Yes. I have edited my post to reflect that, if you look again. I was dredging my memory as I typed. Trump not guilty and, in my opinion, would not have been found liable by a jury.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Username Required
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2021
- Messages
- 1,564
- Team supported
- MCFC
She did testify he inserted his penis (I literally just posted her own words about this a few posts ago). The jury did not believe her testimony. Why wasn't she charged with perjury? Was she just mistaken, confused, or did she lie?If you are referring to the rape case, Trump was found guilty of sexual asssault because she was unable to testify that he inserted his penis rather than his fingers. NY law at the time specified rape as insertion of the penis. Trumps defence of course was that nothing happened at all.
More generally, politics seems to play a big part in NY courts. The big question is why Bragg conducted fraud proceedings against the Trump organisation and its execs but not Trump. Very murky.
Carroll told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Trump pulled down his pants and penetrated her, an allegation that she also makes in her deposition, under oath.
“And then I felt his fingers rummaging around my vagina and this huge weight against me,” Carroll testified. “My head hurt, this huge weight, I’m in a situation where I can’t — I can’t — at one point I remember saying this is Donald Trump, what the heck is going on? And then I felt his penis inside of me."
And on the witness stand under oath,
“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me." She then testified Trump eventually inserted his fingers and then his penis inside her.
So that's three times, twice under oath, she claimed Trump raped her. The jury said no. She was mistaken? Confused? Or did she lie?
I was referring to all the cases against him in NY generally. And I think your final paragraph touched on it.If you are referring to the rape case, Trump was found liable for sexual asssault because she was unable to testify that he inserted his penis rather than his fingers. NY law at the time specified rape as insertion of the penis. It has since been amended. Trumps defence of course was that nothing happened at all, which seems more likely to me but I didn’t witness the trial. Trumps defence should have opted for a jury, but failed to do so. Ms Habba strikes again. That civil case was decided on the balance of probabilities by a judge sitting alone.
More generally, politics seems to play a big part in NY courts. The big question is why Bragg conducted fraud proceedings against the Trump organisation and its execs but not Trump. Very murky.
Fair enough.
She didn't lie.She did testify he inserted his penis (I literally just posted her own words about this a few posts ago). The jury did not believe her testimony. Why wasn't she charged with perjury? Was she just mistaken, confused, or did she lie?
Carroll told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that Trump pulled down his pants and penetrated her, an allegation that she also makes in her deposition, under oath.
“And then I felt his fingers rummaging around my vagina and this huge weight against me,” Carroll testified. “My head hurt, this huge weight, I’m in a situation where I can’t — I can’t — at one point I remember saying this is Donald Trump, what the heck is going on? And then I felt his penis inside of me."
And on the witness stand under oath,
“I’m here because Donald Trump raped me." She then testified Trump eventually inserted his fingers and then his penis inside her.
So that's three times, twice under oath, she claimed Trump raped her. The jury said no. She was mistaken? Confused? Or did she lie?
They are not new. Your ignorance notwithstanding.I'm shocked by all these new revelations. Trump must have had a terrible defence lawyer, did she get paid?
I'm not a know all. unlike your good self. And what a terrible defence attorney he must have had, dis she get paid?They are not new. Your ignorance notwithstanding.
Frank the Yank
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2004
- Messages
- 3,341
That’s the crux of the matter. When he got convicted I said it would help him win the election. It did. If an appeals court hears this case, it gets overturned.I was referring to all the cases against him in NY generally. And I think your final paragraph touched on it.
Fair enough.
Frank the Yank
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2004
- Messages
- 3,341
I doubt if he had a combination of Clarence Darrow, Johnny Cochran and Perry Mason as his lawyer, he would have been acquitted. It was a kangaroo court and the fix was in.I'm not a know all. unlike your good self. And what a terrible defence attorney he must have had, dis she get paid?