NY – Ex POTUS Donald Trump, sued by E. Jean Carroll, DT found liable re sexual assault, $5M award, countersuit dismissed, appeal rejected, 2023

[crussell821]

Just...wow, the lies keep coming

https://twitter.com/x/status/1655941702002298889

‘Unconstitutional silencing’ yet he can’t seem to shut up.

 

[Kavya01]

I cannot even !!!

 

[Jsizzle]

Whether he did it or not; how can they convict him on her word alone? Where’s the actual evidence (I have no read all the evidence so forgive me but I’ve read some things)? And I’m not just asking for this particular case but I’m asking for other cases as well. I truly don’t understand it. I mean, anyone can accuse a guy of SA for any reason without any proof? I’m a SA/molestation survivor myself so I understand the emotional trauma that it causes (and still causes me) but I just don’t understand how we can just go on her word alone. Araiza, who played for the Buffalo Bills, lost his career over accusations that he participated in a gang rape at a party when he was 17. Bills fired him and his career was over. NOW the DA is coming out and saying the charges were dropped because they have proof the kid wasn’t even there at the time when the rape supposedly occurred. Meanwhile, his life is ruined for no reason. I’m genuinely trying to understand. I have 2 boys and we talk all of the time about these cases and it really does terrify me. I’m also not discounting some of these stories but I’m truly just trying to understand.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Whether he did it or not; how can they convict him on her word alone? Where’s the actual evidence (I have no read all the evidence so forgive me but I’ve read some things)? And I’m not just asking for this particular case but I’m asking for other cases as well. I truly don’t understand it. I mean, anyone can accuse a guy of SA for any reason without any proof? I’m a SA/molestation survivor myself so I understand the emotional trauma that it causes (and still causes me) but I just don’t understand how we can just go on her word alone. Araiza, who played for the Buffalo Bills, lost his career over accusations that he participated in a gang rape at a party when he was 17. Bills fired him and his career was over. NOW the DA is coming out and saying the charges were dropped because they have proof the kid wasn’t even there at the time when the rape supposedly occurred. Meanwhile, his life is ruined for no reason. I’m genuinely trying to understand. I have 2 boys and we talk all of the time about these cases and it really does terrify me. I’m also not discounting some of these stories but I’m truly just trying to understand.

I think the key is that this is a civil case, not a criminal case.

The threshold for legal guilt is lower for a civil charge than for a criminal charge. But the consequence if found guilty is "only" a fine, and [hopefully] a hit to the reputation. He won't go to jail or have to register as a sex offender.

MOO

 

[Kavya01]

Whether he did it or not; how can they convict him on her word alone? Where’s the actual evidence (I have no read all the evidence so forgive me but I’ve read some things)? And I’m not just asking for this particular case but I’m asking for other cases as well. I truly don’t understand it. I mean, anyone can accuse a guy of SA for any reason without any proof? I’m a SA/molestation survivor myself so I understand the emotional trauma that it causes (and still causes me) but I just don’t understand how we can just go on her word alone. Araiza, who played for the Buffalo Bills, lost his career over accusations that he participated in a gang rape at a party when he was 17. Bills fired him and his career was over. NOW the DA is coming out and saying the charges were dropped because they have proof the kid wasn’t even there at the time when the rape supposedly occurred. Meanwhile, his life is ruined for no reason. I’m genuinely trying to understand. I have 2 boys and we talk all of the time about these cases and it really does terrify me. I’m also not discounting some of these stories but I’m truly just trying to understand.

He should have gone to court and vehemently denied the charges during trial. I am sure the men who are falsely accused, would in a heartbeat.
However, if a person would have to go and lie under oath, and perjure themselves in that courtroom, they might hesitate and not go on the stand to deny the charges?

 

[Jsizzle]

I think the key is that this is a civil case, not a criminal case.

The threshold for legal guilt is lower for a civil charge than for a criminal charge. But the consequence if found guilty is "only" a fine, and [hopefully] a hit to the reputation. He won't go to jail or have to register as a sex offender.

MOO

Oh I gotcha. Ok. I’ve been following so many other cases lately that I couldn’t keep up with this one. But either way, civil or not; how can lean in her favor regardless? It’s basically her word against his so to speak. Will be interesting to see what the jury does.

 

[Jsizzle]

He should have gone to court and vehemently denied the charges during trial. I am sure the men who are falsely accused, would in a heartbeat.
However, if a person would have to go and lie under oath, and perjure themselves in that courtroom, they might hesitate and not go on the stand to deny the charges?

Yes you are probably right. Anyone would fight for their reputation but it still doesn’t mean he did it based on her word alone. I guess that’s where I’m hung up (and usually am hung up on these types of cases)

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Yes you are probably right. Anyone would fight for their reputation but it still doesn’t mean he did it based on her word alone. I guess that’s where I’m hung up (and usually am hung up on these types of cases)

Are you expecting ring doorbell camera footage of a sexual assualt? What proof do you want?

 

[Kavya01]

Yes you are probably right. Anyone would fight for their reputation but it still doesn’t mean he did it based on her word alone. I guess that’s where I’m hung up (and usually am hung up on these types of cases)

This is why one needs to look at the circumstances surrounding the event and not see it in a vacuum. One can consider history, reputation, an alleged perpetrator's own words, character witnesses etc.
DJT's lawyers only defense was attacking E.Jean. One could instead bring a defense of how come a man would never have done such a thing he stands accused of, backing it up with character witnesses, no history of any violence or assault, etc. Look at the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial for instance.

 

[Jsizzle]

Are you expecting ring doorbell camera footage of a sexual assualt? What proof do you want?

Well, I’m not sure. My point is anyone at anytime can just accuse someone of a SA without any proof at all. It’s basically their word against the accused. Just not sure how anyone can convict with any proof it happened.

 

[Chelly]

It disgusts me that he brags about his entitlement as a star to do whatever he wants to a woman.

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Well, I’m not sure. My point is anyone at anytime can just accuse someone of a SA without any proof at all. It’s basically their word against the accused. Just not sure how anyone can convict with any proof it happened.

Because he's not being convicted. She would be awarded judgment. It's not a criminal trial, there is a lower burden of proof. The point of the trial is that if someone is making up things without any proof then the jury should see that (hopefully). I just don't know what kind of proof you'd expect. It was 30+ years ago. A SA victim has to get up in front of a jury/court and detail one of the most traumatizing experiences of her life. A jury will decide whether she is believable or not.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

Oh I gotcha. Ok. I’ve been following so many other cases lately that I couldn’t keep up with this one. But either way, civil or not; how can lean in her favor regardless? It’s basically her word against his so to speak. Will be interesting to see what the jury does.

Yes, it basically boils down to who is more believable in their claim.

Of course she had two friends testify that she told them about it at the time. That holds some weight with me personally.

I don't find it believable that she would make up a story in 1996 and then wait until 2019 to try to use it against him -- that would be too long a game to make sense to me!

Not to mention that his defense claims contradict themselves -- he says it never happened, but also that she enjoyed it/said rape was sexy/didn't scream. Irrational, IMO.

And as others have said, an innocent man would be expected to show up to defend himself and offer some proof he wasn't there, or character witnesses asserting he would never assault anyone, etc.

Since the threshold in a civil case is who is more believable, I know how I would vote if I were on that jury.

MOO

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

Yes, it basically boils down to who is more believable in their claim.

Of course she had two friends testify that she told them about it at the time. That holds some weight with me personally.

I don't find it believable that she would make up a story in 1996 and then wait until 2019 to try to use it against him -- that would be too long a game to make sense to me!

Not to mention that his defense claims contradict themselves -- he says it never happened, but also that she enjoyed it/said rape was sexy/didn't scream. Irrational, IMO.

And as others have said, an innocent man would be expected to show up to defend himself and offer some proof he wasn't there, or character witnesses asserting he would never assault anyone, etc.

Since the threshold in a civil case is who is more believable, I know how I would vote if I were on that jury.

MOO

Beautifully stated.

 

[Stunned]

Yes, it basically boils down to who is more believable in their claim.

Of course she had two friends testify that she told them about it at the time. That holds some weight with me personally.

I don't find it believable that she would make up a story in 1996 and then wait until 2019 to try to use it against him -- that would be too long a game to make sense to me!

Not to mention that his defense claims contradict themselves -- he says it never happened, but also that she enjoyed it/said rape was sexy/didn't scream. Irrational, IMO.

And as others have said, an innocent man would be expected to show up to defend himself and offer some proof he wasn't there, or character witnesses asserting he would never assault anyone, etc.

Since the threshold in a civil case is who is more believable, I know how I would vote if I were on that jury.

MOO

It is kind of a no brainer. So why am I so nervous?

 

[Elliot_Alderson]

It is kind of a no brainer. So why am I so nervous?

Probably because he gets away with everything. Remember, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and blah blah blah.

 

[MrsWatson]

Did the jury get instructions yet? Did I miss that?

 

[Kavya01]

Probably because he gets away with everything. Remember, he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and blah blah blah.

This exactly, and nervous because it will be so hard to keep the faith in the system if Jury comes down on the side of DJT on this

 

[Chelly]

Hoping this is a smart and intuitive jury. For me the verdict is of very high importance on many levels.
MOO

 

[Stunned]

This exactly, and nervous because it will be so hard to keep the faith in the system if Jury comes down on the side of DJT on this

I’ll have no faith left if that happens. This country is lost if he keeps being allowed to move forward. IMO