Try again. Too Far, there is no context where you could ever kick my ***. You run and hide too much. I accept my W on what the VERDICT FORM said.
Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 3:42 pm » wrote: ↑
Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑
Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 3:25 pm » wrote: ↑
This doesn't require translation.
But what you refer to as the "verdict form" is a FINDING, not a VERDICT.Carrol's complaint didn't seek damages for "rape". Accordingly it couldn't have been a factor explicitly rejected by the verdict. If determining if all he was accused of was "rape", as defined by NY statute, and the jury found otherwise it would have no grounds to award for Sexual.Battery. But it did. In the amount of 2 million. Which is the reason Kaplan was obliged to opine.
rather than waste time with your version, tell me what you fail to understand...
Stop right there. It is not what I refer to to as the Verdict form. It is named "Verdict From. Nod.
TO be clear you agree that is DOES IN FACT CONTAIN this:
Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
1. Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll?
and the the choice of No was checked?
Meaning no Jury found he raped Carroll.
For the record Digital Penetration (which you referred to as digital rape to muddy the story) was not considered Rape under NY Law.
STFU. You are too stupid to post here.
Blackvegetable » 08 Feb 2026, 3:35 pm » wrote: ↑
Huey » 08 Feb 2026, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
1. Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll?
and the the choice of No was checked?
You are wrong...
I posted the relevant sentences from Judge Kaplan's opinion on Rule 49..
Post the part with which you continue to struggle
Sorry, not playing that game today. On the Verdict Form the jury absolutely found the following:
Did Ms. Carroll prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
1. Mr Trump raped Ms Carroll?
the choice of No was checked?
That is 100% fact. Bye.