Posted on 05/09/2023 1:02:55 PM PDT by Signalman
I guess, I am awaiting the judge’s ruling that President Trump is ineligible to run for public office. I doubt the judge in a civil trial has that power, but in the age of the usurpation of some, including the highest office in the country, I would not be surprised if he does.
What evidence did she present from 30 years ago? You don’t decide someone to be guilty without evidence.
First question— who were the witnesses who saw them going in together? Any camera footage at least?
The Post had a story about Reid.
RE: The judge informed the jury before they went in for deliberations that kissing someone against their will would be grounds for finding Trump liable
And what evidence did she show to prove that Trump went in with her? Any eyewitnesses? Any video footage? Any pictures?
ANY contemporaneous evidence AT ALL?
Nope.
I understand that the NY Governor — a coincidence I’m sure—
had extended the statute of limitations one year. That extension allowed this woman to file suit. I’m not sure the rape allegation mattered—she sued for Trump’s slandering her reputation when she slandered him.
To tell the truth I don’t recall all of the legal acrobatics they performed to get this thing into court.
“Any camera footage at least?”
In the early 90s?......not likely.
She’s going to pay a fortune in his attorney fees.
This was a civil, not criminal, trial.
RE: In the early 90s?......not likely.
Then there’s no evidence other than what she said happened 30 years ago. How do you convict a man based on no evidence? Our justice system assumes innocence until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
I have no idea, but the judge did make that ruling when he gave the jury instructions and jury found him liable.
Remember in a civil case, it’s not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s a preponderance of the evidence. OJ Simpson is a perfect example, found not guilty in the criminal trial but liable in the civil case.
At this point, it’s doesn’t matter about evidence, Trump has to appeal and hope some appeals court agrees with him.
All of which are probably legitimate grounds for a successful appeal. Trump won’t pay her a cent.
Anyway this isn’t about truth, its about incessant “Trump is a convicted sexual predator” headlines leading up to November 2024.
RE: This was a civil, not criminal, trial.
You still have to present evidence. Any eyewitness to Trump going in with her?
They require evidence in civil cases, too.
RE: Remember in a civil case, it’s not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it’s a preponderance of the evidence.
Ok, what evidence did she present? If preponderance is the standard, meaning the quality or QUANTITY of facts support what she said, where are they?
Did any eyewitness testify to seeing them go in together 30 years ago?
Hahaha. That’s the truth.
she lied about this but not about that
Exactly. The Plaintiff introduced evidence while Trump chose not to.
RE: At this point, it’s doesn’t matter about evidence
But IT HAS TO MATTER. You don’t force someone to pay $5 million by saying evidence doesn’t matter. That’s not how our justice system is supposed to work.
RE: The Plaintiff introduced evidence
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere… what we’re the evidence introduced?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.