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

[Robert W]

The facts support the findings, and the case followed the law. There will be no appeal.

It is in process.

 

[okfine]

Thanks but I do not think that way. I post a lot based on my own experiences.

Sure. Uh, huh.

 

[Robert W]

Sure. Uh, huh.

Do you simply wing it here? I took your compliment as if you mean it. I have plenty of experience and am willing to share it.

 

[Dagosa]

A Jury decided Trump did not rape E. Jean Carroll. Bet you did not know that.
Here is a video that shows the facts of this case. Evaluate it honestly. Do not presume guilt. The Jury did not presume guilt. So you should not.

A Jury decided Trump did not rape E. Jean Carroll. Bet you did not know that.
Here is a video that shows the facts of this case. Evaluate it honestly. Do not presume guilt. The Jury did not presume guilt. So you should not.

He was convicted of sexual abuse and defamation.
Do you have a point anywhere here?

 

[okfine]

Do you simply wing it here? I took your compliment as if you mean it. I have plenty of experience and am willing to share it.

"Compliment?"
You are so lost.

 

[forkup]

That is all in the video. First the Jury did not allege Trump put his fingers anyplace.
They made a huge mistake. And due to that mistake, this will be tossed out by a higher court.

This is the problem when actively looking for sources that affirm your preconceptions. You will simply not get basic facts, because basic facts are not what you're interested in.

There's 2 trials. The first was about the defamation itself. In it, what needed to be established was that Trump did indeed assault her, and that the lies about that assault told by Trump were defamatory. That's what that form that your YouTube friend showed selectively was taken from. Again I showed the entire form.

In that trial Carrol was put on the stand, and she testified that Trump forcibly finger fucked her. PERIOD. This was affirmed as the same story she told 2 friends at the time it happened. The jury believed that story as is shown by the check mark by the question about sexual assault.

The second trial was simply a reaction to FURTHER defamatory statements by Trump AFTER he was found liable. As such the question that the sexual assault occurred was already answered and beyond dispute, and it was simply a matter of establishing that the statements in question were defamatory and harmful to Carrol. Something she could establish by the simple expediency of showing the threats she received from you kind MAGA folks after the statements in question.



As for appeal. What exactly do you think is appealable? The damages were not outlandish no matter how much you cry. And an appeals court will NOT rule on wether or not Trump assaulted Carroll. Unless there's some clear fault in the testimony.

What will happen almost certainly is that Trump will appeal, lose that appeal, and then put out roadblocks for paying the full amount. (The deposit he has to make to even get to appeal will by that time be payed out to Carroll.)

Bottom line. He can postpone and cry on social media. You can accept those cries as valid reasonings. You can look for a guy on YouTube who thinks like you do.

It will however not change the basic charge, or the factual consequences of those charges being accepted as true by the first jury.

Educate yourself. Maybe look at court documents instead of letting some yahoo on YouTube explain the basic facts of a case to you. You're going to be amazed as to what you find out.

 

[forkup]

"Sexual assault" in this day and age can be something as little as saying "Hey baby, you sure look fine in that dress..."

Not really. And Carroll didn't say Trump said she looked fine in a dress. She said he put his finger in her.

But hey don't let the actual testimony given influence your narrative.

 

[candycorn]

Trumps lawyers are doing very well.

 

[Dragonlady]

That is correct. But don't you notice Democrats posting here act like it is a criminal trial?

The case you admit he can make is underway. I believe as does the author of the video that Trump will win. Based on the ex post facto laws among the law of latches.

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.

 

[Dragonlady]

"Sexual assault" in this day and age can be something as little as saying "Hey baby, you sure look fine in that dress..."

Bullshit. That’s sexual harassment at most. Assault requires actual physical contact.

Rape and sexual assault are no joke, asshole.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The facts support the findings, and the case followed the law. There will be no appeal.

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?

 

[airplanemechanic]

He was convicted of sexual abuse and defamation.
Do you have a point anywhere here?

And he was never accused of it. How can you be found guilty of something you were never accused of?

You can't sue the president for defamation. It's illegal. Also, it was TRUE. She did lie. He called her a liar, the jury agreed. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. How can he be guilty of defaming a woman calling her a liar when the jury agreed she lied?

How can that happen? She said he raped her. The jury said that was a lie, a rape did not occur. So how can the jury find him guilty and not guilty at the same time? Either he raped her or he didn't. If he didn't rape her, the lawsuit must be thrown out as he is innocent.

What about the other SEVEN men who she has accused of raping her in the past?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Your post is absolute bullshit. Lies from top to bottom.

Trump was found to have sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll and then lied and slandered her reputation.

Trump didn’t even both to show up for the first trial.

The day after the guilty verdict, he went on national television and repeated the lies and the slanders.

He repeated them endlessly and at every opportunity throughout the second trial. Ms Carroll’s lawyer said that Trump’s behaviour throughout the trial actually made the damages higher because the jury saw his behaviours first hand.

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy.

 

[forkup]

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.

Of course it's legal to sue a president for defamation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/complaint.htm

You just can't bring the suit while in office. Trump isn't in office.

As for him not participating. He was allowed to participate and did testify. What he wasn't allowed to do was deny he assaulted her. That's was determined in the first trial.

A trial he DECLINED to testify in. You can bitch and moan but he had all the opportunities a normal person would get in a defamation trial. It's on him to bring up a defense at the right time. He didn't. Made the choice to use the second trial as a campaign event, and found out that courts have rules even he has to follow.

 

[Dragonlady]

And he was never accused of it. How can that happen? She said he raped her. The jury said that was a lie, a rape did not occur. So how can the jury find him guilty and not guilty at the same time? Either he raped her or he didn't. If he didn't rape her, the lawsuit must be thrown out as he is innocent.

What about the other SEVEN men who she has accused of raping her in the past?

New York law defines rapes as penetration with a penis. Ms Carroll couldn’t tell if he put his penis inside her or his fingers. That’s the ONLY reason there was no finding of rape.

Any other jurisdiction calls ANY penetration - fingers penis or blunt object “rape”. New York does not.

 

[forkup]

And he was never accused of it. How can that happen? She said he raped her. The jury said that was a lie, a rape did not occur. So how can the jury find him guilty and not guilty at the same time? Either he raped her or he didn't. If he didn't rape her, the lawsuit must be thrown out as he is innocent.

What about the other SEVEN men who she has accused of raping her in the past?

The jury said that what she testified to is classified as sexual assault in the state of New York, not rape. The difference being the way he penetrated her.

Thinking that makes it in any way better is either lack of information of what was alleged. Or drawing distinctions without a difference.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Of course it's legal to sue a president for defamation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/pjones/docs/complaint.htm

You just can't bring the suit while in office. Trump isn't in office.

As for him not participating. He was allowed to participate and did testify. What he wasn't allowed to do was deny he assaulted her. That's was determined in the first trial.

A trial he DECLINED to testify in. You can bitch and moan but he had all the opportunities a normal person would get in a defamation trial. It's on him to bring up a defense at the right time. He didn't. Made the choice to use the second trial as a campaign event, and found out that courts have rules even he has to follow.

Wrong. You're an idiot.

https://www.findlaw.com/civilrights/enforcing-your-civil-rights/can-i-sue-the-president-.html#:~:text=No%E2%80%93you%20cannot%20sue%20a,or%20when%20completing%20official%20acts.

"No–you cannot sue a current President of the United States for just anything. For the most part, they are immune from liability in a personal capacity when acting within their executive power or when completing official acts."

The defamation statement was said in 2019 when he was president. So he has presidential immunity to that. He has a right to defend himself and the office of president while he is president. The law states that. Whether you like it or not. It was also found that it was the truth. He called her a liar, the jury agreed, shes a liar, yet found him guilty of defamation. Which is legally a huge problem because the truth is an absolute defense to defamation.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Your post is absolute bullshit. Lies from top to bottom.

Trump was found to have sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll and then lied and slandered her reputation.

Trump didn’t even both to show up for the first trial.

The day after the guilty verdict, he went on national television and repeated the lies and the slanders.

He repeated them endlessly and at every opportunity throughout the second trial. Ms Carroll’s lawyer said that Trump’s behaviour throughout the trial actually made the damages higher because the jury saw his behaviours first hand.

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy.

The only slanderous statements mentioned in the trial were stated in 2019 while he was president. He has PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY for that. Even without immunity, TRUTH is an absolute defense to defamation. The jury agreed Trump was telling the truth, he did not rape her. So how in the FUCK can she get money for defamation when they agreed he was innocent of it? She didn't accuse him sexual assault, she accused him of RAPE. And the jury said HE DID NOT RAPE HER.

He was ACCUSED OF RAPING HER. He was found INNOCENT OF RAPE. So thus, he did NOT slander her saying she LIED ABOUT IT. Because the JURY AGREED SHE LIED ABOUT IT. The jury agreed SHE LIED IN HER BOOK STATING DONALD TRUMP RAPED HER. She is a LIAR. Found to be a liar BY A JURY OF HER PEERS. Why is a fucking liar getting money?????

Fucking idiots you people are.

And if he raped, why wasn't he charged with rape in the 25 years since this happened? Usually when a violent sexual crime happens, they are charged in criminal court, not civil.

 

[forkup]

The only slanderous statements mentioned in the trial were stated in 2019 while he was president. He has PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY for that. Even without immunity, TRUTH is an absolute defense to defamation. The jury agreed Trump was telling the truth, he did not rape her. So how in the FUCK can she get money for defamation when they agreed he was innocent of it?

He was ACCUSED OF RAPING HER. He was found INNOCENT OF RAPE. So thus, he did NOT slander her saying she LIED ABOUT IT. Because the JURY AGREED SHE LIED ABOUT IT. The jury agreed SHE LIED IN HER BOOK STATING DONALD TRUMP RAPED HER. She is a LIAR. Found to be a liar BY A JURY OF HER PEERS. Why is a fucking liar getting money?????

Fucking idiots you people are.

And if he raped, why wasn't he charged with rape in the 25 years since this happened? Usually when a violent sexual crime happens, they are charged in criminal court, not civil.

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 juries verdict means. It doesn't even hint at Caroll lying about what Trump did

 

[airplanemechanic]

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 juries verdict means. It doesn't even hint at Caroll lying about what Trump did

Yea, that pesky "definition" of rape, you know, like actually raping her? It's Clinton all over again, the definition of "is".

The fact remains that the truth is the defense to defamation. He said he did not rape her. There is NO evidence that he penetrated anything. That was not in any of the court documents. He is being found guilty of slander for saying he did not rape this woman and the jury is agreeing, he did not do it.

They are literally saying he is innocent and guilty at the same time. He was NEVER ACCUSED OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. How can he be found GUILTY OF IT?

This is absolute fucking insanity. When you're talking about 83 millions dollars, their MUST BE ample evidence and everything must be right. You can't say the man is innocent, but guilty of something so bam, 83 million. The fact that 75% of that is punitive shows they just hate Trump.

How can you justify 83 million for this woman, but you were silent when the same judge only gave the underage victim of Prince Andrews sexual assault $500,000 for MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT when she was a child?