International E Jean Carroll Bests Donald J Trump to the Tune of $83 million

[PainIsLIfe]

Exactly. She changed her story and dates.

Explain how someone could defend against alleged rape allegations from 30 years ago when the accuser can't even name the actual date?

And there's no actual evidence other than her just claiming it.

You can't name an alibi so how do you disprove it?

She never changed the date in court filings and Trump's team never tried to determine when the dress was made.

Well, he didn't take the stand to testify that he didn't do it.

It also didn't help that 2 other women testified that he sexually assaulted them and he let his attorneys argue that 1 of them shouldn't testify because "there wasnt a law against sexual assault on an airplane at that time"

If you're on the jury, how the hell do you hear all that and he refuse to testify and you not think hes guilty?

 

[idrankyourbeer]

She never changed the date in court filings and Trump's team never tried to determine when the dress was made.

Well, he didn't take the stand to testify that he didn't do it.

It also didn't help that 2 other women testified that he sexually assaulted them and he let his attorneys argue that 1 of them shouldn't testify because "there wasnt a law against sexual assault on an airplane at that time"

If you're on the jury, how the hell do you hear all that and he refuse to testify and you not think hes guilty?

if you don't show up to court for your civil trial and you don't have a hall pass from the judge you're almost always going to be found liable no matter what you did or how weak the evidence is against you. matter of fact, after the closing arguments are completed and the judge gives the jurors their instructions right before they deliberate, the jurors are even instructed to weigh that against you.

sure it's not a criminal trial and you are not required to show up to court, but no-showing your own civil trial is about the worst thing that you can do for yourself, and if you choose to do that you may as well just hang a sign over you saying "i'm guilty" because those are the only people who will ever do that, and no jury panel is ever going to side with them.

in a he-said she-said ordeal where one party has all kinds of people showing up and testifying for hours under oath to give their side of the story, and the other party disrespects the jury and the courts and doesn't even bother to show up to give their side of the story, who is the jury supposed to side with?

and if your client tucks his dick and clucks, you better put forth a better argument in your AWOL clients defense than "it's not sexual battery because the victim didn't scream!" or "my client believes that the victim enjoyed it when he sexually assaulted her!" because odds are that the jury isn't going to take the subject of sexual assault as humorous and light hearted as you do, and any potential jurors who do would quickly be weeded out during voir dire.

if you skip out on a civil trial and you still want to win your case, you better have a damn good reason that the judge will accept. scheduling a golf trip long after your trial date has already been set is not an acceptable reason.

 

[Hog-train]

It also didn't help that 2 other women testified that he sexually assaulted them and he let his attorneys argue that 1 of them shouldn't testify because "there wasnt a law against sexual assault on an airplane at that time"

If you're on the jury, how the hell do you hear all that and he refuse to testify and you not think hes guilty?

In the vast majority of trials, mere allegations (that are unproven) from other women wouldn't even be allowed in court.

1. There's zero proof. One was from some 81 year old who said it happened in 1979.

2. It has zero bearing on E Jean Carrol's case. How do unproven allegations PROVE his guilt in THIS case? It doesn't.

And not testifying is super common and what happens in the MAJORITY of cases.

If I was on the jury, I would determine the verdict by what every person should do. EVIDENCE.

I don't know why I have to spell out something so simple and fundamental. It's kind of scary people are so willing to completely abandon our fundamental values on the justice system just because you don't like someone on a personal level.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

In the vast majority of trials, mere allegations (that are unproven) from other women wouldn't even be allowed in court.

1. There's zero proof. One was from some 81 year old who said it happened in 1979.

2. It has zero bearing on E Jean Carrol's case. How do unproven allegations PROVE his guilt in THIS case? It doesn't.

And not testifying is super common and what happens in the MAJORITY of cases.

If I was on the jury, I would determine the verdict by what every person should do. EVIDENCE.

I don't know why I have to spell out something so simple and fundamental. It's kind of scary people are so willing to completely abandon our fundamental values on the justice system. Just because you don't like someone on a personal level.

you seem to be mistaking a civil matter with a criminal matter where you are required to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. you wouldn't even make it on that jury panel.

in a civil dispute you don't have to prove shit. you just have to present enough evidence or testimony to suggest to the judge or jurors that the defendant in all likelihood did whatever it is that you are accusing them of.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

And not testifying is super common and what happens in the MAJORITY of cases.

for criminal cases this is true. but not civil cases.

in criminal cases you're almost expected not to testify. it's probably the best option and even your own attorneys will advise against testifying.

unlike whatever nonsense you'll see in hollywood movies or reality tv, it's very rare to see a defendant take the stand during a criminal trial. nobody really ever does that.

taking the fifth is ultimately the best option in any criminal trial, even if you're innocent. you let your attorneys provide your defense. you have the right to take the fifth and in a criminal case the jury is not allowed to hold that against you.

the only reason why defendants ever testify in criminal trials is when the outcome of their case relies on their testimony, and their legal team advises them to do so after they have already decided that all of the other evidence that was presented in trial was way too damning for them to be able to refute and they are expecting a conviction UNLESS the defendant testifies. and yet most of the times the defendant will still take the fifth, because when it has already reached that point whatever the defendant has to say isn't really going to mean shit because the evidence is already stacked against them.

in criminal cases the state has to prove your guilt. they gather their evidence and witnesses and they present it at trial. they could give a fuck less about whether or not you choose to take the fifth or what you have to say for yourself during trial. they're not even expecting you to testify, but rest assured that they would love nothing more than to get you up on that stand and ask you some questions, because the state has already believed that they have all of the evidence needed to convict you, and that's why they chose to indict and prosecute you in the first place. whatever you have to say for yourself after the fact is likely going to be moot, and you'll only be digging yourself into a deeper hole if you get up on that witness stand and you can't paint a good enough picture that will hold up to cross examination and rebuttal.

the best thing to do during any criminal matter is to just take the fifth from day one. from the moment you get charged until after the verdict gets read you keep your mouth shut and let your attorneys represent you and do all of the work for all parts in-between. don't talk to nobody about the case, don't speak to any law enforcement or prosecutors without your attorney present. don't go on social media and then start talking about anything at all related to your charges until your case is resolved. by doing so you're only hurting yourself.

but civil disputes are a whole different ballgame. sure you don't have to testify if you don't want to. you don't even have to show up to court. that's your own perogative, but unlike in a criminal court, the judge and jurors can and will hold that against you. and in a he-said she-said civil dispute where the judge or jury needs to weigh out which party is more believable and pick a side, if you don't even care to show up and tell your side of the story then best of luck to you i guess. i don't know of very many cases that were won in this fashion, but maybe it happened sometime.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

In the vast majority of trials, mere allegations (that are unproven) from other women wouldn't even be allowed in court.

1. There's zero proof. One was from some 81 year old who said it happened in 1979.

2. It has zero bearing on E Jean Carrol's case. How do unproven allegations PROVE his guilt in THIS case? It doesn't.

And not testifying is super common and what happens in the MAJORITY of cases.

If I was on the jury, I would determine the verdict by what every person should do. EVIDENCE.

I don't know why I have to spell out something so simple and fundamental. It's kind of scary people are so willing to completely abandon our fundamental values on the justice system. Just because you don't like someone on a personal level.

Not testify is a thing in criminal trials where you have a presumption of innocence and need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convicted.

This was a civil trial where evidentiary rules are different and you lose based on a preponderance of the evidence.

She brought in people that said he's done this before (a pattern) and a tape where he said he does such things. His argument for the 1 witness was that when he did it to that witness it wasn't illegal so that doesn't count.

He could have simply testified that they were lying (of course he may have ended up with perjury charges) to negate their testimonies, but he didn't and the jury is allowed to use that as evidence against him.

 

[Hog-train]

Not testify is a thing in criminal trials where you have a presumption of innocence and need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convicted.

This was a civil trial where evidentiary rules are different and you lose based on a preponderance of the evidence.

She brought in people that said he's done this before (a pattern) and a tape where he said he does such things. His argument for the 1 witness was that when he did it to that witness it wasn't illegal so that doesn't count.

He could have simply testified that they were lying (of course he may have ended up with perjury charges) to negate their testimonies, but he didn't and the jury is allowed to use that as evidence against him.

In the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp civil trial, every single time someone tried to say "Amber told me this, etc" it was IMMEDIATELY shut down by the judge as hearsay and stricken from the record.

A lot of "witnesses" on Amber's side were never allowed because of unproven hearsay.

Judges have a lot of leeway on what evidence and eyewitnesses they do and do not allow.

In most cases, completely unproven accusations from a completely different case would be inadmissible. This went against the norm. So that tells me the judge was politically motivated.

It'd be a completely different story if he lost a previous case for these things - but this is just some random woman (who has been previously quoted as saying Trump can't get elected) just making a decades old accusation with ZERO proof.

you seem to be mistaking a civil matter with a criminal matter where you are required to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. you wouldn't even make it on that jury panel.

in a civil dispute you don't have to prove shit. you just have to present enough evidence or testimony to suggest to the judge or jurors that the defendant in all likelihood did whatever it is that you are accusing them of.

You still have to show a preponderance of evidence.

That's not my point. A lot of the "evidence" from the civil trial would STILL not be allowed in normal civil trials. Hearsay is not allowed. Pure accusations with zero proof from completely unrelated incidents would also normally never be uttered.

There's actually ZERO evidence. It's only her story and that's it.

That's not enough for a "preponderance of evidence."

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Not testify is a thing in criminal trials where you have a presumption of innocence and need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convicted.

This was a civil trial where evidentiary rules are different and you lose based on a preponderance of the evidence.

She brought in people that said he's done this before (a pattern) and a tape where he said he does such things. His argument for the 1 witness was that when he did it to that witness it wasn't illegal so that doesn't count.

He could have simply testified that they were lying (of course he may have ended up with perjury charges) to negate their testimonies, but he didn't and the jury is allowed to use that as evidence against him.

i thought it was pretty funny the first day of trump's criminal trial where he was playing for the tv cameras outside of the courtroom and trying to act all tough guy saying that he was going to take the stand.

his bravado might have sounded convincing to the chud army who are too dumb to be able to think for themselves and put things into context, but to other people who understand things, trump going up there before the trial was even underway and before any evidence was presented or any argument was even made and saying that he was going to testify basically reads off as "look at me, i'm one of those 1%'ers willing to bury myself on the witness stand and hang myself out to dry because my legal team already knows that i'm fucked, and so do i!"

testifying during a criminal trial should always be used as a last resort when all hope is already lost. you only take the stand if you and your legal team are 100% bloody well certain that you are going to be convicted unless you take the stand, whatever you have to say on that witness stand is going to change the outcome of the verdict, and you are going to be absolutely bulletproof against the prosecutors during cross examination. if this is not the case, then you exercise your rights and you keep your fucking mouth shut and you let your legal team do their job. they are there to defend you. let them do their job, and if they can't then you should probably find a better lawyer or just go pro se, or perhaps just plead guilty instead just to receive a lesser sentence save everyones time.

diaper don put on the tough guy act and did all of that showboating outside of the courtroom in front of the tv cameras, but just like almost every other defendant during every other criminal trial, ultimately he decided not to testify because his lawyers recommended against it. as dumb as some of trump's lawyers are, even they know better. it's almost never advisable to testify in your own criminal trial, and yet trump playing for the cameras saying that he was going to was funny as fuck.

he takes the fifth in his civil trials and claimed that he was going to testify at his criminal trial. this guy is living in backwards land.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

In the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp civil trial, every single time someone tried to say "Amber told me this, etc" it was IMMEDIATELY shut down by the judge as hearsay and stricken from the record.

A lot of "witnesses" on Amber's side were never allowed because of unproven hearsay.

sounds like she should have called forward some more credible witnesses. she really shat the bed on that one.

 

[Andy Capp]

In the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp civil trial, every single time someone tried to say "Amber told me this, etc" it was IMMEDIATELY shut down by the judge as hearsay and stricken from the record.

A lot of "witnesses" on Amber's side were never allowed because of unproven hearsay.

Judges have a lot of leeway on what evidence and eyewitnesses they do and do not allow.

In most cases, completely unproven accusations from a completely different case would be inadmissible. This went against the norm. So that tells me the judge was politically motivated.

It'd be a completely different story if he lost a previous case for these things - but this is just some random woman (who has been previously quoted as saying Trump can't get elected) just making a decades old accusation with ZERO proof.



You still have to show a preponderance of evidence.

That's not my point. A lot of the "evidence" from the civil trial would STILL not be allowed in normal civil trials. Hearsay is not allowed. Pure accusations with zero proof from completely unrelated incidents would also normally never be uttered.

There's actually ZERO evidence. It's only her story and that's it.

That's not enough for a "preponderance of evidence."

If that's the case why wasn't it overturned on appeal? Is the whole judiciary in on it?

 

[TeTe]

and they say Trump is 2-0 against women.

 

[Andy Capp]

and they say Trump is 2-0 against women.

They do?

 

[TeTe]

They do?

Trumpers do

 

[Andy Capp]

Trumpers do

How do they mean "against women"? Like similar to 2-0 vs. left handers as in fights? Like that's a good thing? Seriously?

 

[IDGETKTFO]

@idrankyourbeer If only you put as much effort you put into bashing Trump, into you're own PM JT, you might actually make a difference in your shit country.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

@idrankyourbeer If only you put as much effort you put into bashing Trump, into you're own PM JT, you might actually make a difference in your shit country.

ok piss belt.

but for the record it really doesnt take that much effort to shit all over rapists and con men. it's not like i would have to hide my true feelings or anything. but it would take much more energy to twist myself into a pretzel trying to defend them.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

In the Amber Heard-Johnny Depp civil trial, every single time someone tried to say "Amber told me this, etc" it was IMMEDIATELY shut down by the judge as hearsay and stricken from the record.

A lot of "witnesses" on Amber's side were never allowed because of unproven hearsay.

Judges have a lot of leeway on what evidence and eyewitnesses they do and do not allow.

In most cases, completely unproven accusations from a completely different case would be inadmissible. This went against the norm. So that tells me the judge was politically motivated.

It'd be a completely different story if he lost a previous case for these things - but this is just some random woman (who has been previously quoted as saying Trump can't get elected) just making a decades old accusation with ZERO proof.

I'm not familiar with the Depp/Hurd case other than she shit in his bed. Lol


Trump settled a case in '97 from a woman who accused of attempted rape. He was also sued in 2019 by a campaign staffer. There are like over 40 women that have made SA claims about him, but....


I've said all along I have doubts about the story, but like I've also said - he should have testified.

 

[Loiosh]

How do they mean "against women"? Like similar to 2-0 vs. left handers as in fights? Like that's a good thing? Seriously?

It's a pretty serious idea.

Trump is 2-0 against women in presidential races. This has Democratic party leaders thinking that they can't risk running another woman again any time soon.

 

[Loiosh]

you wouldn't even make it on that jury panel.

He would, absolutely.

Defending men against rape allegations is a crusade for him, and having been told he wouldn't make a jury, he'd lie his ass off to make sure he did.

 

[idrankyourbeer]

He would, absolutely.

Defending men against rape allegations is a crusade for him, and having been told he wouldn't make a jury, he'd lie his ass off to make sure he did.

i've been summoned for jury duty before. i really didn't want to do it and i was looking on the internet for the best ways to get myself out of it. the guy decided to plead out right before the trial was set to begin so that came as a bit of a relief.

i really don't want to partake in sending people to prison. even if they are guilty as fuck and belong in there. i don't want to be a part of the jury that sentences them because i plan on living in this city for the rest of my life and i don't want to have a target on me by any potential gangs that i would have been known to convict a member of theirs.