Carroll v. Trump ($88 million judgment for Carroll)

#301
#301
I'll get accused of defending Trump again, but whatever.

How do you find a man guilty, even in a civil trial, when the woman doesn't even remember the year she claims he assaulted her? It's impossible for the defendant to offer up an alibi in such an ambiguous situation. It opens up the floodgates for women to file civil lawsuits against men and simply claim they can't remember when it happened. Women in NY might as well just start targeting rich old men and claiming they were sexually assaulted by them, they just can't remember when.

That's my problem with the whole thing. I would not be surprised in the least to learn Trump has actually assaulted women in his past. But I'm unconvinced he assaulted this woman because she can't even remember the year it supposedly happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loggervol, Orangeslice13 and BreatheUT
#302
#302
clarksvol00 said:
I'm no legal scholar, but I think I witness testifying about what she claims happened to her is the exact opposite of hearsay. @RockyTop85?
Click to expand...
Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. There are a lot of exceptions to that general rule.

“I was raped by Donald Trump in 1994 in a New York department store,” or any other testimony about things a witness observed or experienced is just witness testimony. It is not an out-of-court statement.

Hearsay: “in 1994, Carrol told me that Trump had just raped her,” if offered to prove that Trump raped Carrol.
Not Hearsay: “in 1994, Carrol told me that Trump had just raped her,” if offered to disprove that the allegation was recently fabricated.
Also generally not hearsay: “Trump told me he raped Carrol,” because it is subject to the statement against interest exception. (As far as a I know, this nobody testified to this, just using it as an example.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00
#303
#303
clarksvol00 said:
If she winds up testifying in front of a jury, that jury will make a determination as to her credibility and weigh it against the other proof; just like the Trump jury did with this person.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Good for Joe that he has blue states to protect him. Instead of Tara’s lawyers actively campaigning for a one time, one year change to NYS law to allow the Carroll case to go through, all Joe’s buddies will claim up and look the other way. Because Justice isn’t the goal.
 
#304
#304
clarksvol00 said:
If she winds up testifying in front of a jury, that jury will make a determination as to her credibility and weigh it against the other proof; just like the Trump jury did with this person.
Click to expand...

Where the suit was filed and tried has a lot to do with it. It would be like a woman filing suit against Biden in Texas or some other Republican stronghold. It's a shame that party politics have so corrupted our judicial system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#305
#305
newyorkvol said:
Exactly. Good for Joe that he has blue states to protect him. Instead of Tara’s lawyers actively campaigning for a one time, one year change to NYS law to allow the Carroll case to go through, all Joe’s buddies will claim up and look the other way. Because Justice isn’t the goal.
Click to expand...
Ok. Not really what @NEO and I were discussing, but continue with your whatabout. I'm sure there's a Tara Reade thread somewhere; or, if not, you can start one.
 
#306
#306
Weezer said:
Where the suit was filed and tried has a lot to do with it. It would be like a woman filing suit against Biden in Texas or some other Republican stronghold. It's a shame that party politics have so corrupted our judicial system.
Click to expand...
Too bad the jury, including a juror Trump's lawyers fought to keep, entered a unanimous verdict against him on two of the claims.
 
#307
#307
clarksvol00 said:
Too bad the jury, including a juror Trump's lawyers fought to keep, entered a unanimous verdict against him on two of the claims.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting where it was tried doesn't matter? I don't think you're that naive.
 
#308
#308
clarksvol00 said:
Ok. Not really what @NEO and I were discussing, but continue with your whatabout. I'm sure there's a Tara Reade thread somewhere; or, if not, you can start one.
Click to expand...
The thing about the “what about” argument, is that it’s most effective when you are happy with the results and don’t want to critically evaluate the entire situation. You are happy to ignore the way Carroll was able to give her non-heresay, court documented testimony because it fits your view. You don’t care that other defendants or plaintiffs are denied this opportunity strictly because of political maneuvering. It’s not Justice. It’s politics.
 
#310
#310
newyorkvol said:
The thing about the “what about” argument, is that it’s most effective when you are happy with the results and don’t want to critically evaluate the entire situation. You are happy to ignore the way Carroll was able to give her non-heresay, court documented testimony because it fits your view. You don’t care that other defendants or plaintiffs are denied this opportunity strictly because of political maneuvering. It’s not Justice. It’s politics.
Click to expand...
Continue to defend your whatabout. I'm not going to say "...but Tara Reade" is relevant to the discussion you inserted yourself into.
 
#311
#311
clarksvol00 said:
Are you suggesting Trump should get to choose where he is tried? I don't think you're that naive.
Click to expand...
That wasn't what I said. Go back and reread my original statement. Then imagine Biden being sued and tried in a Republican stronghold. I doubt he would win in such a situation. Politics have corrupted our judicial system. Even to the point I believe it influences jury pools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newyorkvol
#312
#312
Weezer said:
That wasn't what I said. Go back and reread my original statement. Then imagine Biden being sued and tried in a Republican stronghold. I doubt he would win in such a situation. Politics have corrupted our judicial system. Even to the point I believe it influences jury pools.
Click to expand...
Biden can be tried in a republican stronghold. Nobody has sued him in one. Any county is going to lean one way or another.
 
#314
#314
clarksvol00 said:
Continue to defend your whatabout. I'm not going to say "...but Tara Reade" is relevant to the discussion you inserted yourself into.
Click to expand...
I saw the discussion. Carrolls testimony is obviously not hearsay. The issue is she got the opportunity to testify at all. A law was literally created, with the help of her lawyer, in a state very cozy with Democrat politics, to allow her to file civil suit against Trump. If you can’t fathom that same opportunity for Justice being afforded another woman, then your defense is political. Just trying to shine the light on hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#315
#315
newyorkvol said:
I saw the discussion. Carrolls testimony is obviously not hearsay. The issue is she got the opportunity to testify at all. A law was literally created, with the help of her lawyer, in a state very cozy with Democrat politics, to allow her to file civil suit against Trump. If you can’t fathom that same opportunity for Justice being afforded another woman, then your defense is political. Just trying to shine the light on hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
My defense is there was a trial under a law that applies to anyone and Trump lost. I don't have any idea who supported the enactment of the law.

Edit: that law also applies to liberal predators like Harvey Weinstein.
 
#319
#319
clarksvol00 said:
I didn't prove your point. I don't have any basis to believe this law was passed solely to get Trump. See my edit, by the way.
Click to expand...
So your whatabout Harvey was actually criminally convicted of rape, meaning he was charged within the statute of limitations. No new laws created and Justice was clearly served. NYS passed a one time one year law, campaigned for by Carrolls lawyer, to allow civil suits for accusations outside of the statute of limitations. Carroll files her suit at midnight the law went into effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: loggervol
#320
#320
clarksvol00 said:
Are you suggesting Trump should get to choose where he is tried? I don't think you're that naive.
Click to expand...

If it is known that he can’t get a fair trial, he shouldn’t have do anything. The court should make the decision. That’s not going to happen though.
 
#322
#322
newyorkvol said:
So your whatabout Harvey was actually criminally convicted of rape, meaning he was charged within the statute of limitations. No new laws created and Justice was clearly served. NYS passed a one time one year law, campaigned for by Carrolls lawyer, to allow civil suits for accusations outside of the statute of limitations. Carroll files her suit at midnight the law went into effect.
Click to expand...
Give something other than your opinion that the law was created for and applies solely to Trump.
 
#323
#323
loggervol said:
If it is known that he can’t get a fair trial, he shouldn’t have do anything. The court should make the decision. That’s not going to happen though.
Click to expand...
So he should only be tried in Trump voting County? What actual evidence do have that the jury was biased?
 
#324
#324
New question nobody will answer: for each juror, please provide the basis that they were biased against Trump because he is Trump?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top