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

[Robert W]

No, I plan to have an honest conversation, or call people on not wanting an honest conversation. What occurs is completely dependent on how you act.

Then discuss things and not posters. When you take on posters, it amounts to attacks as you do things that you admit you do.

 

[Robert W]

That's why I said Caroll's testimony was direct evidence and her pals testimony was circumstantial. And as I said before. Hearsay is when you relay information that wasn't gotten from a primary source. Since they were talking about what Carroll told them it is not hearsay.

Tim told Tom Jean was raped= hearsay.

Jean told Tom she was raped= not hearsay.

By the way, you changed your premise from "he said/she said isn't direct evidence" To
"Her pals' testimony was hearsay"

Proving yet again that you simply are incapable of honestly engaging the premise.

Other posters here on this topic have agreed with me and said you are wrong.

 

[Concerned American]

Trump was already found guilty for rape in an earlier trial.

Please link to that trial. You won't because there was none. The statute of limitations had run. Trump has NEVER been convicted of ANYTHING in a CRIMINAL court. Try again.

 

[Robert W]

The video is horseshit! The trial verdict was for damages. Trump was already found guilty for rape in an earlier trial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

What happens to men that a jury convicts of rape? Trump was not convicted of rape.

If he had been, a court would pass a sentence on him that includes going to prison.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Since I did study Law in College, I understand your point. I can't claim to know the precise words of the pair of women about what they got told. But know they did not witness any crime. The court I believe erred by allowing them to speak of a event that is so stale dated. This is why Courts all over America will not allow such ancient testimony.

Courts allow evidence about contemporaneous communications all the time.

As I keep reporting, we can't rule out the women will get a huge reward from Carroll for what they told the court. I can't say she will pay them. That is not the matter at stake. Why can't she reward them very handsomely?

Conspiracy : the act of conspiring together
Theory : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

Sorry my friend, your "reporting" of a hypothetical conspiracy theory (by definition) has no bearing in a court of law nor the decision of the jury. You are welcome to adhere to it as a means of justifying in your mind why the decision of the jury was "wrong" or "unfair". But the attempted rationalization has no bearing on what transpired in court.

WW

 

[forkup]

Then discuss things and not posters. When you take on posters, it amounts to attacks as you do things that you admit you do.

Really? I always attempt to engage the poster on merit. And I have with you. Although you don't as is shown by me? If I miss a premise (rarely, but it happens) it is very much by accident.

I don't deflect, and when I'm wrong about something I have no problem acknowledging it, and act accordingly. I did so in this OP even.

I don't expect the same courtesy from anybody. What I will do is call people on it. You can choose to talk to me, or to not talk to me. What you can't choose is me accepting intellectual dishonesty as a legitimate debating tactic.

 

[Robert W]

No, I plan to have an honest conversation, or call people on not wanting an honest conversation. What occurs is completely dependent on how you act.

Follow your plan to have a conversation. But do not follow your plan to attack posters. What makes you GOD here? Who are you to judge?

 

[Robert W]

Courts allow evidence about contemporaneous communications all the time.



Conspiracy : the act of conspiring together
Theory : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

Sorry my friend, your "reporting" of a hypothetical conspiracy theory (by definition) has no bearing in a court of law nor the decision of the jury. You are welcome to adhere to it as a means of justifying in your mind why the decision of the jury was "wrong" or "unfair". But the attempted rationalization has no bearing on what transpired in court.

WW

I did not and I am sure you agree, make it a FACT. I admit it can be taken as a conspiracy, once I claim it is facts. I never did.

Also What can the women testify to in criminal court and how about civil court?
What they said they were told can't be admitted in a criminal court as I understand this issue. What they did happened in a civil court and they are far more lax than criminal courts.

 

[Billo_Really]

Please link to that trial. You won't because there was none. The statute of limitations had run. Trump has NEVER been convicted of ANYTHING in a CRIMINAL court. Try again.

Here you go.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

 

[WorldWatcher]

I can't dispute that claim because I have not, nor do I plan to, read the entire trial transcript. But Carrolls case is she got raped. She asked the women to speak up as to what she told them. I do believe if NY state allows this, they are in the minority of states who do. So, let's go back to my actual claim.

Every state in the union allows testimony about when communications occurred.

I believe that a higher court will dismiss what NY state did and go to the way the rest of the states that I am aware of handle such things.

Since you've studied the law (you keep wanting to point this out meaning the application of the Authority Fallacy), you understand that appeals courts do not hold a new trial as to "Trial of Facts". Appeals are based on an error in the application of the law or improper decision by the court in a procedural ruling.

FPOTUS#45 did not object to evidence presented and CHOOSE to not even present a defense. The appeal level is not a "redo" of the Trial of Facts.

So, on what grounds?

WW

 

[Concerned American]

Here you go.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

READ moron. I said link to a CRIMINAL CONVICTION of DJT. Not some whack job, biased judge's OPINION. Show me a CONVICTION. Try again.

 

[Billo_Really]

What happens to men that a jury convicts of rape? Trump was not convicted of rape.

If he had been, a court would pass a sentence on him that includes going to prison.

Trump was found guilty of sexually assaulting Carroll. You can't rewrite history.

 

[Robert W]

Every state in the union allows testimony about when communications occurred.



Since you've studied the law (you keep wanting to point this out meaning the application of the Authority Fallacy), you understand that appeals courts do not hold a new trial as to "Trial of Facts". Appeals are based on an error in the application of the law or improper decision by the court in a procedural ruling.

FPOTUS#45 did not object to evidence presented and CHOOSE to not even present a defense. The appeal level is not a "redo" of the Trial of Facts.

So, on what grounds?

WW

Let's level the field. Are you also talking using the application of the Authority fallacy?
So far you have not spoken as were you an Attorney at law. But if you are, we all need to know about this.
In the civil case we are discussing, why wasn't the punishment of Trump time to be spent in prison?

I know why. I believe you do as well.

So we will tell the others.

It was not a criminal trial. It was a Civil Trial. Civil Trials play fast and loose where the Criminal courts are very strict.

As to why I think a higher court will overturn this? I doubt the appeals court will do that. I think the higher court has that ability.

 

[Robert W]

Trump was found guilty of sexually assaulting Carroll. You can't rewrite history.

What kind of court did that? Why money damages? Were the courts so stupid it could not put him in prison?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let's level the field. Are you also talking using the application of the Authority fallacy?

OK.

So far you have not spoken as were you an Attorney at law. But if you are, we all need to know about this.

No I'm not.

In the civil case we are discussing, why wasn't the punishment of Trump time to be spent in prison?

Because, as anyone that has studied the law would know, we don't send people to prison in this country for being found liable in a civil suit.

I know why. I believe you do as well.

So we will tell the others.

It was not a criminal trial. It was a Civil Trial. Civil Trials play fast and loose where the Criminal courts are very strict.

As to why I think a higher court will overturn this? I doubt the appeals court will do that. I think the higher court has that ability.

Of course they have the ability.

You said "I believe that a higher court will dismiss what NY state did...", I'm asking what is the basis for this?

Judicial error? Based on what?

Incorrect application of the law? (Based on what?)

WW

 

[Concerned American]

Trump was found guilty of sexually assaulting Carroll. You can't rewrite history.

Don't just talk about it---LINK IT! DJT has NEVER been CONVICTED OF ANYTHING by a CRIMINAL court.

 

[Billo_Really]

READ moron. I said link to a CRIMINAL CONVICTION of DJT. Not some whack job, biased judge's OPINION. Show me a CONVICTION. Try again.

You are trying to argue semantics. I guess you think it is okay to sexually assault someone?

 

[Billo_Really]

What kind of court did that? Why money damages? Were the courts so stupid it could not put him in prison?

Is sexually assaulting someone okay in your book?

 

[Billo_Really]

Don't just talk about it---LINK IT! DJT has NEVER been CONVICTED OF ANYTHING by a CRIMINAL court.

Here you go...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

 

[Concerned American]

You are trying to argue semantics. I guess you think it is okay to sexually assault someone?

He has not been proven to have assaulted anyone. This is the US. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. But you democrats don't care about the constitution or due process or unimportant things like that. Hang around, as the CO supremes are soon to find out, you are wrong.