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

[DGS49]

The accusation did not pass the Laugh Test. It is significant that the accuser could not specify the date, or even the year, of the assault, because Trump (his minions) keeps a meticulous journal of his activities every single day. With the date totally up in the air, Trump had no chance to prove the accusation false by showing with documents where he was that day.

The idea that an internationally known figure who always travels with a "posse" could spend time in a ladies' dressing room and no one notice is preposterous.

The appeals process for Civil cases is different from criminal cases, and it may not even be possible to appeal this case to a level where cogent adults review it, but there is a strong likelihood that at some point an appeals court will either vacate this verdict or send it back for a new trial, with very pointed instructions on EVIDENCE - which was totally lacking in this matter.

Good to see that TDS lives...seriously, how stupid to you have to be to type here that "Trump bragged about" sexually assaulting women? Lifetime Democrat voter, at the very least.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Really? If they didn’t decide that he finger banged her against her will, how about YOU describe the sexual assault they found took place

 

[JGalt]

She is 80 years old and quite wealthy all by herself and it would require 4 other people lying also. Who get neither money nor aclaim for their trouble. You're reaching.

Bullshit. She was only worth $6 million in 2023, and just like the Stormy Daniels case, you're reaching. The entire case is politically-motivated. She even had a Democrat mega-donor funding her lawsuit.

Trump civil trial judge weighing Democratic megadonor backing of E. Jean Carroll

I would also assume that for all practical purposes, she is a registered Democrat. So don't try to gaslight me with that Trump-hating bullshit. The fact is, you libtards will go through any and all means to try to prevent Trump from being your next President. And like everything you've tried, you're still failing.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

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.

Your own citation says "for the most part" which means that the person occupying the Oval Office is not immune from civil liability for personal actions.

Defaming someone is is not part of the official duties of President and he wasn't sue as President for his actions, he was sued in his personal capacity.

Oh, one more thing.

Bill Clinton says "Hi".

WW

 

[forkup]

The accusation did not pass the Laugh Test. It is significant that the accuser could not specify the date, or even the year, of the assault, because Trump (his minions) keeps a meticulous journal of his activities every single day. With the date totally up in the air, Trump had no chance to prove the accusation false by showing with documents where he was that day.

The idea that an internationally known figure who always travels with a "posse" could spend time in a ladies' dressing room and no one notice is preposterous.

The appeals process for Civil cases is different from criminal cases, and it may not even be possible to appeal this case to a level where cogent adults review it, but there is a strong likelihood that at some point an appeals court will either vacate this verdict or send it back for a new trial, with very pointed instructions on EVIDENCE - which was totally lacking in this matter.

Good to see that TDS lives...seriously, how stupid to you have to be to type here that "Trump bragged about" sexually assaulting women? Lifetime Democrat voter, at the very least.

Let me ask you. Do you know the exact date you lost your virginity? I don't? I can tell you where I was, her name, and all kinds of details. Not the date.

I can't tell you the exact date my mother died. I know it was summer because I remember it was warm and I was home. I know I was 17, I remember giving CPR. The feeling of panic. The mess the ambulance people left. Not the exact date.

I could only approximate the year my dad died. This by remembering where I was working when he did.

What you call not passing the "laugh test" is simply failing to understand or not acknowledging how memory works. Events even traumatic ones can be very vivid and yet some seemingly important parts get lost in time.



It's precisely the lack of total clarity that adds credibility. Someone who makes this up out of whole cloth won't say she doesn't remember the year, she won't allege it happened at a department store. She will not concede he just used his fingers and not his dick.

 

[Robert W]

Really? If they didn’t decide that he finger banged her against her will, how about YOU describe the sexual assault they found took place

She got the massive award over her claim he defamed her. When you defame me, are you raping me? Do you sexually assault posters here when you fight us?

 

[Robert W]

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.

She did not win a rape case. She won a defamation case. Sorry to have to bring you up to date with the truth.

 

[Robert W]

Let me ask you. Do you know the exact date you lost your virginity? I don't? I can tell you where I was, her name, and all kinds of details. Not the date.

I can't tell you the exact date my mother died. I know it was summer because I remember it was warm and I was home. I know I was 17, I remember giving CPR. The feeling of panic. The mess the ambulance people left. Not the exact date.

I could only approximate the year my dad died. This by remembering where I was working when he did.

What you call not passing the "laugh test" is simply failing to understand or not acknowledging how memory works. Events even traumatic ones can be very vivid and yet some seemingly important parts get lost in time.



It's precisely the lack of total clarity that adds credibility. Someone who makes this up out of whole cloth won't say she doesn't remember the year, she won't allege it happened at a department store. She will not concede he just used his fingers and not his dick.

She won her defamation case, not the sex case.

 

[forkup]

She won her defamation case, not the sex case.

Do you have reading comprehension problems?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

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.

You seem to have missed the legal weasel wording in your quote.

You cannot sue the sitting President for “just anything” which means you can sue him for some things.

The damages were not awarded for the assault. The damages were awarded for the slander and the defamation and labelling her a “liar” and a “crackpot”.

She received 83 million at the second trial because the day after the first trial he went out and did it again. And he didn’t stop doing it throughout the trial.

He also went on TV and bragged about how rich he was so they had to make the punitive damages large enough to make him stop.

Caroll’s lawyers have said that the award would not have been nearly that large, if not for the behaviour of Donald Trump in the court room throughout the trial.

He had no respect for the judge, the jury, the plaintiff, or the prosecutors. At all times he acted entitled and above any consequences for his actions.

This is how Trump has acted out his life. He said so in his deposition. When you’re a star, you can get away with it and he’s a star.

 

[forkup]

She won her defamation case, not the sex case.

Figured I make it big enough so you can read the verdict

 

[Dragonlady]

She won her defamation case, not the sex case.

She won the sexual abuse and assault portion of the case, just not the rape. That doesn’t mean Trump wasn’t found guilty of sexual assault.

 

[Dragonlady]

View attachment 897906
Figured I make it big enough so you can read the verdict

Did Mr. Trump sexually abuse Ms. Carroll? YES.

Did you miss that part?

 

[forkup]

Did Mr. Trump sexually abuse Ms. Carroll? YES.

Did you miss that part?

I didn't. I'm afraid Robert has. Please read what I'm replying to.

 

[Robert W]

She won the sexual abuse and assault portion of the case, just not the rape. That doesn’t mean Trump wasn’t found guilty of sexual assault.

When you get time, read what actually happened.

Trump ordered to pay $83.3M for defaming E. Jean Carroll

Trump has repeatedly disparaged Carroll after she accused him of raping her.

www.politico.com

NEW YORK — A jury ordered Donald Trump on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll over defamatory remarks he made about her while he was president in response to her rape accusation.

The bulk of the damages award is meant to punish Trump for repeatedly using his public platform to denigrate Carroll in defiance of prior court rulings that his verbal attacks are false and defamatory.

 

[forkup]

When you get time, read what actually happened.

Trump ordered to pay $83.3M for defaming E. Jean Carroll

Trump has repeatedly disparaged Carroll after she accused him of raping her.

www.politico.com

NEW YORK — A jury ordered Donald Trump on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll over defamatory remarks he made about her while he was president in response to her rape accusation.

The bulk of the damages award is meant to punish Trump for repeatedly using his public platform to denigrate Carroll in defiance of prior court rulings that his verbal attacks are false and defamatory.

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

Follow your own advice. I bolded it for you.

 

[Robert W]

Did Mr. Trump sexually abuse Ms. Carroll? YES.

Did you miss that part?

The questionnaire has you confused. This confuses many. But I believe this case will be overturned.

 

[forkup]

The questionnaire has you confused. This confuses many. But I believe this case will be overturned.

That's weird it isn't really all that confusing. At least not to an intellectual honest person.

 

[Robert W]

Follow your own advice. I bolded it for you.

Let me help you back.

NEW YORK — A jury ordered Donald Trump on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll over defamatory remarks he made about her while he was president in response to her rape accusation.

The bulk of the damages award is meant to punish Trump for repeatedly using his public platform to denigrate Carroll in defiance of prior court rulings that his verbal attacks are false and defamatory.

Trump ordered to pay $83.3M for defaming E. Jean Carroll

Trump has repeatedly disparaged Carroll after she accused him of raping her.

www.politico.com

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I have a pretty strong legal background. I have experience in such cases. So watch who you insult. I would not believe you have my background to use.

To help you start. What was the outcome of the case where you were charged with defaming a party? In my case, I won.

Why aren't you representing any of the Trump Humpers from Jan 6 pro bono?