• 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!

Trump Guilty of Sexual Abuse.

F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Estro Felino said:
I speak of themes which are relevant to understand this case.
Click to expand...
This is part of this thread, that a MAGA was a member of the jury and could have voted "no" on the other counts and gotten Trump off. But the guy followed the evidence and followed the rules set by the judge, and he voted that Trump was liable. Good for him, and good for justice.

Republican governor John Kasich predicts these legal cases going against Trump will shift the attitude of conservative voters, and doesn't see how Trump can win again. He says many republicans in congress are still afraid of Trump but don't support his run for president.
 
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
There will occasionally be disagreement about
what's relevant, what isn't, & whataboutism.
Posters here have given you cromulent responses.
Click to expand...
It would be weird if we all agreed on something.
It would mean we are all clones of one another.
Luckily we are not.
I value disagreement. And I respect others' opinions. ;)
I was brought up that way.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
Estro Felino said:
It would be weird if we all agreed on something.
It would mean we are all clones of one another.
Click to expand...
Clones? So we all look alike?
Estro Felino said:
Luckily we are not.
Click to expand...
Right, as the best looking guy on the forum I'm glad not to look like these other slugs.
Estro Felino said:
I value disagreement. And I respect others' opinions. ;)
I was brought up that way.
Click to expand...
The thing is disagreement should not be so extreme. There are more and more people who use poor quality disinformation sources and they bring these bad beliefs into debates, so we end up having to correct the errors of people. So we don't even agree on facts and evidence, so there's no actual debate. Opinions get formed on bad faith and bad media sources. You are often guilty of this. The reason critical thinklers seldom disagree is because they are skilled and follow reliable sources and evidence, and the conclusions tend to be very similar. It is the disinformed who form bad opinions that drive a lot of these interactions. Just look at how Trump sympathizers are manipulating the reporting of the verdict, they focus on the rape accusation, and ignore the sexual assaut and defamation charges. They also misrepresent the jury by claiming the jury didn't think he raped her. Language tricks that imply untruthful things. It's their reputation to ruin.
 
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
F1fan said:
The thing is disagreement should not be so extreme. There are more and more people who use poor quality disinformation sources and they bring these bad beliefs into debates, so we end up having to correct the errors of people. So we don't even agree on facts and evidence, so there's no actual debate. Opinions get formed on bad faith and bad media sources. You are often guilty of this. The reason critical thinklers seldom disagree is because they are skilled and follow reliable sources and evidence, and the conclusions tend to be very similar. It is the disinformed who form bad opinions that drive a lot of these interactions. Just look at how Trump sympathizers are manipulating the reporting of the verdict, they focus on the rape accusation, and ignore the sexual assaut and defamation charges. They also misrepresent the jury by claiming the jury didn't think he raped her. Language tricks that imply untruthful things. It's their reputation to ruin.
Click to expand...
It's also cultural.
In certain countries people disagree and debate animatedly...but they enjoy it.
In other countries, people prefer to condescend, even if that means to cover up what one really thinks. :)
 
Copernicus

Copernicus

Industrial Strength Linguist
Estro Felino said:
I need to be blunt.
What I found astounding is that Trump was accused of a crime whose law of discipline entered into force more than twenty-five years later after the alleged events took place.

One of the principles of our Penal Law is nullum crimen sine lege: that is, nobody shall be punished on the basis of a law that entered into force after the alleged act was committed.
Article 2 of Italian Penal Code.

So I find abhorrent that they made a law just to punish Trump. Adult Survivors Act - Wikipedia
I find abhorrent that something like that is doable in the USA.
Click to expand...

In the US, we call this an ex post facto law, having greater respect for Latin than Italians do. ;) Such criminal trials are also not allowed, but the New York state law is not an ex post facto law. Rather, it is a law to lift the statute of limitations on sex crimes. When Trump committed his crime, what he did was definitely illegal, but the statute of limitations had run out by 2019, when Carroll first made a public accusation against him. New York simply removed the statute of limitations for the category of crime that he committed. In any case, he wasn't actually convicted of a crime. He was sued for damages in a civil suit by a plaintiff, who managed to convince a jury that he had committed the crimes.

Note that, at the time of the abuse, Donald Trump was known to be friends with the mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, and had been tight with the previous mayor, Abe Beame. One of the reasons Carroll said that she didn't go to the police at the time was that he was too rich and powerful. She feared that her case wouldn't be fairly prosecuted, and I think she had a point. It probably never would have gone to trial.
 
Last edited:
Estro Felino

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
Copernicus said:
In the US, we call this an ex post facto law, having greater respect for Latin than Italians do. ;) Such criminal trials are also not allowed, but the New York state law is not an ex post facto law. Rather, it is a law to lift the statute of limitations on sex crimes.
Click to expand...
That changes nothing. The lifting of the statute of limitations should apply to alleged crimes committed after the lift entered into force.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Estro Felino said:
That changes nothing. The lifting of the statute of limitations should apply to alleged crimes committed after the lift entered into force.
Click to expand...
Are you sure that you're a "jurist"?
He clearly & properly explained ex post
facto laws, & the statute of limitations,
ie, there was no retroactive law.
Only retro-active enforcement, which
is useful & common.
 
Last edited:
Callisto

Callisto

Hellenismos, BTW
Revoltingest said:
Are you sure that you're a "jurist"?
He clearly & properly explained ex post
facto laws, & the statute of limitations,
ie, there was no retroactive law.
Click to expand...
You're not alone, others have asked the same in other threads. And I stated a couple of times that the change in limitations was not retroactive (like here and here) so, it's not like it hasn't been stated before.
 
SkepticThinker

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Estro Felino said:
I will not deal with this case any more. I am disgusted and amused at the same time.
At least my colleagues and I will have something to laugh about for the next 10 years.

That is, NY State's justice. :)
Law here is something serious.
Click to expand...
You really think such a case is worth a good laugh?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
F1fan said:
This is part of this thread, that a MAGA was a member of the jury and could have voted "no" on the other counts and gotten Trump off. But the guy followed the evidence and followed the rules set by the judge, and he voted that Trump was liable. Good for him, and good for justice.

Republican governor John Kasich predicts these legal cases going against Trump will shift the attitude of conservative voters, and doesn't see how Trump can win again. He says many republicans in congress are still afraid of Trump but don't support his run for president.
Click to expand...
Actually it would have taken two MAGA Republicans to get him off. This was a New York State civil trial and unanimous vote was not necessary. It only takes 5/6 of the jurors to vote for the plaintiff. Since there were nine jurors and there is no rounding up in this case it would have taken eight out of the nine. Increase a jury size to twelve and then it only takes ten. I never read if the vote was unanimous. One second.

Yes it was a unanimous vote. My first source was Reuters and I saw a rare mistake. It said that a unanimous vote was required and I have already posted links in another thread on New York State civil trials. But yet it was a unanimous decision:

 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Estro Felino said:
That changes nothing. The lifting of the statute of limitations should apply to alleged crimes committed after the lift entered into force.
Click to expand...
Why? Did the wrong not happen? What reason should there be for eliminating the ability to do justice just because someone has avoided the consequences of a law for a certain number of years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top