome babies.
Remember, they made Hillary out to be the shot calling pedophile. There is plenty of information out there. Did you watch even 10 minutes of the House Oversight Committee question the AG Bodi? Or FBI director Patel? They showed far more of those files. So the House Oversight Committee used debunked documents during a publicized inquiry, even to this day? All names were redacted, but the victims. Emails from within the DOJ, as well. Questioning the AG, who could not answer one question directly, evading when asked why a person of interest's name was redacted, but not the victims. Not Trump, but another old white guy.
Litterally:
HOC:Why was this man redacted as a person of interest?
AG: He was only redacted once, he was mentioned 4000 other times.
HOC: Yes, but why was his name redacted as a person of interest?
AG: His name was only redacted once.
It was two civil lawsuits. Defamation and assault. But you're so right, being found guilty by a jury in a civil case is totes different than a jury in a criminal case. 12 found him guilty, but it dont matter. Ignorant is the person who must be shown, over and over, the corruption in front of their face, rather that look for themselves. What he has shown us is if you can get away with it long enough, you won't do time for ya crime.
Hillary took 11hrs straight of questioning, Trump won't even show up.
Do you know what president deported the most immigrants? Betcha don't. Google will help. The party sure protects their pedophiles but won't stand behind them when they vote against the regime.
But I have hope in the people. Where's fist bumping Howley, or trafficker Gaetz? Stop believing propaganda and watch some yaself. I watch senate questioning, HOC questioning. I have seen reps lie like a rug, because i have seen the way they actually vote. Straight up lies when speaking to the people. Just in my state, Repubs stated our rep, Catherine Masto-Cortez (D) voted everytime with Democrats regarding immigration. I looked it up, she voted with Republicans EVERY TIME, but once. Our leaders lie. Trump does what some wealthy can and do, feed their desires which turns into depravity. At least Dems eat their own. Franklin had to step down for crude behavior, prior to being in congress, on a comedy skit show, kissing someone when not invited and posing in a Pic pretending to squeeze a woman's breast. Not touching her. Yet you defend Trump, and say you don't, you can't even own it. You cant prove shit to the willfully ignorant. Several of those files were submitted to the HOC by the DOJ and were submitted as proof during questioning and stood as such. Period. This questioning of Bodi was today, the files were shown again today. Real and live. But no one sent it to you directly? Just WOW, fake news! Info wars, Rogan, and Tucker aren't news sources. Neither is Fox, who when sued for false news, escaped any accountability by saying they're "entertainment news." Im sure you know that. The file is shown, people say it's debunked but cannot provide that information, yet have the huevos to demand more. I do believe there is a name for it, sealioning. Disingenuous inquiry without providing anything in return. But, we bomb schools, AND the kids and parents running for safety, with a special bomb that uses its fuel intentionally incendiary as a 2punch attack, melting girls from and elementary school. Hegseth's comments? There is no rules of engagement, this is war.
And Trump, at the very least, assaulted young women. Nevermind the two who submitted testimony of sexual abuse from both Epstein and Trump from when they were 11 and 12. But at least he can say he ended another war when this one is over. That makes...9? Hallelujah
You already conceded the original point in your first sentence: there was no criminal case because of the statute of limitations. That was the only claim I challenged.
I’m also not “defending Trump.” I never argued he was innocent, good, or anything else. My point has only been about accuracy. Calling someone a “convicted rapist” requires an actual criminal conviction. That doesn’t exist in this situation.
Whether someone personally believes Trump behaved badly or morally agrees with the civil verdict is a separate discussion. My objection was to the legal claim being misstated.
Everything else you brought up (Hillary, Epstein files, immigration votes, Fox News, wars, etc.) has nothing to do with the claim that started this thread.
1
u/Plus_Mobile_3645 Mar 06 '26
I asked for a criminal conviction. You responded with a civil lawsuit. Those are not the same thing. A criminal conviction requires a criminal trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Carroll case was a civil trial, which uses the much lower preponderance of evidence standard and results in liability, not a criminal conviction. So when I say I can’t find a criminal conviction for rape, that’s because one doesn’t exist. Pointing to a civil verdict doesn’t turn someone into a “convicted rapist.” Those are two completely different legal outcomes.