• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Donald Trump Rape Trial is underway.

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Has she ever gave reason why she didn't speak up....
25 years ago?
20 years ago?
15 years ago?
10 years ago?
5 years ago?
Inability to sue until the statute of limitations
changed is one good reason for some of the dalay.
Did Trump do it? I don't know.
But he certainly seems capable of assault.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Inability to sue until the statute of limitations
changed is one good reason for some of the dalay.
Did Trump do it? I don't know.
But he certainly seems capable of assault. .

Carroll testified that it happened in a department store dressing room in 1996.

The statute of limitations was amended in 2019 from 7 years to 20 years.

2019-20 years=1999

2019 was 3 years past the 20 years statute of limitations

New York City's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act permits alleged victims to bring claims within seven years of the alleged physical violation, and CPLR 213-c, which was amended in September 2019, also is used to bring civil claims of sexual assault under a 20-year statute of limitations.

The ASA is, however, the only law that not only is retroactive, but also permits a lifetime lookback window, making it a true one-of-its-kind #MeToo law. The ASA is one of many legislative changes since the height of the #MeToo movement.


I don't understand why its 20 years if it has a lifetime look back window(see bold)
 
Last edited:

We Never Know

No Slack
It's not a criminal trial so conviction isn't possible. Being a civil case the standard of liability is lower than criminal cases, and all the jury has to decide is if the evidence suggests the suit is likely true. Trump isn't attending which is a bad decision, but he probably would be a bigger liability for himself in court, not being able to keep his mouth shut.

I think the case has a good chance of going against him, and that is due to witnesses that confirm Carroll said he raped her soon after, and explained why she didn't report it to the police. And on top of that all of the statements Trump has been caught saying that shows his attitude about sexual assault is that it's no big deal. If Trump loses I'm sure he will appeal, but in civil cases it has to be due to an actual problem with material evidence, not just because the person lost, so good luck there. Then it will be a matter of Carroll collecting the judgment. Trump will have to pay unless he's bankrupt, and then Carroll could file a lein on assets.

"due to witnesses that confirm Carroll said he raped her soon after, and explained why she didn't report it to the police."

What was the reason it was never reported before?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
As I understand it, Carroll confided to two friends, one of whom told her to take it to the police, and another who argued strongly that she should not -- that Trump as a real estate baron at the time was too powerful, and she would be badly hurt by it. She was frightened by that advice and decided to keep quiet. Later, when Trump was running for President (and won) she wanted to go after him -- but the Statute of Limitations made that impossible by that time. It was only when NY State recently made an adjustment to that statute that opened up a window for a civil action, and she took it.
I tend to agree with you, and remember that around 25 women claimed that Trump sexually assaulted them, and Trump threatened to sue them. This is a pattern that he has used in other cases whereas he would buy time and run them out of money.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
As I understand it, Carroll confided to two friends, one of whom told her to take it to the police, and another who argued strongly that she should not -- that Trump as a real estate baron at the time was too powerful, and she would be badly hurt by it. She was frightened by that advice and decided to keep quiet. Later, when Trump was running for President (and won) she wanted to go after him -- but the Statute of Limitations made that impossible by that time. It was only when NY State recently made an adjustment to that statute that opened up a window for a civil action, and she took it.

Informative frube.

Too powerful in 1996 but not to powerful in 2019 as president? I don't buy it.
In 2019 he had more wealth and was the president so to me that makes him more powerful!
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Has she ever gave reason why she didn't speak up....
25 years ago?
20 years ago?
15 years ago?
10 years ago?
5 years ago?
Intimidation, and the reality that it's probably impossible for her to prove it. She did say that she wanted to be heard, and I can understand that. However, I am certainly not assuming that he did rape her, but he does have a history of sexual assault as he even stated in the Access Hollywood recording while excusing it later as "locker room talk". I'm an old "gym rate" and if I heard some say what he did, I would have to conclude they're "morals challenged".
 

We Never Know

No Slack
Intimidation, and the reality that it's probably impossible for her to prove it. She did say that she wanted to be heard, and I can understand that. However, I am certainly not assuming that he did rape her, but he does have a history of sexual assault as he even stated in the Access Hollywood recording while excusing it later as "locker room talk". I'm an old "gym rate" and if I heard some say what he did, I would have to conclude they're "morals challenged".

Trump In 1996 had a net worth of $0.45 billion and climbed up to $1.4 billion in 1997.


In 2019 he had a net worth of $3-$4 billion and was president.


How is that not more intimidating?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Trump In 1996 had a net worth of $0.45 billion and climbed up to $1.4 billion in 1997.


In 2019 he had a net worth of $3-$4 billion and was president.


How is that not more intimidating?
But other things have also changed, notably the Me Too movement, which has given a lot of people the courage to come forward, feeling at last they are in good company and have a chance of a sympathetic hearing.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Trump In 1996 had a net worth of $0.45 billion and climbed up to $1.4 billion in 1997.


In 2019 he had a net worth of $3-$4 billion and was president.


How is that not more intimidating?
Oh, it wasn't the $10 billion like he claimed??? ;)

As far as your question is concerned, I really don't get what you're driving at, so can you clarify? I'll be back on-line tomorrow, btw.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Trump In 1996 had a net worth of $0.45 billion and climbed up to $1.4 billion in 1997.


In 2019 he had a net worth of $3-$4 billion and was president.


How is that not more intimidating?
People grow and change. Something that intimidated Carroll in 1996 might not phase her in 2023.

We are different people all through our lives. I know there were things that scared me when I was younger that I laugh at now, and things I would have bravely done then I would not dream of doing now.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
People grow and change. Something that intimidated Carroll in 1996 might not phase her in 2023.

We are different people all through our lives. I know there were things that scared me when I was younger that I laugh at now, and things I would have bravely done then I would not dream of doing now.
I agree, as I teen and young adult I struggled with having an inferiority complex but lost that decades ago. Now no one can shut me up. :mask:
 
Top