Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (282326)	4/4/2024 6:20:34 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 361975

you didn't notice that in the trial the judge and jury were dealing with rape as defined by NY law, the case being a criminal matter, while the judge's use of the the word in his comments explicitly and directly differentiated as the common parlance, dictionary version, which is: Rape as a criminal matter wasn't involved. And of course, wasn't proved in any way, shape or form. The question was a civil matter, which is distinguished in many ways from rape as a criminal manner -- notably, the rules and standards of evidence, the notions of civil vs. criminal liability, and the absolute entitlement to a jury trial rather than a judge's decision. These two types of trials, as you are aware, are as different as day and night (or at least dawn and sunset). Any of these criteria would almost certainly have resulted in an acquittal. All taken together, there is no doubt whatsoever. So, there simply is no way to reasonably combine these two things and that judge knew it damned well. This could not be and was not a conviction. They could not even get the jury to agree about the rape aspect and ended up with two jurors, in so many words, saying: "Nope. We can't buy the rape claim. We'll let you get something by giving you a "sexual touching"(which -- if it were a crime, would have put many young males in jail before they were 14) instead. To be even more to the point, following is a summary of the alleged evidence against him: "Evidence included testimony from two friends Carroll spoke to after the incident, a photograph of Carroll with Trump in 1987, testimony from two women who had separately accused Trump of sexual assault, footage from the Trump Access Hollywood tape and his October 2022 deposition." Which of these is sufficiently conclusive to accuse, let alone promote a finding, that a man is guilty or liable of a rape? Decades after it allegedly occurred, after the statute of limitations has tolled, and been arbitrarily reinstated for the period in question for one year only? What evidence of a rape do you believe was present other than inadmissible hearsay?