DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Jury finds against Trump in E Jean Carroll Trail

Funny how you frequently claim Pit is here just to argue. And here you are trying to spin this, somehow, anyhow.

Words do absolutely have meaning, so perhaps you need to look at what I said and what the jury said and what the court's ruling was and stop confusing them.

I said: "Based on the evidence the Jury thought he was guilty and so he was found liable."

And your statement above is utterly incorrect. The court verdict IS Trump is liable.

What the jury "said" was:

"Did Ms. Carrol prove by a preponderance if the evidence that Mr. Trump sexually assault her? Answer; yes"

And once again I then said: "in the vernacular it'd be correct to say the jury thought he was guilty of what he was accused of." ... if someone is accused of something and jury hears the evidence and rules they believe the defendant did what he is accused of, one most definitely can say the jury thought he was guilty of what he was accused of.

I knw what you said. You continue to dodge being precise so you can live in the vernacular. In the end Trump is going to spend lunch money on this, unless he bleeds the plaintiff dry in appeals. Of course, he is still not guilty of a crime, at least not yet. This seems like an idiotic thing to hang a hat on. Enjoy.

The person hanging their hat would be you. I said in my second post you were technically right. I changed what I said to be technically correct by talking about how the jury viewed Trump instead of talking about what the verdict was or wasnt. You've spent a bunch of time since then being wrong and trying spin this someplace it isn't.

Now in a "toys out of the pram" sort of post - you're onto deflect saying this is lunch money to Trump and that it's not a crime. . . . . I think you seem to be missing the point.

If I respond to this to let you know you can have the last post is that me looking for an argument or you?

Enjoy the hallow victory.

Guy (Trump) is a predator, no matter what he was found liable for.

Wow, some people around here have rapey creep vibe fetishes. Who knew?

Who's that?

So, trump has to pay $5m for sexual assault. The jury made up of 6 men and 3 women. People from NY a group of his peers found him liable.

And your response is about Biden?

From last night town hall when asked about the mob from Jan 6th. “They were there with love in their heart — that was unbelievable and it was a beautiful day.”

The worst day in American history and trump had that to say.

There are not words to describe the filth of this traitor.

Here's the crazy argument being made. "The jury filled out the form stating they find he was guilty of sexual assault, but he's not guilty of sexual assault."

What did the verdict say?

The verdict was based on the findings of the jury. The jury found that he was guilty of sexual assault and said so on the forms they filled out. Somehow your ploy is to minimize that even when you know it's true.

So the verdict returned was?

Liable based on the fact they found he was guilty of sexual assault. They made that plain.

So the verdict was liable? I think that is what was said.

I notice you left out defamation on your list.

What judgement was entered?

This was the juries findings. I know you hate that and have refused to admit that, but that's what happened. It was shown in black and white. But that doesn't mean much to some people in America anymore.

The verdict was liable? So they didn't find him guilty? Just liable? Got it.

You seem not to understand what a liable verdict is based on. You can not hold someone liable unless you find them guilty of committing an act to be found liable of. They based the verdict of him being liable on the fact they found he was guilty of sexual assault in this case. Yes, they found he was guilty of sexual assault which is exactly what the verdict was based on.

But watching your little dance to deny that is most certainly entertaining.

You did not read the Cornell thing I suppose.

Yes, you can find someone liable with finding them guilty of a crime. In this case they found it was more likely than not he did it. "Preponderance of evidence" is "more likely than not". It is a low standard.

Again, they did not find him guilty, they found him liable. There is a big legal distinction there. The verdict is liable, the judgement entered is liable.

I continue to point out what the facts are, you spin but I am the one dancing? See if Santa Claus will bring you a dictionary or two for Christmas this year, younappezr to not understand the definitions to an abundance of words.

Yes, the standard in a civil trial is much lower than in a criminal case which most people are fully aware of. That's why the findings are not considered to be held up as a criminal offense. That does not however change the findings.


And they did. It seems you are the one in need of a dictionary.

That was mistyped

You can find someone liable without funding them guilty. OJ is the textbook on that.

I am guilty of being a Browns homer. I am guilty of thinking every single offseason for the last 23 years that somehow the Browns were' going to take a giant leap forward.

Pit - you are guilty of arguing with someone that won't listen to reason and instead insists on a conversation about the definition of guilty as a VERDICT only.

Using the word 'guilty' to describe what the Jury decided and felt about Trump in relation to the actions he was accused of is absolutely legitimate. The only thing it is not appropriate for is in relationship to saying the verdict was one of guilt. It's not hard - unless someone simply wants to argue for the sake of arguing, or if they want to deflect from Trump, his actions and what the jury thought he was guilty of.

But this jury did determine that trump was guilty of sexual assault. It was shown right on the jury forms. That's exactly what his liability was founded upon.

They did not.

The word guilty does not appear. They found the plaintiff "proved through a preponderance of evidence" that did something. This is still not a guilty verdict. He was not found guilty. There is a legal meaning to that and that was not met.

If the NYT printed a headline that says "Trump found guilty of sexual assualt" he would be able to sue them for libel. The headline is he was found liable for it. Guilty involves a criminal complaint and criminal punishment. This was a civil case.

The findings found him guilty and the liable verdict was based on the fact they found he was guilty of sexual assault. Once again, you must be found as doing something wrong and guilty of doing something in order to be found liable. Sexual assault is what they found he committed and that the libel verdict was based on.

The term appears on the jury form which breaks down exactly what they had found that trump did to base the verdict on. Their finding was that he committed sexual assault. This isn't complicated.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html

Did Ms. Carrol prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. trump sexually abused Ms. Carrol? Answer; Yes.

So your theory seems to be that they found he committed sexual abuse against her but they didn't find he was guilty of committing sexual abuse against her?

And the verdict was?

This started because someone said that the "jury found him guilty" and they did not. They found him liable for doing something, with a preponderance of evidence. They believed her more than they belived him. He was not found guilty, the verdict sheet doesn't say guilty. You can think he is guilty, but the jury found him liable. I know it is hard for you to not fight about something. You are wrong if you say they found him guilty.

The finding is, has been, and always will be liable. No matter what you or anyone thinks he is guilty of. No matter how you spin it. He was not found guilty.

When he fills out a government form and it asks "have you ever been found guilty of a crime" he can still answer that as "no".

I did not say the jury's verdict was stated as guilty or innocent of sexual abuse. That's not a verdict that a jury can conclude in their verdict of a civil trial. I said the jury in their findings determined he was guilty of sexual abuse. You are arguing a point with me that I never made. The fact they found he was guilty of sexual abuse is the very reason he was found liable. You seem to be confusing the findings of the jury with the verdict rendered by the jury. Their findings are the very reason the verdict was reached as it was.

I will go with Trump was found liable for sexual assault and defamation.

Guilty is not a technically accurate wording for a civil lawsuit, liable is the more accurate wording.

carry on..

And yet you keep saying "they found he was guilty of sexual abuse" which they did not. They decided that he did it, that is not the same as finding guilt. I am not the one confused. Spin from you does not change this.

So they found that he did it but didn't find he was guilty of doing it? Sometimes I don't think you hear yourself.

I hear just fine, other than low frequency in my left ear. They found he was more likely than not to have done it. But that does not find guilt. If we do this 30 more times will yuppie finally understand the jury did not find him guilty?

They found him to have committed sexuall abuse which is what the judgement handed down was based on.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is only needed to conclude guilt in a criminal proceeding. That standard in a civil proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence. They followed the standard required of them in a civil trail and determined that trump had committed sexual abuse. As such they found him libel based on their determination.

Your defense? "They concluded he did it but doesn't mean they concluded he was guilty of doing it."

No the judgement handed down was he is liable. Judgement is when the verdict is recorded and penalties assessed.

My defense? I have stated the fact the jury found him liable. The finding is he was liable. You continue to spin the jury found him guilty. They did not.

The jury did in fact find he committed sexual abuse. They made that as clear as they could make it saying so on the jury form. The verdict was that he was libel of doing so. If the jury had determined he had not done so, he would have not been libel of doing so. You do understand that the jury must determine what someone did that made them libel don't you? And in this case they determined that he was libel because he was sexually abusive.

This is what I keep trying to explain to you. Good job. You finally pitSplained to me the very thing I have been telling you.

See how they didn't find him guilty, just that the believe he did it now?

No, they determined he did it by the preponderance of the evidence. That's what the verdict and monetary amount was based on.

What you are claiming is like saying you determined someone broke into your house and stole things but you aren't claiming they are guilty of being a thief.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand back to square one.

I am claiming that they used a "preponderance of evidence" to find him liable. They did not find him guilty.

Did that person get tried criminally (guilty) or civilly (liable) and did they steal the goalposts you are trying to yet again move.

Keep defending your guilty hero. He’s guilty as sin. He’s a proven sexual predator. Get over it.

He was found liable which means the jury thinks he did it.

It's funny but these last few posts are really silly. He has been found liable. That's the actual wording... But realty says, HE DID IT which makes him guilty of the act..

You can spin it anyway you want however. still means the same thing..