bearister said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

For those without reading comprehension issues...

What is the rationale for allowing someone to sue for a tort that allegedly happened to an adult more than 20 years ago? How many jurors must agree with the plaintiff in this case?

---

Do your own research.
You're more than capable.

You know the issues at hand.
Why not just come out and say it:

"I, oski003, believe that Donald Trump should not be held to account for his rape of E Jean Carroll - by whatever means necessary, be it statute of limitations has run out OR 1 single juror who can put his foot down and say NO no matter how damning the evidence is."

---

Since all I am hearing is crickets, there appears to be no rationale to allow this suit to move forward. TDS isn't a valid reason. Are you saying the evidence is damning? What evidence? Testimony from the victim? It is very tough to prove or disprove something that happened 30+ years ago. How many jurors must vote him guilty? What is the burden of proof?

---

In federal civil cases, a verdict must be unanimous.

The burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence."

Her testimony alone constitutes eyewitness evidence that could satisfy the burden of proof in the opinion of the jurors.

It will not be a "he said/she said" situation because "he" is not only not going to testify, he isn't showing up.

Stale claim. Unanimous verdict required. It is going to be tough for her not to lose at least one juror.

I believe her. tRump not testifying in a civil case or even showing up is not how most innocent people would act. I have read 10 books about him, and now will not read past a headline about him. I think he is "good for it" as Detective Andy Sipowicz, NYPD used to say.

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

---

Thank you for the reasoned, informative response.

WalterSobchak said:

---

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

WalterSobchak said:

---

movielover said:

---

Data USA:

"The 5 largest ethnic groups in Diablo, CA are White (Non-Hispanic) (100%), White (Hispanic) (0%), Black or African American (Non-Hispanic) (0%), Black or African American (Hispanic) (0%), and American Indian & Alaska Native (Non-Hispanic) (0%)."

---

I know for a fact from personal knowledge that these stats are false.

---

Yep, it's false. From Wikipedia:

At the 2010 census Diablo had a population of 1,158. The population density was 853.1 inhabitants per square mile (329.4/km2). The racial makeup of Diablo was 1,065 (92.0%) White, 1 (0.1%) African American, 2 (0.2%) Native American, 55 (4.7%) Asian, 0 (0.0%) Pacific Islander, 5 (0.4%) from other races, and 30 (2.6%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 39 people (3.4%).[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo,_California#cite_note-8][/url]

I was today years old when I learned there was a Diablo, CA and I lived in the Bay Area for almost 40 years.

---

Most people don't distinguish it from Danville. For example Jake Haener is from Diablo.

---

True.
The kids all go to Monte Vista High.

Interestingly enough, his Mom's career has mirrored that of her son Jake's. A UW alum born in Tacoma who had reporting gigs in Seattle and Fresno before arriving at KTVU.

Now Jake just got drafted in the 4th round by the Saints. Jake actually wore #9 as a kid, for Drew Brees.

I attended the "Battle of Danville" in 2002 between Sam Keller of San Ramon Valley (Nebraska/ASU) and Kyle Wright of Monte Vista ( Miami ).

Greatest high school game Ive ever seen.
Confirmed by Mike Pawlaski.

Diablo population: 1,255

oski003 said:

---

How many jurors must agree with the plaintiff in this case?

---

As Bearister said, unanimous.
But it's important to make note of the burden of proof in this case type. Civil, between 2 people as opposed to criminal where the state is the plaintiff.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-defense-rape-trial-carroll-key-moment-1796999?amp=1

White thinks Carroll is likely to win her case. "The burden of proof is very low in this type of case, the plaintiff only needs to show that her claims are supported by a preponderance of the evidence," he told Newsweek.


CIVIL:
"Preponderance" is taken to mean a majority, 51%, or other equivalent measures that imply that the defendant more likely than not committed the act.


CRIMINAL:

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a more difficult standard to define, but it clearly requires a much higher level of certainty than does preponderance of the evidence.



….So, Oski, if you ask me….
If a woman makes specific claims and the man doesn't even bother to testify and say, "I didn't do it", wouldn't you agree with me that the woman has satisfied the burden of proof, 51% more likely?

… When jury selection finally kicked off, Kaplan apprised potential jurors that they would be anonymous if selected. Neither he nor lawyers nor Carroll and Trump would know their identities. Their names would be kept in a vault. If they were picked, they would be protected going to and from court. They'd travel to a pickup point in the morning, from which U.S. Marshals would then drive them to court, secretly leading them into the building through a garage. While this happens with criminal cases sometimes, it's virtually unheard of with civil matters. "This is all for your protection," Kaplan said. "I would recommend to you, in fact, that you don't use your real names with each other … the fewer people who know who you are, the better."

While this sounded incredibly grave, jury selection took an expected but ultimately kooky turn as Kaplan asked jurors about any affiliations or opinions that could make them biased. Have they ever belonged to or considered themselves a supporter of QAnon, antifa, Jane's Revenge, the Communist Party of the United States, or the Ku Klux Klan? Not a single one raised their hand.

Shortly before 2 p.m., a jury of six men and three women were selected. As the panel was finalized…

The Trump defense:

Trump attorney Tacopina spent the beginning of his opening warning jurors not to succumb to partisanship insisting Carroll's case was brought "for political reasons and for status."…

… despite her claims about defamation and threats, "her life was never better" after coming forward, Tacopina said.
…

… Tacopina insisted Carroll's evidence was weak and implored jurors not to punish Trump because they didn't like him. "People have very strong feelings about Donald Trump," Tacopina said. "And it's okay to feel however you feel. You can hate Donald Trump. It's okay!" But there was a time and a place, he said, "to express those feelings." That's called a ballot box, during an election "not here in a court of law."
…

Tacopino also tried to get jurors to doubt what they were hearing.
She was egged on by politicians who didn't like Trump (George Conway).
How come she couldn't remember the year ('95 or '96)?
How could she have thought he'd try on flimsy lingerie over his suit?

"It all comes down to: Do you believe the unbelievable?"




I say, these are weak defenses. He has to at least show up and say "It didn't happen."
But, come on, you know me. That's not good enough, because I think he is completely incapable of telling the truth. I wouldn't believe anything he says one way or another, although he IS a readable book. That is, he does tell the truth at times. Like when he says he grabs women by the P* and can't help himself from just kissing them, or "stand back and stand by", or "Russia, if you're listening…"

Many people don't realize that within days of Trump asking for the hack, there was action on it:


https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-hacking-ap-top-news-elections-north-america-3c4bc6e9aa6c4fb18bc9603fb082af65

And oski003,

You may also be interested to note that the judge in this current rape case is going to allow testimony from two other women who allege the same story as Carroll, the same as Trump himself told Billy Bush is his modus operandi.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna74370

I'm just warning you, because as the walls begin to cave in on Trump, your subconscious inclination may be to brush it off for this reason or that.

But, here and now, before it comes, digest that:

1) Trump said he does it.
2) Three women will say, "yes, he did that."

So, don't be shocked when it happens.

Seems pretty simple to me.

The fact that an adverse verdict against tRump in this civil case will stitch the scarlet letter "R" on him and paste a healthy damages award on him as opposed to a criminal verdict sending him to the slammer, makes it a bit easier for Ms. Carroll to win.

I still think it will be a mistrial because at least one juror will either be philosophically aligned with tRump or be the target of intimidation.

Maybe he was emulating David Letterman, JFK, and LBJ?

movielover said:

---

Maybe he was emulating David Letterman, JFK, and LBJ?

---

OK, I'll take Unrelated Actions of Famous People for $800.

How many has he taken advantage of that have decided to take it to the grave?

concordtom said:

---

How many has he taken advantage of that have decided to take it to the grave?

---

With the sexual revolution most are by mutual agreement. This woman can't even prove being in this public department store with Donald Trump decades ago for her alleged "sexy" time.

movielover said:

---

concordtom said:

---

How many has he taken advantage of that have decided to take it to the grave?

---

With the sexual revolution most are by mutual agreement. This woman can't even prove being in this public department store with Donald Trump decades ago for her alleged "sexy" time.

---

Say what????
Are you suggesting that all sex is now consensual?? By default??

And you need photos, else it didn't happen?
She told friends at the time - they will corroborate her story. It's not all made up just since he became President.

movielover said:

---

Most people don't know Diablo, but the new money in Blackhawk enjoy looking down on that all-white community.

---

You're a terribly ignorant troll.

I dont live in the town of Diablo.
My name reflects the Diablo Valley.

Duh.

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

For those without reading comprehension issues...

What is the rationale for allowing someone to sue for a tort that allegedly happened to an adult more than 20 years ago? How many jurors must agree with the plaintiff in this case?

---

Do your own research.
You're more than capable.

You know the issues at hand.
Why not just come out and say it:

"I, oski003, believe that Donald Trump should not be held to account for his rape of E Jean Carroll - by whatever means necessary, be it statute of limitations has run out OR 1 single juror who can put his foot down and say NO no matter how damning the evidence is."

---

Since all I am hearing is crickets, there appears to be no rationale to allow this suit to move forward. TDS isn't a valid reason. Are you saying the evidence is damning? What evidence? Testimony from the victim? It is very tough to prove or disprove something that happened 30+ years ago. How many jurors must vote him guilty? What is the burden of proof?

---

you hate women, we get it already

movielover said:

---

Where's Democrat presidential hopeful and MSM darling Michael Avenatti?

---

Warming up the bench in the cell for Don!

DiabloWags said:

---

movielover said:

---

Most people don't know Diablo, but the new money in Blackhawk enjoy looking down on that all-white community.

---

You're a terribly ignorant troll.

I dont live in the town of Diablo.
My name reflects the Diablo Valley.

Duh.

---

He lives on top of Mt Diablo and has a very powerful telescope through which he can see all the potholes in the Diablo Valley, that is.

(Okay, chill DW, it's just a joke)

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

concordtom said:

---

oski003 said:

---

For those without reading comprehension issues...

What is the rationale for allowing someone to sue for a tort that allegedly happened to an adult more than 20 years ago? How many jurors must agree with the plaintiff in this case?

---

Do your own research.
You're more than capable.

You know the issues at hand.
Why not just come out and say it:

"I, oski003, believe that Donald Trump should not be held to account for his rape of E Jean Carroll - by whatever means necessary, be it statute of limitations has run out OR 1 single juror who can put his foot down and say NO no matter how damning the evidence is."

---

Since all I am hearing is crickets, there appears to be no rationale to allow this suit to move forward. TDS isn't a valid reason. Are you saying the evidence is damning? What evidence? Testimony from the victim? It is very tough to prove or disprove something that happened 30+ years ago. How many jurors must vote him guilty? What is the burden of proof?

---

you hate women, we get it already

---

Maybe he's just wishing he could have done that move in the lingerie dressing room.

Retired stock broker, 81, testifies how Donald Trump groped her



https://mol.im/a/12038631

tRump: "You are the c**t from the airplane."

bearister said:

---

Retired stock broker, 81, testifies how Donald Trump groped her

https://mol.im/a/12038631

tRump: "You are the c**t from the airplane."

---

Pretty good summary of the case's recent action, and here's the opening which says Team Trump has made a good decision by not having him testify:

At the end of proceedings Tuesday, Donald Trump's attorney informed the Court that the former president will not be testifying in his own defense.

In a trial that has been going quite badly for Trump, he is not going to bother making a last-ditch effort to win over the jury by testifying that he did not rape E. Jean Carroll and then facing cross-examination. In essence, his defense now rests on his attorneys' cross-examination of E. Jean Carroll, which was abysmal.


Even though Trump's decision not to testify makes it much more likely that the jury will rule against him, I believe that he and his lawyers are making the wise decision. The former president is currently under indictment in New York for 37 counts of false statements. He also faces an open investigation in Fulton County, Georgia, where District Attorney Fani Willis has announced that she will disclose whether she plans to indict Trump by early summer.

Special Counsel Jack Smith is likewise deciding whether to seek an indictment of Trump for hoarding the classified documents discovered in his office and residence at Mar-A-Lago and/or for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.


It's important to note that any statement Trump would make on the witness stand during this trial could be used in any of those cases as well.

In addition, Trump faces the theoretical possibility of criminal indictment for the rape of E. Jean Carroll. In New York, there is no statute of limitations for the crime of first-degree rape. If he were to take the stand and melt down (like Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men), he could be indicted by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg. So, while choosing not to testify is a bad option, it's likely the least bad option available to the former President right now.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-makes-at-least-one-good-decision-at-his-rape-trial

The end of the article (after review of the women who testified against Trump) is also notable:

At the end of the day, Carroll's attorneys informed the Court they expected to conclude their case by Thursday morning. Trump's attorneys then revealed that Trump would not be testifying. Judge Kaplan stated that he would instruct the jury and have closing arguments either on Friday, May 5, or Monday, May 8.

In the end, this trial may be like "the sound of one hand clapping." E. Jean Carroll will have testified to being raped by Donald Trump. She will have presented numerous corroborating witnesses. Donald Trump will have presented no evidence on his own behalf, instead relying on the jurors to not believe the testimony of the plaintiff and her witnesses.

Only those jurors know what their verdict will be.


It's pretty laughable. Because Trump is essentially conceding that he did this, he'll pay whatever penalty he is ordered to pay, and then he'll say it was BS.
And his media machinery will echo that.
And his believers will believe him and continue to rally and send in contributions.
And BI whackos will come on here and defend him with redirects of Hillary's server and Hunter's laptop.

It's a mad mad mad mad world!

The travesty is more lawfare - a Democrat Governor creating a new rul to allow a 30 year old (stale) allegation.

Will Special Counsel Jack Smith seek an indictment of Vice President Biden - who had no classification authority - for hoarding classified documents in three locations, including his garage?

Perhaps after he locks up Trump for multiple varied offenses, and does the same to Clarence Thomas, who has engaged in what I imagine you are referring to as "lawfare" - a corrupt Supreme Court Justice creating a new rule to bar millions of women access to medical care.
…just to use your logic.

Journalist cries as she testifies how Trump sexually assaulted her while Melania was nearby | Daily Mail Online


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12043241/Journalist-cries-testifies-Trump-sexually-assaulted-Melania-nearby.html

Trump to cut Ireland trip short and return to New York to 'confront' E Jean Carroll | The Independent


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-ireland-carroll-rape-trial-b2332491.html

*I would pay $150 PPV to watch that serial liar moron step on his mushroom on the witness stand…but it 'taint gonna happen.


Plaintiff's Attorney: "Isn't it a fact, Mr. tRump, that you harassed my client in the dressing room."

tRump: "Her @$$ meant nothing to me, I liked her cans….er, ah, gee, I amend, I mean overrule, I mean withdraw that response. Is it too late to assert the 1st, I mean the 5th?"

You can’t make this up. The guy funding Jean Carroll’s fake rape case went to Epstein island🤦‍♀️ https://t.co/xJrFGon0f1

— Rosie Memos (@almostjingo) May 4, 2023

I wonder why the Wall Street Journal is releasing this information now?

DOJ is 'investigating Trump's link with Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour'



https://mol.im/a/12049051

tRump's legal problems now:

bearister said:

---

DOJ is 'investigating Trump's link with Saudi-backed LIV Golf tour'

https://mol.im/a/12049051

tRump's legal problems now:

---

The lawfare for the outsider never ends.