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

[WorldWatcher]

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

No they didn't say she was lying, they believed her.

However do to a technicality in the law caused by the fact she couldn't differentiate between his penis and his finger (which is embarrassing enough for most guy), they were completed to go with confirming a verdict of sexual assault over the technical requirements for rape.

If they didn't believe her testimony and the testimony of those she provided contemporaneous communications, they would have vote "No" on BOTH the rape and sexual abuse points.

WW

 

[Rambunctious]

View attachment 898353
Your point?

It shows a court of appeal that the jury was convicting without any evidence of guilt... so a just court and judge will see the political nature of their verdict... the civil case with their outrageous award of 83 mill will help take the entire disgusting anti American game down....

 

[Rawley]

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.

Kaplan is a Trump hating asshole. A judge telling the world to ignore the plain meaning of the law.

Loon claimed penis in vagina, many many times. Jury didn't believe her, aka she was lying.

 

[forkup]

It shows a court of appeal that the jury was convicting without any evidence of guilt... so a just court and judge will see the political nature of their verdict... the civil case with their outrageous award of 83 mill will help take the entire disgusting anti American game down....

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.

Now the third time I posted this.

 

[forkup]

Kaplan is a Trump hating asshole. A judge telling the world to ignore the plain meaning of the law.

Loon claimed penis in vagina, many many times. Jury didn't believe her, aka she was lying.

The meaning in NY. Federally for instance, Trump's actions would have constituted rape.

 

[Robert W]

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

I said otherwise. Why must you lie all the time? So a woman has the right to charge you with rape and force you to pay enormous amounts of money to her?
I want you to defend that statement.

 

[Rawley]

No they didn't say she was lying, they believed her.

However do to a technicality in the law caused by the fact she couldn't differentiate between his penis and his finger

WTF kind of nonsense is that? Her complaint, seven times, claims penis in vagina. She testified penis in vagina. She claimed she told her friends penis in vagina. Her friends claimed she told them penis is vagina

 

[Rawley]

The meaning in NY. Federally for instance, Trump's actions would have constituted rape.

Well he was tried under NY law. His ridiculous assertion only goes to show what a Trump hating asshole he is.

 

[Rambunctious]

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.

Now the third time I posted this.

Better steal yourself pal... Trump will never go to jail... he will win the election next November.... he will close the border and turn the economy around and stop the wars Biden allowed to take place... he will Make America Great Again whether you like it or not and these stupid high school like cases against him will vanish like the Bragg case in NY already has....

 

[Robert W]

Legal background in the real world means someone actually pays you for legal advice. Otherwise, you’re just watching Perry Mason reruns. That’s not a legal back ground.

This is a wild claim not supported at all. I did not ever make claims I got paid. California requires all Real Estate agents take law courses. But not to practice law. Since I had the highest license, the Brokers, My legal courses were more extensive than the agents were.

 

[forkup]

Well he was tried under NY law. His ridiculous assertion only goes to show what a Trump hating asshole he is.

Yup hang your hat on the notion that you know better what the applicable law is than a judge.

 

[Robert W]

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.

So you would defend her calling you a rapist because she had testimony and had a photo where you said you mean your wife? HAve you ever been accused where others simply lied about you? We do not owe her side the right to make false claims.

For me, this has nothing to do with loyalty to anybody. But I do not traffic in hate either as does so many Democrats.

 

[forkup]

Better steal yourself pal... Trump will never go to jail... he will win the election next November.... he will close the border and turn the economy around and stop the wars Biden allowed to take place... he will Make America Great Again whether you like it or not and these stupid high school like cases against him will vanish like the Bragg case in NY already has....

This "stupid high school case" found him liable of sexual assault. So far has cost him something like 90 million. It's a start.

 

[Rawley]

Yup hang your hat on the notion that you know better what the applicable law is than a judge.

?? Did you even read his nonsense that you quoted? The asshole admitted it wasn't rape under NY law

 

[Rambunctious]

This "stupid high school case" found him liable of sexual assault. So far has cost him something like 90 million. It's a start.

He ain't paid a dime to her and he is still in the race and will win.... so why are you wasting your time?...

 

[Rambunctious]

?? Did you even read his nonsense that you quoted? The asshole admitted it was "technically" not rape under NY law

forkup didn't read his own link it was obvious....

 

[Robert W]

This "stupid high school case" found him liable of sexual assault. So far has cost him something like 90 million. It's a start.

It ruled she was defamed. I do not know the extent of the legal fees paid by Trump, but clearly the major aim by all is to bankrupt him. She so far has collected nothing at all. She is bankrolled it is said by some very rich person.

 

[WorldWatcher]

WTF kind of nonsense is that? Her complaint, seven times, claims penis in vagina. She testified penis in vagina. She claimed she told her friends penis in vagina. Her friends claimed she told them penis is vagina

She testified in court that she was violated, but couldn't tell if it was his penis or a finger. My statements are based on court documents.

They jury believed that he "raped her" in the colloquial use of the words, but had to go with the "sexual assault" based on a technicality in the law.

WW
.
.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790/gov.uscourts.nysd.543790.200.0.pdf

 

[surada]

what did you think of the judge being very good friends with her lawyer for yrs....no problem right

you god damned people are going to get yourself brutally murdered for what you are doing...i hope your murderer smears your blood all over his god damned face

Not everyone is a criminal. Many Americans still believe in honor, justice and doing your duty.

 

[forkup]

So you would defend her calling you a rapist because she had testimony and had a photo where you said you mean your wife? HAve you ever been accused where others simply lied about you? We do not owe her side the right to make false claims.

For me, this has nothing to do with loyalty to anybody. But I do not traffic in hate either as does so many Democrats.

Again, simply IGNORING the actual evidence provided. It wasn't just 2 women. It was 6 woman and 2 males corroborating different aspects of her account. But that isn't enough for you. You need to add the completely unsupported extra info about everybody getting money out of the deal. Why is it that your hypothetical ignores most of the actual witnesses and adds another hypothetical unto a hypothetical?

If you want to use Biden, fine, but then duplicate the evidence instead of ignoring most of it.

If a woman shows up saying Biden put his fingers into her. That woman provides 2 other people who she told at the time. 2 Other women willing to testify Biden did similar things to them. An expert witness saying she shows signs of being sexually assaulted. 2 People making some of the more questionable aspects reasonable. AND a video of Joe saying he simply grabs woman by the pussy without waiting. And a deposition where he doesn't know if that's a good or a bad thing. Yes, I'd believe the woman. I would believe it beyond a reasonable doubt even.

I already played this game with you.
.
Your "hypothetical" this time. Puts out the ridiculous notion that I would defend somebody lying about me, because I defend a person making an accusation supported by EVIDENCE. Not just that, it begs the question by simply asserting the person is lying.

No, I would not defend a person lying about me. I would KNOW she's lying. The question is. Would I defend a person calling another person a rapist if she can provide the evidence Caroll has? A question I've already answered.