23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

 

Without evidence? Apparently a jury of his peers who have seen all the evidence have a different view.

If you are able to separate your hatred for Trump just for a second, you'd be able to see the lunacy of a woman crying rape 30 yrs later.

12 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If you are able to separate your hatred for Trump just for a second, you'd be able to see the lunacy of a woman crying rape 30 yrs later.

And if you'd stop your messianic support for Trump, you'd see the lunacy of not understanding it was a jury that believed her.   Hmmmm .....

 

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

America is just crazy.

A 80 year old woman claims a guy raped her when she was 50. No exact date when it supposedly happened, no evidence at all.

And then, 30 years after the alleged incident, she sues the guy and gets 5 million USD.

That is nuts!

 

And at the same time, the same guy is telling rioters to storm the capitol, they do that, people die, and there are no legal consequences - at least until now.

Do we have to wait another 30 years before someone will sue him for that and demand compensation?

 

I would love to see Trump in jail and lose all his money. But this case is just laughable.

Because of course 80 year old women don’t deserve the rights get to defend themselves against definition in the non crazy America you would prefer.

12 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If you are able to separate your hatred for Trump just for a second, you'd be able to see the lunacy of a woman crying rape 30 yrs later.

You do understand trump destroys lives when people cross him you do understand that mrs carrol is one of many who have accused him you did see the access Hollywood tape you did see his deposition no sir accept that a jury felt he did it not because of any disgust for him personally but because they feel he did it accept it it’s done he’s a predator it is what he is

21 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If you are able to separate your hatred for Trump just for a second, you'd be able to see the lunacy of a woman crying rape 30 yrs later.

So all of the #Metoo cases as well as others should just be dismissed and the perpetrators let go.  You realize that this is not a conspiracy and is about justice being served years later after woman have now been able to speak out on sexual abuse, after being afraid to for decades.

23 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

If you are able to separate your hatred for Trump just for a second, you'd be able to see the lunacy of a woman crying rape 30 yrs later.

Is it the hatred of Trump that’s blind to Justice here or a hatred of women?

49 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

You are a rapist. That much is clear.

To the jury, apparently, that wasn't clear.

I’ll repeat what I’ve said before.

 

Trump supporters will not accept accusations against him, they won’t accept court trials against him, they won’t accept jury verdicts against him, they won’t accept court sentences against him.

 

I’ll also repeat what Trump himself said.

 

”I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.’’.

 

We are witnessing a cult responding as it’s leader predicted.

3 hours ago, nglodnig said:

Hopefully the first of many convictions against him?

 

No comment from Melania - that must be a helluva gagging order he has on her.

 

Apparently the pre-nup was recently revised.

13 minutes ago, ThailandRyan said:

So all of the #Metoo cases as well as others should just be dismissed and the perpetrators let go.  You realize that this is not a conspiracy and is about justice being served years later after woman have now been able to speak out on sexual abuse, after being afraid to for decades.

I never said it was a conspiricy. I don't care who is accused 30 yrs later of rape, it shouldn't make it to court. I don't know anything about the metoo cases you speak of.

7 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

I never said it was a conspiricy. I don't care who is accused 30 yrs later of rape, it shouldn't make it to court. I don't know anything about the metoo cases you speak of.

Are you aware of this enacted back in February 2023?

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/new-york-adult-survivors-act.aspx

 

New York Eliminates Time Limitations for Sexual Assault Claims

 

A new law was instituted, she took advantage of it, case closed. I think I wrote earlier that he would not be found liable for rape but would be found liable for defamation.  TBH I didnt know there were lesser accusations (battery etc) included as well.    I would say he should pay the lady (he has experience doing that) and get on with life. 

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

A new law was instituted, she took advantage of it, case closed. I think I wrote earlier that he would not be found liable for rape but would be found liable for defamation.  TBH I didnt know there were lesser accusations (battery etc) included as well.    I would say he should pay the lady (he has experience doing that) and get on with life. 

Why would your reasoning behind doubting the rape charge, not apply to the sexual abuse charge as well?

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

A new law was instituted, she took advantage of it, case closed. I think I wrote earlier that he would not be found liable for rape but would be found liable for defamation.  TBH I didnt know there were lesser accusations (battery etc) included as well.    I would say he should pay the lady (he has experience doing that) and get on with life. 

I agree. Those defending his actions need to understand we in media are not  qualified to judge but the jury is and only they decide. Evidence counts.

Just saw this from his admiration on new evidence:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/alyssa-farah-says-she-reported-countless-cases-of-trumps-impropriety-the-way-he-engaged-with-women-was-dangerous/

Alyssa Farah Says She Reported ‘Countless Cases’ of Trump’s ‘Impropriety’: ‘The Way He Engaged With Women Was Dangerous’

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Why would your reasoning behind doubting the rape charge, not apply to the sexual abuse charge as well?

Well, it wasnt a criminal case, it was civil, so the standard of proof is lower. IMHO the jury reacted based on the idea that "something" happened....  like I said, I did not know the charge could be downgraded until a standard was reached.

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Well, it wasnt a criminal case, it was civil, so the standard of proof is lower. IMHO the jury reacted based on the idea that "something" happened....  like I said, I did not know the charge could be downgraded until a standard was reached.

"something happened" based on the fact that she was actually in forced contact with Trump.

More winning.

 

And I'm not sick of it.

 

 

On the plus side, he hasn't stood on  Fifth Avenue and shot someone, yet, that we know about.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

IMHO the jury reacted based on the idea that "something" happened

Yeah, well that and the two women who testified that Trump did the exact same thing to them.

 

 

Still trying to figure out what his "type" is, you know that he seems to become uncontollably handsy with.

 

IMO, Trump and Melania should have appeared in court every day, and both should have testified, one in defense, the other as a character witness.

 

"Donald vould never do such a thing, until after the prenup/NDA is signed."

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Are you aware of this enacted back in February 2023?

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/new-york-adult-survivors-act.aspx

 

New York Eliminates Time Limitations for Sexual Assault Claims

 

Guess all the rich old guys are on alert now. Every scorned woman will now creep forward. More to follow, wonder who's next.

22 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

A new law was instituted, she took advantage of it, case closed. I think I wrote earlier that he would not be found liable for rape but would be found liable for defamation.  TBH I didnt know there were lesser accusations (battery etc) included as well.    I would say he should pay the lady (he has experience doing that) and get on with life. 

Well he certainly needs to get on with building his defense for the next time he’s in court, and the time after that, and the time after that…..

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

He is guilty because a jury of his peers, who have seen the evidence, said so.

Why do you keep on claiming he shouldn't have been convicted without having seen the evidence?

He wasn't convicted. That would involve a criminal case and this was a civil action.

He was found guilty of sexual abuse.

2 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

On the plus side, he hasn't stood on  Fifth Avenue and shot someone, yet, that we know about.

Ah, but did shoot in someone (maybe) on Fifth Avenue.

 

Just now, bendejo said:

Ah, but did shoot in someone (maybe) on Fifth Avenue.

 

Can you expand on this "thought"?

 

 

1 minute ago, EVENKEEL said:

Guess all the rich old guys are on alert now. Every scorned woman will now creep forward. More to follow, wonder who's next.

I think it’s the sexual abusers who need to be on alert.

 

I myself feel chilled on the matter, you’ll see that from my own responses in this thread.

 

Others perhaps not so.

3 minutes ago, mrfill said:

He wasn't convicted. That would involve a criminal case and this was a civil action.

He was found guilty of sexual abuse.

Thanks for not reacting to the content but only to semantics.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Thanks for not reacting to the content but only to semantics.

Its more than that. If he had been convicted, he would have been disqualified from standing for President.

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

"But when it comes to factual determinations, the court of appeals tends to be leery of overturning those. Jury decisions are really sort of iron plated because you have to show that they were clearly erroneous. They're not going to be able to show that here with all this testimony."

Oh dear, there you go, the last straws the Trump apologists were clutching now in tatters....lol

15 minutes ago, mrfill said:

Its more than that. If he had been convicted, he would have been disqualified from standing for President.

No.

 

"There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents someone who has been charged or convicted from serving."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-trump-still-run-for-president-2024/

3 hours ago, malibukid said:

why was this only a civil case? DA should have filed criminal charges.

Lack of evidence, just an accusation 

Just now, proton said:

Lack of evidence, just an accusation 

It is strange that they could find that he did not rape her, but he DID commit battery....so a kind of semi rape?  Just felt her up in the change room? Wonder how they could make that determination, given the paucity of actual evidence.   I have a feeling that this was more of a general expression of disgust at his behavior towards women than a specific finding in this particular case. 

7 minutes ago, proton said:

3 hours ago, malibukid said:

why was this only a civil case? DA should have filed criminal charges.

Lack of evidence, just an accusation 

The case was filed under a special temporary NY State law that allows for a suspension of statute of limitations for civil only sexual offenses.

 

It was filed in Federal court because the parties have different states of residence i.e. Florida and NY State.