12 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

In my past life sometimes we called testify as testi-lie.   Some will know what this means,

If you have evidence of perjury, Trump’s attorney will be delighted to hear from you.

5 hours ago, mrfill said:

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

But most of the cases, both civil and criminal, have yet to be heard.

7 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But most of the cases, both civil and criminal, have yet to be heard.

Conviction or charge civil or criminal is not disqualification to run for or serve as US President

 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1294355-jury-finds-donald-trump-sexually-abused-e-jean-carroll-in-civil-case/?do=findComment&comment=18071914

4 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

Re-read your statement and then remember this was a defamation case also where he hade very disparaging remarks and then failed to stand up in court to defend himself.  Does a innocent man just blow of court? Why does he feel he is above the law, as well as you believe he is above the law. 

 

Can you remember where you were 30 years ago and what occurred on this date: Give you a hint It was a very famous Heavyweight boxing match.

30 years ago today I was in the UK after finishing a job in Brunei and before starting my first trip to Thailand on 20th May 1993.

 

I still have the log of my offshore jobs that I kept for the UK taxman.

16 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I wasn't in Court. I support all other criminal investigations into Trump. I just think this case may be reversed on appeal. And I think Tacopina has given hint as to how.

Trump has had a dismal record on appeals.  Whether it's about executive privilege, election fraud, his company, etc., the guy almost always loses.  Appellate courts don't often overturn cases to begin with, except for good reasons.  Trump has never had a good reason, other than the fact that he lost.  

2 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Trump has had a dismal record on appeals.  Whether it's about executive privilege, election fraud, his company, etc., the guy almost always loses.  Appellate courts don't often overturn cases to begin with, except for good reasons.  Trump has never had a good reason, other than the fact that he lost.  

All that may be true. They are going to appeal anyway.

24 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

I wasn't in Court. I support all other criminal investigations into Trump. I just think this case may be reversed on appeal. And I think Tacopina has given hint as to how.

So, in the trial, Tacopina had no clue how to win the case but now that he lost it he can suddenly win it on appeal? My money is on Trump not appealing.

And so it begins... love it!

1 hour ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Hard times to come for (wealthy, prominent or hated) men.
They have to be aware to be convicted for allegations with thin evidence for things they're accused to have done 30 years before.

But at least a good opportunity for women to avoid old-age poverty. Just say "Mr. X raped me somewhere somewhen in the last century", find one or two friends to testify "yes, she told me about it", done.

Unless of course they CAN prove that they were elsewhere at the time. Most business managers that I knew, were tracked by their offices and their staff and often through meetings with customers, phone calls etc. They had time schedules to meet and rarely had the time to go shopping during the working day.

14 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

So, in the trial, Tacopina had no clue how to win the case but now that he lost it he can suddenly win it on appeal? My money is on Trump not appealing.

I am only quoting what he said.

44 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

What Evidence??? No proof just hearsay.

Hearsay is meaningless.

 

The jury heard the testimony and decided on that basis what the evidence was and acted on it.

 

They were in the court and you were not. They decided and not you.

 

I know who I believe and it isn't you.

 

You have nothing as usual.

 

BTW is this what you keep telling us all to wait for?

46 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Try jury misconduct on his appeal.

What misconduct would that be?

 

The same as your proof or just hearsay?

11 hours ago, Tug said:

Surprised?not obviously he’s been getting away with it for years he was found guilty of all charge’s

He wasn't "found guilty" of anything, it was not a criminal trial.   It was a civil case that was found in her favour.

11 hours ago, Credo said:

So, will he have to register as a sex offender?  A whole lot of glorious things go along with being on the list!

 

No.   It was a civil case.

11 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

And at the same time, the same guy is telling rioters to storm the capitol, they do that, people die

Apart from the woman shot by a Capitol police officer, no one died in that incident.

 

Edit:  Perhaps the "confused" will tell me who else died in the Capitol?

11 hours ago, bendejo said:

There will still be unsettled matters pertaining to his time in office when he goes to his grave. 

 

 

Such as?

31 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Unless of course they CAN prove that they were elsewhere at the time. Most business managers that I knew, were tracked by their offices and their staff and often through meetings with customers, phone calls etc. They had time schedules to meet and rarely had the time to go shopping during the working day.

IF there's an exact date named for the allegedly rape. In the Trump case it wasn't as far as I know.

And I'm not really sure meetings from 30 years back would be still documented.

10 hours ago, nglodnig said:

Hopefully the first of many convictions against him?

He has no criminal convictions against him.   He lost in a civil suit, that's all.

8 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Trump found guilty of sexual abuse and defamation. 

He was not "found guilty" of anything!  

7 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems lots of people here are happy that Trump was convicted.

I understand that people don't like Trump and want to see him punished, any way possible.

 

But how would you react if something like this would happen to a nice celebrity? Or to your father?

An 80-year-old woman claims he raped her when she was 50. Without date when it supposedly happened, without even one witness, without evidence.

Would you prefer she was sixteen?

 

The bloke is a desperate serial pervert and liar.

8 hours ago, ThailandRyan said:

You are aware that civil trials are not criminal trials and so the main case was his defamation of Carroll  ... No defense was needed for what they convicted him of.

"You are aware that civil trials are not criminal trials and so the main case was his defamation of Carroll"

Are you?  He wasn't "convicted" of anything.

The OP is:

Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

 

It is not about any other cases, and the continued bickering and off-topic posts and replies between posters have been removed.

6 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

without any evidence. 

12 witnesses is damning.

 

He should have done it privately if he had half a criminal brain. 

32 minutes ago, MrJ2U said:

12 witnesses is damning.

 

He should have done it privately if he had half a criminal brain. 

12 witnesses actually saw the sexual assault/rape back in 1996?

A post making unsubstantiated claims has been removed along with responses

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

12 witnesses actually saw the sexual assault/rape back in 1996?

That's what the jury found with the help of the witnesses.

 

Don't you follow the news?

 

I'm not talking about that FOX crap. 

 

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Trump is the one who is stupid. If he had simply said " No, I did not rape her" and left it at that, IMO he would have been OK. It was the defamation that sunk him.

Plus doubling down in his deposition, and Truth Social posts.

At the end of the day, it was a question of who the jury believed, E Jean Carroll, or Trump.

I am reminded of the aphorism "It is better to stay silent, and be taken for a fool, than to open one's mouth, and remove all doubt".

Yes, he should have watched his mouth.

 

But let's assume for a moment he is innocent and he didn't remember that woman. How does a man react if a woman accuses him he raped her when she was 50?

I didn't do it. Ok.

I am not interested in old women. Why would I rape an old woman when I can have a pretty young one?

Yes, it's not politically correct. But all this does not change anything about the not existing evidence.

15 hours ago, Credo said:

So, will he have to register as a sex offender?  A whole lot of glorious things go along with being on the list!

 

No as this was not a criminal conviction.

 

It was a civil lawsuit. 

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

Unless of course they CAN prove that they were elsewhere at the time. Most business managers that I knew, were tracked by their offices and their staff and often through meetings with customers, phone calls etc. They had time schedules to meet and rarely had the time to go shopping during the working day.

Maybe it was on a weekend. It seems she doesn't remember any date or time.

And in 1990 most people didn't run around with mobile phones.

 

 

3 hours ago, Goat said:

Would you prefer she was sixteen?

 

The bloke is a desperate serial pervert and liar.

You can make a survey how many guys would be interested in sex with a teenage girl (16 is legal in Thailand) and how many would prefer an old woman. 

 

He certainly is a serial liar. But that doesn't make him guilty in this case.