Dual1ty

Re: Trump
« Reply #10400 on: May 13, 2023, 04:24:41 PM »
Am I the only one who can see that this whole trial & verdict thing is just an attempt to further victimize (or demonize) Trump and make him look like he's not part of the club? $5m is nothing to people like Trump, but it's a lot of money as a guaranteed payout for a woman who makes some indemonstrable claims.

When I was a student, they told me that Gates was just another humble student like you or me - the only difference being that he was smarter and luckier than you or me. Turns out he was part of the club from the beginning.

Wake up. Everything's a lie. Well, not everything everything, but you should know what I mean.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 07:13:14 PM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10401 on: May 13, 2023, 05:46:43 PM »
It is apparent that liberals are willing to make up any lie to fit their narrative. For years they had been claiming that Trump was talking about neo-nazis in his "very fine people on both sides" comment. People on this forum also parroted this claim, and Biden just recently referenced this. Only 40 seconds after Trump made that comment he clarified in the same speech that he was not talking about neo-nazis. There were more than neo-nazis at that event protesting against the removal of monuments.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 06:06:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10402 on: May 13, 2023, 06:49:56 PM »
I would suggest that you try reading the document. It wasn't "sexual assault", it was "sexual abuse", whatever that means.
It means this

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent.
Under New York law, “sexual contact” means “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-lawsuit-battery-defamation-verdict/index.html

So he didn't stick his cock in her. So it wasn't rape. This continues to not be the resounding victory for or vindication of Trump you are trying to present it as. The fact that the best you can do is say "Aha! It wasn't sexual assault, it was sexual abuse!" is indication of that. I used the former term as that's what we'd call it in the UK.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10403 on: May 13, 2023, 06:52:47 PM »
Am I the only one who can see that this whole trial & verdict thing is just an attempt to further victimize (or demonize) Trump
You're certainly not the only person who will claim that. The other members of the cult of Trump will claim that too.
But this was a Civil case brought by an individual, not "them". And he was found guilty on 8 of the 10 changes by a jury, also not "them".
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Dual1ty

Re: Trump
« Reply #10404 on: May 13, 2023, 07:03:53 PM »
Am I the only one who can see that this whole trial & verdict thing is just an attempt to further victimize (or demonize) Trump
You're certainly not the only person who will claim that. The other members of the cult of Trump will claim that too.
But this was a Civil case brought by an individual, not "them". And he was found guilty on 8 of the 10 changes by a jury, also not "them".

lmao. How can you be found guilty of something that is literally indemonstrable? For all you know those two were consensually fkn like rabbits back then and they're just laughing at both sides and putting on a show.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 07:13:08 PM by Dual1ty »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10405 on: May 13, 2023, 07:21:52 PM »
Ms. Carrol had claimed that she was forcefully raped in a dressing room, and the court rejected this claim.

Instead they said she had been sexually abused in the dressing room.

A dressing room, a location, a method of abuse, or even decade of occurrence, is not mentioned at all.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're going to say that the jury not finding Trump liable for rape is a repudiation of Carroll's story, then it's only fair for me to say that the jury finding Trump liable for sexual abuse is an affirmation of her story. If the jury hadn't believed her, they wouldn't have found Trump not liable for rape but liable for sexual abuse - not to mention liable for defamation. They would have found him not liable, period.

Quote
And if that is what was meant, it apparently happened without being forcibly touched. The court did not charge Trump with forcibly touching her. So, it is not rape or sexual assault.

Carrol did claim that she was forcibly touched and raped. Her claims were rejected.

Sexual abuse obviously involves forcible touching, as does rape. The three options the jury were given were essentially degrees of severity. That the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse rather than forcible touching doesn't mean "therefore he never touched her" any more than finding a defendant guilty of murder rather than manslaughter means "therefore he never killed him."

$5m is nothing to people like Trump, but it's a lot of money as a guaranteed payout for a woman who makes some indemostrable claims.

The jury didn't seem to consider it indemonstrable. I really don't know what you (along with Rushy) are trying to get at here by making these broadly skeptical noises at the very concept of a jury trial, as if obviously you know better and obviously the whole thing was nonsense. I wouldn't have supported convicting Trump of a crime based on the evidence shown, but for preponderance of the evidence - more likely than not that he did it - it wasn't an unreasonable decision. On the one hand, you had testimony from the plaintiff, who by all accounts came across as entirely sincere and credible. On the other hand, you had a guy who had been accused of inappropriate sexual conduct by a number of women in the past, who was recorded bragging about how he could forcibly kiss and grope women because he was a star, and was caught repeatedly lying in his deposition about if he knew who Carroll was, had ever met her, or would ever have found her attractive. I would believe the seemingly-honest accuser over the sleazy liar in that situation, and I'm not surprised that the jury did too. If it's a surprise to you that civil trials have a low burden of proof - well, it's always been this way, so be careful if you're ever sued.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10406 on: May 13, 2023, 07:31:32 PM »
I would suggest that you try reading the document. It wasn't "sexual assault", it was "sexual abuse", whatever that means.
It means this

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent.
Under New York law, “sexual contact” means “any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either party.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/e-jean-carroll-trump-lawsuit-battery-defamation-verdict/index.html

So he didn't stick his cock in her. So it wasn't rape. This continues to not be the resounding victory for or vindication of Trump you are trying to present it as. The fact that the best you can do is say "Aha! It wasn't sexual assault, it was sexual abuse!" is indication of that. I used the former term as that's what we'd call it in the UK.

Whatever they are saying Trump did, it does not corroborate what the claimant claimed in this rape case. The claimant claimed that he forcibly raped her in a dressing room. The jury tossed this claim and says that he sexually abused her and aren't sure about her being forcibly touched.



Looks like the jury is questioning and rejecting her version of the story to me. The jury did not convict Trump of rape or forcibly touching her. Somehow she was "sexually abused". She has failed to substantiate her story and this verdict isn't as substantial as you believe it is, as it in not a clear conviction of either rape or sexual assault and there is still an appeals process.

This is a big L for the narrative that she was raped or sexually assaulted. As usual, liberals are choosing to distort the truth to live in a fantasy narrative that this is a clear-cut decision.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 08:19:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10407 on: May 13, 2023, 08:10:33 PM »
The claimant claimed that he forcibly raped her in a dressing room. The jury tossed this claim and says that he sexually abused her and aren't sure about her being forcibly touched.
Did you miss the instruction that if they ticked yes to Q2 then they could skip question 3? Because 2 implies 3. So no, they didn’t just ignore that question because they weren’t sure, they ignored it because having ticked “Yes” to 2 that question was redundant as they’d already implicitly answered it.

Quote
Looks like the jury is questioning and rejecting her version of the story to me.
Then you need glasses.

Quote
She has failed to substantiate her story
The jury disagrees with you. They clearly believed her account, she had 2 corroborating witnesses - 3 if you include Trump himself who has admitted grabbing women by the pussy and walking into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms while naked teenagers were in there.
The jury’s only concession to Trump is that what he did didn’t quite go as far as rape.

Quote
This is a big L for the narrative that she was raped or sexually assaulted.
Yes and no respectively. You are making a distinction between sexual assault and sexual abuse which barely exists. I’ve explained what the latter means. If you think it’s ok to do that to women then you’re an idiot and I don’t know what anyone being “liberal” has to do with anything. Do Republicans think that sexual abuse is ok?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10408 on: May 13, 2023, 08:40:54 PM »
The claimant claimed that he forcibly raped her in a dressing room. The jury tossed this claim and says that he sexually abused her and aren't sure about her being forcibly touched.
Did you miss the instruction that if they ticked yes to Q2 then they could skip question 3? Because 2 implies 3. So no, they didn’t just ignore that question because they weren’t sure, they ignored it because having ticked “Yes” to 2 that question was redundant as they’d already implicitly answered it.

It may be that they were following instructions as written and it is a fault of vague terminology of whoever wrote this document. But 2 does not imply 3. There are different legal definitions between Sexual Assault and Sexual Abuse.

https://myhealth.alberta.ca/Alberta/Pages/sexual-abuse-or-assault.aspx





You guys want sexual abuse to have the same definition as sexual assault.

New York has the same definitions. See this page from a New York lawfirm:

https://soloffandzervanos.com/new-york-city-sexual-abuse/

"we generally use the term sexual abuse to describe what happens when a person in a position of power or authority over a person sexually assaults them in any way."

"Sexual abuse takes many forms and can include:

- Any sexual contact between the abuser and victim
- A victim being forced to watch pornography or sex acts
- Victims being exposed to sexual touching
- Sexual contact online or on the phone"

It is a more vague term which can even mean "sexual contact over the phone" and not necessarily touching, and primarily refers to people in positions of power.

The jury disagrees with you. They clearly believed her account, she had 2 corroborating witnesses - 3 if you include Trump himself who has admitted grabbing women by the pussy and walking into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms while naked teenagers were in there.

If they believed her account they would have convicted Trump of rape. They did not.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 09:15:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10409 on: May 13, 2023, 09:21:51 PM »
You guys want sexual abuse to have the same definition as sexual assault.
I can't speak for anyone else but I don't want that. What the hell are you even talking about?
I'll just repeat the quote above:

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent."

The jury were asked if the victim had proved, by a preponderance of evidence, that she had been sexually abused.
They said yes.

All you've done since is flail around talking about "activist juries" or getting into definitions about sexual abuse or sexual assault as if any of that matters.

Quote
If they believed her account they would have convicted Trump of rape. They did not.
This continues to be incorrect no matter how many times you repeat it.
If I punched you in the face, you accused me of GBH and the jury decided that I was actually only guilty of ABH then that doesn't mean they didn't believe you. It means they accept I punched you in the face, but they didn't believe the level of injury you sustained as a result was severe enough to regard it as GBH.

(These may be English terms, so...
https://www.slaterheelis.co.uk/crime-category/the-difference-between-abh-and-gbh)

The only important thing here is that the jury believe Trump sexually abused the victim and that she was injured as a result of his conduct. My question is why you're OK with this. Why do you think only liberals should regard this behaviour as abhorrent? Why are you so desperate to defend and support a man who behaved this way? It's bizarre, frankly.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10410 on: May 13, 2023, 09:50:51 PM »
You guys want sexual abuse to have the same definition as sexual assault.
I can't speak for anyone else but I don't want that. What the hell are you even talking about?
I'll just repeat the quote above:

"The jury had been instructed that a person is liable for sexual abuse when they subject another person to sexual contact without consent."

The jury were asked if the victim had proved, by a preponderance of evidence, that she had been sexually abused.
They said yes.

All you've done since is flail around talking about "activist juries" or getting into definitions about sexual abuse or sexual assault as if any of that matters.

The definition of "sexual contact" under the umbrella of "sexual abuse" does matter. According to this New York law firm they are saying that sexual contact online or on the phone counts as sexual abuse:

https://soloffandzervanos.com/new-york-city-sexual-abuse/

"Sexual abuse takes many forms and can include:
...
- Sexual contact online or on the phone"

This lawyer says that sexual abuse could include sexual acts other than touching:

https://www.fuchsberg.com/sexual-abuse-lawyer

"Sexual abuse in New York is defined as making sexual contact with another person without that person’s consent. Sexual contact refers to a perpetrator touching the other person’s intimate or sexual body parts for sexual gratification, including molestation or a sexual act."

This one says that sexual contact could be sexual harassment.

https://www.ubersexualassaultlawyer.com/lyft-sexual-assault-lawyers/

"Unwanted sexual contact can include sexual harassment"

Very vague.

Quote
The only important thing here is that the jury believe Trump sexually abused the victim and that she was injured as a result of his conduct. My question is why you're OK with this. Why do you think only liberals should regard this behaviour as abhorrent? Why are you so desperate to defend and support a man who behaved this way? It's bizarre, frankly.

Considering that the jury thinks that Trump's October 2022 post on Truth Social and his other remarks are deserving of millions of dollars, it is clear that they would be more likely to be foot-loose with what "sexual abuse" and "sexual contact" might mean.

This was supposed to be a rape case and the jury rejected her primary claim. It appears more to be you squirming to paint the picture you want it to paint. If Trump was convicted of forcible sexual assault, it would be more clear on what they are referring to instead of everything worded in such a way to leave it up to the imagination. There are more specific charges for people who commit aggravated sexual assault than the umbrella "sexual abuse". This is why this isn't going anywhere.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 10:18:17 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #10411 on: May 13, 2023, 10:19:51 PM »
guys tim is right, having to pay out $5 million for sexual assault is a huge win for trump and proves that he never sexually assaulted anyone
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10412 on: May 13, 2023, 10:30:51 PM »
It is more the jury rejecting the main claim of rape in a rape case and usage of watered down language like "sexual abuse" for  why it's a win for Trump and why this is more likely to be dropped on appeal.

It would help the rape narrative much more if the claimant's claim of rape was actually vindicated by a court. Instead you have to trust that the next court will vindicate vague undefined ideas of sexual abuse in lieu of a rape conviction and also support ridiculous sums of money for Trump's statements that she was lying.

The next court will have to overlook the numerous red flags like being an Apprentice fan, fantasizing about sex with Trump, that she didn't scream during the event, that she didn't report the rape to authorities, and that she continued shopping at the store afterwards, and agree with the previous court on its determinations.

You guys have one excuse after another for red flags and have a specific narrative that a separate court composed of different people will have to agree with. The situation is too imperfect for your narrative and too many justifications are needed. It is clearly not open and shut. This is why this is unlikely to go anywhere.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2023, 01:16:49 AM by Tom Bishop »

Dual1ty

Re: Trump
« Reply #10413 on: May 13, 2023, 11:09:23 PM »
I hate to bring out the no true Scotsman, but are there seriously flat-earthers who are Trump supporters, or is it a joke like this?






Please let me know.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2023, 11:18:21 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10414 on: May 14, 2023, 12:38:40 AM »
I hate to bring out the no true Scotsman, but are there seriously flat-earthers who are Trump supporters, or is it a joke like this?.

There probably are (they're still out there!) but judging what Tom in particular really thinks is impossible because his primary motive for posting everything he posts is to take the contrarian POV and watch the sparks fly.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10415 on: May 14, 2023, 01:37:34 AM »
Appellate courts in the United States rule on issues of law, not fact. It's not a "redo" of the case where they would be questioning if Carroll's story was true.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10416 on: May 14, 2023, 09:05:47 PM »
There are several ways it can be dismissed. It can be dismissed based on sufficiency of the evidence:

https://www.spolinlaw.com/new-york/grounds-for-appealing-a-conviction-in-new-york/

Grounds for Appealing a Conviction in New York — A Top NY Appeals Lawyer Explains

"- Sufficiency of the evidence. To support a conviction for an offense, legally sufficient evidence must exist. A determination of the sufficiency of the evidence is not a reweighing of the evidence or the factual determinations of the jury. An appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence must demonstrate that the evidence introduced at trial did not establish all the elements of the offense for which the defendant was convicted."

"While most states will not consider issues of fact on appeal, the intermediate Appellate Divisions of the state courts have the constitutional authority to consider the “weight” of the evidence. This means that the Appellate Division may examine the record and sit as a second jury, make determinations on issues of fact, and dismiss one or more counts in an indictment."

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10417 on: May 14, 2023, 09:27:54 PM »
There are several ways it can be dismissed. It can be dismissed based on sufficiency of the evidence:

https://www.spolinlaw.com/new-york/grounds-for-appealing-a-conviction-in-new-york/

Grounds for Appealing a Conviction in New York — A Top NY Appeals Lawyer Explains

"- Sufficiency of the evidence. To support a conviction for an offense, legally sufficient evidence must exist.

We're not talking about a conviction, Tom.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10638
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10418 on: May 14, 2023, 09:33:16 PM »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10419 on: May 14, 2023, 09:52:30 PM »
We're not talking about sentences, either. That article is talking about criminal trials. I don't think any appellate court would be overturning the results of a lawsuit based on "insufficient evidence," given how subjective meeting the standard of preponderance of the evidence is.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y