SCOTUS about to kill Voting Rights Act

[Foxi4]

You seem to think you get to decide the standards, but you don't. Despite you being like a broken clock you managed to break the old adage: wrong even the two times you're supposed to be correct.

I most definitely do not set the standard - the law does, hence no conviction and no guilty verdict, in which case the presumption of innocence holds. Charges must necessarily be proven *true*, not “more likely than not”. Not only that, I can simply find the evidence unconvincing - Trump was found liable based on the judgement of his character, and that was established based on the Hollywood tapes (completely unrelated event) and testimony of two women who also allege Trump “abused them”, but who also cannot prove it and somehow aren’t keen on getting a couple million out of the guy by suing themselves (hearsay). At no point is it ever established that the meeting undoubtedly took place. You might not like the guy, that’s fine, I don’t particularly care, but there’s no actual material evidence that he did anything to Carroll. She’s welcome to prove me wrong, she supposedly has Trump’s DNA. If her dress is indeed covered in his splooge, I’ll happily believe that they had a sexual encounter of some variety, then she’ll just have to prove that it wasn’t consensual and we’re at the finish line. Until then he is, legally, innocent, since he wasn’t found guilty.

I'd say that in the real world, a jury, a judge and a court of appeal agreeing is well beyond reasonable doubt but hey, keep clinging to that paper-thin literal excuse.

The appellate’s denial is in regards to a motion to review on grounds of abuse of discretion, it presents no additional evidence, it’s a ruling on procedure being followed. In “the real world” there isn’t even indisputable evidence that the two met at a certain location at a specific date, which would be the *bare minimum* in criminal proceedings. “What, when and where” are the bare essentials in establishing actual guilt.

 

[titan_tim]

Jean E. Carroll isn’t my sister and trying to manipulate my emotions by injecting family or friends into the equation will not result in a different answer. I might believe someone close to me implicitly because of who they are, but that’s not a good thing - it negatively affects judgement.

You trust someone close to you because you are their character witness. You WOULDN'T trust a family member if they've constantly lied to you before and the person they accused was upstanding.

Trump has shown time and time again that he is of extremely low moral character. For every hundred of his consensual "conquests", there is undoubtably some who weren't consensual. There have been more than enough accusations before and after his political career to present a M.O.

That's what you're willfully ignoring.

I will not *know* if they are telling the truth until the facts of the case are laid bare. I would undoubtedly feel hurt and make a bunch of assumptions, which is precisely why it’d make me a bad arbiter. Jean E. Carroll is not trustworthy to me due to her track record of playing loosey goosey with the truth.

How was she "loosey goosey" with the truth? Not remembering a specific date and time decades ago isn't the flex that you think it is.

She is a stranger to me so I have no emotional attachment, which is *good* when deciding someone’s fate. If she was my sister, daughter or friend then I sure as shit wouldn’t want to prosecute the alleged culprit, it would be impossible for me to give them a fair trial, recusing myself would be the move. Someone’s guilt is not contingent on me believing or not believing the alleged victim based solely on personal feeling, what I *feel* is completely immaterial. Feelings aren’t proof.

That's funny, because you ARE emotionally attached. You actions are intertwined with the success of Trump. You literally put your profile picture to reflect him a day or two after the assassination attempt. He is now a part of who you are as a person. So any attack on him you feel is an attack on your own life choices, and you can't have that, can you? So instead of facing reality, you double down and triple down no matter the cost.

But don't feel bad. He's affected most of the world emotionally. He is now the worldwide litmus test for normal people to sift out depraved individuals.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Until then he is, legally, innocent, since he wasn’t found guilty.

“Not criminally convicted” is not the same as “legally exonerated”.
You are deliberately muddling criminal conviction with civil liability, and then calling that confusion ‘the law’.
English is truly a second language for you, third even. And even basic principles of Law are beyond you. Truly, you are no Ashworth.

 

[Foxi4]

You trust someone close to you because you are their character witness. You WOULDN'T trust a family member if they've constantly lied to you before and the person they accused was upstanding.

Trump has shown time and time again that he is of extremely low moral character. For every hundred of his consensual "conquests", there is undoubtably some who weren't consensual. There have been more than enough accusations before and after his political career to present a M.O.

That's what you're willfully ignoring.

A subjective evaluation of Trump’s character is not evidence of a crime. If we were discussing Trump shooting Carroll in the face, we wouldn’t be looking at Trump’s mean tweets, we’d be looking for evidence of a murder taking place. The weapon would be great, we could use a body, some evidence that he was physically there, ideally some evidence that he pulled the trigger - that’d seal the deal. Now, all of a sudden, because orange man bad, all of those considerations go out the window. That’s idiotic.

How was she "loosey goosey" with the truth? Not remembering a specific date and time decades ago isn't the flex that you think it is.

She remembered to keep the dress (which is probably not connected with the event, we only have her word that it is), she remembered not to wash it either. Forgot about not wearing it to photo shoots, but those are details. She remembered to tell her friends about it, but none of the friends jotted down the date? Not even the year? Okay. Then it’s just an allegation up in the air, it happened in the 20th century, good enough, hmm?

That's funny, because you ARE emotionally attached. You actions are intertwined with the success of Trump. You literally put your profile picture to reflect him a day or two after the assassination attempt. He is now a part of who you are as a person. So any attack on him you feel is an attack on your own life choices, and you can't have that, can you? So instead of facing reality, you double down and triple down until no matter the cost.

But don't feel bad. He's affected most of the world emotionally. He is now the worldwide litmus test for normal people to sift out depraved individuals.

I promise you that you guys think about Trump way more than I do. The way some people get bent out of shape just by the virtue of him existing will be studied by future generations. I don’t know the man personally, he’s not my family, but boy do I appreciate him.

“Not criminally convicted” is not the same as “legally exonerated”.
You are deliberately muddling criminal conviction with civil liability, and then calling that confusion ‘the law’.
English is truly a second language for you, third even. And even basic principles of Law are beyond you. Truly, you are no Ashworth.

He doesn’t have to be exonerated. Jean E. Carroll can allege whatever she wants. An allegation is not evidence of a crime. She won her defamation case, good for her. He was found to be liable for battery, better for her still. Guilt, however, was never established. As far as the law is concerned, he is innocent. The presumption of innocence is *strictly* a criminal law concept, it has nothing to do with civil liability.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

 

[Dark_Ansem]

The presumption of innocence is *strictly* a criminal law concept, it has nothing to do with civil liability.

You are now agreeing with me and everyone else. Presumption of innocence is criminal, not civil. So it cannot be used to wipe away civil liability.
Finally, we got there. I shall accept this message of yours as your errata.

Thank you for finally stating my point back to me. The presumption of innocence is a criminal-law concept and has no application to civil liability. So it cannot do the work you tried to make it do.

 

[SeltzerMist]

JFC hope vulnerable people know to keep their distance from the likes of Foxi if they don't already.

 

[Foxi4]

You are now agreeing with me and everyone else. Presumption of innocence is criminal, not civil. So it cannot be used to wipe away civil liability.
Finally, we got there. I shall accept this message of yours as your errata.

Thank you for finally stating my point back to me. The presumption of innocence is a criminal-law concept and has no application to civil liability. So it cannot do the work you tried to make it do.

I never said that he wasn’t found liable. I said that the events were not proven beyond reasonable doubt because it’s a civil case. His guilt cannot be established, so he’s de facto innocent until proven otherwise.

 

[titan_tim]

A subjective evaluation of Trump’s character is not evidence of a crime.

It's not subjective at this point. Without any coercion, he's literally admitted to groping women without consent.

She remembered to keep the dress (which is probably not connected with the event, we only have her word that it is), she remembered not to wash it either. Forgot about not wearing it to photo shoots, but those are details. She remembered to tell her friends about it, but none of the friends jotted down the date? Not even the year? Okay. Then it’s just an allegation up in the air, it happened in the 20th century, good enough, hmm?

So your two points are:
- The dress wasn't enough evidence for you. Fine, it was barely used in the final judgement. It wasn't used to conclusively find DNA from Trump.
- Her and her friends couldn't remember the exact year in the 90's. A feat that most people wouldn't be able to do. Do YOU have any notes from the 90s still?

If those are your only two sticking points while ignoring everything else, you don't really have much.

I promise you that you guys think about Trump way more than I do. The way some people get bent out of shape just by the virtue of him existing will be studied by future generations. I don’t know the man personally, he’s not my family, but boy do I appreciate him.

I thought about him when I saw the price of gas at $1.96 per liter the other day. That's $5.44 / gallon for you yanks. So yes, I think about him more than I'd like to. I can't wait until I can go a day without hearing his name. Although I'll smile when my grandkids' history books talk about him as favorably as Hitler and Mao.

 

[Foxi4]

JFC hope vulnerable people know to keep their distance from the likes of Foxi if they don't already.

Paradoxically, a “vulnerable person” would probably be safer with me than with Team “3 People Who Weren’t Even There Said So, So It Must Be True”. I require concrete, indisputable evidence of wrongdoing before I hand someone over to the mob, you’ll believe any random story so long as it makes you feel good.

It's not subjective at this point. Without any coercion, he's literally admitted to groping women without consent.

I have mind blowing orgies with hundreds (and I mean hundreds, three digits) of women on every Saturday, I promise. I had to build an extension just to accommodate the droves of ladies that desire me. They love it, I can provide testimonials upon request, and they totally weren’t written by me. Do you believe me, or do you think I’m just talking shit? More importantly, is me saying that evidence of anything specific? Even more important still - does Trump saying that the ladies appreciate all this supposed grabbing change the calculus? Y’know, since it’s totally happening (in the absence of any evidence). Remember, we’re in “believe everything” land, he said it so it must be true.

So your two points are:
- The dress wasn't enough evidence for you. Fine, it was barely used in the final judgement. It wasn't used to conclusively find DNA from Trump.
- Her and her friends couldn't remember the exact year in the 90's. A feat that most people wouldn't be able to do. Do YOU have any notes from the 90s still?

If those are your only two sticking points while ignoring everything else, you don't really have much.

In my defense, not much was presented. You’d *think* if the two of them met there would be some kind of record of it. Apparently not in this case, no proof of any event where both of them could’ve been present. Conveniently such evidence would probably be gone after 20 years. In other news, I met Lenin on the moon the other day, I flew there in my personal rocket ship with my good friend Melon Husk, who will provide a written statement as to the veracity of my claims, but he himself is not willing to prove that he ever travelled to the moon, only confirm that I have.

I thought about him when I saw the price of gas at $1.96 per liter the other day. That's $5.44 / gallon for you yanks. So yes, I think about him more than I'd like to. I can't wait until I can go a day without hearing his name. Although I'll smile when my grandkids' history books talk about him as favorably as Hitler and Mao.

I think about him when I look at my ETF’s. I bought in at just the right time, it’s only May and I’m up 28.45% compared to last year, 116.95% up all-time. I really, really cannot complain.

If we’re done letting Trump live in our heads rent free now, we can probably return to the actual topic, the redistricting. I don’t think I have anything to add here and the conversation is getting pretty circular.

EDIT: Mixed up the two of Carroll’s alleged sexual assaults, made appropriate adjustments, cheers @titan_tim

 

[titan_tim]

I have mind blowing orgies with hundreds (and I mean hundreds, three digits) of women on every Saturday, I promise. I had to build an extension just to accommodate the droves of ladies that desire me. They love it, I can provide testimonials upon request, and they totally weren’t written by me. Do you believe me, or do you think I’m just talking shit? More importantly, is me saying that evidence of anything specific? Even more important still - does Trump saying that the ladies appreciate all this supposed grabbing change the calculus? Y’know, since it’s totally happening (in the absence of any evidence). Remember, we’re in “believe everything” land, he said it so it must be true.

Then we'd have to bring in the testimonials that you mentioned and see if they line up properly with what you said. Did you use baby oil or not? Can they describe your birthmarks or member shape? Circumfixed or not? Was Trader Pat there, because he'd TOTALLY be down for that.

They got enough corroboration with this trial, can your orgy?

If we’re done letting Trump live in our heads rent free now, we can probably return to the actual topic, the redistricting. I don’t think I have anything to add here and the conversation is getting pretty circular.

Totally fine by me. People have dug-in with their opinions at this point. Now it comes down to in 10 years who will proudly say "I loved/hated Trump!". Because you can be sure only one of those will get disgusted stares.

 

[Foxi4]

Then we'd have to bring in the testimonials that you mentioned and see if they line up properly with what you said. Did you use baby oil or not? Can they describe your birthmarks or member shape? Circumfixed or not? Was Trader Pat there, because he'd TOTALLY be down for that.

They got enough corroboration with this trial, can your orgy?

It is truly a miracle that witnesses hand-picked by Jean E. Carroll’s attorney corroborated her story. Bit odd that there were no third-parties who witnessed either of them at the location, if only *those* witnesses could appear before the court. Out of the 11 witnesses only 2 were former employees and they had nothing to contribute in regards to the veracity of the story - all they did say was that the dressing rooms were often empty and that the floor had no cameras.

I repeat, the case had no third-party eyewitnesses and no physical evidence.

Totally fine by me. People have dug-in with their opinions at this point. Now it comes down to in 10 years who will proudly say "I loved/hated Trump!". Because you can be sure only one of those will get disgusted stares.

I cannot repeat this enough and I cannot be more clear - as of the year of our Lord 2026 Trump was not found guilty of rape in a court of law and beyond reasonable doubt. There are no eyewitnesses of the alleged crime, no physical evidence and the people who corroborated Carroll’s story are intimately connected to her, so their testimony is *not* impartial, Carroll had literal decades to feed them whatever lines she wanted. Lisa Birnbach and Carol Martin are her long-term friends and fellow writers. Her own sister, Cande Carroll, was apparently never informed of this event, and neither were her parents, because “Carroll didn’t share her negative experiences with family”. Leslie Lebowitz, the psychologist, testified that Carroll suffers from multiple psychological issues - I believe this witness partially because she does come across as a nutcase. Ashlee Humphreys had nothing to say about the veracity of the claims made, she testified about the cost of repairing Carroll’s reputation. Roberta Myers, Carroll’s long-time editor, apparently couldn’t corroborate that her writer met a VIP like Trump, nevermind the circumstances - bit odd, sounds like a big scoop. All she said was that she was “important to the Elle brand”. Frankly, as far as establishing that the meeting ever happened is concerned, this line-up is embarrassing. All it does establish is that the location was usually secluded, nobody saw anything and there were no cameras so there’s no footage. This is not concrete evidence. Big time reasonable doubt.

For anyone interested in what the witnesses had to say, you can follow the link for a summary:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179

”Since there are no third-party eyewitnesses and no physical evidence, Carroll’s case hinges on whether the jury finds her credible.”

From legalese to English, “there is no actual concrete evidence of wrong-doing, therefore this matter must be decided based on whether we believe the account or not.”

This is the last I have to say on the matter - how one chooses to put those puzzle pieces together is up to them. To me, and to any criminal court, the evidence presented is simply insufficient to establish guilt, hence the presumption of innocence holds. Since this was a civil matter, watertight evidence was not required, a sympathetic jury that found the account “credible enough” sufficed, hence liability.

 

[titan_tim]

For anyone interested in what the witnesses had to say, you can follow the link for a summary:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179

Pretty good summary, and shows how all their testimonies all line up with what was described originally.

Also not all friends. Two were workers at the Bergdorf Goodman who brought up the security camera issue, that the place was open later on Thursdays, and the changing rooms weren't always monitored. Not sure what you were talking about with getting a room previously.

Jessica Leeds was another person out of dozens who didn't now Carrol, but said they were groped by Trump.

The psychologist was testimony who confirmed that her psychological conditions came directly from the rape. Not before, but due to. So again, not the greatest flex for you.

This is the last I have to say on the matter - how one chooses to put those puzzle pieces together is up to them. To me, and to any criminal court, the evidence presented is simply insufficient to establish guilt, hence the presumption of innocence holds. Since this was a civil matter, watertight evidence was not required, a sympathetic jury that found the account “credible enough” sufficed, hence liability.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy. I hope the 30 shekels is worth the world being on fire and little kids being double-tapped in their schools. As I said, once he's out of office, one of us will hold their head high knowing they aren't deplorable.

 

[Foxi4]

Pretty good summary, and shows how all their testimonies all line up with what was described originally.

Also not all friends. Two were workers at the Bergdorf Goodman who brought up the security camera issue, that the place was open later on Thursdays, and the changing rooms weren't always monitored. Not sure what you were talking about with getting a room previously.

The employees can only testify in regards to how the department store functioned in the relative timeframe, neither of them saw Trump *or* Carroll - they’re not eyewitnesses. The only two people who corroborate Carroll’s actual story are her two personal friends.

Jessica Leeds was another person out of dozens who didn't now Carrol, but said they were groped by Trump.

Those are two disconnected events separated by 20 years, both are alleged and unproven. I’m sure there’s dozens more, none of it means anything if it cannot be supported by evidence.

The psychologist was testimony who confirmed that her psychological conditions came directly from the rape. Not before, but due to. So again, not the greatest flex for you.

The psychologist has no way of knowing that Carroll was raped by Trump, only that she suffers from trauma. She might believe Carroll’s account, but that doesn’t make the account true - she’s just another person Carroll had contact with at a later date. Psychologists cannot literally read minds - all she can reasonably establish is her mental state, not the veracity of the story.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, buddy. I hope the 30 shekels is worth the world being on fire and little kids being double-tapped in their schools. As I said, once he's out of office, one of us will hold their head high knowing they aren't deplorable.

I sleep soundly knowing that the bar for proving someone’s guilt is very high, especially when the alleged crime is heinous.

EDIT: Mixed up the two of Carroll’s alleged sexual assaults, made appropriate adjustments, cheers @titan_tim

 

[titan_tim]

Trump wasn’t in the hotel accidentally - either he was there for a function or he was staying there overnight, he wouldn’t be there randomly.

You DO know that the Bergdorf Goodman is a department store, right? She said he took her into a changing room. That has been the corroborated story from the start.

The Trump hotel is about a 10 minute walk from it as well, so no, he wouldn't need to stay there even if it WERE a hotel. What an odd thing to focus on. He was also in the Plaza hotel in Home alone 2, but that doesn't mean he stayed there.

Seriously man, if you can't get a basic fact like that right about the case, then you need to study it more closely. But those cow blinders will make things difficult for you.

 

[Hanafuda]

You DO know that the Bergdorf Goodman is a department store, right? She said he took her into a changing room. That has been the corroborated story from the start.

Corroborated how, exactly? What evidence besides her say-so puts Trump in the Bergdorf-Goodman at the same time she alleged this happened?

Also, as for the psychologist testifying that Carroll showed classic signs of "trauma" ... that might be relevant (not dispositive, but relevant) if she'd never raised a rape allegation before. But she's accused many men of raping her. Including Les Moonves. Given that she claims to have been raped many times, kinda stupid to say that psychologist's testimony counts for anything at all specifically wrt: Trump.

Of course, the Judge didn't let the jury know about all the other times she's claimed she was raped, nor would he allow the defense to mention it.

 

[Xzi]

It's really fucking pathetic that Trump has anyone still willing to throw themselves under the bus for him on this issue. We're talking about a piece of shit that had 30+ credible sexual assault/rape accusations against him BEFORE he ran for president.

If he was someone who treated women with respect, he never would've gained all this incel support to begin with.

 

[Foxi4]

You DO know that the Bergdorf Goodman is a department store, right? She said he took her into a changing room. That has been the corroborated story from the start.

The Trump hotel is about a 10 minute walk from it as well, so no, he wouldn't need to stay there even if it WERE a hotel. What an odd thing to focus on. He was also in the Plaza hotel in Home alone 2, but that doesn't mean he stayed there.

Seriously man, if you can't get a basic fact like that right about the case, then you need to study it more closely. But those cow blinders will make things difficult for you.

Oh, you are correct about that, my apologies. I must’ve mixed the locations up since she *also* claims to have been sexually assaulted by Les Moonves, a CBS executive, specifically in a Beverly Hills hotel elevator, so I probably had hotels on my mind. She seems to be getting sexually assaulted by influential people a lot, that’s my mistake, I will happily cop to that. Thank you for pointing it out, I will make the correction immediately.

Edit: All done, it doesn’t really change the argument in any fundamental way. Even if there are no cameras whatsoever on the sixth floor and it’s relatively secluded, you still have to *get* to the sixth floor, presumably through the entrance and ground floor. If the department store was monitored at all, surely there would be footage of both of them entering the area, footage that she could’ve requested at the time, but did not. Still, correcting any inaccuracies is important.

 

[Xzi]

Les Moonves

Yet another person whose only notable attribute is being a piece of shit. Nobody who's been within fifty feet of the guy has ever had anything positive to say about him.

 

[Foxi4]

Yet another person whose only notable attribute is being a piece of shit. Nobody who's been within fifty feet of the guy has ever had anything positive to say about him.

Yet another case that remains an unproven allegation. Carroll is just irresistible, it’s not suspicious at all. In her book “What Do We Need Men For?” she lists 21 men whom she considers hideous out of which 3 either attempted to or were successful in, allegedly, molesting her - former husband and anchorman John Johnson, CBS executive Les Moonves and Trump. Curiously, Donald didn’t even make it to the podium, let alone the top 10 - he’s number 20. Bit odd if she claims he raped her, but then again, per the psychological evaluation, her mental state is not the best. She just keeps coming across all these bad men, what rotten luck.

 

[Xzi]

Carroll is just irresistible

She was a pretty blonde model in her prime at the same time Trump and Moonves were in their 20s/30s, aka the height of their cocaine addictions. It lines up. It also makes sense that she would be able to make more noise with her background and resources, as opposed to the impoverished girls these men raped and sometimes had murdered on Epstein island.

At this rate, next you'll be telling us that Harvey Weinstein is innocent too.