E. Jean Carroll is a rich woman.

She sexually abused her! It has been adjudicated. You wouldn't give a crap even if you SAW it on video. So don't give me none of that! The Orange Idol can do no wrong!

 

This was a civil case. Not a criminal case. And he was found liable. That's the actual topic. You are miles apart from that topic.

 

Prove to me he committed a crime against Carrol and I will agree with you. 50%plus by a majority of the jury without the need for unanimity just doesnt cut the mustard.

Sorry.

 

Indeed this was a civil case, which is precisely my point. A crime has not been proven. This is an enormously important distinction.

The Criminal and civil standards are MILES APART which is why I am clearing up any such confusion. This isnt about guilty or innocent. It is about liable or not liable. Dont be fooled into thinking that all court rooms are equal.

 

Couldnt get the video to play at the Instapundit site. Couldnt find a good youtube clip. Think this is the same clip with an annoying Fox commercial to endure.
E. Jean Carroll jokes about going on shopping spree with Rachel Maddow with 'Trump's money' | Fox News Video

 

Yeah. It is "more likely than not" that OJ murdered Nicole. It was NOT "beyond any reasonable doubt" according to the stupid jury, that OJ murdered Nicole.

 

No. Dont try and put words in my mouth when I have so many put in writing for you to respond to.

 

So we agree that Trump is liable for sexual assault. Cool beans. Glad we could return to the actual topic.

 

The verdict that Trump sexually abused her by the jury was UNANIMOUS!!!

Republicans used to CARE about this. Not in the case of Trump.

 

You put words in your mouth. And THAT is your argument for excusing a sexual abuser. The rest of us could not care LESS if she flirted with him or not. That is NOT an excuse to sexually abuse a woman.

 

Wow, that SOUNDS like a crime.

Was it proven that he committed a crime?

Prove that he committed a crime against Carrol and I will agree with you.

 

This was a civil case, not a criminal case. Catch up.

 

Well, the nature of his various and numerous appeals will have a major impact on the outcome.

In this last suit where he was assessed $83M, what do you think he has as a basis for complaint?

 

So you are analogizing the evidence presented at the OJ criminal trial in regards to being convincing, to that presented at the Caroll trial?

That is truly silly.

 

No it's not! The only distinction is that he doesn't go to jail. That's IT! But the facts are still the same. Trump sexually abused a woman and you, not only do you NOT care, you keep excusing the action. I have only seen this happen in religious contexts. NEVER in politics. It makes obvious what we have ALWAYS said: that family values and morals, in the Republican Party, is nothing more than a campaign SLOGAN in which they DON'T believe.

 

Liable yes. Guilty no.

Those two things are MILES APART.

 

Just as your attempt to redefine the OP is MILES APART from the actual topic!

 

Did you not catch that the first 5 times I said it? Of course it was a civil case. That is the entire point.

 

He lost the sexual assault suit, which resulted in a $5M penalty.

He had significant representation from his lawyers, and they lost.

 

Then why are you desperate to change the topic of the actual thread? Are you now committed to admit you were wrong to try to make it about criminal BS? Did you not catch that basic question the first 5 times I asked it?

 

It IS a crime. And he committed it. So you celebrate the fact that a proven sexual abuser escaped going to PRISON because the case doesn't meet some technical standards.

So now it's clear. You're you, and you're free to have any beliefs you want, no matter how odious. But I expect that you will not be seen here defending any issue based on MORALS.

 

You already said this exact same thing in post 105 and I have responded. I will cut and paste that response...

For purposes of stating that there will be very real appeals being looked at by other courts across a wide range of areas, it is not necessary to know and or recite the exact nature of those appeals. Of course there will be. To say or imply otherwise is bereft of reality.

 

Not changing the topic. My input provides highly relevant and necessary context and understanding to what is being asserted. He said something to the effect that Republicans used to care about sexual abuse, and sexual abuse is a crime that Republicans do in fact care about. When asserted in a civil trial it does not carry anywhere near the weight of a criminal trial. At this point, it is literally unproven.

The problem in his logic is that Trump was not found guilty of a crime. He was found liable.

Guilty and liable are MILES APART. They are not even in the same stratosphere.

 

Yeesh... which takes us full circle back to my original post to you on the matter.

Prove to me that he committed a crime against Carrol, and I will agree with you. At this point, a crime has not been proven.

I am sorry if that offends you, but it is reality nonetheless. We dont convict people in this country based on "we think it likely happened".

 

Agreed. Given his other cases in NY, what bank is going to cough up that kind of money for him?

Estimates I've see suggest he has a little less than half a billion of personal liquidity. Like the $5m for the sex case, he may just put up the money with the court.