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

[Billo_Really]

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​

It doesn't matter, he was found guilty of sexual assault. Period. He's not paying $83 million because he did nothing wrong.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

You are trying to defend a guy who thinks it's okay to grab a woman's pussy!

 

[Robert W]

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.

I detect you are toning it down quite a lot. You are attempting at last to make it pretty much self centered in your several defenses.
I and others believe you do derail things. But this is not my primary issue.
I have not hinted I do not also want an honest game. This is why I keep talking about the game and chide you for talking about posters, including me.

 

[Billo_Really]

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.

I've already provided the links to prove my argument. You haven't provided anything.

 

[Robert W]

It doesn't matter, he was found guilty of sexual assault. Period. He's not paying $83 million because he did nothing wrong.

Do you honestly believe Trump has paid her even a dollar?

 

[Billo_Really]

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​

Semantics.

 

[forkup]

I detect you are toning it down quite a lot. You are attempting at last to make it pretty much self centered in your several defenses.
I and others believe you do derail things. But this is not my primary issue.
I have not hinted I do not also want an honest game. This is why I keep talking about the game and chide you for talking about posters, including me.

Let's try it this way.

Do you think a fallacious argument has merit in a debate?

 

[Concerned American]

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

No one has cheated. There is no winner or loser. It isn't a chess game. It IS statements of FACT that you may not agree with, but they are FACTS just the same. Unfortunate that it hurts your feelings.

 

[Robert W]

Let's try it this way.

Do you think a fallacious argument has merit in a debate?

Normally that is the case of debates. And upon debate, and believe me, I have posters here on my side of this, and you seem to have attracted one on your side, we will try hard to determine who has the fallacious argument.

 

[Concerned American]

You are arguing semantics.

Only to someone who is ignorant. Words have meanings.

 

[Robert W]

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

Try to pretend you like Trump and hate the woman.
I am not telling you that is true. But pretend.
Is she the cheater? Who caused you to think she is honest? Her? How did she persuade she is honest?

Flip all of this to a woman's claim it was Biden who raped her in a store? Would you simply claim she told the truth?

 

[forkup]

Normally that is the case of debates. And upon debate, and believe me, I have posters here on my side of this, and you seem to have attracted one on your side, we will try hard to determine who has the fallacious argument.

Rephrase that please. I'll do so too. Does a fallacious argument have merit?

 

[Robert W]

Rephrase that please. I'll do so too. Does a fallacious argument have merit?

That is my basis to believe a higher court will call her argument fallacious.

 

[Robert W]

Trump already said he thinks it's okay to grab a woman's pussy! Fuck you!

He said they give their permission. Have you grabbed a woman's pussy when she gave you her permission?

 

[Robert W]

Rephrase that please. I'll do so too. Does a fallacious argument have merit?

Well, we will see about yours for sure.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He said they give their permission. Have you grabbed a woman's pussy when she gave you her permission?

You are changing the timing to imply that permission was granted first, which is contrary to the transcript (and video) of what was said. FPOTUS#45 bragged about kissing and grabbing BEFORE obtaining permission.

WW


Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.

Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —

Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.

Trump: Oh, it looks good.

Bush: Come on shorty.

 

[forkup]

Try to pretend you like Trump and hate the woman.
I am not telling you that is true. But pretend.
Is she the cheater? Who caused you to think she is honest? Her? How did she persuade she is honest?

If I hate the woman and like Trump, I'd still go by the strength of the evidence NOT an opinion of that woman.

Yesterday I was in an OP talking about the oral arguments in the ballot removal case. I listened to them and came away with the feeling SCOTUS (not Trump's lawyers) had valid reasons to reject the arguments for removal. My feelings towards Trump didn't factor in. I listened with an open mind and decided for myself what position was the most convincing.

This is how I look at this case. Caroll provided contemporaneous witnesses, 2 women willing to testify to sexual assault by Trump independent from this case. Meaning five people had to perjure themselves to vindicate Trump, only one receiving compensation. Other witnesses who could speak to how it was possible sexual assault in a public place occurred. Witnesses who could speak to her state of mind to not step forward sooner. An expert witness. Plus, a tape that can easily be construed as a confession of this kinds of behavior. A deposition that speaks towards his ambiguous feelings towards sexual assault, and a demonstrable lie he told when he said she "wasn't his type."

Trump gave nothing, besides denials without being subjected to cross-examination.

In my view that's more than enough to determine guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. In fact, if someone steps forward with this within the statute of limitations It's enough to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you articulate a reason not dependent on personal incredulity to reject my reasoning?

 

[forkup]

That is my basis to believe a higher court will call her argument fallacious.

Not an answer to my question. DO YOU believe a fallacious argument has merit?

 

[Robert W]

If I hate the woman and like Trump, I'd still go by the strength of the evidence NOT an opinion of that woman.

Yesterday I was in an OP talking about the oral arguments in the ballot removal case. I listened to them and came away with the feeling SCOTUS (not Trump's lawyers) had valid reasons to reject the arguments for removal. My feelings towards Trump didn't factor in. I listened with an open mind and decided for myself what position was the most convincing.

This is how I look at this case. Caroll provided contemporaneous witnesses, 2 women willing to testify to sexual assault by Trump independent from this case. Meaning five people had to perjure themselves to vindicate Trump. Other witnesses who could speak to how it was possible sexual assault in a public place occurred. Witnesses who could speak to her state of mind to not step forward sooner. An expert witness. Plus, a tape that can easily be construed as a confession of this kinds of behavior. A deposition that speaks towards his ambiguous feelings towards sexual assault, and a demonstrable lie he told when he said she "wasn't his type."

Trump gave nothing, besides denials without being subjected to cross-examination.

In my view that's more than enough to determine guilty by a preponderance of the evidence. In fact, if someone steps forward with this within the statute of limitations It's enough to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Can you articulate a reason not dependent on personal incredulity to reject my reasoning?

That is my kind of argument. I appreciate you talking that way.

Let's play honest here. I think the above by you is very honest.


This is a similar case only about Biden. In her case she told her story much more recently. She fled to Russia to be safe.

Is he also guilty?

Tara Reade, pictured in April 2019, accused Joe Biden of sexually harassing and assaulting her in 1993. A former staffer who accused Joe Biden of sexual assault has defected to Moscow, telling state media that she felt “safe” in Russia and would seek citizenship there.May 31, 2023

Woman who accused Biden of sexually assaulting her ... - CNN​

 

[Robert W]

Not an answer to my question. DO YOU believe a fallacious argument has merit?

Frankly I see things from a different vantage and believe you will find in all cases, both types of arguments. And also I don't accept the argument by a woman who waited for around 30 years to make it.