Below is my earlier analysis. I missed one IMP fact. In May a Civil Jury found Trump not liable for the accusation of Rape but liable for the lesser charge of sexual abuse. The standard for a civil trial is a preponderance of the evidence, vs beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial. BTW I don't practice law, but play a shyster attorney on TV.
Given Ms. Carroll's prevailing in May, her claim that she was defamed is not without merit. That is unless Trump overturns that finding on appeal.
So I'd like to admit to my readers that I ....oh god...I don't know if I can say this. Might have been wrong.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Ok, we all know that Mr. Mean is a misogynistic loud-mouthed whack job. Say that 5 times. Get “it” out of your system. Take a deep breath and grab some Chamomile tea. Ok, we’re going to get through this. Let’s get started.
Pretend someone accuses you of violently assaulting them, some 30 years later. They didn't accuse you at the time or press charges. Yes, it was difficult to come forward in the 1990s in the case of sexual assault but that doesn't necessarily make you guilty.
Do you have the right to proclaim your innocence? Of course, to do so is logically accusing them of lying. Additionally, you’re logically accusing them of trying to falsely incarcerate you, a pretty nasty accusation. Can you verbalize the fact that they must be lying? Can you take it a step further and hypothesize their doing so for nefarious reasons and call their character into question?
District attorneys and public defenders use these arguments every day against their opponents. Now let’s get on to Trump’s particulars.
Carroll had accused Trump of raping her in a dressing room of a high-end department store in Manhattan in the mid-1990s, in an excerpt from her book, What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal, was published by New York magazine in June 2019.
Trump denied the allegation and called Carroll a liar, a political operative, and a nobody. He also suggested that she was not his type and that he had never met her, despite a photo showing them together at a party in 1987*.
Trump is presumed innocent under the law until found guilty, so arguably he has every right to say what he did. Do I know who’s lying here? Of course not. Let’s assume I suspect the liar is Trump. Does that change anything? If Carol pressed charges and Trump was convicted this would be a different story. Or if she pressed a civil suit and prevailed that would be a game changer.
The recent defamation verdict will either get reduced or thrown out on appeal.
Of course, the great irony is this is going to help get Trump elected. Trump’s supporters don’t necessarily like Trump, they just believe the system is rigged against him and the American public. They see Russiagate and perceive his unfair persecution as a direct threat to their liberty and ability to exercise their right to vote.
So the Trump detractors are going to be the very ones to help get this jackass elected.
コメント