There's A Verdict in the E. Jean Carroll/Trump Case

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Didn't rape her but maligned her because she falsely accused him. Okay. Sounds like he could counter sue and have that verdict thrown out on appeal.

She actually states multiple times in public, on broadcast and cable, that he did not rape her.

But there is no criminal consequence for a frivolous civil claim.

a reply to: anonentity

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Debunked
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'll make a prediction and say he obviously didn't rape that crazy woman.

Of course he didn't, otherwise she wouldn't have waited 30 years to claim he did. Are statute of limitations out the window when it involves Trump or something?

Interesting question. First off it was a civil trial (as opposed to a criminal one), and it was filed in federal court. So the weird thing is that from what I could find, the statute of limitations is 10 years for sexual assault, and wasn't this said to be committed 20 years ago? Now in New York state, there is a law the allows a one-time exception of the statute of limitation, but I don't understand how that would matter in a federal court. Any legal eagles out there that could explain this one.

But how would you know whether or not he raped the woman? Did you happen to see his video deposition, in which he said she was not his type, but then went on to point her out in a photograph as his former wife Martha Maples (who happened to be in the picture too, but on the opposite side of it? So this woman who he misidentified as his former wife was clearly his type.

However, she also sued for defamation, and Trump slander her within the statute of limitations for that.

a reply to: Xcalibur254It's posted in the Daily News that President Trump was found Guilty and must pay 5 million dfollars to her. But then again it's the News, Little to NO truth to it.

originally posted by: starviego
If there's still a presumption of innocence in this country, I don't see how they can convict with absolutely no evidence other than the claims of the accuser.

It's not just the claims of the accuser. It included other witnesses and evidence. E jean Carroll's close friend, whom she called 5 minutes after it happened also testified. As did another woman who accuses Trump of the same. This, along with the "grab 'em by the p***y tape from Access Hollywood, and Trump's own video-taped deposition, established a pattern of misbehavior on his part in this fashion. The fact that he didn't testify in his own defense, and his defense team had no real defense didn't help. I'm guessing Trump's notorious reputation for being a pathological liar didn't help with the jury either.

The burden of proof is less for civil trials than for criminal ones. That is why the "if the glove doesn't fit, you have to acquit" defense kept OJ out of prison, but his ex-wife's father sued him in civil court and took him for everything he was worth. And then there's the fact that OJ stole some his old sports items, which were no longer his and worth money, and got caught doing this and then got convicted and sent to prison for that. But I digress.

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety
She actually states multiple times in public, on broadcast and cable, that he did not rape her.

But there is no criminal consequence for a frivolous civil claim.

a reply to: anonentity

If you would quote her fully, you would have said that she did not consider it rape; that rape happens to young and poor women, and that she had no right to call it rape on account of that. She did say she was sexually assaulted, and that is what the jury agreed with her on, as well as the defamation suit that Trump lied and slandered her.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

Her evidence before the jury?

Part of it was Trump’s recorded admission that he just goes up and grabs women by their private parts. I guess the jury believed him.

What does that have to do with Carroll? She says he did it, he says he didn't. Where's the proof?

It goes to show a pattern of bad behavior of this type on his part. As did his deposition, another sexual assault victim of Trump who came forward, and her best friend who EJC called 5 minutes after it happened. Do you Trump sycophants ever read or view non-rightwing news sources? It's all there. HuffPost

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So now the question is:

How will this impact Trump's campaign plans?

Will the GOP be willing to back a candidate who has been deemed a sexual abuser?

That can't be a big vote draw among female "swing" voters; or even among female Republicans.

Do you think anyone who has paid any attention will actually believe that? And the sexual assault she's claiming is that he kissed her. OMG STOP THE PRESSES!!! TRUMP KISSES WOMAN!!!

What normal voting aged person out there gives two #s that he kissed some random chick in 1995 or 1996? His accuser can't even remember what year it was, but yeah let's take her word for it. LOL

No, she said he penetrated her, and her friend she confided to confirms this as well. I'm guessing grabbed her by her genitalia too, as that is how he rolls -- as he has professed on tape.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: LSU2018

You name the crime: If you're a Trump and the trial is in New York, the Jury will find you Guilty. 100% of the time.

More election donations incoming.

They know him better than people anywhere else.

In a Federal civil case in New York, the state’s codified statute of limitations is generally “borrowed” from the state.

New York extended rape SoL to up to 20 years in legislation in 2019, for criminal and civil.

New York also does not toll SoL when defendant is out of state.

Whether these two legislative & procedural acts are Constitutional is debatable, particularly in regards to ex post facto law.

However, in New York, common law currently holds (and legislation likely corresponds) that an ex post facto bar only applies to criminal cases, not civil.

This particular case is at the very least edge regarding the above procedural laws and practices in New York. The Judge could theoretically make a ruling on this — but since it is a grey area, an outlier and involving Trump, a New York Federal trial judge is unlikely to choose to make an immediate ruling.

The Judge can still rule on the question, but it is much more likely that the Judge, even if objective, would punt this particular edge case to the Appellate level, since the SoL laws in the various states in the circuit are different, and more appropriately evaluated by the Federal circuit, such that a consistent holding would apply to all states in the circuit.

Trump’s appeal will almost certainly call this into question, and it may be notable enough to travel to the US Supreme Court.

Short answer: the 2019 SoL legislative changes in New York have not been adjudicated at the appellate level yet, and so the legality of the current procedural borrowed SoL in a Federal court in New York State is an “unanswered question” — there has not been enough time for a case to have made it to the Federal appellate level on the matter and it is a very obscure area of procedural law (borrowing a de novo modification to civil statute of limitations in a Federal court in New York State). I would venture to suggest that only a trivial number of New York lawyers even understand what is stated in this post.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

This is known as an admission against interest, and her state of mind and belief regarding her own statements is a question of fact for the jury — which didn’t find Trump civilly liable for rape anyway in this particular case, so the quote is context, but post jury-verdict, also entirely moot.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: stevieray

originally posted by: carewemust
Next up...

TARA READE vs JOE BIDEN

All the same people cheering for poor old Victim Carroll, will be destroying Reade in every way possible.

No. What do you base that on? I don't recall every last Democrat defending Bill Clinton during the Paula Jones law suit.

That's the thing about you right wingers: you assume that your opposition is as devoid of ethics as you are and will always protect a tribal chief, even if guilty. All that matters to you is that your tribal chieftan wins out. Progressives, Democrats and Liberals tend to throw their tribal chieftans under the bus if they find they do not measure up to their standards -- take what became of Al Franken and Garrison Keillor during the hay day of the Me Too movement.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Yes. If Trump defames her again she could sue him. And this case will be used as evidence.

Yabba dabba doo!!!

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: network dude
Hmmm
Interesting use of the justice system
Looks like trump just got his ass kicked

Democrats are making Political Persecution a new campaign tool in the US.

Sure it helps them fight the great Hitler that is Donald Trump... but what will be the unintended consequences of their actions over the next century?

Evidently you're not familiar with the impeachment of Bill Clinton or the White Water hearings concerning the Clintons, the Clinton Whitehouse Office scandal, or the Benghazi!!! hearings. The Republicans started this crap decades ago. You Republicans either conveniently forget such matters or are just blissfully ignorant of them.

Moreover, this wasn't a political machination as it wasn't done through Congress. It was an individual who privately sued Trump. Now if you want to say that her legal fees were backed by some political operatives, then I'll raise you the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinski scandals against Bill Clinton. You Republicans/MAGA-ites/right-wingers can't have your cake and eat it too, no sir.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: LSU2018

You name the crime: If you're a Trump and the trial is in New York, the Jury will find you Guilty. 100% of the time.

More election donations incoming.

Yep, and the left think this will sway the election somehow. Carroll should be taken in for election tampering and ordered to pay 4M to Trump.

Yeah, because stuff. Right?

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: Xcalibur254

🤣🤣🤣

You guys got him now.

I’ll still vote for him.
He’s still far and away better than any Democrat, grabbing pussy or not.

That purdee much sums up your ethics then. Thanx for sharing.

And the long arm of the law has hardly swatted his butt yet. There's the NY civil trial by Alvin Bragg; the election fraud criminal case in Georgia, in which some of the fake electors are already taking immunity deals; and then the big kahuna: the federal criminal investigation of the attempted insurrection/coup on Jan 6, and Trump's mis-handling of top secret documents and related obstruction of justice.

As many legal minds were predicting in late 2020, Trump is facing a legal hell scape now that he is now that he is no longer president. Boo f'n hoo..

You are describing an individual who is, according to you, entirely incompetent but also capable of executing a coup in the USA.

This is quite absurdist.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: RazorV66
I wish there was a female Democrat politician good looking enough that I would feel comfortable with falsely accusing her of sexual battery against me.
I have a reputation to think about.

Dianne Feinstein wouldn't even give you a hand job. But keep the misogynistic bile coming. I love to retort to it.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

I’d bang Tulsi

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

A Claim of it has been Made............

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
"Guilty" would Only Apply if these were Criminal Charges . Given that there is No Statue of Limitations for Rape in New York State , going straight to a Civil Lawsuit Instead of pressing Criminal Charges is a tacit Admission by the Plaintiff that there is No Evidence Beyond her Testimony .This Decision Will be Appealed .....

She brought DNA evidence.

Joe Biden was smarter. He deposited his "DNA" while in the shower with his daughter. It got washed down the drain, just in case she told Mommy what Daddy did.

But there never was DJT DNA associated with this ladies BS story. Otherwise, Rachel Madcow would have been dancing on his grave for years. There is no way in hell this happened as claimed in a million years. No way to do what she claimed without anyone knowing who were there in the store with them, on the day she can't remember so DJT can't even prove he wasn't there.