Trump Guilty of Sexual Abuse.

[Revoltingest]

Rape and sexual assault have different definitions in NY law. They believed her because they wanted to. There is no direct evidence he did anything.

You've offered no evidence for the claim that the jurors
all wanted previously to believe her. In a civil trial, they
need only believe that it was more than 50% likely that
her claims were true. "Direct evidence" isn't necessary.

 

[F1fan]

Rape and sexual assault have different definitions in NY law.

Which is why they are different counts.

They believed her because they wanted to.

As @Revoltingest noted you made a claim but offered no evidence. Do you expect us to take your word for it?

There is no direct evidence he did anything.

There was direct evidence of his defamation. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence for the sexual assault including his own statements that he does it.

 

[Windwalker]

They believed her because they wanted to.

Are you saying that they are like you in this regard, except just against Donald and not for him as you are?

There is no direct evidence he did anything.

Do you think if they had the jury vote before they presented their 11 witnesses and made their case, that they would have found him libel anyway, "just because"? The evidence played no role in their decisions, the way it doesn't for you either?

You do understand that this is all you projecting your own shadows on the entire jury of his peers that were actually there hearing the testimonies?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Rape and sexual assault have different definitions in NY law. They believed her because they wanted to. There is no direct evidence he did anything.

Yes, but even felony cases can be tried and convictions can arise without any "direct evidence". So what was your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is why they are different counts.

As @Revoltingest noted you made a claim but offered no evidence. Do you expect us to take your word for it?

There was direct evidence of his defamation. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence for the sexual assault including his own statements that he does it.

Dang it! I forgot about the direct evidence of his defamation and concentrated only on the rape charge.

 

[F1fan]

Dang it! I forgot about the direct evidence of his defamation and concentrated only on the rape charge.

The funny thing is during Trump's CNN townhall rally he gave MORE direct evidence of defamation, and Carroll's attorney is considering suing Trump again since it happened after the jury ruled in her favor. Can this guy ever learn?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You've offered no evidence for the claim that the jurors
all wanted previously to believe her. In a civil trial, they
need only believe that it was more than 50% likely that
her claims were true. "Direct evidence" isn't necessary.

What evidence is there to conclude at least 50% likely it is true other than her say so? If that is the case then anyone can be found at fault in a civil case just by someone's testimony if the defendant is disliked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence is there to conclude at least 50% likely it is true other than her say so? If that is the case then anyone can be found at fault in a civil case just by someone's testimony if the defendant is disliked.

You are back to using strawman arguments. That amounts to you admitting that you were wrong. Why do that?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Are you saying that they are like you in this regard, except just against Donald and not for him as you are?

I don't either believe or disbelieve him. I have not heard of enough evidence to conclude either way.

Do you think if they had the jury vote before they presented their 11 witnesses and made their case, that they would have found him libel anyway, "just because"? The evidence played no role in their decisions, the way it doesn't for you either?

I don't know. Like I said I never said he did not do anything wrong.

You do understand that this is all you projecting your own shadows on the entire jury of his peers that were actually there hearing the testimonies?

No, I never claimed Trump was not at fault. I claimed the evidence is not sufficient to conclude he was.

 

[Revoltingest]

What evidence is there to conclude at least 50% likely it is true other than her say so?

I don't know.
I wasn't a juror in that trial.

If that is the case then anyone can be found at fault in a civil case just by someone's testimony if the defendant is disliked.

That is indeed a risk in many trials, both civil & criminal.

 

[metis]

No, I never claimed Trump was not at fault. I claimed the evidence is not sufficient to conclude he was.

And you heard all of the evidence over the days the testimony took place?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't either believe or disbelieve him. I have not heard of enough evidence to conclude either way.

I can understand why, you obviously have not been paying attention to the evidence revealed in the trial. Remember the failure of your prior post?

I don't know. Like I said I never said he did not do anything wrong.


No, I never claimed Trump was not at fault. I claimed the evidence is not sufficient to conclude he was.

But once again you have shown that you either did not understand or you ignored the evidence. Remember that you tried to claim that it was just her word against his. That was not the case.

 

[F1fan]

I don't either believe or disbelieve him. I have not heard of enough evidence to conclude either way.

Were you present in court and heard all the evidence? If not, then why have an opinion?

I don't know. Like I said I never said he did not do anything wrong.

Do you support Trump for the republican nominee for the 2024 presidential election?

No, I never claimed Trump was not at fault. I claimed the evidence is not sufficient to conclude he was.

How much of the evidence have you had access to?

 

[fantome profane]

I don't either believe or disbelieve him. I have not heard of enough evidence to conclude either way.

You were not on the jury. You didn't spend seven days doing nothing but looking at the evidence. You didn't hear all the testimony.

And neither did I

But the people who were on the jury, who saw the evidence and heard the testimony, came to an unanimous decision. I respect that.

 

[Windwalker]

I wasn't on the jury, I didn't hear any evidence, yet I don't accept the verdict of the jury who heard all the evidence that they made the right decision? Say what?

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news....

Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll even though he was found liable only for 'sexual abuse,' judge rules

The jury didn't find Trump "raped" Carroll only because of a quirk in New York state law, according to the judge who oversaw the trial.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Windwalker]

In the news....

Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll even though he was found liable only for 'sexual abuse,' judge rules

The jury didn't find Trump "raped" Carroll only because of a quirk in New York state law, according to the judge who oversaw the trial.

www.yahoo.com

Yes. Trump raped her.

"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was 'raped' within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape,'" Kaplan wrote. "Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."​

​

What a sad day it is in America that the morally superior conservative party supports a rapist for President.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Trump raped her.

"The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was 'raped' within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape,'" Kaplan wrote. "Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."​

​

What a sad day it is in America that the morally superior conservative party supports a rapist for President.

No surprise.
The other party supported Clinton,
despite his sexual predations.
Loyal they all are.

 

[metis]

What a sad day it is in America that the morally superior conservative party supports a rapist for President.

Nor do they act like conservatives as Trump certainly ain't one.

 

[Windwalker]

No surprise.
The other party supported Clinton,
despite his sexual predations.
Loyal they all are.

Dear god, man. You equate what happened with Clinton and Lewinsky, with Trump forcibly penetrating that woman in the store? Now one can call into question the power discrepancy between Clinton and Lewinsky, but it was consensual at the time. She said yes. But not so with "grab them by the *****" rapist Trump, who boasts about his forcible sexual assaults with women, and has now been found 'guilty' of rape by a jury of his peers.

I seriously doubt the standards between the parties are the same at all. I point to you to what happened more recently with Al Franken. He was rejected by the party and resigned, for his womanizing. But at least he didn't force his fingers in a woman's vagina against her will, while she was actively telling him no. As far as I know, the only political party that supports and convicted rapist is the MAGA party, formerly known as Republicans.