Looks like you're out of the loop!
Posted on 05/10/2023 5:54:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The jury in the E. Jean Carroll v. Trump case ruled on Tuesday afternoon that former President Trump is liable for sexual abuse and defamation charges. While Trump announced ahead of a verdict he planned to appeal the decision, Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley unpacked the case on "The Story" and weighed the "biggest problem" the president faces in an appeal.
JONATHAN TURLEY : That dog won't hunt. If that's the argument on appeal, then it's going to be a rather quick appeal. There are other issues here that he might appeal on. Judge Kaplan was really quite yielding on the demands for a witness testimony. He allowed in a lot of evidence, including the Hollywood access tape and these other witnesses. Obviously, Trump had never been convicted or found guilty, either criminally or civilly in those cases. So there was a lot of evidence here that the defense could say should not have been brought into the case or should have been handled differently. The problem for President Trump is that this is a mix question of law and fact. There are some legal issues here, like the ones I mentioned about allowing in certain types of testimony. But when it comes to factual determinations, the court of appeals tends to be leery of overturning those. Jury decisions are really sort of iron plated because you have to show that they were clearly erroneous. They're not going to be able to show that here with all this testimony. So the only way to really unravel this is to say that the jury heard things that they shouldn't have been allowed to hear because they were too prejudicial.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But the case shouldn’t have been brought.
As mentioned to you previously, I’m another thread: The law was changed as a result of the 2018 disclosures about Cardinal McCarrick. It’s all about the priestly child (boy) sex abuse scandal.
No. He had reasons for handling the case the way he did. He’s got bigger fish to fry.
“if the jury found him not guilty of rape...”
This is a civil case. The correct terminology is “liable.” The word “guilty” applies to criminal prosecutions.
The jury most likely came from New York County (Manhattan) and Bronx County, and on the political spectrum, most likely ranged from liberal to communist. They know the plaintiff did not prove her rape case, but they hate Trump so much that they had to find him liable for something, and so they made up the sexual assault just to stick it to him.
Within the limits of error, or interpretation, the jury verdict is she perjured herself. We can take a vote on that also, as the “jury “of public opinion. If they play sandlot rules, they get nothing better in return.
Maybe true.
But having a case in New York city means the jury could not be anything other than a cesspool.
Trump has so few folks there who don’t hate him that the plaintiff’s preemptory challenges and a little research on the jurors were easily sufficient to pick a hangin’ jury. Defendant’s counsel did not have the same power. They would have had to have so many preemptory challenges to challenge everyone but the five MAGA Republicans in NYC.
Tacopina was an awful choice to cross Carroll. It would seem more appropriate to have a woman cross Carroll.
He did it his way.
“Such a shame! If he gets the nomination the Dims will win in a landslide. They wont even have to cheat this time!”
Buzz off, you anti-Trumper. He WILL get the nomination, he WILL win, in spite of the tripe you spout.
Chances are they were 100% mentally deficient. But you already told us that.
Yep.
That’s my take...so I have no idea how they came up with sexual assault. 3 people who more likely than not keep a diary...and no one can even come close to a date...bunch of liars. Wonder how much her two friends got...I’d say E. got 50 and the two got 25 and 25.
Looks like you may be in the loop of Trumps delusion. So a photo of a distressed NYC cop with no context proves that the Courthouse employees were crying with tears runing down their cheeks at his arraignment?
Do you actually believe this happened? “ they were crying. They were actually crying. They said, ‘I’m sorry.’ They said, ‘2024, sir. 2024.’ And tears were pouring down their eyes.”
BTW, If Trump says that he remembered it snowing a foot on Miami Beach on the Fourth of July, whould you believe him?
By “believe” I mean that this actually happened not that the delusional, fantasizing Trump truly believes it. Which given his delusions could easily be true.
Have a nice day
Looks like you may be in the loop of Trumps delusion. So a photo of a distressed NYC cop with no context proves that the Courthouse employees were crying with tears runing down their cheeks at his arraignment?
Do you actually believe this happened? “ they were crying. They were actually crying. They said, ‘I’m sorry.’ They said, ‘2024, sir. 2024.’ And tears were pouring down their eyes.”
BTW, If Trump says that he remembered it snowing a foot on Miami Beach on the Fourth of July, whould you believe him?
By “believe” I mean that this actually happened not that the delusional, fantasizing Trump truly believes it. Which given his delusions could easily be true.
Have a nice day
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.