Sure there's a difference. It wasn't possible to try Trump in a criminal court because the statute of limitations had expired so the whole question of whether the prosecution could have met the higher burden of proof for a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt) is MOOT.
Here's what you should try, Kurt, before we go any further: go talk to a woman you know who's been raped and tell her that if her attacker hasn't been criminally convicted, he really didn't rape her. Or if he penetrated her with just his finger, he didn't really rape her. Be prepared to spend some time in the ER.
Trump faced a civil case based on defamation of Carroll's character. (I have forgotten why she didn't sue him for civil damages for rape). That was the only course of redress available to her. It's not her fault that civil cases require a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.
BOTTOM LINE: Carroll claimed Trump raped her. Trump denied it and repeatedly defamed her. Carroll told her side of the story to a jury AND THEY BELIEVED HER. THEY BELIEVED TRUMP RAPED CARROLL. And they punished Trump for trashing Carroll's reputationâthat punishment cost Trump $88.3 MILLION.
Again, as George Conway put it, Trump's an adjudicated rapist. The lack of criminal conviction doesn't erase the FACT a jury of his peers found him liable for defamation stemming from his rape of Carroll.
You are acting like kurt cares if trump raped someone or not. I don't see any indication he cares that trump was convicted of 35 misdemeanours. The elevation to felonies issue is just a convenient misdirection.
At some point, Kurt, you're going to have to accept the possibilities that Trump has committed criminal acts, made poor decisions, and lost the 2020 election fair and square. In practical terms, it's impossible for Dark Forces to rig an American national election involving 150+ million voters and then hide their skullduggery from multiple investigations and 60+ court cases and numerous recounts.
You might argue that the cases against Trump were/are rigged. Remember, however, that they're taking place in public so if there is judicial bias or skullduggery, Trump's lawyers and supporters can report it in detail. So when I hear "Oh the hush money case was rigged" I think of those 60+ cases Trump brought concerning the 2020 election AND LOST.
IT'S ONE THING TO CRY FOUL AND COMPLAIN THAT THINGS ARE FIXED AGAINST YOU. BUT YOU GOTTA PROVE IT OR STFU.
And for a guy who brags about being so rich and powerful, Trump hasn't proven shit. Yet you believe him every time he says things are fixed.
So there is no difference between being found guilty in a criminal court and a civil court.
Got it.
Sure there's a difference. It wasn't possible to try Trump in a criminal court because the statute of limitations had expired so the whole question of whether the prosecution could have met the higher burden of proof for a criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt) is MOOT.
Here's what you should try, Kurt, before we go any further: go talk to a woman you know who's been raped and tell her that if her attacker hasn't been criminally convicted, he really didn't rape her. Or if he penetrated her with just his finger, he didn't really rape her. Be prepared to spend some time in the ER.
Trump faced a civil case based on defamation of Carroll's character. (I have forgotten why she didn't sue him for civil damages for rape). That was the only course of redress available to her. It's not her fault that civil cases require a lower burden of proof than criminal cases.
BOTTOM LINE: Carroll claimed Trump raped her. Trump denied it and repeatedly defamed her. Carroll told her side of the story to a jury AND THEY BELIEVED HER. THEY BELIEVED TRUMP RAPED CARROLL. And they punished Trump for trashing Carroll's reputation—that punishment cost Trump $88.3 MILLION.
Again, as George Conway put it, Trump's an adjudicated rapist. The lack of criminal conviction doesn't erase the FACT a jury of his peers found him liable for defamation stemming from his rape of Carroll.
If we are continuing to split hairs - He may or may not have technically raped Carroll, but she couldn't differentiate between his finger and his penis, so it wasn't conclusive.
Judge Lewis Kaplan, who presided over both defamation trials, stated that Trump did rape Carroll despite the semantic dodging pro-Trumpers resort to. As George Conway likes to put it, Trump is "an adjudicated rapist."
District Judge Lewis Kaplan has said it multiple times: Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Kaplan wrote it in May 2023, when he presided over one of the trials against Trump. And he reminded jurors of the rape this week, during the latest proceedings in the multi-layered, winding rape and defamation cases brought against Trump by Carroll.
Last spring, author and journalist Carroll sued Trump, testifying that he had raped her decades ago and had defamed her since by denying the accusations. Carroll won that suit. The jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and said he must pay $5 millionâbut they came short of saying he had raped her due to the legal scope of New York Stateâs penal code.
In New York, someone can only be convicted of rape if they can prove vaginal penetration by a penis. In Carrollâs testimony, which mirrored what she had described privately for decades and publicly for the first time in 2019, she said Trump used both his fingers and his penis in the assault. But during the trial, the jury had only concluded that Trump had âdeliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carrollâs vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm,â Kaplanâs decision from last year reads.
That the jurors did not find that Carroll had proven rape, Kaplan explained, âdoes not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ârapedâ her as many people commonly understand the word ârape.ââ âIndeed,â he continued, âas the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.â
Federally, rape is defined as âpenetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.â This broader explanation, while still dependent on penetration, would include assaults using fingers.
Even though Carrollâs case has taken place in the national spotlight, it exists within the confines of civil law. The reason Donald Trump was not found to have raped E. Jean Carroll has less to do with the events detailed in her story, and more to do with the fine print of the stateâs legal code. The minutiae of New Yorkâs law allows the former president, his supporters, and sexual violence cynics alike to tout the case as proof that Trump is not a rapist (notwithstanding the tens of other accusations of sexual misconduct against him). Following Carrollâs initial testimony, Republican senators did just that. âThe whole case is a joke,â Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said. âIt makes me want to vote for him twice,â Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) told HuffPost.
Had this case happened outside of New York, however, the verdict could have been different.
Across the country, statesâ criminal and civil legal systems vary quite a bit in how they define rape and other charges of sexual violence. Some, like Idaho, explicitly require penile penetration to be present for a rape charge, while others like Maine and Maryland have a more expansive definition of sexual violence that encompasses non-penetrative acts. Several states donât have any ârapeâ charge at all, but opt for language like âcriminal sexual assaultâ or âsexual battery.â Similarly, the phrase âsexual intercourseâ takes on different meanings depending on the legal text.
So, in detail, please explain how Trump was not given due process.
As things stand now, he's a convicted felon.
And the only reason he wasn't convicted in a criminal case of rape was that the statute of limitations ran out. A jury of his peers heard testimony on the matter and agreed that Trump raped Carroll. Granted (IIRC) the act wasn't termed rape because Carroll couldn't be sure whether Trump penetrated her with his penis and NY strictly defines rape as penetration by penis.
So if you want to defend Trump because technically he didn't rape Carroll, go ahead.
But another jury of his peers found him criminally guilty on 34 counts. Good luck beating that on appeal.
Final thought: for a guy who claims he's unstoppable and a super-genius, Trump sure does get himself into a lot of trouble. Like, ALL THE TIME.
If we are continuing to split hairs - He may or may not have technically raped Carroll, but she couldn't differentiate between his finger and his penis, so it wasn't conclusive.
Chew on this, Trump fans: tweeted by Eric Swalwell:
Rep. Eric Swalwell@RepSwalwell·22h If you werenât pissed off when Michael Cohen was convicted for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels you CANNOT be pissed off for Donald Trump being convicted for ordering him to do it. Period. Sit down.
No we do not agree that he was given due process. See my response to SFW below.
I will add that in a banana republic all that you would get is the first trial ...
So, in detail, please explain how Trump was not given due process.
As things stand now, he's a convicted felon.
And the only reason he wasn't convicted in a criminal case of rape was that the statute of limitations ran out. A jury of his peers heard testimony on the matter and agreed that Trump raped Carroll. Granted (IIRC) the act wasn't termed rape because Carroll couldn't be sure whether Trump penetrated her with his penis and NY strictly defines rape as penetration by penis.
So if you want to defend Trump because technically he didn't rape Carroll, go ahead.
But another jury of his peers found him criminally guilty on 34 counts. Good luck beating that on appeal.
Final thought: for a guy who claims he's unstoppable and a super-genius, Trump sure does get himself into a lot of trouble. Like, ALL THE TIME.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
May 31, 2024 - 5:21pm
maryte wrote:
TRUMP: If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.
Yes. If you commit 34 felonies by filing false business records to cover up election interference, you too can be convicted by a jury of your peers via the due process of our criminal justice system.
Exactly.
Trump wants it to be about something â anything â over and beyond this trial on these charges. He wants it to be about the allegation that the judicial system has been weaponized against him and other Trump/MAGA supporters by Biden and the Democrats (remember, those January 6 defendants who have been convicted and jailed are âhostages.â). He wants it to be about saving this country from Biden and the Radical Left (You need to fight if you want to have a country.). He wants it to be about an election is fair if he wins and a trial is fair if he is not found guilty. By contrast, if he loses the election or is found guilty at trial that means the election and trial were ârigged.â The judge is âhighly conflictedâ and âcorrupt.â The jurors are biased because Manhattan residents are overwhelmingly Democrats who voted for Biden and against Trump.
In a world where people like you that equate accusations with of a conviction resulting from a trial, yes splitting hairs is a necessity.
One of the reasons we have courts is to slow down people like you who do not believe in due process and would sooner lynch someone like Trump than give him trial.
Wow, now youâre really spinning out into the universe, Well at least we agree that now he was given due process.
Typical. You missed the splitting hairs point. For some reason you believe sexual harassment can be forgiven if the result was only a civil conviction. My point was that OJ was also able to avoid a criminal conviction but not a civil judgement. Did that make OJ any less innocent?
One of the reasons we have courts is to slow down people like you who do not believe in due process and would sooner lynch someone like Trump than give him trial.
ergo, since this trial was the result of due process, I am fully satisfied that justice has been done.
I mean, I guess that's what you're saying? Never really sure.
Trials have rules that are for the purpose of assuring due process. They also allow for appeals where due process and other issues with a trial such as a biased judge for example may be reviewed and corrected by a higher court if necessary. At least that is my understanding.
A first trial is just a first trial. If both parties are satisfied it ends at the first trial. If one or the other party involved does not like the outcome, they can appeal. and hope for a reversal or correction.
So, I guess what you are saying is that there is no need to appeal a conviction. Or appeals should not be allowed ?
One of the reasons we have courts is to slow down people like you who do not believe in due process and would sooner lynch someone like Trump than give him trial.
ergo, since this trial was the result of due process, I am fully satisfied that justice has been done.
I mean, I guess that's what you're saying? Never really sure.
I love how you mindlessly support Trump no matter what he has done or will do. Life must be very simple for you.
"Trump has been found financially liable for sexual abuse and defamation and criminally convicted of 34 felonies."
Does stating it this way mean he didn't engage in sexual misconduct? FYI, I still think OJ killed Nicole.
Keep on splittin' those hairs.
In a world where people like you that equate accusations with of a conviction resulting from a trial, yes splitting hairs is a necessity.
One of the reasons we have courts is to slow down people like you who do not believe in due process and would sooner lynch someone like Trump than give him trial.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
May 31, 2024 - 1:14pm
TRUMP: If they can do this to me, they can do this to anyone.
Yes. If you commit 34 felonies by filing false business records to cover up election interference, you too can be convicted by a jury of your peers via the due process of our criminal justice system.
