Was Trump guilty? (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

Most of us will know that Trump was found guilty of assault in his recent NYC trial. But something doesn't sit well with me and perhaps others can explain it to me.

In a civil case, it is based on the balance of probabilities. Given that, if the jury thinks on the balance of probabilities that Trump didn't ra** her, but Carroll said he did, what they are saying is that Carroll lied about it. Or, in other words, she made it up. A false accusation. If they believe she was a liar, how can they believe the rest of it?

Your thoughts?

 

[NauticalGent]

Smoke and mirrors. The truth doesn't matter - the right people (political party does not matter) do NOT want him eligible for POTUS. Nothing new here.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Look at the law itself. I can believe that people in dark, smoky (dope, not cigarettes. Cigarettes are evil) rooms said "we have to stop Trump" and some bright bulb had the brilliant idea to create a temporary law that could be used to convict Trump of some type of sexual attack with no actual evidence. Just "she said" so it must be true. Then the law has to expire quickly or it will be used against Democrats. I'm hoping that Republicans use the law while it still exists to take out whatever Democrats they need to. Because in their world, if someone says you're guilty, then you are guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent which of course is the opposite of the way our legal system used to work.

This is much more of a problem for men. But you all (especially if you were ever in NY at some time in the past 30 years) are in jeopardy from this law if some woman decides to take vengeance on you.

Given the venue and the judge, there was no chance that Trump would not be found guilty. Hopefully, since they found him not guilty of the actual ra**, he sues her for defamation and libel from his home in Florida where the jury won't be so biased. Keep in mind that Trump was not convicted of the crime the woman publicly accused him of, he was convicted for what he said publicly in defense of her accusations. What goes around, comes around and it is time for this to boomerang on the left.

 

[Steve R.]

Just listened the Alan Dershowitz podcast where he disclosed his thoughts. Basically, a highly flawed civil case presented by the plaintiffs. Dershowitz essentially stated that this is simply another endless anti-Trump hit job. If it had been filed against anyone else, that this trial would have been tossed. Offhand, it reminds me loosely of the (false) accusations by Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh.

 

[Jon]

Then the law has to expire quickly or it will be used against Democrats.

This temporary law is something I always thought of as highly suspicious. Create a law so you can convict Trump before the next round of elections, then remove the law. If they think the law has merit, why not keep that law? It makes no sense.

Hopefully, since they found him not guilty of the actual ra**, he sues her for defamation and libel from his home in Florida where the jury won't be so biased. Keep in mind that Trump was not convicted of the crime the woman publicly accused him of, he was convicted for what he said publicly in defense of her accusations. What goes around, comes around and it is time for this to boomerang on the left.

Very good point, I hadn't thought of that. If he defamed her for one part, then surely that means she defamed him for the other part. Why does the jury not factor that in? "Trump lied about X, so that is defamation, but Carroll lied about Y, so that is also defamation. Lets give her $2M, and give Trump nothing!"

 

[Pat Hartman]

I guess Trump was lucky they didn't convict him of ra**. Perhaps that was a bridge too far and the jury was more honest than I give them credit for. But given the stupid stuff Trump says, they just convicted him of saying the quiet things out loud which he simply can't stop doing. It's actually part of why I like him. His speech is pretty stream of consciousness and so he is probably saying what he actually thinks. I can agree or disagree but I can believe that he believes what he is saying and even when I disagree with his positions, I at least know what they are.
With most politicians, they say what they think you want to hear and that means they have nothing invested it it. Unlike Trump, who when he got to be President, immediately went to work trying to implement his campaign promises, other elected politicians immediately go to work to implement what their major donors want and start raising money for their reelection campaign. The people who elected them can pound sand because they just don't matter.

Professional politicians are a despicable class of people regardless of their party affiliation. That is why they all hate Trump with a purple passion. He threatens their world. Trump makes them look bad because he actively tries to implement what he promised and takes no prisoners when he criticizes the status quo. He criticizes Republicans even more than Democrats because he expects them to keep their promises. The silly thing is that the Republicans are more likely to "say the right thing" and "do what the donor wants" than the Democrats wo actually tell you what horrible ideas they want to implement and when they are elected, the then implement those horrible ideas.

 

[Jon]

I think they convicted him because of some of the things he said in the deposition, rather than any convincing evidence in the case. They didn't like what he said and so they were on tilt.

In the UK, you are not allowed to mention previous court cases during trial since that could tilt the outcome through bias, rather than the merits of that specific case itself. But didn't the Clinton judge have two women who testified saying Trump assaulted them? Isn't that a similar thing?

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Various states have what are called "responsive" verdicts, where the judge offers a menu and the jury picks what they like. Louisiana has that, and I even applied it once. Keeping this short, we convicted a guy of Aggravated Assault & Battery, Aggravated Robbery, Aggravated Crime Against Nature (euphemism for forced oral sex), and Simple Attempted ra**. Why not Aggravated ra**, you say? Because he was so drunk he couldn't get it up to commit ra**, but crime against nature didn't have a penetration requirement whereas ra** did. So we picked the closest charge we could to what we think actually happened.

I can only guess that the Trump jury was presented with definitions for various crimes and picked the one charge closest to what they thought the plaintiff had proved. Since it was a civil case, you don't need "beyond a reasonable doubt." You only need "more certain than not."

 

[Pat Hartman]

In the UK, you are not allowed to mention previous court cases during trial since that could tilt the outcome through bias, rather than the merits of that specific case itself.

The law in the US is the same.

But, the law has no bearing when you are persecuting Trump. Just get a law passed specifically to persecute him specifically. Bring anything you can to tarnish his image and throw it at him.

 

[Isaac]

The suggestion that a lucid professional man would try that in a public place is absurd .
Possible, highly unlikely

 

[Pat Hartman]

Possible, highly unlikely

Maybe if he were falling down drunk or high on drugs but Trump does neither. The woman is a liar and I hope he sues her back. The whole thing was such a travesty of justice it will go down in history as the day justice died.

Trump could not walk into Bergdorf's without being recognized and workers in the store have confirmed that what the liar described simply could not happen. The liar got the idea from an episode of Law & Order and thought it was sexy.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Isaac]

Most of us will know that Trump was found guilty of assault in his recent NYC trial. But something doesn't sit well with me and perhaps others can explain it to me.

In a civil case, it is based on the balance of probabilities. Given that, if the jury thinks on the balance of probabilities that Trump didn't ra** her, but Carroll said he did, what they are saying is that Carroll lied about it. Or, in other words, she made it up. A false accusation. If they believe she was a liar, how can they believe the rest of it?

Your thoughts?

In this case I don't think the reason was legal at all, it was just a simple fact that the most conservative person in the country was sued in a venue that is the most liberal in the country. It's going to be a unanimous verdict against the defendant no matter what the accusation is

Cheap shot by the Democrats

 

[Pat Hartman]

I was surprised that the jury was honest enough to find Trump not guilty of the ra** charge. The rest makes no sense to anyone with half a brain.

Think about it this way - the people who convicted Trump of hurting Carroll's feelings by saying she wasn't his type also think that it is OK to abort babies while the mother is in labor in the delivery room but at the same time, these same people think that mass-murderers and terrorists should not be executed by the state. Their lives are too valuable.

People of the left have no problem whatsoever holding two such contradictory opinions at the same time. Mind you, they can't defend their position so if you dare to call them out on it, YOU are a racist!!

 

[Isaac]

Apparently this woman was obsessed with both ra** and sex.
Maybe she felt left out that such a thing had never happened to her in a resentful sort of way .

E. Jean Carroll's claims against Trump, lifestyle back under the spotlight after eye-popping verdict

Former President Donald Trump faced his second trial involving former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll and her accusations he defamed her when she accused him of ra**.

www.foxnews.com

Carroll also came under fire for tweets about learning "sex tips" from her dog, as well as for naming her cat "****** T. Fireball," according to a 2019 Vanity Fair article, and one of her dogs "Tits," according to the 2017 video interview with Elle Magazine

 

[Pat Hartman]

Well, do you think they could get a sane woman to falsely accuse Trump and carry through with the whole fiesco. I wonder how much of her "award" she has to pay to her benefactor who funded the lawsuit.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I wonder how much of her "award" she has to pay to her benefactor who funded the lawsuit.

10% for the big guy?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I am amused by these "Trumped up" charges...

 

[Steve R.]

I wonder how much of her "award" she has to pay to her benefactor who funded the lawsuit.

10% for the big guy?

That is probably very true considering that Biden is very petty ruthless vindictive hateful man.

 

[Steve R.]

The video below summarizes all of the attempts by the Democrats to persecute Trump.

Mark Levin: There's not a single legitimate charge against Trump | Fox News Video

Fox News host Mark Levin offers his analysis of the legal cases facing former President Donald Trump on 'Life, Liberty & Levin.'

www.foxnews.com