DJT and TDS

[rogue06]

"Apparently" is doing an intense amount of work here for a claim that, as far as I can see, originated from the thin air of online forums.

-Sam

Apparently New York Magazine (not exactly a Mecca of MAGA) was the ones to expose Carroll's claim as being unsupportable and forced her to quickly change what year it was that she claims OMB assaulted her.

New York Magazine’s Guessing Game – E. Jean Carroll’s Jacket Dress Comes into Question – Trump Accuser Stumbles During Testimony

E. Jean Carroll posed for the cover of New York Magazine in June 2019. She was wearing what she claimed was the Donna Karan jacket dress she had worn when Donald Trump allegedly attacked her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1994.

She was later forced to change her story after New York Magazine pointed out that the dress she said she was wearing had not been sold in 1994. Carroll later claimed the alleged attack occurred in 1995 or 1996. But she is still not clear on the date it took place. Carroll said she met Trump on the street and they decided to go buy lingerie at the high-end New York City department store before the attack. The entire story lacks credibility.

New York Magazine said on its cover, “The jacket dress she was wearing that day has hung in her closet ever since; she wore it again for the first time for her portrait with New York.”

E. Jean Carroll wrote her bizarre story in New York Magazine in June 2019. Carroll said she kept the dress in her closet after the alleged assault. She says she never wore it again and that, “I have never had sex with anybody ever again.”

She even held a photo shoot with New York Magazine in the dress.

But there was one big problem with this woman’s story. The Donna Karan jacket dress was not even made or sold in 1994. The story is a complete hoax.

Trump Attorney Boris Epshteyn spoke outside the courtroom in New York City where the E. Jean Carroll case is taking place in front of Clinton-appointed Judge Lewis Kaplan’s kangaroo court. Boris told reporters outside the courthouse that the dress E. Jean Carroll said she was wearing in 1995 or 1996 when Donald Trump allegedly assaulted her was not made in 1994 as she originally stated. It is not clear when this dress was first available.

Attorney Boris Epshteyn: “She said, this is the dress I wore in 1994. They went back, they checked. The dress wasn’t even made in 1994. And that’s why the date’s moved around. This is the 80s. Is it the 90s? Is it the 2000s? President Trump has consistently stated that he was falsely accused and he has the right to defend himself.”

This is not the first time Carroll lied about the case. It is also clear that Carroll lied about who was funding her lawsuit. E. Jean Carroll originally said no one was funding her lawsuit against Trump. Later, her attorney admitted that billionaire Never-Trumper Reid Hoffman was funding Carroll’s lawsuit.

The alleged rape took place a long time ago, decades ago; Carroll cannot even remember the year it took place.

Now, The Gateway Pundit can confirm that E. Jean Carroll testified under oath that the jacket-dress was not even sold at the time of the alleged attack.

The Gateway Pundit can now report that we have seen court documents that question the veracity of E. Jean Carroll’s statements.

According to court documents reviewed by The Gateway Pundit, Miss Carroll admitted during questioning that she may have bought it in 1995 because Donna Karan did not make the dress in 1994 as she believed. She only came to this realization after New York Magazine corrected her!

Before the magazine published the article, they helped E. Jean Carroll figure out that the dress was not made in 1994 as she originally stated.

Based on what she said as she was sitting for the deposition, E. Jean Carroll has no recollection of when the alleged assault occurred. All she can say today is that it happened sometime after 1995.

It is so vague and nonspecific that her story ultimately lacks credibility. Her lack of knowledge of this critical piece of information about her Donna Karan dress makes this case utterly ridiculous.

Ultimately, this case is not about E. Jean Carroll versus Donald Trump – It’s about E. Jean Carroll versus E. Jean Carroll. She does not have any facts nailed down in this case and she never did.

Shades of Christine Blasey Ford (who's attorney later admitted that the case was all about smearing Kavanaugh in a politically motivated move to protect Roe v. Wade).

[rogue06]

Carroll has been clear, from the beginning, that she was 52 when Trump raped her and has consistently said that the assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996.

We can stop right there. She was consistent in claiming it took place in 1994 right up until the New Yorker demonstrated that claim was false because the outfit she was wearing hadn't been made then. It was only after she was caught out that she began to consistently claim that it wasn't in 1994 as she had repeatedly insisted, but sometime in 1995. Or maybe '96.

[Mountain Man]

Carroll has been clear, from the beginning, that she was 52 when Trump raped her and has consistently said that the assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996. You haven't read the relevant portion of her deposition; instead, you take at full value the say-so of notorious fabricator Jim Hoft that Carroll misstated when she bought the dress in question and that, only after being corrected, changed the date of the assault to match.

But her article in The Cut — the first time she alleged that Trump raped her — disproves this allegation. This point of fact has been explained multiple times now. Carroll wrote that she was 52 at the time of her rape, which places the date sometime between December 1995 and December 1996, with even a bit of latitude on the side of both extremes.

But you didn't pick up Hoft's claim because it was strong or because it could withstand even moderate scrutiny. You chose to repeat it, even though it was completely unsupported and even after it had been refuted, because it's useful. They say "You can't fix stupid" and that's wrong — even the smallest children get smarter and wiser. What you can't fix is a dedication to stupidity in service of evil, the obstinate holding-on of something false so you can still say and do whatever you want. You need a way to discredit Carroll and so you'll find it — even if you have to go to a known serial liar to get it and even if you have to stubbornly refuse to process chronological math.

What makes that particularly intolerable, in this case, is that you're doing so in service to a confessed sexual abuser, a man with dozens of assault and rape allegations against him. You're picking up his effort to defame and discredit a woman who not only has a credible claim of sexual assault but who has submitted her case to the scrutiny of a court and won the unanimous confidence of a jury.

You've lent yourself in service to a rapist and staying stupid about the facts won't absolve you.

-Sam

If, as you say, Carroll "has consistently said that the assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996", then why did she originally say it was 1994 and only changed her story after she discovered the distinctive designer dress she claimed she was wearing wasn't available at the time?

[Sam]

We can stop right there. She was consistent in claiming it took place in 1994 right up until the New Yorker demonstrated that claim was false because the outfit she was wearing hadn't been made then. It was only after she was caught out that she began to consistently claim that it wasn't in 1994 as she had repeatedly insisted, but sometime in 1995. Or maybe '96.

Thus far, neither you nor Mountain Man have produced any supporting documents to evidence the claim that Carroll claimed the rape took place in 1994. Regardless, as has been explained several times, she wrote that she was 52 at the time of the rape in her first public allegation, which would make the date around or after December 1995.

So unless you've got a bevy of supporting documents that Carroll "was consistent in claiming [the rape] took place in 1994 right up until [Jim Hoft claimed] that claim was false", you're joining Mountain Man in scraping the lowest barrels of the online forums in order to discredit a rape victim at the behest of her rapist.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

Thus far, neither you nor Mountain Man have produced any supporting documents to evidence the claim that Carroll claimed the rape took place in 1994. Regardless, as has been explained several times, she wrote that she was 52 at the time of the rape in her first public allegation, which would make the date around or after December 1995.

So unless you've got a bevy of supporting documents that Carroll "was consistent in claiming [the rape] took place in 1994 right up until [Jim Hoft claimed] that claim was false", you're joining Mountain Man in scraping the lowest barrels of the online forums in order to discredit a rape victim at the behest of her rapist.

-Sam

Carroll told the jury that she first met Trump in 1987 -- but she struggled to pinpoint the year that she alleges he attacked her.

"This question, the when, the date, has been something I've constantly been trying to pin down," Carroll said.

At first she said she thought it was 1994 or 1995, but she said her friend Lisa Birnbach published an article about Trump for New York magazine in February 1996.

"Lisa never would have gone down to Mar-a-Lago ... if she knew what Donald Trump had done to me," Carroll said, leading her to believe the alleged attack occurred in 1996.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/testimony-...ry?id=98854649

So much for your claim that Carroll "has consistently said that the assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996".

[Sam]

Carroll told the jury that she first met Trump in 1987 -- but she struggled to pinpoint the year that she alleges he attacked her.

"This question, the when, the date, has been something I've constantly been trying to pin down," Carroll said.

At first she said she thought it was 1994 or 1995, but she said her friend Lisa Birnbach published an article about Trump for New York magazine in February 1996.

"Lisa never would have gone down to Mar-a-Lago ... if she knew what Donald Trump had done to me," Carroll said, leading her to believe the alleged attack occurred in 1996.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/testimony-...ry?id=98854649

So much for your claim that Carroll "has consistently said that the assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996".

That's not showing that Carroll consistently claimed the rape happened in 1994 until she was forced to revise the story to fit a claim that her dress wasn't manufactured in 1994. It's not even evidence of Carroll claiming that the rape happened in 1994. It's Carroll testifying that she had inexactitude about the date, initially remembering it to the time period of 1994-1995 but using chronological landmarks to make a more precise determination. Since her 2019 article, Carroll has been consistent on a late 1995 - early 1996 timeline, placing the rape at or around age 52.

Again, you're forging misrepresentations of fact — with a demand for precision that you certainly don't apply to Trump's memory — in an attempt to discredit what is actually perfectly reasonable testimony.

-Sam

[oxmixmudd]

That's not showing that Carroll consistently claimed the rape happened in 1994 until she was forced to revise the story to fit a claim that her dress wasn't manufactured in 1994. It's not even evidence of Carroll claiming that the rape happened in 1994. It's Carroll testifying that she had inexactitude about the date, initially remembering it to the time period of 1994-1995 but using chronological landmarks to make a more precise determination. Since her 2019 article, Carroll has been consistent on a late 1995 - early 1996 timeline, placing the rape at or around age 52.

Again, you're forging misrepresentations of fact — with a demand for precision that you certainly don't apply to Trump's memory — in an attempt to discredit what is actually perfectly reasonable testimony.

-Sam

Not only isn't it applied to Trump, it is not something most people are capable of doing wrt traumatic events - accurately assess exactly when they happened, especially if there has been a long period of time where the person has tried not to remember much about them.

To me, the real shame here is on those that would mercilessly attack a victim in an effort to protect a life long narcissist, liar and habitually abusive person from the just consequences of his own actions.

[Mountain Man]

That's not showing that Carroll consistently claimed the rape happened in 1994 until she was forced to revise the story to fit a claim that her dress wasn't manufactured in 1994. It's not even evidence of Carroll claiming that the rape happened in 1994. It's Carroll testifying that she had inexactitude about the date, initially remembering it to the time period of 1994-1995 but using chronological landmarks to make a more precise determination. Since her 2019 article, Carroll has been consistent on a late 1995 - early 1996 timeline, placing the rape at or around age 52.

Again, you're forging misrepresentations of fact — with a demand for precision that you certainly don't apply to Trump's memory — in an attempt to discredit what is actually perfectly reasonable testimony.

-Sam

You claimed that she "consistently said that the assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996". This is false. By her own testimony, she originally said it happened in 1994 but later changed her story to it happening some time after February 1996.

[Sam]

You claimed that she "consistently said that the assault occurred in late 1995 or early 1996". This is false. By her own testimony, she originally said it happened in 1994 but later changed her story to it happening some time after February 1996.

Incorrect — but consistent with your inattention to detail.

Carroll has consistently said, since 2019 at least, that the assault occurred in late 1995 or 1996. What she apparently said during early testimony is that she had remembered, at some point, the assault occurring in 1994 or 1995. That's not inconsistent with her claim that Trump raped her when she was 52 years old, sometime in late 1995 or early 1996.

Carroll did not say, in this testimony or elsewhere, that the assault occurred in 1994. She expressed inexactitude about the date, with the belief that her friend would not have gone to Mar-a-Lago after being told about the rape which suggested, to Carroll, that the rape probably occurred closer to Spring 1996 than Winter 1995 or earlier.

You took the say-so of a known fabricator and claimed that Carroll consistently placed the date of the assault in 1994 before being confronted with material evidence (which hasn't been substantiated, mind) that her dress was not available to buy in 1994. Carroll, however, did not make that claim and, if anything, placed the date of the rape later in time on the basis of her friend's trip to Florida in 1996. Carroll has consistently both held to a late 1995/early 1996 time frame and acknowledged inexactitude about the precise date. Hoft, Epshteyn, Rogue and yourself have taken that inexactitude and turned it into a concrete certainty that Carroll changed to line up a story in order for you to show malicious intent.

And exactly because the degree of precision you're demanding from Carroll isn't even nearly matched by the degree of precision you demand from yourselves and each other, we can easily understand that your effort here isn't to find truth or determine credibility but to tarnish a credible account of rape in service of a politician you need to protect.

-Sam

[Sam]

Not only isn't it applied to Trump, it is not something most people are capable of doing wrt traumatic events - accurately assess exactly when they happened, especially if there has been a long period of time where the person has tried not to remember much about them.

To me, the real shame here is on those that would mercilessly attack a victim in an effort to protect a life long narcissist, liar and habitually abusive person from the just consequences of his own actions.

Yes, absolutely — it would not damage Carroll's credibility in the least if her deposition showed that she thought she bought her dress in 1994 when she really bought it in '95. Nor would it impugn her credibility if she couldn't place the exact year of the assault without chronological landmarks (e.g., age, events, conversations). That's normal for everybody and is very common for traumatic events, as you say.

Mountain Man doesn't care about credibility or precision — he's using Jim Hoft, after all, to protect Trump — but if he did, he'd have at least as much reason to discredit Trump's testimony, given the man's self-expressed habit of "just grab[bing]" women "by the [vagina]" and his imprecision as it related to distinguishing a photo of Carroll from that of his ex-wife.

-Sam

[Sam]

Since we're talking about Jim Hoft's credibility:

Source: The Gateway Pundit, Infamous Conspiracy Blog, Declares Bankruptcy After Suit From Election Workers. Alex Griffing. Mediaite.com. 2024.04.24

The founder of the Gateway Pundit, the infamous conspiracy theory site, announced on Wednesday that the company had declared bankruptcy.

Jim Hoft published a message on the website that read, “TGP Communications, the parent company of The Gateway Pundit, recently made the decision to seek protection under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Southern District of Florida as a result of the progressive liberal lawfare attacks against our media outlet.”

Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Shaye Moss, sued the Gateway Pundit in December of 2021, alleging that Jim and Joe Hoft, twin brothers, behind the conspiracy theory site engaged in “a campaign of lies” that “instigated a deluge of intimidation, harassment, and threats that has forced them to change their phone numbers, delete their online accounts, and fear for their physical safety.”

The Gateway Pundit saw its traffic soar surrounding the 2020 presidential election as it published story after story parroting then-President Donald Trump’s roundly debunked allegations of election fraud that led to the Jan. 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. In January 0f 2020, the Gateway Pundit had some 1.7 million unique readers. In January of this year, that number had dropped some 54 percent to 813,000 users, according to Comscore data.

© Copyright Original Source

Any schadenfreude should be tempered by the fact that this action is being taken to protect Hoft's assets from the legal consequence of Hoft's malicious lying.

-Sam

[Sam]

And Boris Epshteyn indicted on the same day. What a world.

-Sam

[carpedm9587]

So basically "TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP?"

Most of us don't want Trump as president again, but we don't want Biden even more. Trump is the lesser of two evils.

I would dearly love to see the case for Mr. Trump as the "lesser of two evils."

[carpedm9587]

If you're on some sort of quest ("agenda") to try and persuade folks how evil Trump is, wouldn't your quest be better suited to a more populated platform? There may be less than a dozen folks that regularly post in this section, and as far as politics, their minds are pretty much already set in stone.

Btw, I hope you're at least getting paid for that endeavor, otherwise you sure do have a lot of time on your hands.

No, I'm not being paid. Yes - I do have some time on my hands. I'm retired. No, this is not the only place I am posting. And I am trying to stay engaged in the RW as well. This fall, as the election nears, I plan to find a closely matched state and go there to help "get out the vote."

[carpedm9587]

Thinking that Bad Orange Man is more of a threat than Stumblin' Stammerin' Sniffin' Ol' Joe is a sign of TDS.

I do indeed think Mr. Trump is more of a threat to this country than Mr. Biden - by a great deal. Yes, Mr. Biden does stammer - he has struggled with stuttering since childhood. I find the tendency of so many in the "Trump Camp" to ridicule a disability like that more than a little sad.