No, it's a violation of Escapist policy to hound and harass people. To quote:
What you're trying to allude to is a rule for the Current Events boards about keeping grievances within threads. Contrary to your implication, however, my comment does not qualify as a violation of that rule because I am demonstrating that the pattern we're seeing from your arguments in this thread align with a previously noted trend that I am arguing you have not learned from, rather than using it as non-sequitur or the cause of my disagreement here. Ie, a preamble of "you have had trouble with this type of thing in the past. Here's an example of where it happened to show that I'm not making it up. And here's how the takeaway applies to your arguments here".
Well, for starters, I'm wondering if you're mistaking me for someone else, as I didn't say anything about strong evidence. What I said was that the jury ruled that the evidence was strong enough to convict Trump for sexual assault but did not prove rape. An equivalent statement would be that the jury ruled that the prosecution proved sexual assault but not the specific element of sexual assault needed to declare it rape under the jurisdiction's definitions. It does not speak to the overall power of any bit of evidence, just whether or not it was sufficient for the jury to rule guilt.
More importantly, however, my invocation was to call you out on misrepresenting the ruling as if it said that the subcategory of sexual assault didn't happen, when the actual ruling was that the evidence of that element wasn't strong enough to convict on that element, and that it was fundamentally dishonest to pretend that the jury not being sure about a specific element of the crime meant that the jury should have believed that there was no foundation for the case at all. See again the analogy of a case proving Larceny but not Burglary.
That aside, I'd suggest starting with Kaplan's July 19 ruling. To recap: The plaintiff's claim was corroborated by her own testimony, two outcry witnesses (who testified that Carroll had confided in them about the attack shortly after the fact) and six fact witnesses (who testified to the facts of the case), all of whom testified under oath. Trump offered no counterevidence, instead resorting entirely to insinuations about Carroll and the witnesses in an effort to indirectly discredit them (in a trial principally about defamation, I might remind you), and simply claiming that the event never happened. He neither testified in person, nor did his team present any defense evidence.
He also managed to sabotage his own testimony through some rather severe inconsistencies, like - perhaps most famously - insisting that the case was ridiculous because Carroll was not his type...followed by him promptly mistaking her for his ex-wife in a picture from the time period. That kind of slip-up naturally creates the impression in a jury that the speaker's testimony is unreliable. So you had the Plaintiff testifying under oath, eight Witnesses corroborating the Plaintiff's testimony, and the Defense's only defense being Trump's attestations that none of those people should be believed because reasons...attestations that he himself then undermined.
It's not surprising that the jury found that the preponderance of evidence supported the plaintiff when the plaintiff supplies corroboration and the defense pretty much leaves it at "nuh-uh!" and then proceeds to undermine their own position. And before you try to argue "she could have lied" again, do remember that she and the witnesses testified under oath. You aren't just accusing one person of lying, you're accusing them all of perjury.
Again, not how it works. For starters, the jury did not rule that it was untrue. They ruled that they didn't have enough evidence to convict on that element. Though there is some overlap between those concepts on a Venn Diagram, there is a severe difference between them and it's dishonest to equivocate between them as you have been doing here. Second, court cases routinely split charges to varying degrees and the jury will decide for some of those charges and against others. See again the Larceny vs Burglary analogy, and the Assault vs. Assault with a Deadly Weapon analogy.
For further consideration, let's say someone is on trial for first degree murder. The jury can well find that the defendant killed the guy, but also that the prosecution did not prove the premeditation needed for it to be first degree murder. So they rule against the first degree murder charge but rule for a second degree murder charge. You wouldn't turn around and say "Untrue in one thing, untrue in all. If the jury didn't believe that the murder was premeditated after the prosecution affirmatively states it was, why should they believe anything the prosecution says? And if for some reason they did this 'split the difference' decision of Second Degree Murder, I think the Judge is duty bound to throw the verdict out."
Everything about the argument you're making is wrong. These kinds of nested charges are standard operating procedure. The jury doesn't come up with it or propose it. They are told by the court to rule on them individually as a matter of course. "On the matter of the defendant forcibly touching the plaintiff, how do you find?" "Guilty". "On the matter of sexually abuse, how do you find?" "Guilty". "On the matter of rape, how do you find?" "Not Guilty". It is not an all or nothing process, a ruling of "not guilty" does not translate to "untrue", nor does that carry over to the guilty charges, and the judge certainly doesn't get to overrule the jury for not presenting all or nothing results. And just because you don't like Carroll doesn't mean that her lawyer should be disbarred for representing her.
Last edited:
