Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

[Rita_Poon]

'Jury of your peers'. Manhattan liberals

Still 0 counts of guilt. And I'm supposed to be the stupid one!?

there's no 'supposed' about it.

 

[dylsexicbleu]

there's no 'supposed' about it.

Ad hominem surrender

 

[Rita_Poon]

Guilty.

gutted emir, tell it to the tate bros. those two are filthy dickheads as well.

 

[tsubaki]

My assumption would be the “preponderance of evidence” standard - that Trump‘s own words and the trestimony of other women who accuse him of assaulting them in additions to Caroll’s claim established a pattern of behavior of sexual assault that the jury believed. But that Caroll was the only one who accused him of rape and they presumably believe she did not clear that bar in terms of evidence she provided.

However I assume we will here details from jurors themselves as to why they made that distinction.

I really hope that isn't the case, as I imagine it would be very easy for him to win any appeal.

Carroll and her witnesses gave evidence that supported her allegation of rape - her evidence that it happened and lasted three minutes, and the evidence of her friends was that she told them about it as a rape at the time. All the other stuff (the Access Hollywood tape, the deposition) should have supported a finding of fact that he had raped her.

Instead they've basically found him guilty of something that - in the published reports at least - she either never alleged or alleged as acts preparatory to him raping her (that he forcibly kissed her and/or ripped her stockings). If its the latter, what possible reason in the evidence or the law is there to believe those parts of her testimony but not the end?

 

[LinekersLegs]

I really hope that isn't the case, as I imagine it would be very easy for him to win any appeal.

Carroll and her witnesses gave evidence that supported her allegation of rape - her evidence that it happened and lasted three minutes, and the evidence of her friends was that she told them about it as a rape at the time. All the other stuff (the Access Hollywood tape, the deposition) should have supported a finding of fact that he had raped her.

Instead they've basically found him guilty of something that - in the published reports at least - she either never alleged or alleged as acts preparatory to him raping her (that he forcibly kissed her and/or ripped her stockings). If its the latter, what possible reason in the evidence or the law is there to believe those parts of her testimony but not the end?

 

[tsubaki]

@tsubaki other possible reasons floated

Again though - if you believe what she said (and the jury certainly appear to have) then why make the finding that they couldn't prove he raped her? That is fundamentally what is at issue here, what she consistently alleged and what the evidence supported. As an alternate finding it doesnt really make much sense in this case. I can see cases where it might make sense, but not here.

For the other tweet about what constitutes rape, I think the main reply to that thread is relevant (its the same over IIRC here) - it doesnt really matter what he used:



I should point out that if they'd found he had raped her that I'd have zero concerns about this decision (beyond it being made in a civil court), as it would be consistent with what was alleged. I really don't see how this is, though.

 

[LinekersLegs]

Again though - if you believe what she said (and the jury certainly appear to have) then why make the finding that they couldn't prove he raped her? That is fundamentally what is at issue here, what she consistently alleged and what the evidence supported. As an alternate finding it doesnt really make much sense in this case. I can see cases where it might make sense, but not here.

For the other tweet about what constitutes rape, I think the main reply to that thread is relevant (its the same over IIRC here) - it doesnt really matter what he used:



I should point out that if they'd found he had raped her that I'd have zero concerns about this decision (beyond it being made in a civil court), as it would be consistent with what was alleged. I really don't see how this is, though.

DOJ definition would only apply to federal criminal cases wouldn’t it? Perhaps NY civil court has different definition? Here are the judge’s jury instructions.

 

[Prevenger17]

The guy who said he grabs women by the p***y without consent is found guilty of sexual assault? Can't believe it tbh

 

[Prevenger17]

Again though - if you believe what she said (and the jury certainly appear to have) then why make the finding that they couldn't prove he raped her? That is fundamentally what is at issue here, what she consistently alleged and what the evidence supported. As an alternate finding it doesnt really make much sense in this case. I can see cases where it might make sense, but not here.

For the other tweet about what constitutes rape, I think the main reply to that thread is relevant (its the same over IIRC here) - it doesnt really matter what he used:



I should point out that if they'd found he had raped her that I'd have zero concerns about this decision (beyond it being made in a civil court), as it would be consistent with what was alleged. I really don't see how this is, though.

Ffs Tsubaki, has Tubey piloted your account?

 

[Amw79]

This is the problem with cultish followings.

In order to protect the leader, first the victims are blamed, then the press, then prosecutors or DAs, by the end they’re claiming the entire Jury system is biased / corrupt, and that a Manhattan resident can’t get a fair trial, in Manhattan.

MAGA folk won’t be happy until every institution is dismantled, and the only ‘legitimate’ form of government will be one with total power in the hands of one person.

 

[tsubaki]

DOJ definition would only apply to federal criminal cases wouldn’t it? Perhaps NY civil court has different definition? Here are the judge’s jury instructions.

The interesting one would be what he directed on Q2, which would show the difference between rape and sexual assault (edit: as the judge understood it).

 

[Noisy noise annoys]

This is the problem with cultish followings.

In order to protect the leader, first the victims are blamed, then the press, then prosecutors or DAs, by the end they’re claiming the entire Jury system is biased / corrupt, and that a Manhattan resident can’t get a fair trial, in Manhattan.

MAGA folk won’t be happy until every institution is dismantled, and the only ‘legitimate’ form of government will be one with total power in the hands of one person.

Bingo
@dylsexicbleu

 

[tsubaki]

Ffs Tsubaki, has Tubey piloted your account?

No, I just really don't see how - from the published accounts of the evidence presented - they've not found him guilty of rape but have found him guilty of something else. LL has suggested it might be because of something in Carroll's testimony and specific definitions of rape in NY law, which would make some sense but even then I think its a bit of a stretch.

 

[Moomin]

The guy who said he grabs women by the p***y without consent is found guilty of sexual assault? Can't believe it tbh

It's a god damn witch hunt.

 

[trueblue84]

This is the problem with cultish followings.

In order to protect the leader, first the victims are blamed, then the press, then prosecutors or DAs, by the end they’re claiming the entire Jury system is biased / corrupt, and that a Manhattan resident can’t get a fair trial, in Manhattan.

MAGA folk won’t be happy until every institution is dismantled, and the only ‘legitimate’ form of government will be one with total power in the hands of one person.

You spelt it wrong.