This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
E. Jean Carroll article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article's citations ( current diff) need significant improvement. The refs themselves need to be formatted appropriately and placed in the body text with ref tags. See WP:FN, WP:REF and WP:CITET. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Just read the biography portion and tell me that wasn't written by E. Jean Carroll. Getting an F in her only journalism class, etc. makes for a cute story, but it has nothing at all to do with anything important enough for inclusion into her WP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.217.133 ( talk) 03:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Time to lock this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:C480:19E7:7DF7:DB9F:BD82:1CA2 ( talk) 01:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Do not remove the references section. Eyer ( talk) 01:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
At least one source says that the "Trump photo" was at an NBC party (quote) with her then-husband news anchor John Johnson (unquote). Shouldn't there be this kind of material included, assuming that it isn't ghost-written by the subject of the article? 2600:8807:4800:463:65B1:98A5:DB60:DA5B ( talk) 04:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC) (Dfoofnik in public mode)
Could someone please include this person's Jewish ancestry in the article? It looks like a vandal removed the ancestry.
P0G41oxepU ( talk) 21:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
ELC says she doesn't want to call the alleged aggression rape because she does not want to disrespect women and children being attacked at the u.S.-Mexico border, but her description ("She continues, 'The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I'm not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle.' / Carroll added on The Last Word, 'It hurt, and it was against my will.'" ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/writer-e-jean-carroll-no-disrespectful-rape-charges-trump-1220447)) is clearly one of rape. Should the Wikipedia article use this term in more than just saying the BBC called it (a) rape (allegation)? 37.99.49.67 ( talk) 02:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
There should be mention of the uncanny resemblance between her assault charge/fantasy with President Trump and dialogue from an episode of Law and Order: SVU (Theatre Tricks), right down to the location and the lingerie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.250.34 ( talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
We should definatly clear up the terms. Right now I can read the article and get the impression, that nothing at all happened. "It was nothing sexual" and not a rape. "Just pain" this reads like they had a little fight. It was only on this discussion page that I read, that she claims to have been penetrated, which, as said constitutes a diffrent picture than the one conveyed by the article. -- Das Klügste ( talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
References
The Rape allegation is not based on a reliable source. The Anderson Cooper interview shows that the accuser is not a reliable source, thus any allegation is not based on a reliable source. There are not even any actual witnesses alleged. All references to this allegation are defamatory and should be deleted per our standards on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 02:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC))
X1\ ( talk) 23:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The section 'Sexual assault allegations' should be edited to fit WP:NPOV. The section places undue weight on whether or not her allegations should be described as "sexual assault" or "rape".
The sentence "Carroll refused to say she was "raped", instead choosing to describe it thus: "My word is fight." (link) is not supported by the source material. Carroll is not quoted as saying that and it is a misrepresentation of the article. I have removed this line as per WP:Vandal
I have flagged the article for 'Tone'. -- CopyTheEdit ( talk) 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
On CNN, she explained why she preferred the word “fight” to “rape”: “I think most people think rape is sexy. Think of the fantasies.” (She explained later that she was referring to romance novels that depict men ravishing women. “This was not thrilling, this was a fight,” she said. “A fight where I’m stamping on his feet and I think I’m banging him on the head with my purse.”)M.Bitton ( talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO:
My edit of the text below in the Donald Trump sexual assault allegation section was removed. The reverter, SPECIFICO, claimed it was "poorly sourced". However, it contained 3 citations to sources that are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, all 3 completely quoted her statement. I included the transcript from CNN itself for reference. I will remove the Rolling Stone citation, I thought this would be considered a "cultural matter" but it is a bit contentious. I see no reason to believe it's poorly sourced beyond the rolling stone citation. His second reason for reversal was that it "elevated right-wing chatter". This is not a valid reason for this content to not be included, all that matters is whether it's verifiable and WP:DUE, which appears to be the case with the RS coverage. Additionally, her "rape is sexy" comment was covered by NYT [1] and the Guardian. [2] Both could be cited with the text. I believe my text should be restored.
In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360°, regarding her allegations against Trump, Carroll stated, "I think most people think of rape as being sexy." [3] [4] The comment was described as surprising and was mocked by conservatives on Twitter. [5]
References
Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Carroll chose not to describe the alleged sexual assault as rape, instead describing it as a fight. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought." [1] [2] [3] She fears using the word "rape" is only helpful to Trump because she believes "most people think of rape as being sexy." [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
Every woman gets to choose her word. Every woman gets to choose how she describes it. This is my way of saying it. This is my word. My word is fight. My word is not the victim word. I am not—I have not been raped. Something has not been done to me. I fought. That's the thing.
After a productive discussion at BLPN, I would like to propose this revision for inclusion in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources and quotes that mention the Cooper interview
|
---|
NYT June 2019
NYT Podcast June 2019
Vanity Fair June 2019
Insider June 2019
Guardian July 2019
Independent June 2019
NBC June 2019
June 2019
CNN June 2019
WaPo June 2019
ABC News June 2019 |
Ok, I took more time than I probably should have out of my day to look at sources about this. The majority of sources that mention the Anderson Cooper interview that I read did not mention the rape/sexy issue in the prose, although it was pretty close, and I'm sure I didn't find all of the sources. However, the sources that did mention it tended to be either more in-depth and higher quality, or interviews with the article subject. That it was being asked about in the interviews (except the NYT podcast) lends a bit of additional weight to WP:DUE arguments, in my opinion. It also seemed that the less in-depth pieces tended to go with the "not his type" quotes. In the whole of the coverage of the allegations, however, these sources are just a small slice. There are many more sources that don't mention the Cooper interview at all, and still cover the topic of the assault allegations. Most of these don't have any coverage concerning her use of assault versus rape versus fight. Many newer sources discussing the allegations in the context of the defamation case use the word rape uncritically. Also, I did not see any recent sources that mention the Cooper interview, or her word choice at all. In my opinion we should stick with the first paragraph, with no need for a follow up paragraph or sentence covering her specific word choice as it's a tiny drop in the flood of coverage about the allegations. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Please keep in mind WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:NOTNEWS, and most of all WP:DUEWEIGHT. The lawsuit stuff was over twice as long as the entirety of her career, and much of it had nothing to do with her. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
How about the article on this book by this author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 ( talk) 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
So, I'm really fine with this, and I definitely don't want to create a stir like we have on the Trump page, but I was thinking that, perhaps, the order of this discussion of the jury finding doesn't make a ton of sense.
On May 9, 2023, a jury of six men and three women found Trump liable for sexual assault, battery and defamation. On the issue of rape, the jury found that Carroll had not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had raped her. Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages. On May 11, Trump filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
(refs removed)
First, an uncontroversial factual error: the jury found that Trump had battered Carroll by committing sexual abuse—not assault, and the abuse and battery claims were not separate. I'd suggest. replaced "sexual assault, battery and defamation" with "sexual abuse and defamation".
Second, as to the order: I understand the concern—not wanting to imply that the jury found that Trump didn't rape Carroll. But my hesitation is that this ordering makes it seem as though the rape finding was somehow distinct from the other findings in terms of the burden of proof. To put it another way, we could (to be clear: we shouldn't), accurately, describe the verdict as follows:
On May 9, 2023, a jury of six men and three women found that
, by a preponderance of the evidence,the evidence presented indicated that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll but not that Trump had raped Carroll.
What I'm trying to illustrate there is that all the claims were judged by the preponderance of the evidence standard and based on the evidence presented. So why only mention the preponderance standard in connection with the rape finding?--- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The jury found that Carroll had proven her claims of sexual abuse and defamation, but not her allegation of rape, to the applicable civil standard." (I usually don't use terms like "claims" or "allegation" per MOS:SAID ... but, here, we are actually talking about legal claims and allegations.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Outcome of second defamation lawsuit is noted as January 26 2023. Should be 2024 91.153.39.243 ( talk) 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The last sentence (On January 26, 2024...) of the segment before the last segment (On January 16, 2024...) of the section /info/en/?search=E._Jean#Defamation_lawsuit should be chronologically ordered and moved to the end, imho. Like it is now, when looking for the latest developments, you think first they are missing, before hopefully scrolling and reading "backwards".
By the way, it cannot be said loud enough what a HERO E. Jean really is in bravery and dignity for standing up against all this hellfire of years-long smear terror and torture perpetrated by trump and all his horrible and violent cult devotees. She more than qualifies for any nobel price! -- 92.224.45.241 ( talk) 01:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "She launched an online version of her column, askejean.com, in 2007. Ten years later Carroll co-founded Tawkify" to "She launched an online version of her column, askejean.com, in 2007. Five years later Carroll co-founded Tawkify" [1] Wikieditorsupreme ( talk) 05:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
References
Not a forum for relitigating on Wikipedia |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Significant detail .. says in the mid 90s when pressed .. now says Quote "On June 21, 2019, E. Jean Carroll published an article in New York magazine which stated that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996.. more correct she .her words .. very revealing .. deceptive to not include this lack of certainity when challenging an ex president The article should highlight this more as some would find this very odd creating reasonable doubt. Deserves the phrase before Christams or after the New Year .. a woman would know ! https://www.google.com/search?q=jean+carol+late+96+early+97+trump&client=ms-android-rogers-ca&sca_esv=552091c792bf3734&sxsrf=ACQVn086h3WHHGHyKwdWXJsUnCzT9VlL_Q%3A1706573344854&ei=ID64ZeTjM4mdkPIP3vu94AU&ved=0ahUKEwjk84KQ6YOEAxWJDkQIHd59D1wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=jean+carol+late+96+early+97+trump&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIWplYW4gY2Fyb2wgbGF0ZSA5NiBlYXJseSA5NyB0cnVtcEj-IlAAWPAdcAF4AZABAJgBmQGgAYAHqgEDMC43uAEDyAEA-AEB-AECqAIUwgIHECMY6gIYJ8ICExAAGIAEGIoFGEMY6gIYtALYAQHCAhkQLhiABBiKBRhDGMcBGNEDGOoCGLQC2AEBwgIUEAAYgAQY4wQY6QQY6gIYtALYAQHCAgcQIRgKGKABwgIEECEYFeIDBBgAIEG6BgYIARABGAE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 207.60.92.11 ( talk) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
if your wife died before Christmas you would remember that detail .. not a soul on Earth would say might have been before or after the Holidays |
seems to have wrong URL as it does not mention Fran Lebowitz “Why We Camp” cover story from Outside Magazine, July/ August 1983 3MRB1 ( talk) 23:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
E. Jean Carroll article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article's citations ( current diff) need significant improvement. The refs themselves need to be formatted appropriately and placed in the body text with ref tags. See WP:FN, WP:REF and WP:CITET. Adrian M. H. 21:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Just read the biography portion and tell me that wasn't written by E. Jean Carroll. Getting an F in her only journalism class, etc. makes for a cute story, but it has nothing at all to do with anything important enough for inclusion into her WP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.217.133 ( talk) 03:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Time to lock this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C4:C480:19E7:7DF7:DB9F:BD82:1CA2 ( talk) 01:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Do not remove the references section. Eyer ( talk) 01:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
At least one source says that the "Trump photo" was at an NBC party (quote) with her then-husband news anchor John Johnson (unquote). Shouldn't there be this kind of material included, assuming that it isn't ghost-written by the subject of the article? 2600:8807:4800:463:65B1:98A5:DB60:DA5B ( talk) 04:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC) (Dfoofnik in public mode)
Could someone please include this person's Jewish ancestry in the article? It looks like a vandal removed the ancestry.
P0G41oxepU ( talk) 21:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
ELC says she doesn't want to call the alleged aggression rape because she does not want to disrespect women and children being attacked at the u.S.-Mexico border, but her description ("She continues, 'The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt, tie, suit jacket, overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and, forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway — or completely, I'm not certain — inside me. It turns into a colossal struggle.' / Carroll added on The Last Word, 'It hurt, and it was against my will.'" ( https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/writer-e-jean-carroll-no-disrespectful-rape-charges-trump-1220447)) is clearly one of rape. Should the Wikipedia article use this term in more than just saying the BBC called it (a) rape (allegation)? 37.99.49.67 ( talk) 02:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
There should be mention of the uncanny resemblance between her assault charge/fantasy with President Trump and dialogue from an episode of Law and Order: SVU (Theatre Tricks), right down to the location and the lingerie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.250.34 ( talk) 17:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
We should definatly clear up the terms. Right now I can read the article and get the impression, that nothing at all happened. "It was nothing sexual" and not a rape. "Just pain" this reads like they had a little fight. It was only on this discussion page that I read, that she claims to have been penetrated, which, as said constitutes a diffrent picture than the one conveyed by the article. -- Das Klügste ( talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
References
The Rape allegation is not based on a reliable source. The Anderson Cooper interview shows that the accuser is not a reliable source, thus any allegation is not based on a reliable source. There are not even any actual witnesses alleged. All references to this allegation are defamatory and should be deleted per our standards on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 02:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC))
X1\ ( talk) 23:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The section 'Sexual assault allegations' should be edited to fit WP:NPOV. The section places undue weight on whether or not her allegations should be described as "sexual assault" or "rape".
The sentence "Carroll refused to say she was "raped", instead choosing to describe it thus: "My word is fight." (link) is not supported by the source material. Carroll is not quoted as saying that and it is a misrepresentation of the article. I have removed this line as per WP:Vandal
I have flagged the article for 'Tone'. -- CopyTheEdit ( talk) 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
On CNN, she explained why she preferred the word “fight” to “rape”: “I think most people think rape is sexy. Think of the fantasies.” (She explained later that she was referring to romance novels that depict men ravishing women. “This was not thrilling, this was a fight,” she said. “A fight where I’m stamping on his feet and I think I’m banging him on the head with my purse.”)M.Bitton ( talk) 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO:
My edit of the text below in the Donald Trump sexual assault allegation section was removed. The reverter, SPECIFICO, claimed it was "poorly sourced". However, it contained 3 citations to sources that are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP, all 3 completely quoted her statement. I included the transcript from CNN itself for reference. I will remove the Rolling Stone citation, I thought this would be considered a "cultural matter" but it is a bit contentious. I see no reason to believe it's poorly sourced beyond the rolling stone citation. His second reason for reversal was that it "elevated right-wing chatter". This is not a valid reason for this content to not be included, all that matters is whether it's verifiable and WP:DUE, which appears to be the case with the RS coverage. Additionally, her "rape is sexy" comment was covered by NYT [1] and the Guardian. [2] Both could be cited with the text. I believe my text should be restored.
In an interview on Anderson Cooper 360°, regarding her allegations against Trump, Carroll stated, "I think most people think of rape as being sexy." [3] [4] The comment was described as surprising and was mocked by conservatives on Twitter. [5]
References
Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 21:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Carroll chose not to describe the alleged sexual assault as rape, instead describing it as a fight. "My word is fight. My word is not the victim word ... I fought." [1] [2] [3] She fears using the word "rape" is only helpful to Trump because she believes "most people think of rape as being sexy." [4] [5] [6] [7]
References
Every woman gets to choose her word. Every woman gets to choose how she describes it. This is my way of saying it. This is my word. My word is fight. My word is not the victim word. I am not—I have not been raped. Something has not been done to me. I fought. That's the thing.
After a productive discussion at BLPN, I would like to propose this revision for inclusion in this article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 00:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Sources and quotes that mention the Cooper interview
|
---|
NYT June 2019
NYT Podcast June 2019
Vanity Fair June 2019
Insider June 2019
Guardian July 2019
Independent June 2019
NBC June 2019
June 2019
CNN June 2019
WaPo June 2019
ABC News June 2019 |
Ok, I took more time than I probably should have out of my day to look at sources about this. The majority of sources that mention the Anderson Cooper interview that I read did not mention the rape/sexy issue in the prose, although it was pretty close, and I'm sure I didn't find all of the sources. However, the sources that did mention it tended to be either more in-depth and higher quality, or interviews with the article subject. That it was being asked about in the interviews (except the NYT podcast) lends a bit of additional weight to WP:DUE arguments, in my opinion. It also seemed that the less in-depth pieces tended to go with the "not his type" quotes. In the whole of the coverage of the allegations, however, these sources are just a small slice. There are many more sources that don't mention the Cooper interview at all, and still cover the topic of the assault allegations. Most of these don't have any coverage concerning her use of assault versus rape versus fight. Many newer sources discussing the allegations in the context of the defamation case use the word rape uncritically. Also, I did not see any recent sources that mention the Cooper interview, or her word choice at all. In my opinion we should stick with the first paragraph, with no need for a follow up paragraph or sentence covering her specific word choice as it's a tiny drop in the flood of coverage about the allegations. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Please keep in mind WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, WP:NOTNEWS, and most of all WP:DUEWEIGHT. The lawsuit stuff was over twice as long as the entirety of her career, and much of it had nothing to do with her. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
How about the article on this book by this author? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.41.98.105 ( talk) 16:24, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
So, I'm really fine with this, and I definitely don't want to create a stir like we have on the Trump page, but I was thinking that, perhaps, the order of this discussion of the jury finding doesn't make a ton of sense.
On May 9, 2023, a jury of six men and three women found Trump liable for sexual assault, battery and defamation. On the issue of rape, the jury found that Carroll had not proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Trump had raped her. Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages. On May 11, Trump filed an appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
(refs removed)
First, an uncontroversial factual error: the jury found that Trump had battered Carroll by committing sexual abuse—not assault, and the abuse and battery claims were not separate. I'd suggest. replaced "sexual assault, battery and defamation" with "sexual abuse and defamation".
Second, as to the order: I understand the concern—not wanting to imply that the jury found that Trump didn't rape Carroll. But my hesitation is that this ordering makes it seem as though the rape finding was somehow distinct from the other findings in terms of the burden of proof. To put it another way, we could (to be clear: we shouldn't), accurately, describe the verdict as follows:
On May 9, 2023, a jury of six men and three women found that
, by a preponderance of the evidence,the evidence presented indicated that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll but not that Trump had raped Carroll.
What I'm trying to illustrate there is that all the claims were judged by the preponderance of the evidence standard and based on the evidence presented. So why only mention the preponderance standard in connection with the rape finding?--- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The jury found that Carroll had proven her claims of sexual abuse and defamation, but not her allegation of rape, to the applicable civil standard." (I usually don't use terms like "claims" or "allegation" per MOS:SAID ... but, here, we are actually talking about legal claims and allegations.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Outcome of second defamation lawsuit is noted as January 26 2023. Should be 2024 91.153.39.243 ( talk) 22:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The last sentence (On January 26, 2024...) of the segment before the last segment (On January 16, 2024...) of the section /info/en/?search=E._Jean#Defamation_lawsuit should be chronologically ordered and moved to the end, imho. Like it is now, when looking for the latest developments, you think first they are missing, before hopefully scrolling and reading "backwards".
By the way, it cannot be said loud enough what a HERO E. Jean really is in bravery and dignity for standing up against all this hellfire of years-long smear terror and torture perpetrated by trump and all his horrible and violent cult devotees. She more than qualifies for any nobel price! -- 92.224.45.241 ( talk) 01:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change "She launched an online version of her column, askejean.com, in 2007. Ten years later Carroll co-founded Tawkify" to "She launched an online version of her column, askejean.com, in 2007. Five years later Carroll co-founded Tawkify" [1] Wikieditorsupreme ( talk) 05:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
References
Not a forum for relitigating on Wikipedia |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Significant detail .. says in the mid 90s when pressed .. now says Quote "On June 21, 2019, E. Jean Carroll published an article in New York magazine which stated that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996.. more correct she .her words .. very revealing .. deceptive to not include this lack of certainity when challenging an ex president The article should highlight this more as some would find this very odd creating reasonable doubt. Deserves the phrase before Christams or after the New Year .. a woman would know ! https://www.google.com/search?q=jean+carol+late+96+early+97+trump&client=ms-android-rogers-ca&sca_esv=552091c792bf3734&sxsrf=ACQVn086h3WHHGHyKwdWXJsUnCzT9VlL_Q%3A1706573344854&ei=ID64ZeTjM4mdkPIP3vu94AU&ved=0ahUKEwjk84KQ6YOEAxWJDkQIHd59D1wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=jean+carol+late+96+early+97+trump&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiIWplYW4gY2Fyb2wgbGF0ZSA5NiBlYXJseSA5NyB0cnVtcEj-IlAAWPAdcAF4AZABAJgBmQGgAYAHqgEDMC43uAEDyAEA-AEB-AECqAIUwgIHECMY6gIYJ8ICExAAGIAEGIoFGEMY6gIYtALYAQHCAhkQLhiABBiKBRhDGMcBGNEDGOoCGLQC2AEBwgIUEAAYgAQY4wQY6QQY6gIYtALYAQHCAgcQIRgKGKABwgIEECEYFeIDBBgAIEG6BgYIARABGAE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp 207.60.92.11 ( talk) 00:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
if your wife died before Christmas you would remember that detail .. not a soul on Earth would say might have been before or after the Holidays |
seems to have wrong URL as it does not mention Fran Lebowitz “Why We Camp” cover story from Outside Magazine, July/ August 1983 3MRB1 ( talk) 23:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)