Have you noticed how little has been written about e. jean carroll?
carroll, I’m sure you are aware, just won (subject to appeal) a total of $88 million dollars from Donald Trump because she claimed he raped her a quarter of a century ago, he denied it, and in the course of doing so, Trump made what a jury found to be insulting/defaming remarks about her.
The fact that carroll could not say when the rape took place – not the day or even the year, she provided no evidence the rape took place, no witnesses (despite the rape supposedly occurring in a women’s dressing room at a busy department store) and didn’t file suit until over 20 years after it supposedly happened (way past the statute of limitations…which, conveniently, were waived)? Irrelevant ‘n’ immaterial. This is Donald Trump we’re going after, so let’s get ‘im.
Not at all surprisingly, tons and tons of material have been provided by our wonderful “neutral” media about the case and how it affects Trump.
But almost nothing has been written about the complainant. Like, for example, who she is and what she has done/said in the past.
Isn’t that odd? Wouldn’t you think the recipient of an $88 million judgment against a former president would be scrutinized just a bit?
Gee, I wonder why.
With the above in mind, it is more than a little interesting – and edifying – to see this article by Jim Hoft of thegatewaypundit.com, which gives you a serious glimpse into who this nutcake really is.
Oooooh, did I say nutcake? Am I being nasty? Gratuitous?
Well, tell you what: use the link I’ve provided, read the copy, watch the video, look at the pictures, and then tell me I’m wrong. I dare you.
Then explain to me (I apologize for the repetition, since I’ve asked this over and over again) what possible basis there is for convicting Donald Trump of rape or defamation.
If anything, Donald Trump should be suing e. jean carroll for defamation on the grounds that he is being accused of a rape there is absolutely, unequivocally, zero evidence that he ever committed.
Don’t expect it to happen, though. Not in New York. Not in a place which ruled against him anyway…
…and where, in a separate but equally nonexistent case, Trump has been hit with a summary judgment of fraud because he supposedly overvalued his New York real estate holdings – despite the fact that a) there are no complainants at all – not one – and b) during the “trial”, real estate witnesses testified that nothing he did was out of the ordinary.
Could this possibly be sicker? If you think so, please tell me how. Because I can’t find a way.
