Topic: Can the GOP bankrupt any democratic lawmaker they want now you don't need evidence in rape cases?
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago#110,917
E Jean Carroll didn't have proof a rape occurred, but won her case anyway.
Any lib can tell you "rape is impossible to prove" so they advocate for getting rid of due process in favor of an honor system where we assume all accusers are honest.
So can the republicans use this to their advantage? Next time a charismatic, smart democrat wins big office they can kneecap their career and finances by finding some fundy woman who is willing to lie because she thinks she's helping stop the baby genocide or whatever?
At that point, democrats either give up their leader because they have to believe the accuser. Or the courts decide that it's a partisan issue: believe the accuser when a republican is accused, and believe the accused when a democrat is accused. A double standard that would erode all trust in the courts overnight.
This already happened to some degree: Tara Reade was dismissed by the media and courts, and she didn't even say rape is sexy on national tv.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later[^][v]#1,232,879
Yes, the ship of fools (aka the Democrats) have set the precedent that any old loon can make stuff up about being raped on some unspecified date about 30 years ago, and get paid $5 million in damages, as long as the accused is somebody we don't like very much.
America First !tuKP.E9EOY joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,232,895
This is like trying to challenge affirmative action because it's literally racial discrimination. Yes, you are technically correct but it doesn't matter.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,232,910
It is surprising that the guy who brags about grabbing women by the pussy would turn out to be a sexual abuser of women, but it does appear to be true. It's always the ones you least suspect. 😔
spectacles joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 20 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,232,967
it wasn't a criminal trial. so the burden of proof is well below beyond a reasonable doubt. don't get sued. but also don't conflate this with the criminal justice system. i don't disagree that this was some petty bullshit even though i'm totally fine with it happening to trump. i just don't care. and neither should you. it literally doesn't matter. trump didn't even bother showing up, that's how little it matters. save your outrage for something important and legitimate, this sky is falling shtick over trumps rich-man problems is... basically you should sue trump for all the dick sucking you're doing for him. i'm SURE you'd win.
spectacles double-posted this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,232,968
@1,232,879 (B)
there's no precedent. this wasn't a criminal trial. no one is citing precedent set from civil proceedings. lol. or maybe i'm wrong, i'm no lawyer. but if you think it's somehow new to frivolously sue people for damages just because they're rich and this the "trump rape case" will set the tone for legal judgements for the foreseeable future, let me set the tone for you, "Sssssshhhhhhhhhhhuck, slurrrrrrrrrrp,schurlp, schlurp --pop!-"
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,232,969
@1,232,967 (spectacles)
I'm not shedding a tear for trump either, but there's absolutely something wrong with this.
What does it matter if the criminal justice system gives you due process if you can just be taken to civil court, and multimillion dollar judgments can financially ruin you?
Innocent people can have their lives ruined on unsubstantiated accusations, and the justification will just be "well we ruined you in civil court not criminal court, so..."
@previous (spectacles)
Both civil courts and criminal courts in the US follow precedents. The common law system, which is used in the US, is based on the concept of stare decisis, which means that lower courts are bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts. This principle is not limited to criminal courts and applies to civil courts as well.
spectacles replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,232,998
@previous (H)
i've been sued, cost us a shit ton of money. completely frivolous. it was fairly recently too, just a couple of years. the guy suing happened to be a lawyer, a very litigious one. i don't disagree, it's bullshit. ultimately it was dropped, but still cost us all told about 40 thousand. honestly, there's no reason to get up in arms over trumps legal woes. he's supposedly worth SO much more than 5 million bucks. and no one is going to sue you for millions of dollars and ruin your life. people sue you for what they can get out of you, the best thing is to try and not get sued, and if you do, then worry about it. until then we're not fixing anything hemming and hawwing over the rich and wealthy being sued for trump change.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 14 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,233,062
@OP
Has this case effected you in a personal sense? For example, do you believe you will be dragged into a civil court and sued for rape/sexual assault?