Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL definition of "rape" in New York State.
They DID find that Trump had assaulted Carroll and the judge noted that
that assault met the ordinary definition of "rape".
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >>> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff >>> or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >>> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >>> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >>> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL >> definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed sexual assault.
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carrolls claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff >> or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL >definition of "rape" in New York State.
They DID find that Trump had assaulted Carroll and the judge noted that
that assault met the ordinary definition of "rape".
In article <102kqh6$ea0f$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >> >>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >> >>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL >> >> definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
Then no rape.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed sexual
assault.
We weren't talking about that.
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >>>> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff >>>> or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >>>> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL >>> definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed sexual >assault.
The idea that civil courts can ignore criminal courts
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:45:10 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >>>>> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>>>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in >>>>> relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said. >>>>>
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>>>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >>>>> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL >>>> definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed sexual
assault.
The idea that civil courts can ignore criminal courts and make
findings about criminal findings
On 6/15/2025 6:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:45:10 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and
said they would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the
verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump
lewdly spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant
context in relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as
"propensity evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court,
the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future
plaintiff or the government will be able to introduce evidence of
prior conduct in which a defendant went on a mundane outing and
sometime thereafter made a sexual advance," they wrote in their
dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow
LEGAL definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed
sexual assault.
The idea that civil courts can ignore criminal courts and make
findings about criminal findings
That did not happen.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >>> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in
relation to Carroll’s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff >>> or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >>> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL >>definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope.
They DID find that Trump had assaulted Carroll and the judge noted that >>that assault met the ordinary definition of "rape".
The judge's statement was both improper and irrelevant to the case
(other than to support the idea that the case should be overturned).
[Nazi filth newsgroups alt.politics.trump and alt.politics.republicans removed]Correct, she didn't give him a blowjob either.
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his tell. What a fucking idiot!
On 6/15/2025 1:34 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 15 Jun 2025, Dutch <no@email.com> posted someNo, Blowjob,
news:tBF3Q.1662112$%pKb.1316088@fx14.iad:
On 6/15/2025 6:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:45:10 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and >>>>>>>> said they would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered
the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which
Trump lewdly spoke about making passes at women, did not offer >>>>>>>> relevant context in relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape
functioned as "propensity evidence," which is typically
inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a
future plaintiff or the government will be able to introduce
evidence of prior conduct in which a defendant went on a
mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a sexual advance," >>>>>>>> they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the
narrow LEGAL definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed
sexual assault.
The idea that civil courts can ignore criminal courts and make
findings about criminal findings
That did not happen.
Yes it did.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 14:45:10 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
On 2025-06-14 13:53, Skeeter OG wrote:
In article <102kcqn$amgl$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
says...
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they >>>>> would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly >>>>> spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in >>>>> relation to Carroll?s claims. The tape functioned as "propensity
evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said. >>>>>
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in >>>>> which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a >>>>> sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the narrow LEGAL >>>> definition of "rape" in New York State.
So no rape then.
Not officially, no.
Laughter!
Then no rape.
But I notice you don't dispute that they found he had committed sexual
assault.
The idea that civil courts can ignore criminal courts and make
findings about criminal findings shows how out of control our courts
are.
On 15/6/25 6:15, NoBody wrote:
The idea that civil courts can ignore criminal courts
Are civil courts and criminal courts in the same buildings?
On 6/23/2025 6:10 AM, Scout wrote:
"Lee" <cleetius@gmail.corn> wrote in message
news:3hi5Q.1370923$6%s6.818136@fx12.iad...
On 6/20/2025 6:38 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:KSW4Q.316965$wdi3.182725@fx45.iad...
On 6/19/2025 7:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Jan 6 Legitimate Political Discourse"
<lets.go.brandon@salon.com> wrote in message
news:20250619.025028.aeae2713@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who >>>>>>> is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:20k4Q.250079$FMH4.86108@fx37.iad...
On 6/15/2025 12:58 PM, Dutch wrote:
On 6/15/2025 6:12 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:51:19 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:The definition has been broadened in New York since the jury >>>>>>>>>> correctly found that Trump sexually abused Carroll. If the >>>>>>>>>> trial were held today, the jury would find that Trump raped >>>>>>>>>> her.
On 2025-06-14 06:23, Dutch wrote:
Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court
dissented and said they
would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the >>>>>>>>>>>>> verdict.
The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in >>>>>>>>>>>>> which Trump lewdly
spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant >>>>>>>>>>>>> context in relation to Carrollââ,¬â"¢s claims. The
tape functioned as "propensity evidence," which is
typically inadmissible in court, the judges said.
"If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a >>>>>>>>>>>>> future plaintiff
or the government will be able to introduce evidence of >>>>>>>>>>>>> prior conduct in
which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime >>>>>>>>>>>>> thereafter made a
sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent.
The jury found that Trump's sexual assault did not meet the >>>>>>>>>>>> narrow LEGAL
definition of "rape" in New York State.
It's supposed to have a narrow legal definition you dope. >>>>>>>>>>
actually, they wouldn't since such changes in the law would be >>>>>>>> ex post facto.. and you can't be punished under laws that
didn't exist at the time the supposed crime occurred.
Isn't New York in the business of enacting laws to open windows
for selective retroactive indictments?
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice >>>>>>> -assault- survivors/
https://www.safehorizon.org/adult-survivors-act
Nothing says they couldn't try, but keep in mind that 42USC1983
would allow you to directly sue the individuals responsible for
infringements upon your rights and they would be personally
liable for any damages awarded from such a suit.
Whenever the law-illiterate scooter starts blabbering about
sections of the United States code, what follows is always
bullshit.
Keep in mind the claim here --- "always bullshit"
Yes, scooter. Whenever you start blabbering about either the
Constitution or statutory law, what follows is always bullshit —
100% of the time.
Translation:
A scooterism
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 23:21:35 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,008 |