Trump guilty of battery and defamation of E Jean Carroll

[Ralph Norton]

View attachment 784186

View attachment 784187

Those aren't crimes, dumb ass - this was a Civil suit.

 

[playtime]

So the courts said he didn't rape her, but that he's guilty of defamation for not admitting that he did?

apparently 'rape' is defined in the classic sense. even though the pig forcefully penetrated her with his cheeto finger, it doesn't meet the legal definition.

pretty disgusting loophole, 'eh?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Really? What crimes was he convicted of and when?

Trump like OJ Simpson was found liable. It was not a criminal case, but we all know it's the same. Trump was found to be a sexual predator, a sexual abuser

 

[Ralph Norton]

pathetic. the jury saw the evidence and this enabled them to reach a verdict and put price tags on it.

now quit queefing around. you are fooling only your fellow trumptards.

But you can't state what that evidence was.
Dumb ass.

 

[L.K.Eder]

But you can't state what that evidence was.
Dumb ass.

it was stated many times. i gave you the link to the docket. the jury saw it and reached a verdict.

you can stomp your feet some moar. it is funny.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Those aren't crimes, dumb ass - this was a Civil suit.

The distinctions do not make Trump innocent of the crimes. In our system people get not guilty, or guilty. They do not get a judgement of 'innocent' That would come in another type of legal proceeding.

Trump sexually abused a woman, Others have claimed the same. You're defending a sexual predator

 

[Ralph Norton]

Trump like OJ Simpson was found liable. It was not a criminal case, but we all know it's the same. Trump was found to be a sexual predator, a sexual abuser

Therefore your statement "Trump was convicted of crimes. Makes him a criminal" is false now isn't it?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

But you can't state what that evidence was.
Dumb ass.

The evidence was presented in court.

 

[jbrownson0831]

But you can't state what that evidence was.
Dumb ass.

Same evidence as the Kavanaugh case....a crazed woman making up a story.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Therefore your statement "Trump was convicted of crimes. Makes him a criminal" is false now isn't it?

Truthful hyperbole. Very presidential.

A civil jury concluded Trump sexually abused a woman.

 

[Ralph Norton]

it was stated many times. i gave you the link to the docket. the jury saw it and reached a verdict.

you can stomp your feet some moar. it is funny.

You haven't stated it once, dumb ass. But if you did, please provide post # and I will gladly apologize.
And the word is "more". Now THAT is funny.

 

[braalian]

I’m getting the impression that a lot of posters here don’t grasp the difference between criminal court and civil court…..

 

[Ralph Norton]

The evidence was presented in court.

No shit.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Example of Being Liable in a Civil Case but Not Guilty in a Criminal Case​

The most famous example in which a defendant was found “not guilty,” in a criminal case, but found liable in the corresponding civil case, is with defendant O.J. Simpson. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in criminal court. But in civil court, O.J. Simpson was found legally responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman on a wrongful death case. These determinations mean that by law, O.J. Simpson has been found not guilty of murder.

In the criminal case, the prosecutors were required to prove that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman with 1) malice aforethought; and 2) premeditation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the civil case, the plaintiffs had to prove that O.J.’s Simpson’s 1) intentional; and 2) unlawful conduct resulted in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman by a preponderance of the evidence.

The burden of proof was not met by prosecutors in the criminal case but was met by the plaintiffs in the civil case, which explains how O.J. Simpson was acquitted in his criminal case, but found liable in his civil case. These distinctive outcomes surprisingly do not contradict each other and are quite common.

 

[L.K.Eder]

The evidence was presented in court.

trumptards don't get the concept of evidence. that's why their court adventures fail.

 

[playtime]

Therefore your statement "Trump was convicted of crimes. Makes him a criminal" is false now isn't it?

the only reason he's not is because of the statute of limitations.

 

[Ralph Norton]

I’m getting the impression that a lot of posters here don’t grasp the difference between criminal court and civil court…..

Oh, it's no impression - they don't (or actually can't).

 

[Dante Reawakened]

I’m getting the impression that a lot of posters here don’t grasp the difference between criminal court and civil court…..

You're not even half as smart as you mistakenly believe you are.​

​

Example of Being Liable in a Civil Case but Not Guilty in a Criminal Case​

The most famous example in which a defendant was found “not guilty,” in a criminal case, but found liable in the corresponding civil case, is with defendant O.J. Simpson. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in criminal court. But in civil court, O.J. Simpson was found legally responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman on a wrongful death case. These determinations mean that by law, O.J. Simpson has been found not guilty of murder.


In the criminal case, the prosecutors were required to prove that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman with 1) malice aforethought; and 2) premeditation, beyond a reasonable doubt.


In the civil case, the plaintiffs had to prove that O.J.’s Simpson’s 1) intentional; and 2) unlawful conduct resulted in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman by a preponderance of the evidence.


The burden of proof was not met by prosecutors in the criminal case but was met by the plaintiffs in the civil case, which explains how O.J. Simpson was acquitted in his criminal case, but found liable in his civil case. These distinctive outcomes surprisingly do not contradict each other and are quite common.

How Can Someone be Liable in a Civil Case but Not Guilty in a Criminal Case? – The Fast Law Firm

fastlawpc.com

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Oh, it's no impression - they don't (or actually can't).

How Can Someone be Liable in a Civil Case but Not Guilty in a Criminal Case? – The Fast Law Firm

fastlawpc.com

Example of Being Liable in a Civil Case but Not Guilty in a Criminal Case​

The most famous example in which a defendant was found “not guilty,” in a criminal case, but found liable in the corresponding civil case, is with defendant O.J. Simpson. O.J. Simpson was found not guilty for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in criminal court. But in civil court, O.J. Simpson was found legally responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman on a wrongful death case. These determinations mean that by law, O.J. Simpson has been found not guilty of murder.

In the criminal case, the prosecutors were required to prove that O.J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman with 1) malice aforethought; and 2) premeditation, beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the civil case, the plaintiffs had to prove that O.J.’s Simpson’s 1) intentional; and 2) unlawful conduct resulted in the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman by a preponderance of the evidence.

The burden of proof was not met by prosecutors in the criminal case but was met by the plaintiffs in the civil case, which explains how O.J. Simpson was acquitted in his criminal case, but found liable in his civil case. These distinctive outcomes surprisingly do not contradict each other and are quite common.

 

[MisterBeale]

BTW...did you see the orange face he had in the depo? He must have just moments earlier been spray painted by his makeup dude or dudette.

. . . and I should care about that why?



Do you care about all the obvious face lifts that Nancy Pelosi gets? I doubt it.

I don't give two craps about any of these clowns, or their attempts to surgically or cosmetically make themselves glamorous.

It's all a stage show.

Vanity & celebrity doesn't impress me.