Posted on 05/09/2023 5:32:14 PM PDT by know.your.why
I have done a quick internet search engine dig and didn't get what I was hoping for. Ok...I know that I heard on the radio today that the Law that made it possible for a jury to award E. Jean Carroll todays win was a brand new law and only been on the books for less than a year. What that means is...they created this new law JUST so they could get trump. I need to find what law was used as the basis for ruling against trump today. Can some nice FReeper please help me? Thanks!
“No ex post facto laws” We’ll see what happens next.
That is may take on it too. But you wouldn’t believe how many people come out of the digital walls here to disagree with me.
These limitations laws are just as much a law as any other law. Then there are those here who think that ex-post facto only applies to the federal government. They can’t even think about what would happen if state and local government could just change any law and apply it to the past. We have some real brainwashed people even here.
The entire democrat party has been acting in unison towards the goal of destroying Trump.
I haven’t been watching this too closely...
How many more of these ‘Trump did something but I can’t recall the date that Trump ruined my life’ trials on the docket in NY?
This is what I posted earlier on Facebook, another freeper’s comment that sums it up:
“The jury’s logic is weird. She accuses him of rape. He calls her a liar and a few other choice names. They jury says, well, yea...you didn’t rape her but you owe her money for all the mean things you said about her after she accused you of this thing you didn’t do.”
By the way, what is the law everyone keeps talking about? If it’s the removal of the statute of limitations on rape, that was being discussed years ago. So they never did it, until now? I remember it from the 2002 state senate race in NY.
Yep, the Get Trump Law was bought and paid for by the billionaire Linkedin founder, Reid Hoffman. I would bet he spread millions around the politicians to get the law and buy the right judge. Hoffman reportedly hates Trump and probably came up with this plan to stop Trump.
Never mind. I see it in comment 13.
Yep, the Get Trump Law was bought and paid for by the billionaire Linkedin founder, Reid Hoffman. I would bet he spread millions around the politicians to get the law and buy the right judge. Hoffman reportedly hates Trump and probably came up with this plan to stop Trump.
The US Constitution is very clear that states cannot pass ex post facto laws. (Art. I, sec. 10, cl. 1). But SCOTUS held way back in 1798 (Calder v. Bull) that only criminal laws can be ex post facto laws; the prohibition does not apply to civil laws.
He wasn’t convicted. He was found liable. Big difference
Maybe Trump wasn’t assaulting her but feared an alien invasion of the earth. Just going by “what she was wearing” it looks that way.
Seriously though, I suspect the only thing for which Trump is liable is not being a globalist.
So the state can't imprison you but it can work with a non-governmental entity to impoverish you. Nice!
Stare decisis is indeed for suckers.
2 things. The lawsuit was almost entirely funded by an anti-Trump billionaire. Yes, NY passed a law especially for this, that allowed the lawsuit to happen.
There are a lot of editorial writers in the conservative magazines I read who talk down about Trump. Speaking only for myself, 4 years of Trump was great, money wise and for my psyche, etc. I’d like another 4 year term for The Don and I will certainly give him my vote.
Just like they hastily changed the Voting laws under Covid.......
There’s a reason for the statute of limitations...to stop cra* like what Carroll is pulling. And I’d say...the law is void on its’ face.
I believe Hochul extended the SOL on these cases so this could be prosecuted.
SCOTUS are communist’s who don’t care about the constitution. Just because they give a ruling does not make them right. Look how many times they change there own rulings whenever it suits them.
So you think it is OK to financially destroy you based on a law that did not exist when you did something. Destroy your reputation as well. That it is OK as long as you can’t go to jail for it. Use a little common sense. The founders didn’t put in any such exceptions.... A crooked court did.
The SCOTUS decision limiting the ex post facto clause to criminal cases was decided unanimously in 1798, pretty darn close to the founding. No one at the time protested the decision as crooked or incorrect.
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.