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

[WorldWatcher]

See post 137

See post 138

(Let me know if you want to get back to discussing the case seriously or if you want to continue posting numbers at each other.)

WW

 

[forkup]

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?

Again, simply IGNORING the actual evidence provided. It wasn't just 2 women. It was 6 woman and 2 males corroborating different aspects of her account. But that isn't enough for you. You need to add the completely unsupported extra info about everybody getting money out of the deal. Why is it that your hypothetical ignores most of the actual witnesses and adds another hypothetical unto a hypothetical?

If you want to use Biden, fine, but then duplicate the evidence instead of ignoring most of it.

If a woman shows up saying Biden put his fingers into her. That woman provides 2 other people who she told at the time. 2 Other women willing to testify Biden did similar things to them. An expert witness saying she shows signs of being sexually assaulted. 2 People making some of the more questionable aspects reasonable. AND a video of Joe saying he simply grabs woman by the pussy without waiting. And a deposition where he doesn't know if that's a good or a bad thing. Yes, I'd believe the woman. I would believe it beyond a reasonable doubt even.


This is the problem you have. You think it's political. I simply go by the evidence actually provided. Joe Biden, Donald Trump, the Easterbunny. It doesn't make a difference. I rule on what is provided, NOT on a hypothetical contorted beyond all recognition.

 

[forkup]

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.

I never said a jury is infallible.

And you just can't admit it wasn't just some friends telling the story on her behalf. It was she telling her story. Her friends confirming, they were told the story. Other people telling similar stories? Trump admitting, he did things like that. Etc., etc. Unless and until you are willing to accept what was actually provided you are simply being dishonest.

 

[Robert W]

I never said a jury is infallible.

And you just can't admit it wasn't just some friends telling the story on her behalf. It was she telling her story. Her friends confirming, they were told the story. Other people telling similar stories? Trump admitting, he did things like that. Etc., etc. Unless and until you are willing to accept what was actually provided you are simply being dishonest.

It took you long enough to admit that Juries are not infallible. First you deflected.
Change the party at Court to Joe Biden.

Would you simply believe what the woman said in court?

 

[Robert W]

I never said a jury is infallible.

And you just can't admit it wasn't just some friends telling the story on her behalf. It was she telling her story. Her friends confirming, they were told the story. Other people telling similar stories? Trump admitting, he did things like that. Etc., etc. Unless and until you are willing to accept what was actually provided you are simply being dishonest.

What to know about E. Jean Carroll’s defamation damages case:​

• A New York jury reached a quick verdict awarding E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages in her suit that former President Donald Trump defamed her.
• Trump stormed out of the closing arguments, leaving the courtroom while an attorney representing Carroll spoke. He returned to hear his own attorney speak.
• After the verdict, Trump called it "absolutely ridiculous" and said an appeal was forthcoming. Carroll called the verdict a "great victory."

 

[forkup]

It took you long enough to admit that Juries are not infallible. First you deflected.
Change the party at Court to Joe Biden.

Would you simply believe what the woman said in court?

I don't deflect. I don't need to deflect. I don't need to put up strawmen either.

As to your question. I already played that game. Still waiting for your response to it.

If a woman shows up saying Biden put his fingers into her. That woman provides 2 other people who she told at the time. 2 Other women willing to testify Biden did similar things to them. An expert witness saying she shows signs of being sexually assaulted. 2 People making some of the more questionable aspects reasonable. AND a video of Joe saying he simply grabs woman by the pussy without waiting. And a deposition where he doesn't know if that's a good or a bad thing. Yes, I'd believe the woman. I would believe it beyond a reasonable doubt even.

As I said I don't deflect.

 

[forkup]

What to know about E. Jean Carroll’s defamation damages case:​

• A New York jury reached a quick verdict awarding E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in damages in her suit that former President Donald Trump defamed her.
• Trump stormed out of the closing arguments, leaving the courtroom while an attorney representing Carroll spoke. He returned to hear his own attorney speak.
• After the verdict, Trump called it "absolutely ridiculous" and said an appeal was forthcoming. Carroll called the verdict a "great victory."

Being obtuse again I see. Deflecting doesn't help.

 

[Robert W]

Again, simply IGNORING the actual evidence provided. It wasn't just 2 women. It was 6 woman and 2 males corroborating different aspects of her account. But that isn't enough for you. You need to add the completely unsupported extra info about everybody getting money out of the deal. Why is it that your hypothetical ignores most of the actual witnesses and adds another hypothetical unto a hypothetical?

If you want to use Biden, fine, but then duplicate the evidence instead of ignoring most of it.

If a woman shows up saying Biden put his fingers into her. That woman provides 2 other people who she told at the time. 2 Other women willing to testify Biden did similar things to them. An expert witness saying she shows signs of being sexually assaulted. 2 People making some of the more questionable aspects reasonable. AND a video of Joe saying he simply grabs woman by the pussy without waiting. And a deposition where he doesn't know if that's a good or a bad thing. Yes, I'd believe the woman. I would believe it beyond a reasonable doubt even.


This is the problem you have. You think it's political. I simply go by the evidence actually provided. Joe Biden, Donald Trump, the Easterbunny. It doesn't make a difference. I rule on what is provided, NOT on a hypothetical contorted beyond all recognition.

Let's use Biden then.

How fast would you find Biden guilty given all of the same facts in this case?

We are not here to discuss what you claim are my problems. I have not judged your problems.

Do you grasp the term relevant evidence?

This case is so old it has the smell of fungus all over it. She is much older today. She can of course persuade witnesses to show up for plenty of cash. This is why there are ex post facto laws and statute of limitations.

What do you believe to be the reasons and purposes of statute of limitations laws?

 

[Robert W]

I don't deflect. I don't need to deflect. I don't need to put up strawmen either.

As to your question. I already played that game. Still waiting for your response to it.

As I said I don't deflect.

If you don't deflect, why did you refuse for a time to reply? And why did you accuse me of deflecting when i have gone far out of my way to be explicit?

 

[Robert W]

Being obtuse again I see. Deflecting doesn't help.

No, you are accusing the newspaper of being obtuse and deflecting.

Trump lawyer vows to appeal verdict that E. Jean Carroll calls a ‘great victory’: Highlights

Latest news and updates on the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit against former president Donald Trump, who testified yesterday.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[toobfreak]

And just to reiterate, this wasn't a criminal trial...

So Donald owes 88 million for not committing a crime!

 

[forkup]

Let's use Biden then.

How fast would you find Biden guilty given all of the same facts in this case?

We are not here to discuss what you claim are my problems. I have not judged your problems.

Do you grasp the term relevant evidence?

This case is so old it has the smell of fungus all over it. She is much older today. She can of course persuade witnesses to show up for plenty of cash. This is why there are ex post facto laws and statute of limitations.

What do you believe to be the reasons and purposes of statute of limitations laws?

How fast would you find Biden guilty given all of the same facts in this case?

A very short time. The facts are the facts.

Do you grasp the term relevant evidence?

Sure, I do. What's not relevant about the evidence?

She can of course persuade witnesses to show up for plenty of cash.

And you of course have anything... anything at all to support those assertions?


As to the statute of limitations. Only applicable in criminal cases in NY. Since this is a civil case, I don't think it's hard or unfair to be able to determine liability by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

So Donald owes 88 million for not committing a crime!

Actually it's 83 million...for defamation...which a President can be sued for.
All he had to do was keep his fucking mouth shut and he would have been a lot less light in the wallet.

 

[forkup]

No, you are accusing the newspaper of being obtuse and deflecting.

Trump lawyer vows to appeal verdict that E. Jean Carroll calls a ‘great victory’: Highlights

Latest news and updates on the verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit against former president Donald Trump, who testified yesterday.

www.nbcnews.com

When we are talking about whether or not he actually sexually assaulted Caroll and you feel the need to point out that the second trial was simply about defamation and NOT about sexual assault you are deflecting. especially because the reason there was no need to determine if sexual assault occurred in the second trial.

Be intellectually honest.

 

[toobfreak]

Actually it's 83 million...for defamation...which a President can be sued for.
All he had to do was keep his fucking mouth shut and he would have been a lot less light in the wallet.

Can you name me any other cases where someone no one ever heard of before got 83 million just for being "defamed?"

Defamation: Trump calling a crackpot psycho woman a crackpot psycho woman.

Carroll will never collect it. She deserves bupkis.

 

[forkup]

Can you name me any other cases where someone no one ever heard of before got 83 million just for being "defamed?"

Defamation: Trump calling a crackpot psycho woman a crackpot psycho woman.

Carroll will never collect it. She deserves bupkis.

Sure. https://www.reuters.com/legal/domin...inst-fox-poised-trial-after-delay-2023-04-18/

I didn't know about Dominion before you guys put them in the crosshairs. Ended up settled for almost tenfold the damages awarded here.

 

[Dagosa]

Trump wasn't CONVICTED of anything.

Too bad munchkin, your wizard was found guilty by a jury…

 

[Robert W]

When we are talking about whether or not he actually sexually assaulted Caroll and you feel the need to point out that the second trial was simply about defamation and NOT about sexual assault you are deflecting. especially because the reason there was no need to determine if sexual assault occurred in the second trial.

Be intellectually honest.

If you have not noticed, I am using the news media. So your problem is with them and not me. I don't make this up.

 

[forkup]

If you have not noticed, I am using the news media. So your problem is with them and not me. I don't make this up.

No, you don't. What you do is try to use news media reporting on the second trail as a red herring, so you don't need to discuss the determination of Trump assaulting her in the first trial.

 

[toobfreak]

Sure. https://www.reuters.com/legal/domin...inst-fox-poised-trial-after-delay-2023-04-18/

Too funny. Reuters. Another proven far left propaganda rag.