An Opinion Piece on the Trump Verdict. No Mercy.

[john doe 101]

No, he can't be legally called a rapist.

Yes he can. E jean Carroll can call trump a rapist and not getted sued.

 

[citygator]

"Hot Air" website. Aptly named. Look forward to you guys running into the capital in your fuzzy horned hats next January.

 

[Kondor3]

See.

Feel free to go back to the original in this series and refute the assertions being made... otherwise, yours here is just noise.

 

[martybegan]

Yes he can. E jean Carroll can call trump a rapist and not getted sued.

He wasn't found liable for rape in the civil trial. Care to read it again dillweed?

 

[Curried Goats]

He wasn't found liable for rape in the civil trial. Care to read it again dillweed?

He was found liable for sexual abuse.

 

[martybegan]

He was found liable for sexual abuse.

Which isn't rape.

 

[Curried Goats]

Which isn't rape.

Only statutorily. If you don't think forcibly shoving your fingers inside a woman against her will is rape that's fine by me. I don't have to live with your deplorable ass.

 

[martybegan]

Only statutorily. If you don't think forcibly shoving your fingers inside a woman against her will is rape that's fine by me. I don't have to live with your deplorable ass.

Also it wasn't proven criminally, but in a civil trial, which has far lower standards of evidence, and was selected to get a quick victory. The case is also being appealed.

It's called being truthful with words, something you have no ability to do.

 

[Curried Goats]

Also it wasn't proven criminally, but in a civil trial, which has far lower standards of evidence, and was selected to get a quick victory. The case is also being appealed.

All very nice excuses. I don't care. You go and excuse an adjudicated sexual abuser. That's your choice mutant.

It's called being truthful with words, something you have no ability to do.

Words are expressions of ideas you Clown. Legal statutes are expressions of law which is arrived at by consensus. If you don't think forcibly shoving your fingers inside a woman against her will is rape that all on you. Hiding behind the consensus of law and some dipshit understanding of what words are doesn't change that, Moron.

 

[martybegan]

All very nice excuses. I don't care. You go and excuse an adjudicated sexual abuser. That's your choice mutant.

Words are expressions of ideas you Clown. Legal statutes are expressions of law which is arrived at by consensus. If you don't think forcibly shoving your fingers inside a woman against her will is rape that all on you. Hiding behind the consensus of law and some dipshit understanding of what words are doesn't change that, Moron.

They picked a venue and a method where the could get an easy judgement and use it for propaganda purposes. More Lawfare.

The judgement specifically said he didn't rape her.

 

[Curried Goats]

They picked a venue and a method where the could get an easy judgement and use it for propaganda purposes. More Lawfare.

The judgement specifically said he didn't rape her.

Because the legal statute for rape in New York at the time only counted forcibly using your penis as rape. I believe it's been amended since and the judgement was sought in the district where the sexual abuse occurred. Again, hiding behind legal consensus doesnt excuse you being a mutant who doesn't believe forcing your fingers in to a woman against her is rape.

 

[martybegan]

Because the legal statute for rape in New York at the time only counted forcibly using your penis as rape. I believe it's been amended since and the judgement was sought in the district where the sexual abuse occurred. Again, hiding behind legal consensus doesnt excuse you being a mutant who doesn't believe forcing your fingers in to a woman against her is rape.

And yet he was convicted of nothing, usually the method you try criminal acts.

It's not hiding, it's pointing out the law, and also pointing out they picked a Trump hating venue, a trump hating prosecution, and used civil procedure instead of criminal to get the soundbite judgement they wanted.

 

[Curried Goats]

And yet he was convicted of nothing, usually the method you try criminal acts.

The statute of limitations has run out on that.

It's not hiding, it's pointing out the law, and also pointing out they picked a Trump hating venue, a trump hating prosecution, and used civil procedure instead of criminal to get the soundbite judgement they wanted.

You are hiding. Pointing out the law, which is arrived at by consensus doesn't excuse your belief that forcing your fingers inside a woman is rape.

 

[martybegan]

The statute of limitations has run out on that.

You are hiding. Pointing out the law, which is arrived at by consensus doesn't excuse your belief that forcing your fingers inside a woman is rape.

And there is a reason for that, hence the end run to a trial with preponderance of the evidence as the standard, as well as a smaller jury as well as a hostile jury.

It's a crime, which should be charged as such.

 

[Curried Goats]

And there is a reason for that

Care to take a shot at explaining what that reason is?

, hence the end run to a trial with preponderance of the evidence as the standard, as well as a smaller jury as well as a hostile jury.

There would be civil and criminal trials even without statutes of limitations. They address different areas of injustice.

It's a crime, which should be charged as such.

And should come with some restitution for the victim, hence civil trials....

 

[john doe 101]

He wasn't found liable for rape in the civil trial. Care to read it again dillweed?

The jury found trump raped Carroll. End of story.

 

[martybegan]

Care to take a shot at explaining what that reason is?

There would be civil and criminal trials even without statutes of limitations. They address different areas of injustice.

And should come with some restitution for the victim, hence civil trials....

because at a certain amount of time evidence isn't around and it revolves solely around the testimony of those involved?

All correct, but the thing is this wasn't about justice, it was about talking points, same as the criminal show trial we just witnessed.

 

[martybegan]

The jury found trump raped Carroll. End of story.

If you read the verdict, they didn't find that at all.

 

[Curried Goats]

because at a certain amount of time evidence isn't around and it revolves solely around the testimony of those involved?

Which to me is a cop out. You could try with the physical evidence you do have and jurors can take into account length of time between eye witness accounts which aren't all that reliable anyway, even when fresh.

All correct, but the thing is this wasn't about justice, it was about talking points, same as the criminal show trial we just witnessed.

That's certainly your claim but in the end the jury came to their decision so unless you're conspiracy involves them it's nothing but sour grapes.

 

[martybegan]

Which to me is a cop out. You could try with the physical evidence you do have and jurors can take into account length of time between eye witness accounts which aren't all that reliable anyway, even when fresh.

That's certainly your claim but in the end the jury came to their decision so unless you're conspiracy involves them it's nothing but sour grapes.

All this trial had was the word of each party, and the woman couldn't even remember what date it happened.

So you had a Trump Hostile jury in a he said she said case, and you think that is fair?

It's a conspiracy to say the jury pool in the case was hostile in general towards Trump?