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

[Robert W]

You’re a poet ?

He is not Dennis Eckersley. And you are not either.

 

[forkup]

She relies on her case where the testimony by two women amounts to hearsay. I see ways that this case will be found later in favor of Trump.

When two women tell a court a thing they say is almost 30 years into the past, the Judge should dismiss that testimony as stale dated. And the change of laws also means he was tried for ex post facto laws which are against the constitution.

Stop pretending to be ANY type of legal expert. A witness testifying to what a victim of a crime told them is NOT hearsay.

"Joe heard from Tom that Judy was raped", That's hearsay. "Jean told me she was raped", isn't.

 

[Dagosa]

He is not Dennis Eckersley. And you are not either.

Wow, you are a Tump minion. I’ll give you that.

 

[Robert W]

Wow, you are a Tump minion. I’ll give you that.

When Trump was president, we Americans had so much to be proud of. But that vanished under Biden.

 

[Dagosa]

When Trump was president, we Americans had so much to be proud of. But that vanished under Biden.

Sure. Those if you who hated and feared minorities and your own shadow, worshipped this idiot.

 

[Robert W]

Sure. Those if you who hated and feared minorities and your own shadow, worshipped this idiot.

Absolutely not true. Minorities are thus because they are few. Even blacks only amount to about 12 percent of your hives. They complain about the broken promises of Democrats.

 

[Concerned American]

and this is a judge talking. He did rape her if not in the NY legal sense, then for sure in the colloquial way.

Judges don't provide evidence. His remarks are irrelevant and biased. Recusal.

 

[Dagosa]

Robert W

Absolutely not true. Minorities are thus because they are few. Even blacks only amount to about 12 percent of your hives. They complain about the broken promises of Democrats.

Change your channel from nightly Fix News.

 

[Concerned American]

so what makes you so special?

Good question, you should answer it.

 

[Robert W]

Robert W

Change your channel from nightly Fix News.

I do not watch them nightly.

 

[forkup]

Judges don't provide evidence. His remarks are irrelevant and biased. Recusal.

It's their job to explain what the law means. They give the jury the instructions THEY use to determine guilt or innocence. They don't need to provide evidence. They simply need to know, interpret, and if necessary explain the law.

 

[Dagosa]

When Trump was president, we Americans had so much to be proud of. But that vanished under Biden.

Hilarious. Think of all the shit Trump has you bozos thinking.
You don’t believe in science, education, the constitution or women. You’re dullards.

 

[Dagosa]

I do not watch them nightly.

No, you take one night off to hide down your trailer.

 

[Concerned American]

It's their job to explain what the law means. They give the jury the instructions THEY use to determine guilt or innocence. They don't need to provide evidence. They simply need to know, interpret, and if necessary explain the law.

They can not determine guilt or innocence in the absence of evidence. There has been NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in the E. Jean Carroll case and there is no credible circumstantial evidence. It will be overturned on appeal and EJC will never spend a dime.

 

[Dagosa]

They can not determine guilt or innocence in the absence of evidence. There has been NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in the E. Jean Carroll case and there is no credible circumstantial evidence. It will be overturned on appeal and EJC will never spend a dime.

You the judge ?

 

[Robert W]

No, you take one night off to hide down your trailer.

So you are a burglar!!!!!

 

[Robert W]

They can not determine guilt or innocence in the absence of evidence. There has been NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in the E. Jean Carroll case and there is no credible circumstantial evidence. It will be overturned on appeal and EJC will never spend a dime.

Even if Trump raped her, it happened far far too long ago. Her witnesses might easily be in line to collect a huge part of the award. I believe as you believe that when it hits the top court, it will be rejected. And her rich supporter can see if he can deduct it from his tax return.

 

[Robert W]

Hilarious. Think of all the shit Trump has you bozos thinking.
You don’t believe in science, education, the constitution or women. You’re dullards.

Your mind is where waste was deposited, maybe by minorities.

 

[forkup]

They can not determine guilt or innocence in the absence of evidence. There has been NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in the E. Jean Carroll case and there is no credible circumstantial evidence. It will be overturned on appeal and EJC will never spend a dime.

What are you contending? There's an absence of evidence, or there's no credible circumstantial evidence? You said both and the statements are contradictory.

I'll just assume the second. Let's start with the simple fact that you are begging the question. It's your opinion that the circumstantial evidence is not credible. The reason I know this is because 9 jurors, who unlike you actually HEARD all the evidence decided he was liable. Meaning they found it credible.

But let's play this game. And feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position on any of the following points. I'm actually guessing.

-You don't find Caroll credible and think she committed perjury
-You don't find her friends credible who told, they were told at the time, and think they committed perjury.
-You don't find the 2 people who testified to Trump assaulting them credible, and think they committed perjury.

You feel competent to draw these conclusions without ever hearing this testimony.

-When Trump said that he grabs woman by the pussy, without waiting and they let him get away with it. You believe that what he meant is that they want him to do it.
-When Trump said Carrol wasn't his type but confused her with his wife in a picture, he was blind.
-When Trump said he didn't know it was fortunate or unfortunate that "stars" get away with sexual assault he misspoke.

You believe that Trump is telling the truth when he said he didn't do it, although he's never been subjected to cross.

Am I about right?

-

 

[Robert W]

What are you contending? There's an absence of evidence, or there's no credible circumstantial evidence? You said both and the statements are contradictory.

I'll just assume the second. Let's start with the simple fact that you are begging the question. It's your opinion that the circumstantial evidence is not credible. The reason I know this is because 9 jurors, who unlike you actually HEARD all the evidence decided he was liable. Meaning they found it credible.

But let's play this game. And feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position on any of the following points. I'm actually guessing.

-You don't find Caroll credible and think she committed perjury
-You don't find her friends credible who told, they were told at the time, and think they committed perjury.
-You don't find the 2 people who testified to Trump assaulting them credible, and think they committed perjury.

You feel competent to draw these conclusions without ever hearing this testimony.

-When Trump said that he grabs woman by the pussy, without waiting and they let him get away with it. You believe that what he meant is that they want him to do it.
-When Trump said Carrol wasn't his type but confused her with his wife in a picture, he was blind.
-When Trump said he didn't know it was fortunate or unfortunate that "stars" get away with sexual assault he misspoke.

You believe that Trump is telling the truth when he said he didn't do it, although he's never been subjected to cross.

Am I about right?

-

Using just your legal explanations, you mean by insinuation that all black men currently in prison, even for rape, murder and more, are all totally guilty. That the innocence project is doing wrong by freeing prisoners from prison.