Posted on 05/09/2023 1:02:55 PM PDT by Signalman
If there were punishment for lying on FR, you would be perma banned. YOU LIED.
Edit to add, my particular concern regarding the jury verdict in this specific case is more far reaching than how it will affect Trump’s chances in the elections. Whether he wins or loses the election is immaterial to this case.
It concerns the question of our justice system. In other words, can women just accuse men of rape or battery that they never filed charges on 30 years ago without solid evidence?
This isn’t just about Trump. If a woman from your past or mine made the same accusations against you, what kind of defense do you have other than the evidence?
That is why I doggedly insists on knowing what evidence led the jury to come up with their verdict.
The jury believed her. That’s a fact. They did believe Trump’s Hillary impression: “I didn’t do nuffin.” Trump’s lawyer, an aggressive lawyer, didn’t impeach her testimony or her character. Another fact. Trump’s lawyer shook her hand after the verdict. No lie! Another fact.
That dog don’t hunt. Trump’s legal team approved each juror as well as E. Jean’s.
We are going to keep repeating “Not Guilty”
“Not Guilty”
“Not Guilty”
“Not Guilty”
To ALL these cases until it’s believed.
We CAN Do This too!
You have to ask?
Because the donor is a large donor to the Democratic party. That seems like it could be a conflict of interest. I am not a lawyer, so I have no idea of the legal issues.
I cannot imagine that his lawyers were so incompetent as to not encourage him NOT to provide embellishment or any other details in his answer during the deposition, Why, oh why did he have to give his “analysis” of a million years of sexual harassment?
Legal funding is immaterial the case. The court never asks who pays for the lawyers. To do so would undermine the rights of both plaintiffs and defendants to afford the best representation possible.
The bogus trial and bogus judge will be cancelled.
This wasn’t a criminal case so your wording is all wrong. Trump was found liable of sexual assault and not rape because of NYS definition of rape. Rape requires penetration and Carrol testified she could not tell if Trump had inserted his penis in her vagina or not so the jury found Trump not liable for rape. But they felt there was enough evidence presented that Trump was liable for sexual assault.
As a side note, the left is already making jokes about the size of Trump’s penis.
Thank you.
RE: But they felt there was enough evidence presented that Trump was liable for sexual assault
And ( for the 4th time) what was the evidence presented?
Any eyewitnesses?
RE: Rape requires penetration and Carrol testified she could not tell if Trump had inserted his penis in her vagina
Type the following in the search bar of Google:
“E Jean Carroll accuses Trump of rape”
You will see DOZENS of headlines that showed E Jean Carrol accusing Trump of RAPING her. Alan Dershowitz today she testified in court that she was RAPED by Trump. She used the word RAPE. She, a sophisticated colmunist in her 40’s ought to know what rape is. She used the word, NOT sexual assault.
Here’s the question -— if her recollection ( i.e. she could not tell if Trump inserted his penis in her vagina ) is not credible ( and the jury decided that it as not ), why is her sexual assault allegation considered credible?
This judgment in this case has everything to do with the election because a former president and current leading contender for President is involved that alone makes the case important
Regardless of the evidence an appeals court will decide that which is all you can hope for at this point
Where have you been, women have for years and years have made accusations about men abusing them and the men have been punished which many have been deserving others the accusations are false
That’s why we have an appeals process, a two tiered justice system is nothing new, with enough money your chances in court system greatly improve versus some blue collar poor person
Speak for yourself. I don’t know what social circles you grew up in, but I’ve been on this planet fifty years nearly and have NEVER heard anyone casually laugh about groping or raping women who wasn’t cruising for a bruising.
I’ve heard some colourful jokes on that topic but the USUALLY VERY DRUNK people who tell them certainly never follow up a calling out with anything that sounds like “yeah, I’ve done it, we’ve all done it, am I right?!” WHEN SOBER.
It would be tantamount to pleading guilty if a defendant had such talk played back to the jury via recorded interviews taken when the defendant was stone cold sober.
We all know the score as regards how character witness works in the courtroom. It usually works against guilty verdicts; women in court lose rape cases because their general sexual conduct is at best loose, at worst bordering on nymphomania... and their evidence isn’t very convincing.
But never forget that it goes both ways. If the prosecution could show an alleged criminal boasting about his crimes it would be mad not to, because that reinforces rather than weakens any circumstantial evidence tying him to the crime.
Eg “Sure I admitted I’m a killer but so what, I didn’t kill THAT one” wouldn’t be a strong defense!
The prosecution played dirty. But it’s not an unprecedented strategy. Trump didn’t have to double down on the right of “stars” to grope women. But he did. On camera.
And they used it because winning is the aim of the game. Whether we think it’s dirty pool or not, the real lesson to learn is, if you want to completely clear your name in a historical sexual assault case, don’t bloody admit on camera more than once that you’re a groper and don’t defend groping in a serious interview.
Addendum:
And if you do, then you need to defend yourself in the witness box. You can’t talk your jury round with a charm offensive by not turning up.
In some jurisdictions, penetration isn’t required for rape to have occurred.
Regardless, it’s not something to brag about. Only being found liable for sexual assault and defamation and not rape.
“RE: But they felt there was enough evidence presented that Trump was liable for sexual assault
And ( for the 4th time) what was the evidence presented?
Any eyewitnesses?”
This was a civil case. Not a criminal case. OJ was found innocent of criminal charges but was later found liable in a civil court. The standard in a criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard in a civil court is much lower. The jury in the civil court felt there was enough evidence presented to meet that standard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.