Logical conclusion
Maybe for you. But not in the real world.
1 Like
How could a man so senile he does not know where he is be a threat to anyone?
No, the real threat is Hillary!
2 Likes
The jury wasnât there in that department store. They had no idea what happened there. They just went with their feelings. It may have some relevance as to whether Trump has to pay money. Their decision is not relevant to the truth of what happened decades ago.
That said, he should have just said âI didnât do itâ and shut up. He is not capable of doing that.
Do all juries need to be present at the scene of the crime to render a verdict that will satisfy you, or do you only apply this particular requirement to particular accusations (or specific defendants)?
2 Likes
Do you blindly accept as fact whatever a jury decides, even if you can plainly see no real determining evidence existed and to come to its decision it had only to feel the outcome by 51%?
Or is that only with particular defendants?
1 Like
As opposed to all of those other cases where juries are present when the events happen. Do people here understand how trials work? Seems like no.
Decades ago with no witnesses. The jury is free to have their own biases and that is relevant to setting liabilities. It is not relevant to make other people believe what cannot be known.
No. Any civil case starst with both parties lying. The plaintiff overestimates the extent of the damages while the defendant minimizes their responsibility. Neither position is âthe truthâ.
Most civil cases are settled pre-trial and the settlement is a version of the truth both parties agree to or a cash settlement with an NDA â that is essentially an agreement that the truth does not matter.
When a civil case goes to trial, the jury determines what they believe and that is a preponderance of evidence Verizon of the truth.
So I donât see why you would characterize my assessment as âblind.â
What there jury heard was a plaintiff whose story was corroborated by several of her friends and a plaintiff who maintained dignity and focus through two days of highly aggressive cross-examination. They heard two other witnesses describe other events where the defendant acted in a way to establish a pattern. Then they heard a denial from the defendant and watched a devastating video deposition where the defendant asserted that women allow him to assault them sexually.
Even with all that, the jury did not agree to the most serious charge â rape. To me that proves this was not a lynch mob, blindly acting on animosity towards their defendant. They selected a lesser charge as the version of the truth they could live with
A jury that was more conflicted about what to decide (I was on one once) would have needed more than three hours to reach a verdict.
I wish Tara Reade had brought charges against Joe Biden and allowed a similar process to unfold⌠to whatever end. I have no trouble with an outcome that shows Joe Biden is guilty of sexual assault; as long as its a legal process and not a trial by radio talk-show host.
1 Like
How many rapes are witnessed?
Her story was not corroborated by her friends. What she said she told her friends at the time was corroborated. Her friends were not there at the store and had no way of knowing whether what they were told was true or not.
Only two people know.
Here I am talking about their decision that she was assaulted. His going out of his way to call her crazy is a different matter and was totally unnecessary.
Which brings to mind that the jury decided she was not raped like she claimed. Do you accept that as a proven fact?
If she lied about being raped, then how could they believe she told the truth about being assaulted?
What Monica Lewinsky told a friend was good enough to be held against Bill Clinton, although the friend was not present in the Oval Office.
As I wrote, which you ignored, the jury weighed both parties credibility and made a decision. Can you at least admit that Trumpâs take on the Access Hollywood video tape â that it was essentially correct â not only contradicted what he said about the tape when he was a candidate in 2016 but also should be awfully concerning to any objective observer?
If you are so in the tank to Donald, letâs see if any of his appeals are successful, and if not, letâs see how he fares in Carrollâs second suit. This time around, she wonât have to testify and his lawyers will have to present a defense, since the only evidence will be Trumpâs recorded statements from the Waco Rally.
Or maybe, sheâll be willing to settle unlike the first time, when she wanted her day in court on the assault and rape charges.
Again, the second time around he should have just said âI didnât do itâ (assuming a surge of ethics doesnât compel him to confess). The âsheâs crazyâ type talk is shooting himself in the foot.
Of course I accept the jury decision regarding whether she was raped. She described an assault in which she alleged certain things happened. The jury decision to not accept the most extreme charge is not a judgment that she was lying.
Its a fairly standard procedure in criminal cases to include a very severe charge as a way to make the jury comfortable with something less severe.
What is it with folks here who insist that any time two people disagree in interpreting something, one of them has to be lying? People see things differently all the time, but they both are honestly expressing their views.
I know what I would be told if I were on a left-wing site: "Any time a conservative makes an accusation, its really a confession.
1 Like
The second time around he shouldnât have said a thing.
If he didnât do it, he should state he didnât do it. No court should be able to order someone to not state they are innocent of an accusation. I almost said âespecially if they are running for Presidentâ but noâŚanyone.
Americaâs prisons are full of people who insist they are innocent and many of them claim they are victims of political oppression. I am sure you believe all of them too, given that every trail requires some judgment about what happened.
You are? I never said they were all telling the truth. I never said I thought Trump was telling the truth. I said they all have the right to claim they didnât do it.
âŚasked the Brandonite. 
1 Like
