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

[Robert W]

Well you could try but I feel confident in my ability to counter any of your arguments with reason and logic.

And I accept that fact. What I don't accept is the notion that a criminal conviction is what objectively makes one a rapist rather than the act of rape itself which logically comes before arrest, trial and conviction.

That has not been a part of my claims. But if she wanted the trial to be about rape and not money, she should have tried the case in a Criminal court.

I have no basis at all to judge her claim of rape. I tend to doubt she got raped. But that is not part of her case in the civil court.

Why would i doubt she got raped?

Well she has charged around 7 men for raping her. Seems to me she assumes when she encounters men, they will rape her. Seems paranoid on her part.

 

[forkup]

Because in my case I have studied law when going to College. We were trained how to evaluate cases. A sex case on her behalf would be found in a criminal court. A Defamation case is a civil case.

Where did you study, Springfield community college?

Nobody is claiming it was a criminal case, for obvious reasons. The jury however did have to make a determination regarding the rape allegations. They found him LIABLE and more likely than not... guilty. This whole dishonest, "the jury didn't say anything about it" is exactly that... dishonest.

 

[AZrailwhale]

He was convicted of sexual abuse and defamation.
Do you have a point anywhere here?

Trump wasn't CONVICTED of anything.

 

[Robert W]

She had no chance in a criminal court because of the statute of limitations. It says NOTHING about the merits of a case.

If she had pressed charges back in the day, armed with 2 friends she told when it occurred. 2 Strangers willing to testify that he assaulted them too. A deposition where Trump can't say if it's fortunate or unfortunate "stars" get away with sexual assault. A video where Trump says he "grabs woman by the pussy without waiting. (for permission)". 2 Store clerks willing to sate it is indeed possible that the place it happened was completely unattended, and a psychiatrist willing to state she shows signs of abuse, that would have been more than likely be enough to reach the beyond reasonable doubt standard. I would argue Harvey Weinstein was found guilty on less evidence.

Had she gone to court immediately after she says this happened, I would tend to believe she did get raped. But she did not believe it serious enough to go to court back then. She saw how Trump keeps being attacked and jumped in to see if she could also collect. A raped woman does not wait over 30 years to bring it up.

When one is on trial, they case is not based on claims from the distant past made on a bus. The issue on bus is Trump was bragging. Do you truly accept all of Trumps bragging?

A law course is wonderful. But until one passes one as I did with straight A grades, they can be easily misled and not know how to evaluate cases.

One benefit I bring here is that I have actually listened to testimony by people and passed judgement against them and also for them.

 

[Dragonlady]

I would judge more than you do.

That’s the problem, you’re judging others without looking at the facts. Trump was convicted of sexual assault. That’s rape in any jurisdiction BUT New York.

Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting women. Why do you keep pretending it didn’t happen.

 

[Robert W]

Where did you study, Springfield community college?

Nobody is claiming it was a criminal case, for obvious reasons. The jury however did have to make a determination regarding the rape allegations. They found him LIABLE and more likely than not... guilty. This whole dishonest, "the jury didn't say anything about it" is exactly that... dishonest.

Do you really think a community college is a utter waste of time? Do you think the staff spends their time and your time telling you lies?
Law is not an opinion course. It is based on written law. It is a structure that is not like a kangaroo court. It is based on facts.


I noticed you did not state where you got your law degree???

I have a question for you. Have you gone to Court with a winning case and saw a Judge tell you forget it, he will rule against you?

I have had that happen. I bought a new Cadillac Seville STS and the dealer produced documents for me to sign. I paid cash for the new car. A week later I got a call from the dealer telling me I owned him more money. I said what for? We had examined all of the papers including the charges at his office. He was pleased to accept my full check in payment. So why later ask me for another thousand dollars?

Well me and two lawyers evaluated the case and all of us agreed the Dealer was wrong. Based on the admission by the Dealer I paid them in full when I picked the car up.

The judge screwed me. Told me he would rule against me. And did not bother taking evidence.

Also I partly base my claims on this matter on what the Defense has said over and over. That Trump was denied his right to a fair trial.

 

[forkup]

Had she gone to court immediately after she says this happened, I would tend to believe she did get raped. But she did not believe it serious enough to go to court back then. She saw how Trump keeps being attacked and jumped in to see if she could also collect. A raped woman does not wait over 30 years to bring it up.

When one is on trial, they case is not based on claims from the distant past made on a bus. The issue on bus is Trump was bragging. Do you truly accept all of Trumps bragging?

A law course is wonderful. But until one passes one as I did with straight A grades, they can be easily misled and not know how to evaluate cases.

One benefit I bring here is that I have actually listened to testimony by people and passed judgement against them and also for them.

Who says she didn't think it was serious enough? YOU, not her. What she said is what MOST people who get sexually assaulted say. "It isn't worth the pain". It is simply the most underreported crime. Because it requires people to confront what happened in an adversarial legal system. IF you know anything at all about the law (something I doubt, beyond maybe watching Ally McBeal) or something.

As I said I provided the list of people who testified and what they said. It's trump's denial, against Trumps of the record confirmation he does it, a deposition where he can't morally condemn it. Contemporaneous witnesses, witnesses willing to testify to similar behavior. An expert witness and 2 other witnesses capable of corroborating some of her statements.

What testimony do you have to doubt her account? Please provide it to me, considering the fact that Trump had ZERO (0) witnesses called.

 

[justoffal]

It is in process.

Yeah I don't know why the keep saying there's no appeal.....pretty stupid. I think both cases are being appealed in fact....the original rape trial is being appealed. Not sure what they're talking about about.

 

[Curried Goats]

That has not been a part of my claims. But if she wanted the trial to be about rape and not money, she should have tried the case in a Criminal court.

That's a nice assertion but again, it isn't rational. For one, the statute of limitations for a criminal trial have passed. Secondly, we know for a fact that there are many social pressures that exist to discourage women, especially then, from coming forward with rape allegations. The best rational statement we can make with regards to why she didn't bring criminal charges back then is, we don't know. Being rational means being able to accept the things you don't know.

I have no basis at all to judge her claim of rape. I tend to doubt she got raped. But that is not part of her case in the civil court.

Of course whether or not she was sexually assaulted was part of the case. The civil case was about whether or not Trump was defaming her when he called her liar regarding her claims that he sexually assaulted her. The jury finding that he was defaming her by calling her a liar is, by logical extension, a finding that the jury believed her when she said she was sexually assaulted by Trump.

Why would i doubt she got raped?

I don't know and I won't presume to know. I'll leave the presumptions up to you.

Well she has charged around 7 men for raping her. Seems to me she assumes when she encounters men, they will rape her. Seems paranoid on her part.

Seems silly on your part. Why would you assume that every time she meets a man she assumes they will rape her if she's only ever accused seven men, according to you. The logic of that argument assumes she's only ever met seven men. That's the best you can do, rationally?

 

[Robert W]

That’s the problem, you’re judging others without looking at the facts. Trump was convicted of sexual assault. That’s rape in any jurisdiction BUT New York.

Trump has admitted to sexually assaulting women. Why do you keep pretending it didn’t happen.

This case is unique. Try to imagine you got charged with demeaning somebody. But you noticed outsiders with no dog in the hunt, decided you did something else. She based her claim on demeaning her. But you think she went to court to prove rape. She would do that in criminal court.

I want you to consider this a case vs Joe Biden and not Trump.

Would you convict Biden?

 

[okfine]

People like you can’t be taken seriously. It’s almost sad to see how TDS has has effected you.

Are you stuttering?

 

[Robert W]

Who says she didn't think it was serious enough? YOU, not her. What she said is what MOST people who get sexually assaulted say. "It isn't worth the pain". It is simply the most underreported crime. Because it requires people to confront what happened in an adversarial legal system. IF you know anything at all about the law (something I doubt, beyond maybe watching Ally McBeal) or something.

As I said I provided the list of people who testified and what they said. It's trump's denial, against Trumps of the record confirmation he does it, a deposition where he can't morally condemn it. Contemporaneous witnesses, witnesses willing to testify to similar behavior. An expert witness and 2 other witnesses capable of corroborating some of her statements.

What testimony do you have to doubt her account? Please provide it to me, considering the fact that Trump had ZERO (0) witnesses called.

Her witnesses could show up in court and tell the court she said this or that. But then the case is not based on believing her but taking the word of her pals.
When this shakes out, it will be handled in a higher court. And I think you also realize this is true.

If she was the one sued by Trump, would you rule in Trump's favor?

 

[forkup]

Do you really think a community college is a utter waste of time? Do you think the staff spends their time and your time telling you lies?
Law is not an opinion course. It is based on written law. It is a structure that is not like a kangaroo court. It is based on facts.


I noticed you did not state where you got your law degree???

I have a question for you. Have you gone to Court with a winning case and saw a Judge tell you forget it, he will rule against you?

I have had that happen. I bought a new Cadillac Seville STS and the dealer produced documents for me to sign. I paid cash for the new car. A week later I got a call from the dealer telling me I owned him more money. I said what for? We had examined all of the papers including the charges at his office. He was pleased to accept my full check in payment. So why later ask me for another thousand dollars?

Well me and two lawyers evaluated the case and all of us agreed the Dealer was wrong. Based on the admission by the Dealer I paid them in full when I picked the car up.

The judge screwed me. Told me he would rule against me. And did not bother taking evidence.

Also I partly base my claims on this matter on what the Defense has said over and over. That Trump was denied his right to a fair trial.

I have a question for you. Have you gone to Court with a winning case and saw a Judge tell you forget it, he will rule against you?

It's called collateral estoppel

In civil procedure, collateral estoppel refers to the application of res judicata principles through issue preclusion. For issue preclusion, a party can utilize collateral estoppel to prevent another party from re-litigating any issue that has been validly, finally, and actually determined on the merits in a previous case.

In other words, accepted legal principle. My dear legal eagle.

 

[forkup]

Her witnesses could show up in court and tell the court she said this or that. But then the case is not based on believing her but taking the word of her pals.
When this shakes out, it will be handled in a higher court. And I think you also realize this is true.

If she was the one sued by Trump, would you rule in Trump's favor?

Not answering my question. What testimony are you referring to doubt her account.

 

[OldFlame]

Noone has ever wondered? I don't think that's true. In fact, that particular point was addressed by Carrol's lawyer.

Cheryl Beall​

A former employee of Bergdorf Goodman who worked on the sixth floor

WHAT SHE SAID​

She testified that on Thursday evenings during the 1990s, the sixth floor of the luxury department store wasn’t very busy, that an attendant wasn’t always present in the lingerie department and that the dressing rooms were sometimes unlocked.

WHY IT MATTERS​

Beall’s testimony backed up aspects of Carroll’s account, including that she and Trump found the sixth floor free of customers or salespeople and that Trump led her into an unlocked dressing room.

Robert Salerno​

A former employee of Bergdorf Goodman

WHAT HE SAID​

He testified that, in the 1990s, Bergdorf remained open late on Thursday evenings and that he didn’t think there were security cameras on the sixth floor.

11 witnesses testified in Donald Trump’s rape trial. Here’s what they said.

E. Jean Carroll is suing him in Manhattan federal court for battery over the alleged rape and for defamation over social media comments.

www.politico.com

But hey they just happened to find people willing to perjure themselves for a complete stranger, right?

Yeah, right... an entire empty floor.... get the fuck outta here...

 

[Robert W]

That's a nice assertion but again, it isn't rational. For one, the statute of limitations for a criminal trial have passed. Secondly, we know for a fact that there are many social pressures that exist to discourage women, especially then, from coming forward with rape allegations. The best rational statement we can make with regards to why she didn't bring criminal charges back then is, we don't know. Being rational means being able to accept the things you don't know.

Of course whether or not she was sexually assaulted was part of the case. The civil case was about whether or not Trump was defaming her when he called her liar regarding her claims that he sexually assaulted her. The jury finding that he was defaming her by calling her a liar is, by logical extension, a finding that the jury believed her when she said she was sexually assaulted by Trump.

I don't know and I won't presume to know. I'll leave the presumptions up to you.

Seems silly on your part. Why would you assume that every time she meets a man she assumes they will rape her if she's only ever accused seven men, according to you. The logic of that argument assumes she's only ever met seven men. That's the best you can do, rationally?

Wow, try to sound intellectual. Even if you are not a high IQ, stop to try to rationalize as if you did have a high IQ. Try to imagine you studied law in college. Try to imagine you have actually been part of adjudicating cases where testimony was taken. Try to imagine you have my many years of experience. Stop being a toad against trump.

If this was claimed against Biden, I am positive you would defend Biden.

 

[forkup]

Yeah, right... an entire empty floor.... get the fuck outta here...

Again, I have a store clerk testifying under oath to the fact. What do you have besides emojis?

 

[Robert W]

Not answering my question. What testimony are you referring to doubt her account.

Her account depends on two of her loyal pals. Not that they were at the store with her, but that she allegedly told them something.
Imagine I tell pals here things about you. After reading you I make shit up. Am I to be believed?

Finally, nobody on this form was a witness. And we all have read stuff. I dig deeper. I want more than stuff in the press.

 

[Curried Goats]

Wow, try to sound intellectual. Even if you are not a high IQ, stop to try to rationalize as if you did have a high IQ.

How about you stick to the argument rather than delving into personal attacks?

Try to imagine you studied law in college. Try to imagine you have actually been part of adjudicating cases where testimony was taken. Try to imagine you have my many years of experience. Stop being a toad against trump.

I thought we were trying to have a rational argument? Why don't you imagine being able to make one?

If this was claimed against Biden, I am positive you would defend Biden.

This wasn't just claimed, it was adjudicated in a court of law. You do that and who's to say I wouldn't believe the jury besides your imagination of course?

 

[forkup]

Her account depends on two of her loyal pals. Not that they were at the store with her, but that she allegedly told them something.
Imagine I tell pals here things about you. After reading you I make shit up. Am I to be believed?

Finally, nobody on this form was a witness. And we all have read stuff. I dig deeper. I want more than stuff in the press.

Being obtuse doesn't help. No, it doesn't. It's 2 pals, 2 complete strangers willing to testify to similar behavior, 2 corroborating witnesses, an expert witness, a deposition tape and a hot mic incident. All of which you are willing to ignore for what reason exactly? Beyond personal incredulity based on what I assume, is political allegiance?

As for your question. It depends. Mainly on what I can provide to counter the allegations. In this case, there's a record of what I actually posted. In her case there's several different witnesses bolstering her account and NONE in defense of Trump.