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

[Concerned American]

Here you go...

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

Opinion. Try again.

 

[Robert W]

Is sexually assaulting someone okay in your book?

Not at all. But per law, one does not have to take the word of the person claiming. And those who also watched it, are valuable witnesses. But if a person tells a pal she got assaulted, the best form of proof is injuries to the party. The last source is a he said she said issue.

Let's take the case of OJ Simpson. A criminal court found him not guilty. A civil court which is very very lax awarded the parents of the victim money damages. First the fact they were dead was never disputed. They had the bodies of both as proof they were murdered.

In the case of the assault case about Trump, there was but one alleged witness. The Carroll woman. She claims she told others. She may well have told many. She limited it. She is using them as her proof. But are they her proof? They can tell what she said. But they have no way to tell a court what she said happened or is true.

Why are they limited. By her own testimony. She said they were told. And that is all they can claim. But they can't allege she is honest. She does not get the presumption of honesty in such a matter as I say here.

 

[Robert W]

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

Law is only semantics. You guess wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

Yes he has! In a previous trial, he was found guilty of sexually assaulting Carroll. Fuck! Get your head out of the sand!

Live updates: Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

A Manhattan federal jury found that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996 and awarded her $5 million for battery and defamation.

amp.cnn.com

 

[forkup]

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?

I'm not God. You can do whatever you want.

This is to begin with not a very productive way to spend your time, so I want to have fun while doing so. Two people talking next to another is not fun. It's rattling talking points. That's why I engage the premise. But if I'm the only one doing so it's simply boring.

You like to do analogies. Here's mine. If I'm playing a game of chess, and I play by the rules of chess, but my opponent doesn't, and just makes it up as he goes so he can win. That game isn't fun. There's literally no point. So, what I do is make it clear I'm aware the person's cheating in the hope that he'll be shamed into playing by the rules of chess.

I will say. At a certain point. I will simply give up on trying to get an honest game. In this case that point is approaching.

 

[Billo_Really]

Opinion. Try again.

"...the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”

 

[Billo_Really]

Not at all. But per law, one does not have to take the word of the person claiming. And those who also watched it, are valuable witnesses. But if a person tells a pal she got assaulted, the best form of proof is injuries to the party. The last source is a he said she said issue.

Let's take the case of OJ Simpson. A criminal court found him not guilty. A civil court which is very very lax awarded the parents of the victim money damages. First the fact they were dead was never disputed. They had the bodies of both as proof they were murdered.

In the case of the assault case about Trump, there was but one alleged witness. The Carroll woman. She claims she told others. She may well have told many. She limited it. She is using them as her proof. But are they her proof? They can tell what she said. But they have no way to tell a court what she said happened or is true.

Why are they limited. By her own testimony. She said they were told. And that is all they can claim. But they can't allege she is honest. She does not get the presumption of honesty in such a matter as I say here.

Your whole post is moot, because Trump was found guilty of sexual assault.

 

[Concerned American]

Yes he has! In a previous trial, he was found guilty of sexually assaulting Carroll. Fuck! Get your head out of the sand!

Live updates: Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

A Manhattan federal jury found that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in a luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996 and awarded her $5 million for battery and defamation.

amp.cnn.com

You really aren't this slow are you? Do you understand the difference between CRIMINAL and CIVIL. The standard in a criminal trial is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and a jury of 12 must be UNANIMOUS in its decision. A civil trial only requires a "preponderance of evidence" and does not require a unanimous verdict. A civil trial DOES NOT determine GUILT. School yourself.

 

[Concerned American]

liable for

NOT GUILT. You can be found liable for anything without any determination of guilt.

 

[Robert W]

I'm not God. You can do whatever you want.

This is to begin with not a very productive way to spend your time, so I want to have fun while doing so. Two people talking next to another is not fun. It's rattling talking points. That's why I engage the premise. But if I'm the only one doing so it's simply boring.

You like to do analogies. Here's mine. If I'm playing a game of chess, and I play by the rules of chess, but my opponent doesn't, and just makes it up as he goes so he can win. That game isn't fun. There's literally no point. So, what I do is make it clear I'm aware the person's cheating in the hope that he'll be shamed into playing by the rules of chess.

I will say. At a certain point. I will simply give up on trying to get an honest game. In this case that point is approaching.

You are busy derailing this topic. First you assumed way way too much. And when you assume that much, you are being an ass. I am also honest.

 

[Robert W]

Your whole post is moot, because Trump was found guilty of sexual assault.

Not per the law. This is how it works.

Do civil cases determine guilt?


The civil justice system does not attempt to determine the innocence or guilt of an offender. Rather, it attempts to determine whether an offender or a third party is liable for the injuries sustained as a result of the crime.

Criminal and Civil Justice​

 

[Billo_Really]

Law is only semantics. You guess wrong.

There is nothing to guess. He was already found guilty in a court of law.

 

[Concerned American]

I'm not God. You can do whatever you want.

This is to begin with not a very productive way to spend your time, so I want to have fun while doing so. Two people talking next to another is not fun. It's rattling talking points. That's why I engage the premise. But if I'm the only one doing so it's simply boring.

You like to do analogies. Here's mine. If I'm playing a game of chess, and I play by the rules of chess, but my opponent doesn't, and just makes it up as he goes so he can win. That game isn't fun. There's literally no point. So, what I do is make it clear I'm aware the person's cheating in the hope that he'll be shamed into playing by the rules of chess.

I will say. At a certain point. I will simply give up on trying to get an honest game. In this case that point is approaching.

That's a lot of words to say you find it boring to have your ass handed to you but you are either too stubborn or too stupid to accept that it has been handed to you. Which is it?

 

[Robert W]

"...the conduct the jury effectively found Trump liable for — forced digital penetration — meets a more common definition of rape. He cited definitions offered by the American Psychological Association and the Justice Department, which in 2012 expanded its definition of rape to include penetration “with any body part or object.”

Who SAW this?She testified she did not see it.

 

[forkup]

You are busy derailing this topic. First you assumed way way too much. And when you assume that much, you are being an ass. I am also honest.

I'm NOT assuming anything. When I said you keep on changing premises I've given you examples. Over several posts even.

When you claimed something wasn't direct evidence I provided a link, citing the definition of the term in NY state. When you claimed the testimony of Carrol was not credible because of time. I pointed out how traumatic experiences will be vivid, while at the same time fussy in detail etc. etc.

As I said. I didn't derail anything. I've simply replied at whatever premise you put before me. Including this one.

I want an honest game. You pick if you want to do so too... or not. One will result in me continuing. The other won't.

 

[Concerned American]

There is nothing to guess. He was already found guilty in a court of law.

You keep saying it, and it is still untrue. This isn't hard. Just find one court that has said DJT is GUILTY of anything. Stop doubling down on your ignorance, it isn't a good look on you.

 

[Robert W]

There is nothing to guess. He was already found guilty in a court of law.

A Civil court does not decide guilt.
Do civil cases determine guilt?


The civil justice system does not attempt to determine the innocence or guilt of an offender. Rather, it attempts to determine whether an offender or a third party is liable for the injuries sustained as a result of the crime.

Criminal and Civil Justice​

 

[forkup]

That's a lot of words to say you find it boring to have your ass handed to you but you are either too stubborn or too stupid to accept that it has been handed to you. Which is it?

Maybe this will be clearer. Someone who cheats isn't "winning." He's just... cheating.

 

[Billo_Really]

You really aren't this slow are you? Do you understand the difference between CRIMINAL and CIVIL. The standard in a criminal trial is "Beyond a reasonable doubt" and a jury of 12 must be UNANIMOUS in its decision. A civil trial only requires a "preponderance of evidence" and does not require a unanimous verdict. A civil trial DOES NOT determine GUILT. School yourself.

So the fuck what! I don't give a shit which court found him guilty, HE WAS FOUND GUILTY, mother-fucker! Wipe your ass with the verdict, you sick piece of shit!

You think it's okay to sexually assault someone? Trump already said he thinks it's okay to grab a woman's pussy! Fuck you!

 

[Billo_Really]

NOT GUILT. You can be found liable for anything without any determination of guilt.

You are arguing semantics.