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

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone
You are good with a sliding scale on statues of limitations?
Guess that’s not surprising.

I certainly am not Ok with sliding statutes of limitations, I want the limitations to be any time in the past, any time in the future, and any time the alleged victim is ready to come forward.

Not surprising.
Whatever gets the job done?

I wonder how quick they'd change their mind about limitations if someone came out against them about something that supposedly happened 20+ years beforehand. Even 10 years is too long in a case like this.

Do you belive the statue should protect people even if guilty, not that I am casting anyone as guilty in this case (that was upto a jury) but in the UK would you be happy for Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris et al to get away with their crimes because of time?

How about Bill Cosby/Harvey Weinstein in the US, should they have been allowed to walk scot free, thankfully none of the nonces/rapists I mentioned got away with it forever, shame they werent caught earlier, but IMO the statute of limitations does nothing but allow rich creeps to evade the law long enough to walk free.

does evading the law for 10+years make any of those I have mentioned who were guilty suddenly innocent? why is 10 years to long?

If it can be proven, I don't have a problem with it. My issue with this whole thing is that this chick waited two and a half decades to come out about being kissed in a dressing room and call it sexual assault. There's absolutely no way to prove it happened unless cameras were in that dressing room and the VHS was saved. Had there been a rape and Carroll saved the article of clothing with Trump juice on it then there would be proof but there was nothing.

It is why this was a civil case and not a criminal case.
There is no actual evidence.
He said, she said.

He was found liable, and will get to appeal.
If the ONE YEAR bull crap exemption passes legal scrutiny.

I hope he sues her for double what she got out of him.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

He lawyer reminded them what the judge said.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: LSU2018
As far as lying under oath, do you remember what happened to Christine Blasey Ford when she lied under oath after accusing Trump's nominee of sexually assaulting her in the 80's?

Lying to Congress, while wrong, is not the same as a court deposition. Again, do you know how this works?

I guess not. Excuse me for thinking perjury was illegal.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: UpThenDown

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: quintessentone
You are good with a sliding scale on statues of limitations?
Guess that’s not surprising.

I certainly am not Ok with sliding statutes of limitations, I want the limitations to be any time in the past, any time in the future, and any time the alleged victim is ready to come forward.

Not surprising.
Whatever gets the job done?

I wonder how quick they'd change their mind about limitations if someone came out against them about something that supposedly happened 20+ years beforehand. Even 10 years is too long in a case like this.

Do you belive the statue should protect people even if guilty, not that I am casting anyone as guilty in this case (that was upto a jury) but in the UK would you be happy for Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter, Rolf Harris et al to get away with their crimes because of time?

How about Bill Cosby/Harvey Weinstein in the US, should they have been allowed to walk scot free, thankfully none of the nonces/rapists I mentioned got away with it forever, shame they werent caught earlier, but IMO the statute of limitations does nothing but allow rich creeps to evade the law long enough to walk free.

does evading the law for 10+years make any of those I have mentioned who were guilty suddenly innocent? why is 10 years to long?

If it can be proven, I don't have a problem with it. My issue with this whole thing is that this chick waited two and a half decades to come out about being kissed in a dressing room and call it sexual assault. There's absolutely no way to prove it happened unless cameras were in that dressing room and the VHS was saved. Had there been a rape and Carroll saved the article of clothing with Trump juice on it then there would be proof but there was nothing.

It is why this was a civil case and not a criminal case.
There is no actual evidence.
He said, she said.

He was found liable, and will get to appeal.
If the ONE YEAR bull crap exemption passes legal scrutiny.

I hope he sues her for double what she got out of him.

I hope he ties her and the state up in court for decades.
The “exemption” made to enable his state sanctioned political persecution is vile.
Either those crimes are important or not.
Changing state law to get one guy really exposes how vile those people are.

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Justoneman

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

Civil court, and not the same standards of proof.

Is that so?
I was referring to changing the statutes of limitations to file a charge in the first place.
Then getting a judge to sign off that it is legit.
Then getting 12 people to vote guilty.

Interesting path to justice.

Also as to the “sex offender status keeps Trump off ballot in some states.”

This is a civil case, no one is registered as a sex offender based on a civil finding.

(snip......)

But the judge did not alter the statute of limitations, the relevant state’s legislature did so.

There are 50 relevant state's legislatures, many of them blue, that could easily add a reason of the existance of a civil finding of a sexual offense (or any offense) to keep a candidate off their ballot. Easy Peasy.

Im considering two precedents in my prediction: This case that followed changing an SoL, and Isnt Florida changing a law to allow DeSantis to remain governor if he runs?

originally posted by: Gothar
Loving the rape defenders in this thread. She doesn't remember the date and time she got raped 30 years ago. Pretty significant. Anyone remember the date and time 30 or more years ago.....
First Kiss?
First broken bone?
Lost your virginity?
Had your heart broken?
All pretty significant moments in life, but some if not most of you here haven't even been generating memories for that long, much less been alive that long. And probably still couldn't give a specific date and time of these events. Sure, you remember when, the environment, the circumstances, what led up to it, the aftermath, details about that day, but not the specific calendar date and time on the click.

Your expectation is that while some gross disgusting old dude forces himself on you and rams his hand down your pants, even after you said no, you are desperately trying to find a calendar and a clock so you can commemorate the moment?

Can't remember the year, but can remember the whole thing lasted for three minutes.

Just admit you don't give a damn about facts or proof since you got the results you wanted and move on. The miserable posts are sounding more miserable each time.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Yep
The people who are responsible for applying criminal charges WONT TOUCH THIS.
As to explaining the law, why would I explain such to a self confessed expert?
Now you forgot how to research?
I’m not buying that bull crap.
I’m not doing your work for you either.

As to your location, you don’t have a bill of rights do you?

I'm no "self confessed expert". Far from it, which I explained to you.

You are the one who is complaining bitterly about changes in the statute of limitation so if you won't elaborate what it is you are complaining about I'm not going to do any "work".

What does a bill of rights over here got to do with a civil case in NY?
Or anything at all?

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

He lawyer reminded them what the judge said.

Yes, so was the Judge wrong in telling the jury what the applicable law was about standard of proof?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Really
Solicitor?
Perhaps the equal protection clause?

I could care less about this case.

There's Tara Reed, but crickets.

All of the claims made against Bill Clinton, crickets.

But err mer gerd, Trermp!

OMB

*waves tiny hands*

a reply to: shooterbrody

Do go on. What's your point?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Do your own research solicitor.
If you still can?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Why might I bother?

If you have a point about some "equal protection clause" then make it.

Why should I have to do so for you?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
I did.
Not my problem if you can’t or choose not to understand.
No worries solicitor, in the future I will expect less of your “expertise”.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
I did.
Not my problem if you can’t or choose not to understand.
No worries solicitor, in the future I will expect less of your “expertise”.

Like I said, I don't have any expertise in US law.

If you are going to simply say to me "Perhaps the equal protection clause?" without giving any context and expect me to research whatever it is your point might be, that ain't how it works.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Lol
You get to tell me how it works?
That is rich.
You don’t want to look it up, don’t.
No worries.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Interesting the pos state hasn’t filed criminal charges?

Past the statute of limitations. How do you now know this already?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
Lol
You get to tell me how it works?
That is rich.
You don’t want to look it up, don’t.
No worries.

OK. I had a quick look, more out of morbid curiosity than anything else.

Like I say, I'm no expert in US law so I m hardly going to spend a few years studying for the NY Bar exams or whatever just so I can debate with a random on the internet with some degree of authority .

So. You carry on.

Perhaps you might write to Trump's legal team and give them a few pointers?

originally posted by: LSU2018
I guess not. Excuse me for thinking perjury was illegal.

In this case it would be a criminal conspiracy as they would also have to have colluded.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: shooterbrody
Interesting the pos state hasn’t filed criminal charges?

Past the statute of limitations. How do you now know this already?

How do I know the state is a pos?
You said so, I was simply agreeing.
How do I know the pos state hasn’t filed charges?
You think charges against mr trump for rape would be kept secret?
Interesting