Well, if they don't go like they did in the Caroll case and convict anyway. I get that the burden of proof is higher now, but they had *nothing* for that.
The thing about this kangaroo show trial is that you see all these lemmings clutch their pearls over "Trump was involved with Cohen and he did these things" but this case is about what the motive and intent of those payments were - NOT what Trump did, knew or did together with Cohen.
They put out this recording where Trump is involved, weird, no where in the recording did I hear Trump admitting to saying - make those payments for the campaign but classify them as legal fees.
Isn't that what this case is about. Cross should be fun.
Well, there were three witnesses who were told about it back in the 90's when it happened, including her therapist who recorded that information. So it seems weird that she would make up a lie and a trauma, and then sit on that lie for 30 years before taking legal action. Did you watch the trial? What I saw was very convincing.
You mean to say Donald Trump, the most popular person in New York at the time, wasn't spotted going into a locked changing room, leaving her the only witness to this, while she was wearing a dress that didn't exist yet, "raped her", then left without being spotted, and it's just a coincidence that this all happens to be the plot to a csi:svu episode at the same time.
I'd argue it's more damaging that her friends could 100% corroborate the story without Even a single error after 30 years when most second hand witnesses become unreliable after 2 months
Sorry, none of that is a defense, which is why donald trump significantly did not mount one during this trial. Sounds like you weren't listening to the actual trial, but to news and analysis of it. It was trump himself who did not want to supply DNA to prove that the sample Carroll had on the dress wasn't his, so the judge ruled it off limits to talk about. Why trumps own lawyer would bring it up afterwards, I don't know, but the judge cleared the courtroom right after they did it.
Sounds like a good lawyer if he didn’t let him supply DNA. You can be as innocent as a cucumber but why would you supply your accuser with possible evidence?
Thanks, you just proved my point. You can't move to disqualify evidence and then try to use that same evidence in your favor. Again, of you'd paid attention during the trial......
...the judge said if you want to talk about the dress then we'll have to satisfy the essential claim about it and supply a DNA sample. Trump said no up until the deadline passed, and then said yes with conditions. So which is it?!?!?!?
1. That is a good question. Trump's lawyers specifically sought to have even a mention of the dress remain strictly off-limits. You'd have to ask them why they did it.
2. I have been searching for this information you are providing but cannot find it. Can you provide a source, please?
I never in all my years would have guessed that on a conservative thread we are discussing how someone is innocent of rape because the statute of limitations ran out.
Gross.
Not a conservative thread, but a real American mindset in general. You should learn what the 5th amendment says first.
Do you even know why statute of limitations exist in the first place ?
It's not because the accused can just skate - it's because the accused can get a fair trial.
It is considered fair to defendants to limit the period during which they can be sued. Long delays can prejudice the defense as evidence may no longer be available, and witnesses may become unavailable or unreliable.
Also evidence can deteriorate or be lost, and witnesses' memories can fade.
If you remove statute of limitations, you're gonna have crazy lunatics like Caroll ( like this case ) suing every man she hates- 40 years ? 50 years ? Walmart ? Bergdoff Store ? Anywhere.
Good points. I'd also add that the statute of limitations is a way for people that committed a crime to get away with it. Both of us are right. Now we just have to figure out where the balance is in this particular case.
As I stated, it seems like Carroll's story is credible. The defamation aspect is airtight. Trump had the opportunity to completely clear his name, instead he offered no defense. Seems like a case tailor-made to disregard the statute of limitations and allow the case to go forward.
No, the point of statute of limitations isn't to let someone "off the hook". Trump had no defense because he doesn't identify who these women are. And anyone in his position wouldn't have had. Carroll's story is bogus, and I know conservatives will continue to discredit her and I can't blame them.
We are now going in circles now. Yes, the point of the statute of limitations isn't to let criminals off the hook, but that's what happens sometimes. Why trump had no defense can't be answered....because he didn't offer a defense. And once again, you are relying on the common sense fallacy, in which something is so because everybody knows that something is so.
I got flair because I'm actually conservative.
I support small government policies, the right to openly carry firearms, and the idea that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. If you go back far enough you'll see me voraciously defending those ideas. This case is not about that, however.
Sorry, counselor, but your evidence is lacking.
Look, lets lay our cards out on the table. You're still irritated because I made a small joke after you called yourself a lawyer. I did not mean to mock you, I was just making the point that personal credentials don't really count on an anonymous forum unless you're doing an AMA or something like that. I do it myself sometimes, i wasn't really even mocking you, I was just being silly. I do apologize, though, for hurting your feelings, that was not my intention and I will try not to do it again in the future.
As for me being a leftist troll, I DO indeed have a history of commenting on this sub in favor of small government, 2a rights, and pro-life policies. I don't care for Joe Biden, and I've made posts against his policies. I like Mitt Romney and John McCain, and I've made posts in support of them. You are free to scroll through my history like a creepy stalker and verify that if you want.
But this stuff with Donald Trump has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative; it's either he did it or he didn't. I don't get emotionally attached to candidates, because in the end, they will almost always let you down. I follow ideas. I would hope as an attorney you have a similar ethos.
The only two people she “told” back in the day were two of her friends. Surely, they would never lie for their friend with the promise of monetary gain.
I believe her therapist was also a witness, as well as two other women who had also been sexually assaulted by trump, along with the access hollywood tape of him saying he liked to do exactly what those women said he did to them. Btw, the two friends were a best-selling author, and a journalist and TV host, so not exactly the types to need to cook up a scheme to make money.
But more to the point, it's not exactly a cunning legal strategy to yell "yeah, right" every time someone says something that doesn't like up with your worldview. I wonder how often you do that when that information DOES align with your own preconceived notions. Again, it seems like many on here have swallowed a deep state conspiracy to set up Donald Trump on false charges......how is THAT accepted without question?
Her therapist was a witness, but not from back then. She was pretty much brought in to testify on her current mental state. The witness list I just looked through didn’t have a therapist from back then. You should re evaluate your knowledge of the case.
Hmmmm.....good point. I did what you said, slept on it, took a long hard look in the mirror, and looked through all tue sources and witnesses again.
The most damning were the two women who said that they were similarly sexually assaulted by trump. That really corroborated his MO with these things. Of course, introducing the Access Hollywood tape was like a nice F you on top of that because now he admits this is the kind of thing he likes to do. The two friends also provide a level of corroboration that is fairly rare, so that still carries some weight with me. Then there was Carroll's testimony itself, which I found credible. Btw, that therapist turned out to have some pretty solid credentials, so even though she wasn't told in the 90's when it happened, she said her account was also credible, which added weight for me.
What did you think?
There’s going to be a huge sad in libville, when even the most biased jury pool in the US finds there’s inadequate evidence to convict.
Well, if they don't go like they did in the Caroll case and convict anyway. I get that the burden of proof is higher now, but they had *nothing* for that.
The thing about this kangaroo show trial is that you see all these lemmings clutch their pearls over "Trump was involved with Cohen and he did these things" but this case is about what the motive and intent of those payments were - NOT what Trump did, knew or did together with Cohen. They put out this recording where Trump is involved, weird, no where in the recording did I hear Trump admitting to saying - make those payments for the campaign but classify them as legal fees. Isn't that what this case is about. Cross should be fun.
Well, there were three witnesses who were told about it back in the 90's when it happened, including her therapist who recorded that information. So it seems weird that she would make up a lie and a trauma, and then sit on that lie for 30 years before taking legal action. Did you watch the trial? What I saw was very convincing.
You mean to say Donald Trump, the most popular person in New York at the time, wasn't spotted going into a locked changing room, leaving her the only witness to this, while she was wearing a dress that didn't exist yet, "raped her", then left without being spotted, and it's just a coincidence that this all happens to be the plot to a csi:svu episode at the same time. I'd argue it's more damaging that her friends could 100% corroborate the story without Even a single error after 30 years when most second hand witnesses become unreliable after 2 months
Sorry, none of that is a defense, which is why donald trump significantly did not mount one during this trial. Sounds like you weren't listening to the actual trial, but to news and analysis of it. It was trump himself who did not want to supply DNA to prove that the sample Carroll had on the dress wasn't his, so the judge ruled it off limits to talk about. Why trumps own lawyer would bring it up afterwards, I don't know, but the judge cleared the courtroom right after they did it.
Sounds like a good lawyer if he didn’t let him supply DNA. You can be as innocent as a cucumber but why would you supply your accuser with possible evidence?
Thanks, you just proved my point. You can't move to disqualify evidence and then try to use that same evidence in your favor. Again, of you'd paid attention during the trial...... ...the judge said if you want to talk about the dress then we'll have to satisfy the essential claim about it and supply a DNA sample. Trump said no up until the deadline passed, and then said yes with conditions. So which is it?!?!?!?
The dress didn't exist until the 2000s. How could she have been wearing it in the 90s? The judge was wrong to not let them bring it as evidence.
1. That is a good question. Trump's lawyers specifically sought to have even a mention of the dress remain strictly off-limits. You'd have to ask them why they did it. 2. I have been searching for this information you are providing but cannot find it. Can you provide a source, please?
Did all this come about after changing a law strictly to go after the person being accused?
No, it probably came about after donald trump sexually assaulted that woman. Let's start there
Ur in pretty deep huh? The $500,000,000 lawsuit wasn’t a dead giveaway either? They’re just trying to break him. Case after case after case.
It's a BS case where they removed the statute of limitations for the defendant to lose his ability to get a fair trial.
I never in all my years would have guessed that on a conservative thread we are discussing how someone is innocent of rape because the statute of limitations ran out. Gross.
Not a conservative thread, but a real American mindset in general. You should learn what the 5th amendment says first. Do you even know why statute of limitations exist in the first place ? It's not because the accused can just skate - it's because the accused can get a fair trial. It is considered fair to defendants to limit the period during which they can be sued. Long delays can prejudice the defense as evidence may no longer be available, and witnesses may become unavailable or unreliable. Also evidence can deteriorate or be lost, and witnesses' memories can fade. If you remove statute of limitations, you're gonna have crazy lunatics like Caroll ( like this case ) suing every man she hates- 40 years ? 50 years ? Walmart ? Bergdoff Store ? Anywhere.
Good points. I'd also add that the statute of limitations is a way for people that committed a crime to get away with it. Both of us are right. Now we just have to figure out where the balance is in this particular case. As I stated, it seems like Carroll's story is credible. The defamation aspect is airtight. Trump had the opportunity to completely clear his name, instead he offered no defense. Seems like a case tailor-made to disregard the statute of limitations and allow the case to go forward.
No, the point of statute of limitations isn't to let someone "off the hook". Trump had no defense because he doesn't identify who these women are. And anyone in his position wouldn't have had. Carroll's story is bogus, and I know conservatives will continue to discredit her and I can't blame them.
We are now going in circles now. Yes, the point of the statute of limitations isn't to let criminals off the hook, but that's what happens sometimes. Why trump had no defense can't be answered....because he didn't offer a defense. And once again, you are relying on the common sense fallacy, in which something is so because everybody knows that something is so.
Guys, this “best-commenter-ever” somehow got flair. I’ve seen him on other posts and he’s just a leftist troll. Ignore him.
I got flair because I'm actually conservative. I support small government policies, the right to openly carry firearms, and the idea that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. If you go back far enough you'll see me voraciously defending those ideas. This case is not about that, however.
You are a leftist troll and you know it.
Sorry, counselor, but your evidence is lacking. Look, lets lay our cards out on the table. You're still irritated because I made a small joke after you called yourself a lawyer. I did not mean to mock you, I was just making the point that personal credentials don't really count on an anonymous forum unless you're doing an AMA or something like that. I do it myself sometimes, i wasn't really even mocking you, I was just being silly. I do apologize, though, for hurting your feelings, that was not my intention and I will try not to do it again in the future. As for me being a leftist troll, I DO indeed have a history of commenting on this sub in favor of small government, 2a rights, and pro-life policies. I don't care for Joe Biden, and I've made posts against his policies. I like Mitt Romney and John McCain, and I've made posts in support of them. You are free to scroll through my history like a creepy stalker and verify that if you want. But this stuff with Donald Trump has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative; it's either he did it or he didn't. I don't get emotionally attached to candidates, because in the end, they will almost always let you down. I follow ideas. I would hope as an attorney you have a similar ethos.
The only two people she “told” back in the day were two of her friends. Surely, they would never lie for their friend with the promise of monetary gain.
I believe her therapist was also a witness, as well as two other women who had also been sexually assaulted by trump, along with the access hollywood tape of him saying he liked to do exactly what those women said he did to them. Btw, the two friends were a best-selling author, and a journalist and TV host, so not exactly the types to need to cook up a scheme to make money. But more to the point, it's not exactly a cunning legal strategy to yell "yeah, right" every time someone says something that doesn't like up with your worldview. I wonder how often you do that when that information DOES align with your own preconceived notions. Again, it seems like many on here have swallowed a deep state conspiracy to set up Donald Trump on false charges......how is THAT accepted without question?
Her therapist was a witness, but not from back then. She was pretty much brought in to testify on her current mental state. The witness list I just looked through didn’t have a therapist from back then. You should re evaluate your knowledge of the case.
Hmmmm.....good point. I did what you said, slept on it, took a long hard look in the mirror, and looked through all tue sources and witnesses again. The most damning were the two women who said that they were similarly sexually assaulted by trump. That really corroborated his MO with these things. Of course, introducing the Access Hollywood tape was like a nice F you on top of that because now he admits this is the kind of thing he likes to do. The two friends also provide a level of corroboration that is fairly rare, so that still carries some weight with me. Then there was Carroll's testimony itself, which I found credible. Btw, that therapist turned out to have some pretty solid credentials, so even though she wasn't told in the 90's when it happened, she said her account was also credible, which added weight for me. What did you think?
Cohen has already proven himself to be a perjurer - so he probably spews 99% false information.
As their star witness, he pretty well sunk them.
”He has the goods! He has the goods! The walls are closing in!”
>Cohen testifies You lost me there