Gotcha, fat guy

Quote: Tanko

In 2019, she published an article in New York magazine, stating Trump raped her in Bergdorf's, more than two decades before.

Coincidently, in 2019 she was releasing and promoting her latest book.

And Trump could have taken her to civil court like an innocent man might. Especially one, who has no trouble filing lawsuits and no lack of funds.

Quote: Gandler

9 is middle. In a Federal Civil Trial it can be 6-12 (12 is just the max, there is no requirment to be 12 for civil trials). 9 is a fairly common level.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_48

My guess is the district Court that this was heard in decided to use 9 (6 is becoming common to streamline things in many districts). But, this is usually a policy with the Court. So my guess would be everyone at that Courthouse who gets civil trials gets 9 jurors.

The bottom line is less jururors save money and streamline things (less deliberations, less hung juries, etc...) So many Courts are getting less, with 6 becoming the common level. This is just the trend. 12 Jurors in a civil trial is a thing of the past.

Thanks for the info. It does seem that going with less than 12 likely weakens the jury trial system to me. Nothing to do with Trump's case but as a general observation I would think smaller juries would be more likely to get the verdict wrong.

Quote: Gandler

I trust the results of the jury, Trump will probably appeal it, he has that right, and we will see. This is a jury of peers, so people cannot say that it was a rigged court system with a Biden placed judge, etc....

If the complaint was written in a way that is hard to challenge, then her lawyers did a good job.

At the end of the day, I have very little vested in this case (I was not even aware if it until relatively recently, like last two weeks...), if he succeeds in his appeal, I will accept that result. I am far more interested in the criminal cases (and potential cases) against him. But, as I have no doubt that Trump behaves sexually inappropriately and has his whole adult life (and I don't think you do either if you are honest), the outcome does not surprise me. And, if it is another mark against Trump in the public forum, that is a net positive for American politics.

Eventually, the full transcripts will be released (the depo transcripts are already out there), and maybe then we will both change our minds. But, until then we have to trust the jury. Trump has very good lawyers, they would never let somebody on the jury who even has a history of having a slight bias against Trump. And, remember this was a unanimous verdict, so even the right-wing (statistically guaranteed) jury members found Trump liable.

I don't trust the results of the jury because they are made up of our peers---which means they are mostly idiots. It's not all that unlikely that all nine of them are total idiots. I'm not claiming, and would not claim, that anything was rigged.

You think that's the attorneys doing a good job-maybe. What I think is the jury finding for the Plaintiff on a preponderance standard despite having no solid evidence whatsoever. How can they have solid evidence when the claim itself is not even remotely solid?

The fact of the matter is that people take the stand and give these accounts and the juries assume that they are telling the truth if they are sufficiently emotive or compelling. That's not to say that they are lying, and it's not because they are women making a sex claim, it's just my fundamental position that my inclination is not to believe anything that anyone says if their word is the only thing I have to go off of.

With their word and six dollars, I can get a coffee drink from Starbucks---and I can do that leaving their word at home.

What we are left with is a he said/she said and people like the she more than the he, in this instance. I get that. I'd be very concerned about this result if it involved anyone but Trump, but I think he is sufficiently hated that people aren't going to care about little trivialities like evidence, proof or the fact that they are relying on the accounts of 25+ year old memories from people who could very well have been coached to lie. If not coached to lie, given 25+ years, they might have been coached to remember a phone conversation that did not actually happen the way they're being convinced to remember it as.

But, more than that, Plaintiff is the aggressor by virtue of being the Plaintiff. A few of Plaintiff's buddies saying, "Oh yeah, she totally called me about that," doesn't cut the mustard for me.

I've already said that I believe Trump has behaved inappropriately in this way. I wouldn't be surprised if he has raped someone. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he has raped his own daughter. If Ivanka put a civil suit on him for rape, I'd be a snap yes decision.

The question is whether or not the event with Plaintiff happened, not whether or not I think Trump has ever committed sexual improprieties in his entire life; I would be shocked if he hasn't done.

When it comes to the Plaintiff, here's what I would need in order of weakest to strongest, in order to get to 51%:

1.) A more specific complaint with respect to timeframe. (This, by itself, might even be enough for me)

2.) Trump not to flatly deny having ever met this person a second time. (I don't believe his denial, but it would make her case stronger had he admitted to seeing her a second time).

3.) Either of the two friends remembering the supposed phone calls to greater specificity than a nine-month range.

4.) A witness who has ever seen Trump and Carroll together-preferably at or near that location.

Even if I had everything listed above, then I would STILL have to assume that she and Trump did not have a consensual sexual liaison and that just gets me to sexual harassment and I'm still short of rape.

Even this jury answered, "Yes," to sexual abuse, no to rape and must have been split on forcible sexual contact as that was unanswered and they had to find unanimously.

In other words, the jury ultimately decided that something sexual happened between the two and that it was not consensual.

I don't know why it wasn't consensual, but sure, I don't care. Give me a more specific complaint and I'll go ahead and find that it was sexual abuse of one kind or another. We could even get into neo-liberal topics like, "Power dynamic," but who are wealthy and powerful people supposed to mingle with? Other wealthy and powerful people exclusively? Doesn't seem great for social mobility.

Do you have a link to the depo transcripts? I can't find them.

I do not have to and most certainly do not trust the jury. I assume that the jury are mostly, or entirely, idiots. Ultimately, the jury was led to believe that something is true simply because a few people biased in favor of saying it's true said that it's true. The jury had exactly nothing in terms of actual evidence and couldn't even put Trump and Carroll in the same place at the same time. Of course, I guess it's quite possible when you're giving yourself a nine month window for a ten minute encounter one minute from where a guy lives.

Do I think Carroll is lying? No. Do I think she's telling the truth? I don't know. What I can say is just as likely, in my mind, is that the two of them had some sort of consensual sexual quickie, or perhaps one that started as consensual, until it wasn't. Hell, if she was claiming THAT, I'd be all on board that Trump might have committed sexual abuse by taking it further than she wanted, or attempting to, against her will.

Quote: Tanko

I read some of the testimony from Cheryl Beall, who testified the fitting room door could have been unguarded and testified she doesn’t know Carroll. Hard to believe, considering her decades long connection to the women’s fashion industry. She would have met Carroll at trade shows and parties hosted by the fashion houses. Beall was a general manager at a luxury department store, who would have made it her business to know Carroll, who was a columnist for ‘Elle’, one of the largest women’s magazines in the world.

At the time of the alleged attack, Carroll was married to late prominent ABC news reporter, John Johnson. She should have been an emotional wreck. If it actually occurred, it is unlikely she didn’t tell her husband of the attack, or keep it from him. Especially after allegedly confiding in two of her friends right after the alleged attack.

'Birnbach said Carroll called her right after the alleged incident, “breathless and laughing.” - Who laughs after being raped?

John Johnson was not the kind of person to let it go unpunished. He would have beaten Trump to a pulp and then called the cops and sued Trump for millions.

She mentioned her blue dress which she said may have Trump’s DNA on it. Yet, in her interview with Anderson Cooper, she mentioned ‘down came the tights’.

Trump offered to take a DNA test to compare to the DNA on the dress, but the Judge disallowed it.

I'm willing to believe that, if the event happened as Carroll states, she wouldn't have told her husband about it. Equally, she wouldn't have told him about it had she had a liaison with Trump that was wholly consensual, or alternatively, started out consensually and got out of hand.

The employee's testimony means nothing to me if the employee can't put both Carroll and Trump there at the same time. Anyone who would argue that the fitting rooms would be being watched at all times, even with it being a high end store, most likely has never had an actual job anywhere. People are lax in their jobs all the time.

Many people laugh after experiencing some sort of physical or emotional trauma. It relieves stress and can also be a defense mechanism. Do you know anything about human beings?

Yes, women wear tights under their dresses sometimes. It's extremely common. Have you left your house ever?

I'm trying to advance some half-decent arguments from a place of objectivity. Your arguments are not only inane, but come from a clear place of bias.

Quote: rxwine

Trump would have been fine if he had stuck to a denial like a normal person instead of defaming her with his usual unnecessary blather. Particularly after this amount of time.

Stop crying for him. He brings most of it on himself.

And he'll probably ruin his own appeal.

I agree with this. He 100% brought a defamation claim into the picture. That wouldn't even have been on the table, but for his inability to keep his stupid orange-makeup wearing mouth shut.

Quote: Tanko

In 2019, she published an article in New York magazine, stating Trump raped her in Bergdorf's, more than two decades before.

Coincidently, in 2019 she was releasing and promoting her latest book.

You're a bit behind. That is the subject matter of the defamation claim; Trump made a statement that she made the whole account up to push her book.

Quote: kenarman

Thanks for the info. It does seem that going with less than 12 likely weakens the jury trial system to me. Nothing to do with Trump's case but as a general observation I would think smaller juries would be more likely to get the verdict wrong.

Technically, a civil court only needs to have a trial by jury, at least in some jurisdictions, at the request of either of the parties involved. In theory, a civil case could go to what is called a, "Bench trial," which means there is no jury and the judge just hears it and makes a decision.

Of course, both parties would have to want that. The most likely case to go to bench trial is on a highly complicated and technical matter that the average layperson wouldn't be expected to understand---because the average layperson is an idiot.

Quote: Mission146

I don't trust the results of the jury because they are made up of our peers---which means they are mostly idiots. It's not all that unlikely that all nine of them are total idiots. I'm not claiming, and would not claim, that anything was rigged.

I have always wondered why we do not have professional jurors.

Quote: DRich

I have always wondered why we do not have professional jurors.

The corruption and bribery of Clarence Thomas would be a good illustration as to why that would be a bad idea.

Will the time soon come when juries are replaced by AI?

If not, why not?