Trump guilty of sexual abuse and defamation

[gorfias]

Dude, dressing rooms are the definition of "public-adjacent", not fully public. Its extremely easy to be out of sight for an extended period in a dressing room-- that's actually their purpose.

Not "freezing" =/= not feeling incapable of shouting or fighting.

We know assault happens in this way. Its a documented fact.

Thought you were talking more like an alleyway behind the back of a building. OK. Any higher end a store I've ever been in? Dressing rooms have attendants close by enough to call out to if you need something and I think the subject one in this case would count.

She tells us not only that she didn't freeze but did fight back. Hard. Something about at one point having her foot pressed against his body, I assume while standing on the other, trying to push him away.

That a thing like this is hypothetically possible as you are pointing out, in light of what else we know, it seems unlikely in the extreme. You don't find for the Plaintiff when their fact pattern seems so unlikely.

 

[thebobmaster]

I have to ask something at this point. It's something I always wonder in situations like this. Why do arguers against verdicts think they know more/have more information about the evidence than the people who were actually in the courtroom hearing ALL of the evidence, instead of just whatever made it into news bites?

 

[Ag3ma]

I have to ask something at this point. It's something I always wonder in situations like this. Why do arguers against verdicts think they know more/have more information about the evidence than the people who were actually in the courtroom hearing ALL of the evidence, instead of just whatever made it into news bites?

It's pretty normal, isn't it. When it suits, they know more about science than scientists, more about economics than economists, more about football than football coaches, (etc.)

Humans have an inbuilt psychological drive to believe that they are right. We all think the world works a certain way, and it makes us happy to do so. Finding out that things we want to believe may be wrong is distressing - uncomfortable, unsettling, unpleasant. You could view it from a number of angles: a sense of foolishness or shame at being wrong. Perhaps, depending on decisions we have made, even guilt. Perhaps vulnerability, as erring is a form of weakness. Of course, to rethink one thing might also require we have to rethink a load of other things related to it, and that's potentially a really big change in worldview so being wrong about a lot. In many cases and a strong impetus, as people tend to share the beliefs of people around them, changing one's mind would put us at odds and risk damage to social relations and standing.

So it's frequently psychologically easier to just stand for whatever we already believe in, even as the tide of reality washes in. People will change their view when the discomfort of dissonance overcomes the comfort of maintaining their views. For some, that will be when they get cold and wet feet, and for others when they are at risk of drowning. However, there's an awful lot of issues where someone is never going to experience enough dissonance to accept they were wrong.

You don't change people's minds by arguing facts and evidence - well, only a miniscule few. You change their minds by giving them adverse consequences or emotional motivation. This is why all internet debates are just empty games, albeit entertaining enough for those with that inclination.

 

[Asita]

So, you think he plunged his penis into her in relative public? Untrue in one thing, untrue in all. This simply isn't credible, regardless of how many NYT reporters she has saying, "Oh yeah, she told us about that too!" If she lied about that, and I think it crazy to think she didn't, then she could be lying about it all. Maybe she isn't. But an honest jury has to find that she can't meet the burden of proof in these circumstances.

I think it's plausible, especially given that I personally know several women who were, unfortunately, sexually abused in relatively public settings. That includes a member of my own family, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit testy about you trying to treat your personal incredulity as a counterargument, especially when you're making it clear that you're treating that incredulity as if it constituted a counter to any and all possible evidence. I certainly don't see it as so improbable that I'd declare the story ridiculous on its face as you continue to do. It's not remotely as implausible as you suggest.

And setting that aside, "untrue in one thing, untrue in all." is Not. How. It. Works. You may want to believe otherwise to fuel your inane conspiracy theories and ideological victim complex, but I feel pretty safe in saying that not only should you know better, you do know better. Or are you actually going to tell me that you believe it to be a miscarriage of justice whenever a court finds that the prosecution met the burden of proof for involuntary manslaughter but did not prove the intention required for it to be homicide? Reckless driving, but not reckless endangerment? Or when they find it met the burden of proof for second degree murder but not the premeditation required for first degree murder? Theft, but not robbery?

You're twisting yourself in knots trying to make this sinister when in actuality the thing you're insisting on treating like some bizarre smoking gun of misconduct is actually just standard procedure that is used to zero in on what - if anything - the jury concluded the defendant was culpable of.

 

[Silvanus]

Thought you were talking more like an alleyway behind the back of a building. OK. Any higher end a store I've ever been in? Dressing rooms have attendants close by enough to call out to if you need something and I think the subject one in this case would count.

OK? I've seen plenty that don't. This isn't evidence.

She tells us not only that she didn't freeze but did fight back. Hard. Something about at one point having her foot pressed against his body, I assume while standing on the other, trying to push him away.

So you find it inconsistent that someone might try to physically push someone away, but not call out?

Listen, people panic and react instinctively in high-stress situations. I've told you before that when I myself was surrounded by teenagers in a parking lot, and threatened, I nervously laughed and did not call for help. It's possible that someone may have heard me if I did-- I just didn't fucking think, because I was scared. I also think that if it had actually progressed to violence, I would probably have tried to at least fight back in some way.

So, I followed a similar pattern of behaviour to the one you're declaring so very unlikely. Are you going to tell me I'm lying? Or that if it had progressed to violence, and I'd gone to the police, are you telling me the police should have disregarded my report because of their notion of how I should have reacted?

That a thing like this is hypothetically possible as you are pointing out, in light of what else we know, it seems unlikely in the extreme. You don't find for the Plaintiff when their fact pattern seems so unlikely.

But we know for a fact, from decades of research, that its not unlikely. That similar things happen commonly.

 

[Piscian]

[When he left during [my closing] — I didn’t see it happen because I was facing the other way — but when Judge Kaplan announced that he’d left the courtroom, I thought to myself, “Okay, that’s another $10 million.”]

- Roberta Kaplan

Inside Trump’s Costly Outburst: ‘Like an 8-Year-Old Having a Temper Tantrum’

Roberta Kaplan’s strategy delivered E. Jean Carroll $83 million from Donald Trump. Federal prosecutors may want to take note.

www.politico.com

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I have to ask something at this point. It's something I always wonder in situations like this. Why do arguers against verdicts think they know more/have more information about the evidence than the people who were actually in the courtroom hearing ALL of the evidence, instead of just whatever made it into news bites?

If I make the same argument about a different case (that the "mob" here didn't like the verdict of), I get accused of not knowing what I'm talking about. Pretty funny how people don't stick to basic logical principles they claim to.

Those 12 people know more about the case than anyone here by a long shot and the fact they came to an unanimous decision means the prosecutor couldn't convince a single one of them that it wasn't self-defense.

 

[Silvanus]

If I make the same argument about a different case (that the "mob" here didn't like the verdict of), I get accused of not knowing what I'm talking about.

Wait, so does this mean you agree Trump did commit sexual assault, because that's what the jury found here?

 

[gorfias]

I think it's plausible, especially given that I personally know several women who were, unfortunately, sexually abused in relatively public settings. That includes a member of my own family, so you'll forgive me if I'm a bit testy about you trying to treat your personal incredulity as a counterargument, especially when you're making it clear that you're treating that incredulity as if it constituted a counter to any and all possible evidence. I certainly don't see it as so improbable that I'd declare the story ridiculous on its face as you continue to do. It's not remotely as implausible as you suggest.

And setting that aside, "untrue in one thing, untrue in all." is Not. How. It. Works. You may want to believe otherwise to fuel your inane conspiracy theories and ideological victim complex, but I feel pretty safe in saying that not only should you know better, you do know better. Or are you actually going to tell me that you believe it to be a miscarriage of justice whenever a court finds that the prosecution met the burden of proof for involuntary manslaughter but did not prove the intention required for it to be homicide? Reckless driving, but not reckless endangerment? Or when they find it met the burden of proof for second degree murder but not the premeditation required for first degree murder? Theft, but not robbery?

You're twisting yourself in knots trying to make this sinister when in actuality the thing you're insisting on treating like some bizarre smoking gun of misconduct is actually just standard procedure that is used to zero in on what - if anything - the jury concluded the defendant was culpable of.

I concede @Thaluikhain gave me some second thoughts. Made me think up a case I linked to him about a football coach literally caught molesting a kid (10 year old?) in the team showers who did not report this to the police. But I think that's why we have forums from here. Not to just sound off in an echo chamber.

OK? I've seen plenty that don't. This isn't evidence.

So you find it inconsistent that someone might try to physically push someone away, but not call out?

Listen, people panic and react instinctively in high-stress situations. I've told you before that when I myself was surrounded by teenagers in a parking lot, and threatened, I nervously laughed and did not call for help. It's possible that someone may have heard me if I did-- I just didn't fucking think, because I was scared. I also think that if it had actually progressed to violence, I would probably have tried to at least fight back in some way.

So, I followed a similar pattern of behaviour to the one you're declaring so very unlikely. Are you going to tell me I'm lying? Or that if it had progressed to violence, and I'd gone to the police, are you telling me the police should have disregarded my report because of their notion of how I should have reacted?

But we know for a fact, from decades of research, that its not unlikely. That similar things happen commonly.

1) It is evidence. Just not conclusive proof. There's a difference.
2) Very much so. Not impossible. Just improbable. EDIT: A reporter (Lara Logan) was gang raped in Egypt. She tried to fight back. I don't know she called out but as it was the entire crowd surrounding her doing it, I don't know who she would call out to so it isn't impossible.
3) I'd very much like such incidents timely reported to the police.

As I note above, I am having some 2nd thoughts on the case as, I think at its best, that is what these forums are for. Not to think one is in an echo chamber or "disgusting" for not blindly following a narrative but air out some thoughts. Don't blindly follow what the establishment wants you believing. Sometimes they aren't lying. Enough of the time, through experience, we find they bloody well are.

Without a timely police report, we're left with a case I do not believe. I think Trump has likely done horrible things and gotten away with it (as has, I do not doubt, Joe Biden) but as a wealthy man with deep pockets the establishment despises (3 years of Russia Russia Russia hoax with the FBI altering a document to get a FISA warrant to tap! and more) I also think he gets accused of a ton of crap he didn't do.

If it became well publicized that without a timely police report, such cases are tossed out without so much as an airing, do you think that would change victim behavior? I personally hope it would. (Exception at a minimum: minors. Statute often runs AFTER a minor turns 18. Inability to file ie victim in a coma.)

 

[tstorm823]

The absence of filing charges at the time is not evidence it didn't happen.

The long list of suspicious things she's said on the other hand...

 

[gorfias]

The absence of filing charges at the time is not evidence it didn't happen.

The long list of suspicious things she's said on the other hand...

It is evidence. Just not conclusive proof. Lotta people need to learn the difference.

 

[Piscian]

Endless entertainment -


CNN
—
Attorney Roberta Kaplan said former President Donald Trump threw papers across a table and stormed off during a deposition at Mar-a-Lago after learning that his legal team had agreed to provide her lunch.

Kaplan, who has represented clients in high-profile cases against Trump, including E. Jean Carroll, said on an episode of the “George Conway Explains it All (to Sarah Longwell)” podcast recorded Thursday that she rejected the former president’s request that they work through a lunch break because he believed the deposition was “a waste of my time.”


“And then you could kind of see the wheel spinning in his brain. You could really almost see it,” Kaplan told Republican strategist Sarah Longwell and conservative attorney George Conway, a longtime Trump critic. “And he said, ‘Well, you’re here in Mar-a-Lago. What do you think you’re going to do for lunch? Where are you going to get lunch?’”


Kaplan said she told him that his attorneys had “graciously offered to provide” her team with lunch — a common civil practice between opposing legal teams.

“At which point there was a huge pile of documents, exhibits, sitting in front of him, and he took the pile and he just threw it across the table. And stormed out of the room,” Kaplan shared, adding that Trump specifically yelled at his lawyer Alina Habba for providing them lunch.

“He really yelled at Alina for that. He was so mad at Alina,” she said.

Kaplan continued: “He came back in and he said, ‘Well, how’d you like the lunch?’ And I said, ‘Well, sir, I had a banana. You know, I can never really eat when I’m taking testimony.’ And he said, ‘Well, I told you,’ — it was kind of charming. He said, ‘I told you, I told them to make you really bad sandwiches, but they can’t help themselves here. We have the best sandwiches.’”


Kaplan was deposing Trump at Mar-Lago in a lawsuit alleging the former president was involved with a fraudulent marketing company. A federal judge dismissed the suit last month.

In a separate anecdote, Kaplan detailed the end of the deposition when she was set to leave, saying that Trump told her: “See you next Tuesday” – a phrase that is often used as a derogatory euphemism directed at women.

“We come in the room and I say, ‘I’m done asking questions’ and immediately I hear from the other side, ‘Off the record. Off the record. Off the record.’ So they must have planned it. And he looks at me from across the table and he says, ‘See you next Tuesday,’” she recounted.

Kaplan said that she was initially confused, as their next meeting was set for a Wednesday. “You could tell it was like, it was like a kind of a joke again, like teenage boys would come up with. But again, I wasn’t in on the joke,” she said.

“I wasn’t in on the joke, so I had no idea. Then we get into the car and my colleagues are like, ‘Robbie, do you know what that means?’ And I’m like, ‘No, what are you talking about?’ They tell me and I’m like, oh my God, thank God I didn’t know because had I known, I for sure would have gotten angry. There’s no question I would have gotten angry,” Kaplan said.

CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/01/politics/roberta-kaplan-donald-trump-deposition-maralago/index.html

 

[Xprimentyl]

It's pretty normal, isn't it. When it suits, they know more about science than scientists, more about economics than economists, more about football than football coaches, (etc.)

Humans have an inbuilt psychological drive to believe that they are right. We all think the world works a certain way, and it makes us happy to do so. Finding out that things we want to believe may be wrong is distressing - uncomfortable, unsettling, unpleasant. You could view it from a number of angles: a sense of foolishness or shame at being wrong. Perhaps, depending on decisions we have made, even guilt. Perhaps vulnerability, as erring is a form of weakness. Of course, to rethink one thing might also require we have to rethink a load of other things related to it, and that's potentially a really big change in worldview so being wrong about a lot. In many cases and a strong impetus, as people tend to share the beliefs of people around them, changing one's mind would put us at odds and risk damage to social relations and standing.

So it's frequently psychologically easier to just stand for whatever we already believe in, even as the tide of reality washes in. People will change their view when the discomfort of dissonance overcomes the comfort of maintaining their views. For some, that will be when they get cold and wet feet, and for others when they are at risk of drowning. However, there's an awful lot of issues where someone is never going to experience enough dissonance to accept they were wrong.

You don't change people's minds by arguing facts and evidence - well, only a miniscule few. You change their minds by giving them adverse consequences or emotional motivation. This is why all internet debates are just empty games, albeit entertaining enough for those with that inclination.

I have absolutely nothing to add to this thread's subject, but absolutely have to say this is an amazing post. You could literally post it anywhere (and I mean on the internet, not just this low-traffic site,) and it would apply. It's what a lot of people need to hear without dragging through rote terms like "the Dunning–Kruger effect" or the more raw and accusatory "echo chamber."

Thank you for these words. Shame they will be lost on page #13 in a singular thread on a flailing website geared towards an ever diminishing group of ostensible gamers.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Wait, so does this mean you agree Trump did commit sexual assault, because that's what the jury found here?

Sure... probably more likely than not. I don't know enough about the case to talk about it, nor do I really care too much about it. You guys for some reason think I like Trump or something, I still don't understand why.

Pretty funny how a lot of you are hypocrites about how you apply different logic to different things so everything is in line with your worldviews. A case you don't like the verdict of means the jury are racists or they got conned or some other excuse and when a trial does get the result you desire and people disagree, you'll say the jury knows more than anyone here and the person disagreeing is an idiot and ignorant.

 

[Silvanus]

Sure... probably more likely than not. I don't know enough about the case to talk about it

Fair enough, very fair position.

You guys for some reason think I like Trump or something, I still don't understand why.

It's because you spend quite a lot of time defending him on other things, or deflecting onto others.

Pretty funny how a lot of you are hypocrites about how you apply different logic to different things so everything is in line with your worldviews. A case you don't like the verdict of means the jury are racists or they got conned or some other excuse and when a trial does get the result you desire and people disagree, you'll say the jury knows more than anyone here and the person disagreeing is an idiot and ignorant.

Hmm, but I never made that argument. But sure, keep lumping all your opponents into a big group.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Fair enough, very fair position.



It's because you spend quite a lot of time defending him on other things, or deflecting onto others.



Hmm, but I never made that argument. But sure, keep lumping all your opponents into a big group.

I'd do the same for anyone else. I know if you get Trump on some paper thin XYZ charge and convicted, then that sets precedent for anyone else getting charged and convicted in the same manner and that could be someone you like or you yourself.

Oh, really? I literally quoted myself from the very argument we were having.

Oh, please, spare me. I'm not arguing conspiracy.

You might believe that randomised juries are immune to prejudice just because they don't actively discuss political questions during deliberation. That's childishly simplistic. We know for a fact that political/racial prejudices affect the likelihood of someone being found guilty; why do you think black defendants are so much more likely to be found guilty when the preponderance of evidence is the same? Why do you think black defendants are likely to receive harsher penalties for the same crimes?

Both defence lawyers and prosecutors frequently move to build the jury to match or contrast (respectively) the demographics of the defendant. It's expected. Because the American legal system tacitly acknowledges that demographic biases and prejudices play a role. The best we can usually hope for is one that is at the very least reflective of the area... which this one wasn't, not even remotely.

The problem is that a lot of racism is not out-and-out, flag-waving, self-confessed racism. A lot of racism consists of subconscious prejudices and unconscious biases. A lot of people who do not view themselves as racist-- or genuinely believe themselves not to be-- would still be likely to judge a black person more harshly than a white person, even if all other circumstances of the situation were the same.

Study after study have shown unconscious bias to be both real and widespread. Recall those instances of research bodies sending identical job applications to institutions: one with a typically white-European name, and one with an Afro- or Caribbean-sounding name. The former receiving a lot more invitations for interview.

Those institutions would not believe themselves to be racist. They might well consciously hold disdain for racism, and fully consciously intend to be act in non-racist ways. But the stats would show that subliminal biases persist.

You were somehow trying to say the Rittenhouse jury was somehow bias. Mind you, this was after the videos were made public of all 3 incidents (because I didn't post in the thread until I saw those videos) and the videos were super clear and obvious that it was self-defense. But no, you guys didn't like that he "got off" and kept trying to come up with reasons why the verdict was wrong.

 

[Elijin]

Gorfias, you're not being called disgusting because you won't accept the narrative, or are asking questions.

You're being called disgusting because a significant number of your views and talking points represent significant systematic problems in the reporting, and conviction of rapes.

A lot of the shit you're putting out there lacks empathy and is basically straight from the playbook of why rapes don't get reported, why people get away with rape on a regular basis.

 

[gorfias]

Gorfias, you're not being called disgusting because you won't accept the narrative, or are asking questions.

You're being called disgusting because a significant number of your views and talking points represent significant systematic problems in the reporting, and conviction of rapes.

A lot of the shit you're putting out there lacks empathy and is basically straight from the playbook of why rapes don't get reported, why people get away with rape on a regular basis.

But in a way, you are the one right now pushing a troubling narrative. That being questioning of a narrative is itself a "systemic" problem.

Yes, men get away with rape. In the US system (I think it an over statement but the gist) we would rather let 100 guilty go than wrongfully convict 1 innocent.

I think your statements show a lack of really internalizing a true thing: There are women that do lie. Women can be bad. Women can have motives that differ from what they state. Men have gone to prison over false accusations. I think this one an example: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/24/woman-jailed-10-years-false-rape-claims-jemma-beale and her defender is saying the same sort of thing you and others in this thread are stating, “Cases such as this bring a real risk that a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted may not complain to the police for fear of not being believed.”

So, just automatically believe all women? What systematic changes would you make?

I asked earlier in this thread, do you think if an assaulted woman has to file a timely police report in order to have legal rights in the matter, would that change the behavior of the accusers and result in more of them doing so?

 

[Elijin]

I have personally taken my best friend to the police after she turned up hysterical and covered in pelvic bruising. They did a rape kit, took her statement. They spoke to him, he claimed it was consenting sex. They told her since it was his word vs hers, nothing was likely to go further legally.

That's the legal system you're championing. Her story is one of millions. Every time you make some appeal to teaching women to report better, or make some alluding to rape being something only "loons" or villains do, you make several of us what to smack the stupid off your face. Your attitudes towards rape are part of the problem, and you need to seriously research what that means.

I'm done here.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh, really? I literally quoted myself from the very argument we were having.



You were somehow trying to say the Rittenhouse jury was somehow bias. Mind you, this was after the videos were made public of all 3 incidents (because I didn't post in the thread until I saw those videos) and the videos were super clear and obvious that it was self-defense. But no, you guys didn't like that he "got off" and kept trying to come up with reasons why the verdict was wrong.

There's no inconsistency here-- I don't think the fact a jury found something lends it credence.

It's not the jury's finding that leads me to think Trump sexually assaulted Carrol. Its the fact that he's completely untrustworthy, without conscience, and sexually abusive, with numerous credible allegations against him. Its the fact he boasts about sexual assault.