E Jean Carrol case stands! Appeal denied.

[鬼百合]

Not crying. Do you don't know when in 1996 it happened. There's never been an error in the courts. Tired rhetoric. Sad

Trump should have had better lawyers. Oh well

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No tell me the date. She couldn't even say what fucking year it happened. You're a ln irrational asshole.

Multiple courts say your Orange Jesus is guilty....not that MAGAt cultists will be persuaded to believe it.

 

[Jarod]

No tell me the date. She couldn't even say what fucking year it happened. You're a ln irrational asshole.

The exact date is not relevant to NY law.

 

[Trumpet]

I know you hate him too. What year did he finger your ass over at the bath house in Frisco?

Is the reason that you turned into a dolt, the results of Crazy Trump fingering your feeble brain?????

 

[Jarod]

So y

our legal opinion is pretty much useless because it isn't legal. Who pays for bad legal advice?

?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Show us in the transcript what year she said it happened. Would you agree that if she doesn't even know what year it happened in, that she is lying.

Give us a link to the transcript then if you want me to show you something in the transcript.

 

[Yakuda]

Trump should have had better lawyers. Oh well

Maybe but that's not relevant to the gold.l digging shore claiming she got raped but didn't know when. It's also amazing ny passed a law to change the statue of limitations just long enough to let the gold digging whore file the case. If they are so sure he did it why not charge him criminally? An criminal conviction would.be much more convincing

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I defended a guy once who kissed a woman but it turned out to be against her will. The State charged him with Battery, not sexual assault, because the prosecutor did not think it was sexual assault.

That being said, my opinion and the law are two different things, if you had asked me about the law, I would have had to look New York law and tell you how it is defined.

I understand from media reports, the civil law definition of rape is different than the criminal law definition in New York. Apparently in New York, what TACO did would be rape under the Criminal Law, but is Sexual Assault under the Civil Law.

No. What Trump did was not rape at the time criminally because the law required penis in the vagina for it to be rape.
NY law was different from most states and federal law which says anything inserted qualifies as rape.
The law in NY has since been changed.

Carroll couldn't say for sure if it was penis or tiny finger so jury didn't find it to be rape. Trump could have cleared this up by showing that his penis was maybe a little bigger than his tiny thumb.

 

[Damocles]

What federal issue does TACO have with regards to the case where they found he committed sexual assault?

Donald Trump's lawyers are arguing that the testimony of two women who accused him of sexual assault should not have been admitted in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against him. They claim this testimony was improperly admitted and may have tainted the jury's verdict.

Trump's legal team appears to contend that allowing these women to testify at the trial, where E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault, improperly influenced the jury's decision. They argue this evidence was "highly inflammatory" and amounted to "inadmissible propensity evidence".

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Maybe but that's not relevant to the gold.l digging shore claiming she got raped but didn't know when. It's also amazing ny passed a law to change the statue of limitations just long enough to let the gold digging whore file the case. If they are so sure he did it why not charge him criminally? An criminal conviction would.be much more convincing

OMFG. You are really ignorant of the US Constitution.

 

[Yakuda]

The exact date is not relevant to NY law.

Of course not. Neither was the statue of limitations since they changed it just for her. Temporarily. Hilarious. This shows you how twisted people become when they hate Like you people do.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Maybe but that's not relevant to the gold.l digging shore claiming she got raped but didn't know when. It's also amazing ny passed a law to change the statue of limitations just long enough to let the gold digging whore file the case. If they are so sure he did it why not charge him criminally? An criminal conviction would.be much more convincing

You mean like the 34 felonies Trump was convicted of. You find those convincing?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Donald Trump's lawyers are arguing that the testimony of two women who accused him of sexual assault should not have been admitted in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against him. They claim this testimony was improperly admitted and may have tainted the jury's verdict.

Trump's legal team appears to contend that allowing these women to testify at the trial, where E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault, improperly influenced the jury's decision. They argue this evidence was "highly inflammatory" and amounted to "inadmissible propensity evidence".

He can claim that all he wants. It isn't a federal issue in a civil case.

 

[Damocles]

He can claim that all he wants. It isn't a federal issue in a civil case.

Well, we shall see, won't we?

 

[Jarod]

Donald Trump's lawyers are arguing that the testimony of two women who accused him of sexual assault should not have been admitted in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against him. They claim this testimony was improperly admitted and may have tainted the jury's verdict.

Trump's legal team appears to contend that allowing these women to testify at the trial, where E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of sexual assault, improperly influenced the jury's decision. They argue this evidence was "highly inflammatory" and amounted to "inadmissible propensity evidence".

Sounds like a State Court issue, as the case was tried under the New York Rules of Civil Procedure, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, how would this issue end up in a Federal Court?

From AI, I did not feel like typing it out or researching the details:

Federal jurisdiction refers to the authority of the United States federal courts to hear and decide specific types of cases. These courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. Generally, this includes cases involving federal law, the U.S. Constitution, or disputes between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold.

Key aspects of federal jurisdiction:

• Limited Jurisdiction:
  .Opens in new tab
  Unlike state courts which have broad jurisdiction, federal courts can only hear cases that fall under their specific authorized powers.
  
  
• • Federal Question Jurisdiction:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, the U.S. Constitution, or treaties.
    
  • Diversity Jurisdiction:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal courts can also hear cases between citizens of different states (or between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country) if the amount in controversy exceeds a certain dollar amount.
    
  • Examples of Cases:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal courts handle cases involving federal crimes, civil lawsuits against the federal government, bankruptcy, copyright, patent, and maritime law.
    
  • Original Jurisdiction:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal district courts are the starting point for most cases involving federal law.
    
  • Appellate Jurisdiction:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal courts of appeals review decisions made by federal district courts and certain federal agencies.
    
  • Final Authority:
    .Opens in new tab
    The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal system and has the final say on matters of federal law.

 

[Jarod]

Of course not. Neither was the statue of limitations since they changed it just for her. Temporarily. Hilarious. This shows you how twisted people become when they hate Like you people do.

Citation as to them changing it for her?

 

[Damocles]

Sounds like a State Court issue, as the case was tried under the New York Rules of Civil Procedure, not the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, how would this issue end up in a Federal Court?

We'll have to wait and see. Hence my "we shall see" post.

 

[Jarod]

We'll have to wait and see. Hence my "we shall see" post.

Yes, we will, just asking what you thought about how that is a Federal Issue?


From AI...

Federal jurisdiction refers to the authority of the United States federal courts to hear and decide specific types of cases. These courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes. Generally, this includes cases involving federal law, the U.S. Constitution, or disputes between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds a certain threshold.

Key aspects of federal jurisdiction:

• Limited Jurisdiction:
  .Opens in new tab
  Unlike state courts which have broad jurisdiction, federal courts can only hear cases that fall under their specific authorized powers.
  
  
• • Federal Question Jurisdiction:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, the U.S. Constitution, or treaties.
    
  • Diversity Jurisdiction:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal courts can also hear cases between citizens of different states (or between a citizen of a state and a citizen of a foreign country) if the amount in controversy exceeds a certain dollar amount.
    
  • Examples of Cases:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal courts handle cases involving federal crimes, civil lawsuits against the federal government, bankruptcy, copyright, patent, and maritime law.
    
  • Original Jurisdiction:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal district courts are the starting point for most cases involving federal law.
    
  • Appellate Jurisdiction:
    .Opens in new tab
    Federal courts of appeals review decisions made by federal district courts and certain federal agencies.
    
  • Final Authority:
    .Opens in new tab
    The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal system and has the final say on matters of federal law.

 

[LurchAddams]

TACO sexually assaulted Carrol, case upheld.

How many of you claimed it would be overturned?

Unfortunately TACO can stall until he's no longer president. Ain't nothing gonna happen.

 

[Yakuda]

Citation as to them changing it for her?

You know that can't be done But why did they change it temporarily? At the very least she took advantage of a very fortuitous temporary change in the law. What do you suppose the probability of that happening randomly is?