There are several issues under discussion.
Sure. How does that help your claim she didn't "win the sex case"? The sex part was already decided and didn't need relitigating.Let me help you back.
NEW YORK — A jury ordered Donald Trump on Friday to pay $83.3 million to the writer E. Jean Carroll over defamatory remarks he made about her while he was president in response to her rape accusation.
The bulk of the damages award is meant to punish Trump for repeatedly using his public platform to denigrate Carroll in defiance of prior court rulings that his verbal attacks are false and defamatory.
Trump ordered to pay $83.3M for defaming E. Jean Carroll
Trump has repeatedly disparaged Carroll after she accused him of raping her.www.politico.com
Do you ever look at the words you type and ask yourself if they make sense?
People like you can’t be taken seriously. It’s almost sad to see how TDS has has effected you.
Well, I am not a member of any BAR. I am not legally able to represent people who are involved in trials. Still you would be shocked how many Americans actually have legal backgrounds. In College I had to argue many legal cases during class time.
No. What's happening here is that you Bingos seem to think that criminal conviction is the objective determining factor of whether or not you're a rapist. That's stupid logic. Logically you have to commit rape before you can be charged, prosecuted and found guilty of it. Therefore, logically, being a rapist comes before being convicted of rape. That's simple enough logic that even irreparably crippled Bingos like yourself should be able to sus it out. What being convicted of rape objectively proves isn't that you're a rapist (innocent people can be convicted as well), but that objectively, you were convicted of rape. That's it.
I would judge more than you do.
Noone has ever wondered? I don't think that's true. In fact, that particular point was addressed by Carrol's lawyer.
www.politico.com
When one leaves court, one has what the Court handed over to one. She went after Trump for defaming her. She would have gone to criminal court over raping her.
No problem
Assuming the reason she didn't go after Trump criminally, in the past, is because it didn't happen is also illogical.
One way to clear it up is do you understand where rape trials happen? The charge is criminal by the way and not monetary to the victim. Rape trials take place in criminal courts. I bet you really do know that. She wanted money. She so far was awarded money. For defaming her.
I believe in criminal court she had no chance to win. So she went for the money.
Well there you go. You clearly designate it as a belief, like faith, rather than a logical point you're making. I accept that conclusion. The conclusion of your argument resting on faith. Just to be clear.
I will do my own job of defining. Do you want me to do your defining for you?
Well you could try but I feel confident in my ability to counter any of your arguments with reason and logic.
And I accept that fact. What I don't accept is the notion that a criminal conviction is what objectively makes one a rapist rather than the act of rape itself which logically comes before arrest, trial and conviction.
Because in my case I have studied law when going to College. We were trained how to evaluate cases. A sex case on her behalf would be found in a criminal court. A Defamation case is a civil case.
She had no chance in a criminal court because of the statute of limitations. It says NOTHING about the merits of a case.
