The Frankish Reich Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said: 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. Maybe that's because he's short-fingered. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: Maybe that's because he's short-fingered. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/ Great example of why the wa-po is called a dnc mouthpiece. It is kinda funny reading them try to make a false argument. But they know the reader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Great example of why the wa-po is called a dnc mouthpiece. It is kinda funny reading them try to make a false argument. But they know the reader IT IS THE JUDGE'S ORDER. Not the WaPo's summary. The judge RULED that what the jury found Trump did constitutes RAPE under the current-day definition. It didn't constitute RAPE under the common law or under old NY law, since that require actual penis/***** contact. In short (haha): the jury found that Trump penetrated her with his fingers. Deal with it. EDIT: so weird that the automated censor lets you write penis but not its female counterpart ... 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: IT IS THE JUDGE'S ORDER. Not the WaPo's summary. The judge RULED that what the jury found Trump did constitutes RAPE under the current-day definition. It didn't constitute RAPE under the common law or under old NY law, since that require actual penis/***** contact. In short (haha): the jury found that Trump penetrated her with his fingers. Deal with it. Based on stories in a civil case . Kinda went full circle. In short they found him liable for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Just now, Tommy Callahan said: Based on stories in a civil case . Kinda went full circle. In short they found him liable for it. Yeah. That's what it means to say "a jury found that he did it." And the "it" here is "rape" under the modern definition. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 6 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Based on stories in a civil case . Kinda went full circle. In short they found him liable for it. Why are you so focused on the fact that it's a civil trial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Why are you all trying to just act like it's criminal trial and exaggerating liable for guilt and stories for hard evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Why are you so focused on the fact that it's a civil trial? I can't answer for him, other than to say that there's a general lack of understanding here. For myself, i'll say: Yes, it is relevant that it was a civil verdict and not a criminal conviction. The standard of proof is considerably lower (here, the jury could have found that it is 51% likely that Trump did it). But it is also relevant that they returned a truly enormous award, which suggests that they were quite convinced that he needed to be punished for his outrageous behavior. 3 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Why are you all trying to just act like it's criminal trial and exaggerating liable for guilt and stories for hard evidence. So, sure, argue whatever you want about what it all means. But the fact is that the statement, "Trump was found by a jury to have digitally penetrated Carroll" is absolutely true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: But the fact is that the statement, "Trump was found LIABLE by a jury to have digitally penetrated Carroll" is absolutely true. See. It wasn't that hard to stick to facts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 We of course have different standards of legal proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence being what most people are familiar with. Then we have the DC, NYC etc. standard: Are the allegations against the great orange menace? Guilty. Evidence schmevidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 23 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: See. It wasn't that hard to stick to facts. Which is exactly the same thing. Try this one: "OJ Simpson was found by a jury to be responsible for the deaths of his ex-wife and Ronald Goldman" Same thing. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tommy Callahan said: See. It wasn't that hard to stick to facts. What @The Frankish Reich posted is absolutely true: "Trump was found by a jury to have digitally penetrated Carroll" They had to reach that conclusion to find him liable. Edited January 31 by ChiGoose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) There were no "facts" in EJC's case. In fact she was about as reliable as Blasey-Ford and Araiza's accuser. Those are the facts. But get an "infallible" jury and anything is possible. Edited January 31 by Doc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 1 Author Share Posted February 1 All he does is lie 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 5 hours ago, Doc said: There were no "facts" in EJC's case. In fact she was about as reliable as Blasey-Ford and Araiza's accuser. Those are the facts. But get an "infallible" jury and anything is possible. The fact is Donald Trump‘s wallet just got lighter And that is indisputable 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Are we sure this lawyer being "questioned" isn't The King / Finding Qanon? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 14 hours ago, John from Riverside said: The fact is Donald Trump‘s wallet just got lighter And that is indisputable Yeah, based on feelings and no facts. Again a kangaroo court in a banana republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 3 minutes ago, Doc said: Yeah, based on feelings and no facts. Again a kangaroo court in a banana republic. Show me the man and I'll show you the crime! The attorney in the above tweet admitted she had no problem investigating Trump in SEARCH OF crimes. That is quite literally what is done in banana republics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said: Show me the man and I'll show you the crime! The attorney in the above tweet admitted she had no problem investigating Trump in SEARCH OF crimes. That is quite literally what is done in banana republics. Wel the good thing is now I won't have to hear about needing proof of Dems' alleged crimes anymore... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillStime Posted February 3 Author Share Posted February 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts