Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 15 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: The E Jean Carrol case happened within the last 5 years. about an incident that supposed happened in the 90's yes, what makes you believe that Kaplan and his law clerk discussed it? Why would they even know about it? they certainly wouldn't have acted as lawyers in the matter if there were no legal questions. This is just more legal handwringing from desperate trump and his lawyers. The question has been documented and will be thrown out as meritless which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Just now, Joe Ferguson forever said: yes, what makes you believe that Kaplan and his law clerk discussed it? Why would they even know about it? they certainly wouldn't have acted as lawyers in the matter if there were no legal questions. This is just more legal handwringing from desperate trump and his lawyers. The question has been documented and will be thrown out as meritless which it is. Half the story that she first told, was re told cause of the holes. another reason the MSM and troll farms that parrot it, have no integrity left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Half the story that she first told, was re told cause of the holes. another reason the MSM and troll farms that parrot it, have no integrity left so you're moving away from the question of judge Kaplan, huh. run out of bs arguments? do u concede? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 E. Jean Carroll Delivered the Sound Bite That Could Win Trump the Election https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/01/29/e-jean-carroll-delivered-a-huge-in-kind-contribution-to-trump-during-her-msnbc-interview-n2634353 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Reads like the farm in here. Doesn't read like justice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 3 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Reads like the farm in here. Doesn't read like justice. Kangaroo court. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 5 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Reads like the farm in here. Doesn't read like justice. You just have to enjoy the “oh, you suddenly have opinions about the current thing (i.e. news)” crowd failing to understand how law or even basic sentence structure works and then being upset that their misinformed take isn’t taken seriously. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 5 hours ago, ChiGoose said: You just have to enjoy the “oh, you suddenly have opinions about the current thing (i.e. news)” crowd failing to understand how law or even basic sentence structure works and then being upset that their misinformed take isn’t taken seriously. You just salty cause it's true. And you got no valid reply but some ad hominem and attacking the messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 2 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: You just salty cause it's true. And you got no valid reply but some ad hominem and attacking the messenger. As if anyone should take the friggin King seriously on any issue. Why? This is the person who when confronted with hundreds of examples of a weak, feeble and demented Biden goes on the record with Yeah, he's lost a bit off his fastball. And we're supposed to do anything other than laugh at this moron when it disparages OTHERS ability to observe events around them and come to lucid conclusions? The iron law of commie projection indeed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 3 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: You just salty cause it's true. And you got no valid reply but some ad hominem and attacking the messenger. In the documents quoted in the tweet, it literally says that there is a difference between NYS law and how the word “rape” is used colloquially. Different states define crimes differently and people use words differently. Per the dictionary: “unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception” So what you have is that the word “rape” can and often does include sexual assault but does not require intercourse. However, NYS law requires intercourse for the charge of rape. That gap is what is causing the confusion here. The judge merely pointed out that while the actions did not constitute rape under the specific NYS law, it did amount to rape as it is commonly understood. Edited January 31 by ChiGoose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Legislation (S.3161/A.3340), also known as the “Rape is Rape” bill, removes the penetration requirement from the rape statutes and also defines rape as vaginal sexual contact, oral sexual contact, and anal sexual contact Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Protect Survivors, Hold Perpetrators Accountable for Rape | Governor Kathy Hochul (ny.gov) and facts are facts. he was not found guilty of any crime. he was found liable for touching and slander in a civil court. Penal code in every state in the nation has RAPE and unlawful sexual activity as different actions with different consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: Legislation (S.3161/A.3340), also known as the “Rape is Rape” bill, removes the penetration requirement from the rape statutes and also defines rape as vaginal sexual contact, oral sexual contact, and anal sexual contact Governor Hochul Signs Legislation to Protect Survivors, Hold Perpetrators Accountable for Rape | Governor Kathy Hochul (ny.gov) and facts are facts. he was not found guilty of any crime. he was found liable for touching and slander in a civil court. Penal code in every state in the nation has RAPE and unlawful sexual activity as different actions with different consequences. Under the NY code in effect at the time of the trial, first degree rape is defined as: "A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person: 1. By forcible compulsion; or 2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or 3. Who is less than eleven years old; or 4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more." Therefore, as the judge correctly stated, the jury could only find that Trump had raped Carroll if they believed he had penetrated here with his penis. As they only found that he used his fingers, they did not find he had raped her under the definition in NY law. However, that is not how people understand the word "rape" to work and not how it is commonly defined. As you pointed out, NY even moved to update its definition to better fit the common understanding of the word. Had the trial occurred with the updated definition in effect, it is likely that the jury would have found he had raped her. The idea that the judge should be impeached for explaining reality seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Under the NY code in effect at the time of the trial, first degree rape is defined as: "A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person: 1. By forcible compulsion; or 2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or 3. Who is less than eleven years old; or 4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more." Therefore, as the judge correctly stated, the jury could only find that Trump had raped Carroll if they believed he had penetrated here with his penis. As they only found that he used his fingers, they did not find he had raped her under the definition in NY law. However, that is not how people understand the word "rape" to work and not how it is commonly defined. As you pointed out, NY even moved to update its definition to better fit the common understanding of the word. Had the trial occurred with the updated definition in effect, it is likely that the jury would have found he had raped her. The idea that the judge should be impeached for explaining reality seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts. Correct. The jury found, after a full civil trial, that Trump digitally penetrated Carroll. This is, therefore, an established finding of fact unless overturned on appeal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: Under the NY code in effect at the time of the trial, first degree rape is defined as: "A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person: 1. By forcible compulsion; or 2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or 3. Who is less than eleven years old; or 4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more." Therefore, as the judge correctly stated, the jury could only find that Trump had raped Carroll if they believed he had penetrated here with his penis. As they only found that he used his fingers, they did not find he had raped her under the definition in NY law. However, that is not how people understand the word "rape" to work and not how it is commonly defined. As you pointed out, NY even moved to update its definition to better fit the common understanding of the word. Had the trial occurred with the updated definition in effect, it is likely that the jury would have found he had raped her. The idea that the judge should be impeached for explaining reality seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts. It's a civil case with no criminal evidence to support any of that. Based on what evidence? 1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said: Correct. The jury found, after a full civil trial, that Trump digitally penetrated Carroll. This is, therefore, an established finding of fact unless overturned on appeal. They found that trump could not prove he did not do that. It's civil, not criminal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: It's a civil case with no criminal evidence to support any of that. Based on what evidence? They found that trump could not prove he did not do that. It's civil, not criminal. No. The burden of proof in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence." So the jury found that it is more likely than not that Trump digitally penetrated Carroll. The burden is never on the defendant (Trump). Look, I didn't follow the case closely, and in my opinion there are problems with a lawsuit based on events that happened decades ago. But the jury obviously believed Carroll's testimony, which was corroborated by a couple other witnesses - friends of hers who say that she told them about her encounter with Trump (at least in part nonconsensual) around that time that it happened. And Trump's own deposition testimony was a killer, since he confused Carroll with his ex-wife Marla. That destroyed the "she's not my type" crude defense. Edited January 31 by The Frankish Reich 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: No. The burden of proof in a civil case is "preponderance of the evidence." So the jury found that it is more likely than not that Trump digitally penetrated Carroll. The burden is never on the defendant (Trump) The burden of proof in civil is on the defendant. In criminal it's on the prosecution. Digitally penetrated? Wtf. Just making ***** up now. Eh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said: The burden of proof in civil is on the defendant. In criminal it's on the prosecution. Digitally penetrated? Wtf. Just making ***** up now. Eh They didn't call him the "Short-Fingered Vulgarian" for nothing. And you need to pull out the law books. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In a civil case, the plaintiff must convince the jury by a “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e., that it is more likely than not) that the defendant is responsible for the harm the plaintiff has suffered. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases#:~:text=In a civil case%2C the,harm the plaintiff has suffered. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 5 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: The burden of proof in civil is on the defendant. In criminal it's on the prosecution. Digitally penetrated? Wtf. Just making ***** up now. Eh In a civil case, the jury finds by a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case, the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are two different standards of finding facts / guilt. Digital penetration means fingers penetrating. Not making stuff up. Just explaining facts and reality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: They didn't call him the "Short-Fingered Vulgarian" for nothing. And you need to pull out the law books. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. In a civil case, the plaintiff must convince the jury by a “preponderance of the evidence” (i.e., that it is more likely than not) that the defendant is responsible for the harm the plaintiff has suffered. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases/civil-cases#:~:text=In a civil case%2C the,harm the plaintiff has suffered. And why it's in civil. Why there was no evidence to support a criminal case involved. Most of the evidence in that case was her argument and testimony. Nothing physical. Edited January 31 by Tommy Callahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts