Jump to content
politics

Trump found liable in sexual assault & defamation trial


COOOK

Featured Posts

garbage day
2 hours ago, heygurlhi said:

lock her up! lock her up! 

1*md15XOoygQnn5UxYMHCBgQ.jpeg

this is diabolical... how does it look SO MUCH like both of them at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Economy
1 hour ago, ProfessionalClown said:

He literally said he did it lol

What were his exact words? I didn't follow this but I have a hard time picturing trump literally saying "I assaulted her"

 

I feel like downplaying it while kind of admiting it would be more his style

Link to post
Share on other sites

ProfessionalClown
1 minute ago, Economy said:

What were his exact words? I didn't follow this but I have a hard time picturing trump literally saying "I assaulted her"

 

I feel like downplaying it while kind of admiting it would be more his style

He was saying “she enjoyed it” when he was asked if EJ enjoyed “being r@ped” and when asked if it was SA and etc etc he pretty much was full on saying “yes she enjoyed it; she thought it was sexy being r@ped”

Link to post
Share on other sites

StarstruckIllusion
4 hours ago, phantasmas said:

 

he gave the worst deposition as well... basically said that the plaintiff enjoyed being SA'ed :fail:

 

3 hours ago, ProfessionalClown said:

He literally said he did it lol

 

1 hour ago, ProfessionalClown said:

He was saying “she enjoyed it” when he was asked if EJ enjoyed “being r@ped” and when asked if it was SA and etc etc he pretty much was full on saying “yes she enjoyed it; she thought it was sexy being r@ped”

It shocks me how that monster continues to shock me… I almost don’t believe what I’m reading…

Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy
1 hour ago, ProfessionalClown said:

He was saying “she enjoyed it” when he was asked if EJ enjoyed “being r@ped” and when asked if it was SA and etc etc he pretty much was full on saying “yes she enjoyed it; she thought it was sexy being r@ped”

Wow. I thought maybe when u said that he said it, it was in "as good as if he had said it" but it was literal :air:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ProfessionalClown
23 minutes ago, Economy said:

Wow. I thought maybe when u said that he said it, it was in "as good as if he had said it" but it was literal :air:

Go watch the deposition, it’s absolutely crazy 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ProfessionalClown
27 minutes ago, Economy said:

Wow. I thought maybe when u said that he said it, it was in "as good as if he had said it" but it was literal :air:

 

32 minutes ago, StarstruckIllusion said:

 

 

It shocks me how that monster continues to shock me… I almost don’t believe what I’m reading…

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cr6CYyhAVWE/?igshid=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
 

Super quick vid but he says even worse stuff in the full video.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Borisapillar
5 hours ago, heygurlhi said:

lock her up! lock her up! 

1*md15XOoygQnn5UxYMHCBgQ.jpeg

So cursed

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Economy said:

What's a civil case and what's usually involves in it?

There are two types of cases in the US. Criminal and civil. Criminal charges must be brought by a district attorney. For example, if you're robbed, you report it to the police, then the relevant person in the area should (keyword should--individuals cannot bring criminal charges, only district attorneys can) charge the person criminally. Criminal charges can lead to fines and/or incarceration. In criminal cases, you are not "proven guilty or innocent" you are found either guilty or not guilty by the jury. The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." This means that as a juror, you are not supposed to find a person guilty if you have a "reasonable doubt" in your mind that it's possible they might not have done it. 

A civil case is when an individual/group sues another individual/group. Anyone who wants to bring a civil case against anyone in the US can do so (if it's a weak case, a judge can throw it out, but in general, anyone can bring a civil case). For example--if your neighbor repeatedly drives on your lawn, damages your lawn and landscaping let's say--you can sue that person in civil court for damages related to the costs and inconveniences of what they've done. In Trump and Carroll's case, she's suing him for defamation because he called her a liar. She's also suing for damages related to assault/rape. The jury had to have found he assaulted her in order to then award her damages for that as well as for the defamation that was related to it, which they did. The reason this wasn't a criminal case was 1) probably statute of limitations 2) much harder to prove and 3) the DA would have to think they had enough evidence to bring criminal charges against a former president. I'm not exactly sure what the statute of limitations situation is in this case. Anyway, in a civil case, the burden of proof is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt," it is "a preponderance of evidence." This is a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. It just means you think it's more likely than not the person is liable. For example, if a juror thinks there is a 51% chance Trump assaulted her, they would be instructed to make that their choice. In civil cases, you are not found "guilty or not guilty." You are found to be liable or not liable. The punishment in civil cases never involves incarceration, it involves a monetary judgement, or in some cases, a demand that certain circumstances be changed (for example: as a result of a civil case, you could be ordered to return a wedding ring, etc.)

Final edit: it is possible to have a civil AND criminal trial for the same events. This is what happened with OJ. He was found not guilty in the criminal trial, but he was found to be liable in the civil trial, so he owed the families of the murdered victims money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Economy
6 minutes ago, stvn said:

 For example, if a juror thinks there is a 51% chance Trump assaulted her, they would be instructed to make that their choice. In civil cases, you are not found "guilty or not guilty." You are found to be liable or not liable. 

Even tho its generally for weaker things as u say I still find this a generally low bar. A lot of people end up getting screwed with law suits or whatever that were bogus and u don't have to be 100% certain :fail:

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Economy said:

Even tho its generally for weaker things as u say I still find this a generally low bar. A lot of people end up getting screwed with law suits or whatever that were bogus and u don't have to be 100% certain :fail:

Yeah, it's true. It's not a perfect system, but I don't know what to propose that's better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Monstermilo

i get being republican, but supporting this man whos tried to destroy our democracy and is now actually guilty of SA is insane to me 

same ppl supporting him claim to be christians...... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother of Puppies

so what I'm asking myself now with this: Can he still be president again? :cryga:

 

Whenever I see his face I can only think about what he said to this dude about grabbing women by the p**** - He should've gone to jail on top of paying that money

THEY CALL ME LADY MOP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Helxig

And millions of people will still say "that's my president" :bear:

I'll be myself until they fūcking close the coffin.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mother of Puppies

Not him saying "she's not my type" :rip:  :toofunny:

 

 

THEY CALL ME LADY MOP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...