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

[surada]

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.

He's already put up the 5 million dollars. To appeal he has to escrow $83 million. He's one seriously stupid old man.

 

[surada]

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

Trump has bragged for decades about assaulting women.

 

[Robert W]

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
.
.
View attachment 898368


View attachment 898369

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

All of that is what was said in Court. It still amounts to very very old remarks that can't be validated. Only if one hates Trump can it be said to be valid.
The nation has laws on the books all over this country. And when testimony is proffered this far from the past, it is generally disregarded. It is not used in current cases.

If she made the same claims back in 1996, even then a court would have a hard time believing her. Not that she lied, but it is a matter of belief. Belief in court is not trivial. Belief is the basis of this case. She is reported to have made the same claims against 6 more men. She claims she has no interest in sex. She says her pals support her. That their stale dated remarks show proof.

All I am saying is that a later court is not going to be so helpful to her. They will evaluate it based on my remarks and not those of two women who just might be in line for millions of dollars for supporting her.

 

[WorldWatcher]

All of that is what was said in Court

Correct, that is was the jury based their decision on.

All I am saying is that a later court is not going to be so helpful to her. They will evaluate it based on my remarks and not those of two women who just might be in line for millions of dollars for supporting her.

Not likely, the amount may be reduced, but to overturn FPOTUS#45's sexual assault liability, not likely.

WW

 

[Robert W]

He's already put up the 5 million dollars. To appeal he has to escrow $83 million. He's one seriously stupid old man.

Nope, not true. Trump does not have to have put up 5 million yet. That case is on appeals. Actually he can manage this two ways at least. Way 1 is to put up the cash. Way 2 is to buy a bond.

I asked all of you yesterday to try to pretend this happened to Biden. Would you talk that way about Biden? Biden in his future will face criminal charges. Will you quickly find him guilty?

 

[Robert W]

Correct, that is was the jury based their decision on.



Not likely, the amount may be reduced, but to overturn FPOTUS#45's sexual assault liability, not likely.

WW

I have enough legal education to admit this will be for courts to decide. I already see problems with the present court. It has worked hard to deny Trump a fair day in court. It chose sides very early. And she is the lucky party who the Court decided to side with. Even the Jury denied she got raped. Both times in fact.

This Court stopped the Trump defense based on the other court saying he assaulted her. I find it problematic on that claim due to the two factors called ex post facto plus it was like 3 decades in the past. This is so unusual a court tries a super old alleged event or crime that i am shocked it is in the present state. I think higher courts will overturn both cases.

 

[Robert W]

Both you and the guy posting the video are idiots.

“Ex post facto” only applies if the act wasn’t a crime when committed. Sexual assault was always a crime.

Please stop pretending you know anything about the law.

I caution everybody posting and reading here, do not try this cheap stunt against others. She is not making a valid legal case. She has resorted to cheap shots. She also has presumed guilt and this will be resolved in higher courts than the two that have ruled recently against trump.
I do not have to pretend. It is because I studied law in college. I spent many years having to know law to handle my several businesses.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I have enough legal education to admit this will be for courts to decide. I already see problems with the present court. It has worked hard to deny Trump a fair day in court.

This is just false. FPOTUS#45 had full access for his day in court.

He CHOOSE not to participate, challenge the evidence, etc. during the Trail of Fact. That was his choice, it wasn't "denied" him.

What he wanted was a "do over" for the trial he ignored, that's not the way it works.

This Court stopped the Trump defense based on the other court saying he assaulted her.

It wasn't "the other court" it was the same court. It was the previous jury.

And yes, that is correct. Once the jury determined liability for his action, and there is a second jury looking at the damages - he does not get to attempt to relitigate the liability. That wasn't an FPOTUS#45 thing, that is they way it's always been.

You would think that someone with "enough education" on the subject would understand this basic principle of court proceedings.

WW

 

[Robert W]

The case didn't follow any law. It's not even LEGAL to sue the president for defamation. He was found guilty in a second trial that he wasn't allowed to participate in based on the jury finding him guilty of something he was never accused of in the first trial. It's absolute bullshit.

This judge has showed EXTREME BIAS. against Trump. He settled a sexual abuse lawsuit with Prince andrew against an underage girl for multiple instances of underage sexual abuse for 500,000. He allowed this jury to hit trump for EIGHTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS for something that happened 25 years ago that he was never accused of.

THIS WOMAN participated in the new bill that passed RIGHT BEFORE she filed her lawsuit allowing "sexual abuse victims" to sue for abuse that happened beyond the statute of limitations. This had FAR EXCEEDED the statute of limitations.

Why has this woman accused 7 men of raping her?

She has $$$millions of reasons why she lied to the courts involved.

She has a very rich person paying her lawyers so for her it is a free ride. I believe it is reasonable to assume the women she had as witnesses are in for a huge payday if she wins in the higher courts.

 

[Robert W]

This is just false. FPOTUS#45 had full access for his day in court.

He CHOOSE not to participate, challenge the evidence, etc. during the Trail of Fact. That was his choice, it wasn't "denied" him.

What he wanted was a "do over" for the trial he ignored, that's not the way it works.



It wasn't "the other court" it was the same court. It was the previous jury.

And yes, that is correct. Once the jury determined liability for his action, and there is a second jury looking at the damages - he does not get to attempt to relitigate the liability. That wasn't an FPOTUS#45 thing, that is they way it's always been.

You would think that someone with "enough education" on the subject would understand this basic principle of court proceedings.

WW

If you notice my way of posting, I do my level best not to attack the poster talking back to me. I do not want my style to include impugning others. I want it to be at a level you expect to get a university degree.

First, aren't you an enemy to Donald Trump?

I believe you need to be disqualified. It is not so much a legal argument as an emontional argument. If you liked Trump, I suspect your talking would be far different.

In my case, I don't like him on many counts. But when it comes to law, he has the rights you and I have to a fair trial. And you must know the cases are going to be appealed. This is why I said the courts later on will decide.

 

[Rawley]

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.

??? Do you guys even read the shit you post here? “Ms. Carroll testified Mr Trump assaulter her … forcibly penetrating her vagina … with his penis.”

No equivocation, no "couldn't tell", no doubt. She explicitly, and repeatedly claimed he forcefully penetrated her vagina with his penis. She claimed rape.

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.

WTF? How may times do you need to be shown the jury verdict form? They found he didn't rape her., They didn't believe her - aka they found she was lying.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you notice my way of posting, I do my level best not to attack the poster talking back to me. I do not want my style to include impugning others. I want it to be at a level you expect to get a university degree.

First, aren't you an enemy to Donald Trump?

I believe you need to be disqualified. It is not so much a legal argument as an emontional argument. If you liked Trump, I suspect your talking would be far different.

In my case, I don't like him on many counts. But when it comes to law, he has the rights you and I have to a fair trial. And you must know the cases are going to be appealed. This is why I said the courts later on will decide.

Then please state what actually happened instead of injecting your obvious bias (as opposed to your claimed neutrality) as to the proceedings.

For example the simply false claim that FPOTUS#45 was denied a defense, he was NOT denied a defense. He was fully able to present a defense during the Trial of Fact. Because he CHOOSE not to present a defense does not mean he was denied a defense. Once the liability had been determined, he doesn't get a "do over" for the damages trail just because he choose to ignore the first trial.

And you are correct, he will appeal, but appeal does not mean automatic success as we see today with is Presidential Immunity claims. The appeals court shot down each one of his claims.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

WTF? How may times do you need to be shown the jury verdict form? They found he didn't rape her., They didn't believe her - aka they found she was lying.

As many times as you want.

The Jury did believe her. Hence the "Yes" on the sexual assault question and the awarding of damages.

WW

 

[Rawley]

As many times as you want.

The Jury did believe her. Hence the "Yes" on the sexual assault question and the awarding of damages.

WW

Again, the fact that you persist in misrepresenting the black and white on the verdict says it all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Again, the fact that you persist in misrepresenting the black and white on the verdict says it all.

The verdict says basically "YES" the believed Trump attached her and awarded her $2,000,000 in compensatory damages.

That is in black and white right there on the form.

WW

 

[Rawley]

The verdict says basically "YES" the believed Trump attached her and awarded her $2,000,000 in compensatory damages.

That is in black and white right there on the form.

WW

You claimed they found he "sexually assualted" her. You're lying. Your hate for Trump prevents you from presenting any objective analysis.

 

[Robert W]

Then please state what actually happened instead of injecting your obvious bias (as opposed to your claimed neutrality) as to the proceedings.

For example the simply false claim that FPOTUS#45 was denied a defense, he was NOT denied a defense. He was fully able to present a defense during the Trial of Fact. Because he CHOOSE not to present a defense does not mean he was denied a defense. Once the liability had been determined, he doesn't get a "do over" for the damages trail just because he choose to ignore the first trial.

And you are correct, he will appeal, but appeal does not mean automatic success as we see today with is Presidential Immunity claims. The appeals court shot down each one of his claims.

WW

Thank you for showing you really can be polite. I appreciate it. I said clearly i do not like Trump. I do like the job he did. But him as a person makes me angry.

I am speaking of the case where the award was 83 million dollars. That is where he tried to mount a defense and was denied.
You are correct that the same judge was in charge both times. And he ruled that due to case #1, case #2 was where Trump had no defense.

But he based case #1 only on stale dated testimony. It was testimony alleged to happen around 30 years back. I believe the next courts will agree that is far too long in the past and will overturn Kaplans rulings here.

Let me try to be a bit more personal. Would you want my defense of you were you the person on trial or would you want Kaplan to rule against you? If you were charged with rape, but the claim was reduced to assault, and the witnesses were talking of events dating back a third of a century, would you want others to believe the women were right to go against you or you were right to rely on them not using ancient testimony?

 

[Care4all]

Again, the fact that you persist in misrepresenting the black and white on the verdict says it all.

But it is my understanding also, is that at the time of the incident, using a broomstick, bottle or yes, a finger to penetrate....was not considered rape?

I agree, the jury under the preponderance, could not determine if he used his dick.

But they did determine that at minimum, he did sexually assault her and penetrate her by force, using his finger.

 

[Rawley]

But it is my understanding also, is that at the time of the incident, using a broomstick, bottle or yes, a finger to penetrate....was not considered rape?

I agree, the jury under the preponderance, could not determine if he used his dick.

No, they determined that he did not stick his dick in her vagina. They didn't believe her - aka they thought she was lying.

But they did determine that at minimum, he did sexually assault her and penetrate her by force, using his finger.

Nope. Not sure why you guys are obsessed with her vagina.

 

[Care4all]

Thank you for showing you really can be polite. I appreciate it. I said clearly i do not like Trump. I do like the job he did. But him as a person makes me angry.

I am speaking of the case where the award was 83 million dollars. That is where he tried to mount a defense and was denied.
You are correct that the same judge was in charge both times. And he ruled that due to case #1, case #2 was where Trump had no defense.

But he based case #1 only on stale dated testimony. It was testimony alleged to happen around 30 years back. I believe the next courts will agree that is far too long in the past and will overturn Kaplans rulings here.

Let me try to be a bit more personal. Would you want my defense of you were you the person on trial or would you want Kaplan to rule against you? If you were charged with rape, but the claim was reduced to assault, and the witnesses were talking of events dating back a third of a century, would you want others to believe the women were right to go against you or you were right to rely on them not using ancient testimony?

A newer NY Law after the me too movement, I believe....allows this suit in civil court to take place on incidents that occurred decades ago. This law is available in a few other states who changed their laws also, but not all of them!

This trial was just on damages related to the first trial, where the verdict was that Trump defamed her. Within hours of that trial ending and Trump found libel, he went out and defamed her again, on video and in tweets.

This trial was about how much money as a penalty, would it take to keep Trump from continuing to break the law he was found libel on by defaming her in public.... Is my understanding....NOT to re-litigate the verdict in the first trial where Trump had a defence team and all of his due process.