The Disease of Leftism

Creeper

Creeper

UDFA
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
3,655
daboyz said:

Doesn't matter. She won. Unlike criminal cases, which require proving guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt," civil cases require a preponderance of the evidence. This means Carroll only had to prove that her version of events was more than 50% likely to be true. The jury deliberated for less than three hours before finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. (the jury in both trials combined, consisted of only 5 women)

Trump chose not to attend or testify at the first trial, leaving his defense with no counter-testimony to refute Carroll's version of events. Furthermore, evidence from his recorded pretrial deposition severely damaged his defense.

In her 2019 book, Carroll publicly accused 21 men of varying degrees of harassment and assault.
Keep reading...
I have said in the past, Trump does not hire good lawyers. But the judge also allowed some evidence into the trail which, in my opinion, should have been inadmissible. He let the Access Hollywood tape into trial for example. In that tape Trump said because he was rich and famous women "let him grab them by the pussy." The key word there IMO, is "let", which implies they consented. Of course in know way does this prove that Trump did anything to Carroll. It was damaging evidence that should have been excluded. The judge also allowed hearsay into the trial, specifically to of Carroll's friends who claimed Carroll told them of the alleged assault 20 year ago, and 10 years after the assault occurred. Then, the judge allowed two other women to testify that Trump attacked them similarly at different times. But again, this is not proof that he did anything to Carroll, and the stories of these two witnesses were not corroborated either.

I get the standard for a civil case is easier to meet than for a criminal case. This case could never have succeeded in a criminal court. But at the same time the judge had a lot to do with the outcome of this case by allowing a lot of evidence into the trial that would normally have been excluded.
 
Creeper

Creeper

UDFA
Messages
2,973
Reaction score
3,655
I am reading that Democrats are upset that Elon Musk is our first trillionaire. They think he has too much money. But let's do some thinking.

First of all, Musk's wealth is in assets he owns. Most of them he created from nothing with his own ingenuity and hard work. Why is this a problem for Democrats?

Musk has given massive amounts of his money and assets to help people around the world, in the name of freedom. Musk gave Starlink equipment and internet access to millions of people who were prevented from accessing the internet by their oppressive governments or when disasters have destroyed infrastructure.

Musk's ingenuity and inventiveness, along with his can do attitude have resulted in major leaps forward in technology to the benefit of mankind.

Now, compare Musk's accomplishments to George Soros. Soros makes billions by manipulating currencies which has gotten him banned in some countries. He has shorted bank stocks during the financial crisis putting some of those banks on the verge of bankruptcy and endangering millions of good paying jobs.

Musk is clearly a hero of our time. Soros is a villain. Of course, one supports Trump while the other gives hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats and liberal causes. Which one is the pal of Democrats?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom