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

[WorldWatcher]

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.

The testimony about contemporaneous communications lended weight for the jury to consider about the validity of her testimony.

So ya, it was about the jury believing her.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

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...

Could you point to where it said "entire empty floor", I see a referenced to a department, but not the entire floor.

Thank you.

WW

 

[bendog]

Stop being partisan for once and see this legally.

As the video states, Trump has a super path to getting this overturned.

super

 

[surada]

"Sexual assault" in this day and age can be something as little as saying "Hey baby, you sure look fine in that dress..."

You cannot possibly be that stupid.

It is in process.

Trump is so demented that he doesn't know he lost.

 

[tahuyaman]

Are you stuttering?

Are you drunk?

 

[OldFlame]

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

A store clerk testified that there was no one on that floor? No, that's not what she testified. She had zero clue whether there was anyone there on the day the alleged 'attack' took place, she didn't even know the month/day/year it took place, her 'testimony' was meaningless.

And 'you' don't have a store clerk saying anything, wtf, I swear you idiots only live your lives vicariously through others.

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.

 

[forkup]

The testimony about contemporaneous communications lended weight for the jury to consider about the validity of her testimony.

So ya, it was about the jury believing her.

WW

What always strikes me about these defenses of Trump is how high they try to set the bar to determine something. When it's someone like Harvey Weinstein a few different people testifying to similar behavior is enough to reach the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Rightfully so, by the way.

When it's Trump, there can be several witnesses and him on tape admitting to the alleged behavior, and it doesn't even reach by the preponderance of the evidence standard.

It's no joke, he can shoot somebody on fifth avenue, and they'll swear they believe the victim threw himself in front of the bullet.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's no joke, he can shoot somebody on fifth avenue, and they'll swear they believe the victim threw himself in front of the bullet.

He's been found liable for literally committing what is colloquially called "rape", although through a technicality of the law in this case it was sexual assault because she couldn't tell if it was his penis or his finger he inserted on 5tth Avenue. (Which is kind of embarrassing for a guy.)

So it's not a stretch that they would believe FPOTUS#45 innocent of committing murder on 5th Avenue.

WW

 

[Robert W]

The testimony about contemporaneous communications lended weight for the jury to consider about the validity of her testimony.

So ya, it was about the jury believing her.

WW

Is it your report that Juries are never wrong at all?
What if the witnesses had promises made to them by her that she would pay them millions of dollars for their testimony?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Is it your report that Juries are never wrong at all?

Deflect much?

Or just going with the Extreme Fallacy?

What if the witnesses had promises made to them by her that she would pay them millions of dollars for their testimony?

What if grasshoppers carried .45s? Bullfrogs wouldn't screw with them.

But to your comment, courts and juries don't operate on your "what if's" the operate based on the case before them.

WW

 

[Robert W]

What always strikes me about these defenses of Trump is how high they try to set the bar to determine something. When it's someone like Harvey Weinstein a few different people testifying to similar behavior is enough to reach the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. Rightfully so, by the way.

When it's Trump, there can be several witnesses and him on tape admitting to the alleged behavior, and it doesn't even reach by the preponderance of the evidence standard.

It's no joke, he can shoot somebody on fifth avenue, and they'll swear they believe the victim threw himself in front of the bullet.

Let's do a small bit of changing to assist in thinking.

Change the case to being about Joe Biden. Two women show up some 30 some odd years telling a story that Biden and a woman went upstairs and that Biden put his fingers inside of her.

Would you rapidly believe the woman?

What if it turns out the witnesses testified with promises made to them that a payday in the millions waiting them? Can you see witnesses lying?

 

[Robert W]

But to your comment, courts and juries don't operate on your "what if's" the operate based on the case before them.

So your claim is that Juries always get it right. That never in the history of this country has any Jury got it wrong?

What about the Dred Scott case where the court ruled against the slave?
So now you want us all to accept the final outcome of Roe V Wade where a jury declared Roe is wrong?

 

[Independent thinker]

Uh...it's already been decided. He's liable. All he can do is appeal the judgement. It might be reduced, but these are rarely overturned.
And just to reiterate, this wasn't a criminal trial...you do know that...right?

Do you know that it was not a criminal trial?

 

[OldFlame]

Let's do a small bit of changing to assist in thinking.

Change the case to being about Joe Biden. Two women show up some 30 some odd years telling a story that Biden and a woman went upstairs and that Biden put his fingers inside of her.

Would you rapidly believe the woman?

What if it turns out the witnesses testified with promises made to them that a payday in the millions waiting them? Can you see witnesses lying?

They don't care, they are caught in their TDS world, and not able to rationally think about anything, they're morons.

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.

Let's see, someone testified that on 'Thursday evenings' during the '1990s', that they weren't 'typically' busy. How many Thursday evenings were there in the 1990's, about 520? What does 'typical' mean? Summer, before Christmas? Spring? Next one, 'an attendant wasn't always present', wtf does that mean? Were they present 90% of the time, 50%, 20%, 'not always' can mean a myriad of things. Then that the dressing rooms were 'sometimes unlocked'. Again, wtf does even mean? And based on some clerks above testimony, they jury found that Trump sexually assaulted the bitch in question. Seriously? Again, these people aren't capable of being rational, and are clearly stupid to believe that this clerk's 'testimony' means anything, let alone proves anything.

 

[Robert W]

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.

Again, ARE JURIES INFALLIBLE?
She did not have witnesses to the act in question. She had women tell a story on her behalf.
If you can't see how a Jury can be infallible, perhaps you have not noticed cases where the jury was overturned by a later court.

 

[Robert W]

They don't care, they are caught in their TDS world, and not able to rationally think about anything, they're morons.

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.

Let's see, someone testified that on 'Thursday evenings' during the '1990s', that they weren't 'typically' busy. How many Thursday evenings were there in the 1990's, about 520? What does 'typical' mean? Summer, before Christmas? Spring? Next one, 'an attendant wasn't always present', wtf does that mean? Were they present 90% of the time, 50%, 20%, 'not always' can mean a myriad of things. Then that the dressing rooms were 'sometimes unlocked'. Again, wtf does even mean? And based on some clerks above testimony, they jury found that Trump sexually assaulted the bitch in question. Seriously? Again, these people aren't capable of being rational, and are clearly stupid to believe that this clerk's 'testimony' means anything, let alone proves anything.

That is the rational approach. It is what would be taught in law college.

 

[Robert W]

Deflect much?

Or just going with the Extreme Fallacy?

That is a prime example of deflection. And of course also it is an extreme fallacy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So your claim is that Juries always get it right. That never in the history of this country has any Jury got it wrong?

Since you repeat, so shall I.

Deflect much?

Or just going with the Extreme Fallacy?

WW

 

[okfine]

Are you drunk?

I didn't stutter.

 

[Robert W]

Since you repeat, so shall I.

Deflect much?

Or just going with the Extreme Fallacy?

WW

See post 137