It’s looking like SCOTUS is going to find in favor of Trump on the immunity case. If this happens and if this results in some or all of the cases being dropped, this increases his chances of winning significantly.
On a related note, Trump is on the hook for a massive amount of money for an alleged rape for which there is literally no evidence. Meanwhile NY (same jurisdiction) just gave Weinstein a pass on multiple rapes.
4 comments:
Also, the testimony of a dozen people that support the allegations are evidence.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179
That Trump didn't sign a confession doesn't mean there is no evidence.
It's the casual dismissal of women's testimony that empower rapists. One of the things.
Dan
This from an article in today's AmericanThinker:
"[Per The New York Post] Judge Merchan has not merely allowed this trial to proceed under these outrageous circumstances, but he is allowing DA Bragg to spend days bringing in irrelevant evidence about Trump’s alleged affair with Karen McDougal. The law in all American jurisdictions makes this type of evidence impermissible because it invites a jury to convict for acts other than the crime charged. It is classic judicial and prosecutorial misconduct. Indeed, it was for just such acts that New York’s highest court recently vacated Harvey Weinstein’s conviction."
Art,
I saw a report that Daniels has signed a statement that she did not have an affair with Trump. If this is True, it seems problematic for the prosecution. Obviously, introducing evidence of unrelated acts should not be allowed in a criminal case. Weinstein gets away with multiple rapes, while Trump gets prosecuted for an alleged affair. Of course he paid Daniels, she's someone who regularly has sex for money, why wouldn't he?
"Also, the testimony of a dozen people that support the allegations are evidence."
Perhaps you missed, or chose to ignore the topic of this post. Perhaps you don't understand the legal system. Perhaps you missed the fact that Trump wasn't convicted of rape in the trial that ended quite a while ago. Perhaps you missed the fact that Carrol herself offered testimony that wasn't conclusive.
"That Trump didn't sign a confession doesn't mean there is no evidence."
Again, perhaps you missed the point of the post.
"It's the casual dismissal of women's testimony that empower rapists. One of the things."
I'd suggest that the fact that the fact that this testimony was presented in court, evaluated by a jury, and found to not be evidence of rape doesn't mean anything. I'd take this idiotic line of thought more seriously, if it wasn't for the leftist double standard.
Post a Comment