Why the rape case against Trump will end up thrown into the trash

[forkup]

IF Trump did what she claimed. Again there is no evidence that she was truthful. And she has a proven record of accusing at least six other men of raping her. If that doesn't constitute reasonable doubt, nothing does.

Whenever I see someone claiming there's no evidence, I always wonder. Do they know what evidence is in a legal sense?

Her testimony is evidence. The other people's testimonies are evidence. The deposition tape is evidence, the Billy Bush tape is evidence. The photograph in which he confused Caroll with his ex is evidence etc. etc.

What you mean to say, is that the evidence provided doesn't convince you. Neat trick because you weren't there when the evidence was presented, and I doubt you know, and I'm sure you don't care what that evidence was.

It's like I said to Robert. All of you rely solely on personal incredulity to form your opinion. An incredulity born out of political loyalty NOT an objective opinion of the evidence. The reason I say this is because only one side actually provided evidence, while the other simply provided a denial.

 

[toobfreak]

Proof. Show the evidence .

Already have many times. Learn to use the SEARCH feature. Better still, start reading threads.

 

[Dagosa]

Already have many times. Learn to use the SEARCH feature. Better still, start reading threads.

Nope. Produce it. Have done it before...nothing. No evidence ever came up. You need to attach yourself to it. You need to provide a link. I’ve heard this song and dance before and never have you or anyone else produced it. Go for it ! Don’t be a bullshitter. Prove those 60 court cases wrong.

 

[Dagosa]

Better still, start reading threads.

Hilarious. You’re delusional.

 

[Dagosa]

Whenever I see someone claiming there's no evidence, I always wonder. Do they know what evidence is in a legal sense?

Her testimony is evidence. The other people's testimonies are evidence. The deposition tape is evidence, the Billy Bush tape is evidence. The photograph in which he confused Caroll with his ex is evidence etc. etc.

What you mean to say, is that the evidence provided doesn't convince you. Neat trick because you weren't there when the evidence was presented, and I doubt you know, and I'm sure you don't care what that evidence was.

It's like I said to Robert. All of you rely solely on personal incredulity to form your opinion. An incredulity born out of political loyalty NOT an objective opinion of the evidence. The reason I say this is because only one side actually provided evidence, while the other simply provided a denial.

Yup.
Well trump has a history of lying and anyone who takes his word, is ignorant. He was so unreliable, he never showed up for the first trial and was afraid to even take an oath.

 

[Chillicothe]

you rely solely on personal incredulity to form your opinion. An incredulity born out of political loyalty NOT an objective opinion of the evidence. The reason I say this is because only one side actually provided evidence, while the other simply provided a denial.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Poster 'forkup' offers valid insight.

18 citizens....9 in each of two separate trials, 8 months apart ....DID see all evidence presented, and no doubt, noted when one side presented little or no evidence to counter.

We have on this venue any number of contributors who say that Carroll's lawyers did not prove her case. None of those contributors attended the trial or even read transcripts. They seemingly say she had no case because......they simply didn't WANT her to have a case.

But alas, 18 American citizens who met their civic duty and accepted the jury summons DID attend all days of the trial, heard all arguments, examined all evidence presented.......and THOSE informed citizens came to unanimous decisions. Twice.
18 individual citizens with opportunity to examine the presented facts made informed decisions. Twice.

Those 18 considered all the evidence presented by plaintiff Carroll's attorneys....and considered the denial by the defendant.
They chose to go with the evidence.

Posters on this venue who object......did none of those things. They merely have partisan-driven opinions.

You be the judge of the value of that.

 

[forkup]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Poster 'forkup' offers valid insight.

18 citizens....9 in each of two separate trials, 8 months apart ....DID see all evidence presented, and no doubt, noted when one side presented little or no evidence to counter.

We have on this venue any number of contributors who say that Carroll's lawyers did not prove her case. None of those contributors attended the trial or even read transcripts. They seemingly say she had no case because......they simply didn't WANT her to have a case.

But alas, 18 American citizens who met their civic duty and accepted the jury summons DID attend all days of the trial, heard all arguments, examined all evidence presented.......and THOSE informed citizens came to unanimous decisions. Twice.
18 individual citizens with opportunity to examine the presented facts made informed decisions. Twice.

Those 18 considered all the evidence presented by plaintiff Carroll's attorneys....and considered the denial by the defendant.
They chose to go with the evidence.

Posters on this venue who object......did none of those things. They merely have partisan-driven opinions.

You be the judge of the value of that.

As an further aside to this post, I also want to reiterate. That NY State. The state that provided this jury pool. In the first trial a pool from upstate NY.

Had about 40 percent of it's people vote for Trump. Meaning that of 18 jurors and barring some weird statistical anamoly. It can be expected that somewhere between 7 and 8 would have voted for Trump. It takes 1 person dissenting in a jury to hang it.

This for those that like to blame bias as a reason for this outcome. If bias was a factor. Trump should have been acquited.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As an further aside to this post, I also want to reiterate. That NY State. The state that provided this jury pool. In the first trial a pool from upstate NY.

Had about 40 percent of it's people vote for Trump. Meaning that of 18 jurors and barring some weird statistical anamoly. It can be expected that somewhere between 7 and 8 would have voted for Trump. It takes 1 person dissenting in a jury to hang it.

This for those that like to blame bias as a reason for this outcome. If bias was a factor. Trump should have been acquited.

Might want to check NYS requirements for civil juries.

I don't believe 1 juror can "hang" a civil trial, I believe that applies to criminal cases.

WW

 

[Dagosa]

Already have many times. Learn to use the SEARCH feature. Better still, start reading threads.

You bozos pull that same charade about evidence. Its always about something you did in the past. Show it now

 

[forkup]

Might want to check NYS requirements for civil juries.

I don't believe 1 juror can "hang" a trial, I believe that applies to criminal cases.

WW

https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/civil-practice-law-and-rules/cvp-sect-4113/#:~:text=(a) Unanimous verdict not required,the jurors constituting a jury. You are right. Point taken.

Don't think it changes the premise meaningfully though. 1 dissent allowed on on average of 4 likely Trump jurors. But accuracy is important.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bit accuracy is important.

Sorry man, couldn't resist. Just being funny.

WW

 

[forkup]

Sorry man, couldn't resist. Just being funny.

WW

Nothing to be sorry about. I rather be wrong than stupid. I can fix being wrong by informing myself. Fixing stupid. Now that's a harder problem.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Nothing to be sorry about. I rather be wrong than stupid. I can fix being wrong by informing myself. Fixing stupid. Now that's a harder problem.

I wasn't giggling about the post, I was giggling about "Bit accuracy is important.". Wasn't sure if that was intended or a typo.



WW

 

[Robert W]

And you still think Trump is innocent after a trial. Amazing

I question not that, I question the validity of the trial. She would have my support had she charged Trump with a crime at the time, in the mid 90s. She had many years to show up to tell the story. She does not mind it being told now. But she is out to damage Trump.
Any poster who is a woman. Learn this lesson. If you get raped by any man or woman, do not wait almost 30 years to go to the police. While the justice system has been unkind to women, the Trump case now has a court who is unkind to a man.

 

[Rambunctious]

Funny thing. This is the full page of the verdict form. Seems he did sexually assault her according to the jury. I wonder why this person on youtube telling us all what "the MSM doesn't say", made it a point to just include that sentence and not the other sentences of what the jury said he did do? Might it be that he's trying to spin the narrative for his own needs?

And it has NOTHING to do with civil or criminal trials. It has to do with what constitutes rape in NY. Mind you, I say NY, because what the jury said he did, would be considered rape in some other states. In NY you need to penetrate with your dick. He just used his fingers. That's why Kaplan dismissed Trump's counter claim to Carrol saying he raped her. Because... and this is a judge talking. He did rape her if not in the NY legal sense, then for sure in the colloquial way.

Unless of course you want to hang your hat on the idea that forcing your finger into a woman's vagina against her will is in any way OK?

Read the full jury verdict form from the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial

Trump's legal team did not call any witnesses during the trial, and Trump himself did not testify in court during the trial.

www.politico.com

Carrol has 2 contemporaneous witnesses, 2 other people willing to testify under oath Trump assaulted them too, 2 people who worked at Bergdorf's confirming her descriptions of both the stores procedures and attendance... Plus of course Trump's own words. Trump provided.... NO DEFENSE whatsoever.

 

[forkup]

I wasn't giggling about the post, I was giggling about "Bit accuracy is important.". Wasn't sure if that was intended or a typo.



WW

Definitely a typo. Seems that doing a quick post on the phone isn't conducive to not looking like an idiot. On the other hand, always glad to make people laugh. Even at my own expense.

 

[Dagosa]

I question not that, I question the validity of the trial. She would have my support had she charged Trump with a crime at the time, in the mid 90s. She had many years to show up to tell the story. She does not mind it being told now. But she is out to damage Trump.
Any poster who is a woman. Learn this lesson. If you get raped by any man or woman, do not wait almost 30 years to go to the police. While the justice system has been unkind to women, the Trump case now has a court who is unkind to a man.

The lesson is, don’t listen to repugnants. They’ll do everything they can to limit womens rights

 

[forkup]

View attachment 898351

Your point?

 

[Rawley]

Her testimony is evidence.

And the jury decided she was lying when she claimed Trump raped her.

 

[forkup]

And the jury decided she was lying when she claimed Trump raped her.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

This jury did not award Ms. Carroll more than $2 million for groping her breasts through her clothing, wrongful as that might have been. There was no evidence at all of such behavior. Instead, the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump's argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury's verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of “rape” to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump.


This is Kaplan CLEARLY stating what the jury's verdict means. It doesn't even hint at Caroll lying about what Trump did.