@EchoesofWarYT I like your posting but this "84 cents on the dollar" stuff is pure nonsense. The way corporations are now, if they could legally pay women that much less than men then no men would have jobs. It doesn't pass the "barely a glance test" much less the sniff test
@America18859035@FancyFancyBear1 Yeah, and if it was a neo-Nazis skin head with a swastika tattoo on his face who was shot by ICE for the exact same thing you'd still claim he was a hero
@America18859035@FancyFancyBear1 Guess it's a good thing the Feds aren't deporting US citizens. And I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you didn't give two shits when the Feds were killing US citizens as long as the admin were Democrat
@Emmy_Sensei@_Ochiedike Really? Cause the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with fragments of verses going all the way back to the First Temple Period show that the Old Testament/Torah has been remarkably consistent
@HippoJane21@aakashgupta I think if the US/UK governments were hell bent on extracting resources from the barrel of a gun we'd be having a lot more regime change wars in African countries with abundant rare earth minerals. You spoon.
The E. Jean Carroll case against President Trump is one of the strangest civil cases in American history. The foundational problem is this: Carroll could not identify when the alleged incident occurred — not even the year with any precision.
That should have killed the case as dead as a skunk on the road right there.
Without a temporal anchor, no defendant — regardless of guilt or innocence — can mount an alibi defense. Trump, who has maintained detailed calendars and staff records for decades, was denied the most basic tool of self-defense: the ability to establish where he was. That is not a technicality. It is a due process violation at the constitutional level.
Then Carroll produced the one piece of physical evidence she claimed corroborated her account — the dress she wore during the alleged incident. It was subsequently established that the dress was designed after the incident could have occurred. The sole corroborating evidence falsified her timeline.
The case proceeded anyway.
The resulting verdict was then weaponized in a defamation suit — where Trump was held liable for denying the allegation, while being procedurally barred from defending against it, because it was already "proven" in another court, regardless how flawed the procedure was. He was punished, in effect, for asserting his own innocence.
Compounding everything: coordinated professional and physical threats so thoroughly intimidated the legal community that attorneys refused these cases regardless of available fees. When you systematically destroy a defendant's ability to retain counsel of choice, you forfeit the right to a legitimate verdict.
An allegation is not evidence. Process without substance is not law. And a verdict produced under these conditions carries no legitimate authority — whatever its formal status.
Not only is it the right move to investigate Carroll, but every other person involved as well. Trump is owed serious damages here, and there may be a few people who belong in prison for their roles in the case.
@StrategicWin5@KurtSchlichter Her friends from the time... The time she doesn't actually know in terms of day,month, or even year. Keep in mind she claimed to wear an outfit that wasn't even produced until the next decade or so
@StrategicWin5@KurtSchlichter I'm not sure what mistaking Carrol for his ex wife in the 80s has to do with Trump raping this woman. And Trump said that women will let you do want you want when you're famous, a subtle distinction. Also, Trump met a lot of women.
1/🧵 The evidence is OVERWHELMING that E Jean Carroll is a malicious liar & a wackjob. Here's a long list of just *some* of the facts that were presented in court:
Carroll literally talked about "scheming" against Trump in a 2017 email exchange w/ her friend, Carol Martin: 👇
Martin: "This has to stop. As soon as we're both well enuf to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."
Carroll: "TOTALLY!!! I have something special for you when we meet."
Carroll testified that she didn't remember what she meant by "something special", and her friend testified that "scheme" was just a "typical word" they used.
💡 Riiight. Sure.
Source: https://t.co/gQqdEqP0fg
@FancyFancyBear1@NewsM101 Wonder if someone can sue the city re: rent control as an unconstitutional violation of eminent domain? Figure the city is using rent control as a work-around to seize property