Can Kamala Harris win?

denso13 said:
Yes, the jury found "exactly that".

"Carroll failed to prove that she was “raped” within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump “raped” her as many people commonly understand the word “rape.” Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

Click to expand...
So they found him guilty of rape, why didn't the judge sentence him to a mandatory 5 years in jail?

Was it because they were not a criminal court hearing a rape charge? You know the answer.
 
Mrs Doubtfyre said:
If the proceeding had happened in 2024, he would have been judged to have committed Assault by Penetration, due to the vagaries of the law of rape.
Click to expand...
motorbiking said:
don't think so - ask Noseall why.
Click to expand...
He was judged to have committed assault, in a civil case, which brought a compensation of several million dollars.
If the same proceedings had occurred in 2024, the judgement would have been that he had committed assault by penetration, and the damages could have been way more.

In July, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word. In August 2023, Kaplan dismissed a countersuit and wrote that Carroll's accusation of "rape" is "substantially true.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
denso13 said:
In a civil court? Give your head a shake...
Click to expand...
ahh so he isn't a convicted rapist and the 3 times you called him that in * Post #185, #162 and #169

You were wrong or a liar.

Mrs Doubtfyre said:
That doesn't mean he wouldn't be convicted if he was charged with rape or sexual assault in a criminal court.
As it stands we only have him been found guilty of rape in a court.
That's more than good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely.. Do you know why?
 
motorbiking said:
ahh so he isn't a convicted rapist and the 3 times you called him that in * Post #185, #162 and #169

You were wrong or a liar.
Click to expand...
In essence he is a convicted rapist. He was judged to have committed an assault, which in the minds of ordinary people, constituted rape.

motorbiking said:
Highly unlikely.. Do you know why?
Click to expand...
There are various reasons why a conviction might fail. We don't know what the outcome would be until it happens.
My assertion was that because he was judged guilty in only a civil court does not mean that he wouldn't be found guilty in a criminal court, which you seem to have inferred.
I did not say that he would, nor did I say that he wouldn't.
You don't appear to have understood my comment correctly. If you need further explanation, I'm happy to oblige.
 
Of course he's not a convicted rapist, in essence or any other way. He was not on trial for rape and no jury found him guilty of rape to the criminal standard. They simply had to determine if the allegation was knowingly false. If it was the defamation case stands.

We do not need to know anything of the evidence if the offence is out of time to be prosecuted.
 
motorbiking said:
Of course he's not a convicted rapist, in essence or any other way. He was not on trial for rape and no jury found him guilty of rape to the criminal standard. They simply had to determine if the allegation was knowingly false. If it was the defamation case stands.
Click to expand...
He was judged to have committed the assault, which in most people's minds constitutes rape.
Mrs Doubtfyre said:
He was judged to have committed assault, in a civil case, which brought a compensation of several million dollars.
...
en.wikipedia.org

E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

motorbiking said:
We do not need to know anything of the evidence if the offence is out of time to be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
That's why I said:
Mrs Doubtfyre said:
...
If the same proceedings had occurred in 2024, the judgement would have been that he had committed assault by penetration, ...
Click to expand...
You are intent in making strawman arguments in your inexcusable support for a rapist.
And not a one-time assailant of women. He's a self-confessed assailant of women over a number of years.
 
denso13 said:
He sometimes gets obsessed with specific words, other times words don't matter it's the meaning and intent that's important.
Click to expand...
Like when someone says a person is a convicted rapist, when they aren't and have never been prosecuted for rape?

It's only minor detail. Was convicted of rape / wasn't convicted.

and for what its worth I think given who we have in charge, Harris would be good for the UK.
 
Mrs Doubtfyre said:
He was judged to have committed the assault, which in most people's minds constitutes rape.



That's why I said:

You are intent in making strawman arguments in your inexcusable support for a rapist.
And not a one-time assailant of women. He's a self-confessed assailant of women over a number of years.
Click to expand...
its still nonsense.
 
Nope - just picking you up on your lies.

There is plenty of fault to find with Trump, you don't have to invent stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top