Virginia gerrymandering vote

[Grape Ape]

was he not convicted on 34 counts?

I am going off this exchange:

He won't answer because it's obvious. The guy has essentially been found guilty of rape and other crimes and is clearly fucking grifting money (fraudulently ) whilst in the whitehouse and these clowns love it.

Another lie. Why do liberals lie so much?

I mean he was convicted, so technically and legally it's true.

I suppose if you are a conspiracy theorist it's not true.

What do the 34 "felonies" have to do with rape.

[Necrosis]

I am going off this exchange:


What do the 34 "felonies" have to do with rape.

I wrote and other crimes.

He was liable in the other case which is tantamount to guilty. But I can see where you got super hung up on things here


The man is a criminal and continues to commit crimes whilst in office. It's shameful stuff.

[Grape Ape]

I wrote and other crimes.

He was liable in the other case which is tantamount to guilty. But I can see where you got super hung up on things here


The man is a criminal and continues to commit crimes whilst in office. It's shameful stuff.

Hung up?  Anyone reading that would have likely been confused.

Anyway, you're wrong on rape, regardless.

However, it's interesting that you will dismiss what doesn't fit your narrative with a quick google (americasdigitalshield, for example), but won't go into the Bragg case in depth.

Any thinking person, regardless of political affiliation, should have major issues with this case.

It's the litmus test for who is a partisan sheep or not.

[Necrosis]

Hung up?  Anyone reading that would have likely been confused.

Anyway, you're wrong on rape, regardless.

However, it's interesting that you will dismiss what doesn't fit your narrative with a quick google (americasdigitalshield, for example), but won't go into the Bragg case in depth.

Any thinking person, regardless of political affiliation, should have major issues with this case.

It's the litmus test for who is a partisan sheep or not.

He was find liable and then for defamation was he not? his appeal was denied as well as far as I am aware. I will say it's not something I have dug into at all as I don't really give a fuck about politics all that much.

Are you saying he was not found liable for rape/sexual abuse?

[Grape Ape]

He was find liable and then for defamation was he not? his appeal was denied as well as far as I am aware. I will say it's not something I have dug into at all as I don't really give a fuck about politics all that much.

Are you saying he was not found liable for rape/sexual abuse?

You are conflating again.

The Bragg case is the 34 felonies.  That is the one you should look at in depth so you don't fall into the sheeple category.

The E Jean Carroll is the civil case where he was responsible for damages.

Neither case has him "essentially convicted of rape" and are both complete horseshit.

 

[Necrosis]

You are conflating again.

The Bragg case is the 34 felonies.  That is the one you should look at in depth so you don't fall into the sheeple category.

The E Jean Carroll is the civil case where he was responsible for damages.

Neither case has him "essentially convicted of rape" and are both complete horseshit.

 

This is what the judge said

Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true".

I know the differences in the two cases, I have not looked into the Bragg stuff at all, I simply don't have time to dive deeply into this stuff unless there was a debate to be had and a bit of fun.

I am certain of his character based on his actions, pattern recognition and accumulated information. The man is a conman, narc who clearly abuses his power and has admitted as much.


I would imagine the judge has more knowledge on the case than either of us and unless you were biased, one would have to accept the outcome and veracity of the suit.

[Grape Ape]

This is what the judge said

Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true".

I know the differences in the two cases, I have not looked into the Bragg stuff at all, I simply don't have time to dive deeply into this stuff unless there was a debate to be had and a bit of fun.

I am certain of his character based on his actions, pattern recognition and accumulated information. The man is a conman, narc who clearly abuses his power and has admitted as much.


I would imagine the judge has more knowledge on the case than either of us and unless you were biased, one would have to accept the outcome and veracity of the suit.

Oh please, we have AI now - you could get the gist of the bullshit around Bragg in minutes.  I mean, seriously, ask yourself the following: "Do I know what the felonies are, and why there's 34?".  If you don't, then you should educate yourself if you're going to parrot it.

Anyway, the Carrol case had zero evidence.  Since you're SO busy, I got a summary of the issues with it:

Key elements of the case: In the 2023 civil trial (Carroll II), a federal jury in New York found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996 (specifically, forcible digital penetration, which met the civil standard for sexual abuse but not the narrow New York Penal Law definition of "rape" requiring penile penetration). The jury also found him liable for defaming her in 2022 statements. It awarded $5 million. A follow-on 2024 defamation trial added $83.3 million.
The case was civil (preponderance of the evidence, ~51% standard), not criminal. Trump did not attend the first trial or testify live. Appeals have largely upheld the verdicts so far, though Trump has petitioned the Supreme Court.
Critics (including Trump's legal team and supporters) have raised several substantive issues with the case's fairness, evidence, and process. Here are the main ones, grounded in public records:
1. Extreme Delay and Statute of Limitations Revival

The alleged incident occurred ~27–28 years before the battery claim was filed. No contemporaneous police report, physical evidence, or medical exam existed.
Carroll filed her initial defamation suit in 2019 (after publicizing the claim in a book excerpt). The battery claim came in late 2022 under New York's Adult Survivors Act (ASA), a one-year lookback window specifically reviving time-barred adult sexual assault civil claims.
Critics argue this retroactive revival raises due process concerns for the defendant, especially for decades-old claims reliant on faded memories. Trump challenged the ASA's constitutionality. Similar lookback laws have faced scrutiny elsewhere for fairness to defendants.

2. Lack of Corroborating Physical or Eyewitness Evidence

No DNA, forensics, or video: Carroll claimed she had a dress from the incident but declined or did not pursue DNA testing that could have provided definitive evidence (or exoneration). Critics highlight this as a missed opportunity that tainted credibility, especially given her public references to the dress.
No eyewitnesses to the alleged assault in a busy Manhattan department store.
Evidence for the encounter itself was primarily Carroll's testimony, plus two friends she says she told shortly afterward (hearsay, but admitted). A photo of Carroll and Trump from 1987 was shown, but it predated the incident.
In a "he said/she said" with a decades-long gap, this leaves heavy reliance on credibility assessments rather than hard proof.

3. Evidentiary Rulings Favoring the Plaintiff

"Other acts" testimony: The court admitted testimony from two other women (Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff) alleging similar misconduct by Trump years earlier or later. This was allowed under Federal Rule of Evidence 415 in sexual assault civil cases, which has a low bar and no strict time limit. Critics argue it was highly prejudicial propensity evidence (i.e., "he's done it before, so he did it here") that overwhelmed the specific claim, especially given the time gaps. Trump’s team has appealed this as conflicting with Rule 403 balancing.
Access Hollywood tape (2005): Played for the jury, in which Trump made vulgar comments about women ("grab them by the pussy"). Admitted as relevant to pattern/credibility, but critics call it a 10-year-old hot-mic statement unrelated to the 1990s incident and inflammatory.
Restrictions on defense evidence: Trump argued the court limited rebuttal, including on inconsistencies in Carroll's account or her motivations.

4. Credibility and Motive Issues with Carroll's Account

Carroll could not pinpoint the exact date (only mid-1990s window). Details evolved or faced challenges (e.g., on the dress, location specifics).
She came forward publicly in 2019 during #MeToo and while promoting a book. Critics view the timing as opportunistic/political, especially given her opposition to Trump. Trump called it a "hoax" and said she was "not his type."
The jury rejected the rape claim (penile penetration) but accepted sexual abuse. Some see this as inconsistency in her core story; others see it as jurors splitting hairs on legal definitions.
Funding and contingency aspects of her legal team have been scrutinized by critics.

5. Venue, Judge, and Jury Context

Trial in the Southern District of New York (Manhattan), a heavily Democratic area. Trump argued bias in venue and rulings by Judge Lewis Kaplan.
Trump's deposition clips (e.g., denying knowing Carroll while mixing up her photo with Marla Maples, comments on "his type") were damaging and played to the jury.

Counterpoints and Context
The jury (unanimous after short deliberation) found Carroll met the preponderance standard, crediting her testimony and pattern evidence over Trump's denials. Courts have rejected many of Trump's challenges on appeal. Many other women have accused Trump of similar misconduct, which his defenders dismiss as coordinated or unproven. Trump has consistently denied all such claims and often attacked the accusers' appearances or motives.
Bottom line: Legally, the verdicts stand as a civil finding under relaxed standards and specific evidentiary rules for sexual assault cases. Substantively, legitimate flaws exist around the extreme delay, absence of physical proof, heavy use of propensity evidence from unrelated acts, and a specially tailored statute reviving old claims against a political opponent. These raise reasonable doubts about reliability and fairness for skeptics, even if they satisfied the jury and appellate courts. The case turned more on credibility and pattern than forensic proof. Ongoing Supreme Court review may address some procedural issues.

I firmly belive if this wasn't Trump, you would be looking at it the same way.

[Primemuscle]

Hung up?  Anyone reading that would have likely been confused.

Anyway, you're wrong on rape, regardless.

However, it's interesting that you will dismiss what doesn't fit your narrative with a quick google (americasdigitalshield, for example), but won't go into the Bragg case in depth.

Any thinking person, regardless of political affiliation, should have major issues with this case.

It's the litmus test for who is a partisan sheep or not.

Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carrol case. The main difference between sexual abuse and rape is that the latter typically involves penetration.

[Grape Ape]

Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carrol case. The main difference between sexual abuse and rape is that the latter typically involves penetration.

No, he wasn't.  There are no guilty verdicts in civil cases.

He's liable for damages.

And he was found liable with no evidence or eyewitnesses.

On a charge that was never spoken about for over 25 years, until the E Jean was releasing a book.

[Irongrip400]

No, he wasn't.  There are no guilty verdicts in civil cases.

He's liable for damages.

And he was found liable with no evidence or eyewitnesses.

On a charge that was never spoken about for over 25 years, until the E Jean was releasing a book.

Don’t argue, that dude is a fucking moron.

[Primemuscle]

No, he wasn't.  There are no guilty verdicts in civil cases.

He's liable for damages.

And he was found liable with no evidence or eyewitnesses.

On a charge that was never spoken about for over 25 years, until the E Jean was releasing a book.

Your nitpicking of legal terms aside, you are correct, he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation because it was a civil and not a criminal trial. This was because the criminal statute of limitations had expired by the time the allegation was made public. Lucky for Trump.

Considering she had no evidence or eyewitnesses; she must have been extremely convincing about the sexual abuse since the jury believed her and ruled in her favor. As for defaming her, this is just one more example of Trump not knowing when to keep his mouth shut, IMO.

 

[chaos]

You fags quit arguing about shit not germane to this situation.

Leave the Jacksons out of this.

[Grape Ape]

Your nitpicking of legal terms aside, you are correct, he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation because it was a civil and not a criminal trial. This was because the criminal statute of limitations had expired by the time the allegation was made public. Lucky for Trump.

Considering she had no evidence or eyewitnesses; she must have been extremely convincing about the sexual abuse since the jury believed her and ruled in her favor.

It's not nitpicking, it's eons of difference.

She didn't have to be convincing.  They were getting the decision they wanted regardless.

[Dos Equis]

Trump was found guilty of sexual abuse in the E. Jean Carrol case. The main difference between sexual abuse and rape is that the latter typically involves penetration.

Did you know Carrol couldn't identify the day or even the year she was allegedly raped? 

[Necrosis]

Oh please, we have AI now - you could get the gist of the bullshit around Bragg in minutes.  I mean, seriously, ask yourself the following: "Do I know what the felonies are, and why there's 34?".  If you don't, then you should educate yourself if you're going to parrot it.

Anyway, the Carrol case had zero evidence.  Since you're SO busy, I got a summary of the issues with it:

I firmly belive if this wasn't Trump, you would be looking at it the same way.

Thats not AI, please don't be as dumb as chaos and the like. It's from wikipedia, I don't use AI as I am nearly a luddite to be honest.

You can look it up, third paragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

If there was zero evidence the judge and jury should be sued and the appeals should work. Strange how that didn't. You are coming across a little like a conspiracy theorist and showing some serious group think here.

[Necrosis]

No, he wasn't.  There are no guilty verdicts in civil cases.

He's liable for damages.

And he was found liable with no evidence or eyewitnesses.

On a charge that was never spoken about for over 25 years, until the E Jean was releasing a book.

The judge's quote is directly there, we are not privy to all of the evidence, do you think the judge is lying or just a moron? it would have to be one or the other, but I suppose they are mutually exclusive.

[chaos]

The judge's quote is directly there, we are not privy to all of the evidence, do you think the judge is lying or just a moron? it would have to be one or the other, but I suppose they are mutually exclusive.

Do you think a judge is infallible or impartial 100% of the time?

[Grape Ape]

Thats not AI, please don't be as dumb as chaos and the like. It's from wikipedia, I don't use AI as I am nearly a luddite to be honest.

You can look it up, third paragraph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

If there was zero evidence the judge and jury should be sued and the appeals should work. Strange how that didn't. You are coming across a little like a conspiracy theorist and showing some serious group think here.

I didn't say it was AI.  I said you could use AI to summarize the Bragg Case, after you claimed "you didn't have time".

[Grape Ape]

The judge's quote is directly there, we are not privy to all of the evidence, do you think the judge is lying or just a moron? it would have to be one or the other, but I suppose they are mutually exclusive.

I didn't not see what you are saying when I read it, so I put the third paragraph into AI and asked the following:

In layman's terms, in this paragraph, does the judge in the trial say there is additional evidence we are not privy to? "Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true"."

The answer:

No, the judge does not say (or even imply) that there is additional evidence the public is not privy to.
In plain terms, here's what the paragraph actually says the judge did:

The jury heard the evidence presented in the trial and decided Trump was not liable for "rape" under New York's strict legal definition at the time (which required forcible penile penetration). They found him liable for the lesser offense of sexual abuse.
Judge Kaplan later clarified two things:
In his view, what the jury did find (the sexual abuse) still counts as "rape" in everyday/common language — even if it didn't meet the narrow legal definition.
When he dismissed Trump's countersuit, he wrote that E. Jean Carroll's accusation of rape was "substantially true."


This is the judge interpreting and commenting on the same evidence the jury already considered in open court. He is not hinting at secret evidence, withheld proof, or anything the public doesn't know about. He's essentially saying: "Based on what was proven at trial, her core claim holds up as substantially true."
The paragraph contains no reference to any hidden or extra evidence.

Did I use the wrong one?

[Necrosis]

I didn't not see what you are saying when I read it, so I put the third paragraph into AI and asked the following:

The answer:

Did I use the wrong one?

I honestly don't like AI. I find it gives you the answers you are looking for. I put in a bunch of genetics RS numbers the other day and prompted it without text and with text (which I knew was wrong) and it gave me two different answers.

I don't care what AI thinks, if you want to share you personal thoughts I would be happy to engage!

[Grape Ape]

I honestly don't like AI. I find it gives you the answers you are looking for. I put in a bunch of genetics RS numbers the other day and prompted it without text and with text (which I knew was wrong) and it gave me two different answers.

I don't care what AI thinks, if you want to share you personal thoughts I would be happy to engage!

It didn't give me what I was looking for.  I asked it objectively to verify what you said, and provided the paragraph stated.

So, in my own words:

You said the judge said in paragraph three there was evidence we aren't privy to.

I read paragraph three and did not see that.

Where did you read that in paragraph three from your wiki link?  Here it is to save you time:

"Carroll's accusation against Trump was more severe than the accusations made by other women. Regarding the jury verdict, the judge asked the jury to find if the preponderance of the evidence suggested that Trump raped Carroll under New York's narrow legal definition of rape at that time, denoting forcible penetration with the penis, as alleged by the plaintiff;[d] the jury did not find Trump liable for rape and instead found him liable for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration.[e] In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true"."

[chaos]

For a guy that doesn't follow politics Negrosis sure has all of the TDS talking points down.

[Grape Ape]

For a guy that doesn't follow politics Negrosis sure has all of the TDS talking points down.

I would just like to explain where in paragraph 3 the judge says there was evidence we were not privy to, as he claimed.

He could have already answered it, but chose to ignore what was written because.......AI.

[Necrosis]

I would just like to explain where in paragraph 3 the judge says there was evidence we were not privy to, as he claimed.

He could have already answered it, but chose to ignore what was written because.......AI.

You are claiming the verdict was bullshit- you would be the one that is required to prove that. They attempted to prove that, in court and failed. What more defense do I need? the appeal failed and was he not then ordered to pay her money for defamation?

My point is unless I am mistaken the judge would have heard the full case, the arguments in toto which we did not- that's a very safe assumption unless you were in the courtroom? The ulterior point of my post is that you claiming it's bullshit would force one to believe that you know better then the jury and judge. Your AI post is slop and simply an opinion, nothing more and a bad one at that.

Lets play the AI game

would the judge be privy to more information than a layperson or person not involved with the case


Yes. A judge in a case like this is typically exposed to much more information than an ordinary person following the case through news coverage.

For example, Lewis A. Kaplan would have had access to:

Full testimony from witnesses
Evidence submitted by both sides
Pretrial motions and legal arguments
Depositions
Material that may never have been widely reported publicly
Arguments over what evidence the jury was or was not allowed to hear

A judge also spends much more time examining the consistency and credibility of evidence than a casual observer would.

That said, there is an important distinction:

The judge cannot simply decide based on private beliefs or secret information.
The formal verdict still depends on the legal standards and the evidence properly admitted in court.

In this case involving Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll, the jury made the factual findings. Judge Kaplan later interpreted what those findings meant legally and linguistically.

So when Kaplan later said Carroll’s rape accusation was “substantially true,” he was not saying “I secretly know more than the public.” He was saying that, based on the evidence and the jury’s findings, the ordinary-language description “rape” was supported even though the technical New York statutory definition had not been met.


Exactly what I am claiming.

[Grape Ape]

You are claiming the verdict was bullshit- you would be the one that is required to prove that. They attempted to prove that, in court and failed. What more defense do I need? the appeal failed and was he not then ordered to pay her money for defamation?

My point is unless I am mistaken the judge would have heard the full case, the arguments in toto which we did not- that's a very safe assumption unless you were in the courtroom? The ulterior point of my post is that you claiming it's bullshit would force one to believe that you know better then the jury and judge. Your AI post is slop and simply an opinion, nothing more and a bad one at that.

Lets play the AI game

would the judge be privy to more information than a layperson or person not involved with the case


Yes. A judge in a case like this is typically exposed to much more information than an ordinary person following the case through news coverage.

For example, Lewis A. Kaplan would have had access to:

Full testimony from witnesses
Evidence submitted by both sides
Pretrial motions and legal arguments
Depositions
Material that may never have been widely reported publicly
Arguments over what evidence the jury was or was not allowed to hear

A judge also spends much more time examining the consistency and credibility of evidence than a casual observer would.

That said, there is an important distinction:

The judge cannot simply decide based on private beliefs or secret information.
The formal verdict still depends on the legal standards and the evidence properly admitted in court.

In this case involving Donald Trump and E. Jean Carroll, the jury made the factual findings. Judge Kaplan later interpreted what those findings meant legally and linguistically.

So when Kaplan later said Carroll’s rape accusation was “substantially true,” he was not saying “I secretly know more than the public.” He was saying that, based on the evidence and the jury’s findings, the ordinary-language description “rape” was supported even though the technical New York statutory definition had not been met.


Exactly what I am claiming.

It would be much easier if you would just admit you didn't know what "preponderance of evidence" meant and move on.  It's ok to admit mistakes.

But for anyone who wants cliff's notes, here a summary:

GA: Trial was bullshit, no evidence

Nec: The Judge had access to more evidence than we did, look at this link in paragraph three, it says it right there.

GA: I read you link, didn't see it, asked AI to confirm and it didn't either

Nec: I don't use AI

GA: Ok, where does it say it

Nec:  Here, let me use AI, but never show you where it was said in my link


Take the L. Move on.