Donald Trump Legal Troubles Thread

Originally posted by Smurph
It doesn't need to be one over the other. They're just completely different things.

In a criminal case, the alleged victim isn't actually a party to the proceeding, merely a witness. The parties in the criminal proceeding are the accused and the state. So it could not proceed merely as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. From the victim's perspective, they basically get no control over how it unfolds, still get subject to cross examination, and the case has to meet the much higher bar of beyond a reasonable doubt - which is notoriously hard to do in rape cases. And then, even if successful, the "justice" is not in a form that compensates them for their harm.

OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, but liable for 30 million in civil court. You don't have to choose, but if you did have to choose, wouldn't you (as a victim) prefer civil justice?

Problem is if its hard to prove then its hard to prove. Thats why its vital for victims to understand to go to the police right away and show any signs of bruising with DNA evidence e.t.c. But why do you need millions of dollars? I dont believe in monetary compensation for these crimes. To me that will just encourage more accusations.

Look at it this way, if its difficult to prove and know for sure then youre potentially tainting an innocent man. If we do know for sure then there should be criminal action taken. So again the whole civil thing without criminal charges just doesnt make sense to me. Unless they can show they werent able to work all these years due to the trauma. That might make sense.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Problem is if its hard to prove then its hard to prove. Thats why its vital for victims to understand to go to the police right away and show any signs of bruising with DNA evidence e.t.c. But why do you need millions of dollars? I dont believe in monetary compensation for these crimes. To me that will just encourage more accusations.

Look at it this way, if its difficult to prove and know for sure then youre potentially tainting an innocent man. If we do know for sure then there should be criminal action taken. So again the whole civil thing without criminal charges just doesnt make sense to me. Unless they can show they werent able to work all these years due to the trauma. That might make sense.

I think damages awards get out of control in the American system, where there's a greater emphasis on punitive awards versus purely compensatory... but it's a different context in America. Maybe you need awards of that size to dissuade particular categories of bad actors.

As for your second paragraph: civil trials don't have a risk of jail time, so the defendant gets fewer procedural advantages, including a lower burden of proof. The burden is still on the plaintiff to make her case.

I don't really disagree with that as without compelling corroborative evidence or a particularly unlikeable accused, rape cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. That said, the concept of too much renumeration to a victim if the accused is a billionaire politician is somewhat ridiculous.

Originally posted by Smurph
People get monetary damages because the event derails their life in so many ways that can't be undone, and money is an imperfect way of "righting" things, but it's often the only means practically available.

I think damages awards get out of control in the American system, where there's a greater emphasis on punitive awards versus purely compensatory... but it's a different context in America. Maybe you need awards of that size to dissuade particular categories of bad actors.

As for your second paragraph: civil trials don't have a risk of jail time, so the defendant gets fewer procedural advantages, including a lower burden of proof. The burden is still on the plaintiff to make her case.

My friend, I have seen reporting and articles during, I think, the Johnny Depp witch hunts where the jury is instructed they may find a verdict based on nothing but how well a story is told, without any evidence at all.

Our legal system is a joke. It's nothing to rig a case here, jury stacking, kickbacks/bribes, intentionally saddling someone with an incompetent defense attorney (That one is obviously more done in criminal cases)

Then you hear the stories about one juror basically bullying everyone into agreeing with an outcome, or just wearing people down. It's all about money or attacking them with a weapon, and the general public is hopelessly compromised by too much Trash TV and disgruntled underpaid neurotic educators under the thumb of w soulless bureaucracy, the US sucks.

Just dug this up just now;

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/think-trump-is-being-railroaded-its-happened-to-others-in-the-u-s

Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska was, in 2008, the longest serving Republican senator in American history. He was cruising to re-election that year and expected to easily extend his 40 (!) years in the Senate. The federal department of justice had been investigating corruption in Alaska but had landed no big fish. Stevens was the biggest fish in all Alaska and one of the biggest in Washington.

Federal prosecutors desperately wanted to take him down, and so they indicted him on accounting irregularities that, in the weird world of American “process” crimes, amounted to a felony. In essence, they said that Stevens did not pay the full amount for renovations to his home, and therefore he had received a gift, and thus was guilty of not reporting the gift on his Senate disclosure forms. In typical American count stacking, federal prosecutors made one gift into seven felonies. (Trump faces 34 counts.) Stevens was convicted at trial and narrowly lost re-election eight days later by 1.3 per cent.

A few months later an FBI whistleblower revealed that prosecutors had suppressed evidence that Stevens had indeed paid for the renovations in full. Stevens was exonerated and the trial judge called it the worst example of prosecutorial misconduct he had ever seen. But it was too late for Stevens, who had been chased out of the Senate by lawless prosecutors.

The naked legal persecution of the Republicans’ most senior senator took place under a Republican administration. The attorneys general of George W. Bush did nothing to stop it.
The irate trial judge appointed his own investigator to look into criminal malfeasance in the Bush justice department regarding the Stevens case. The report was damning but there was no punishment for the prosecutors, though one did commit suicide. A Republican justice department took out the most senior Republican senator and there was no accountability.

Imagine then what prosecutors might do to ordinary, poor Americans every day when no one is watching and about whom no one cares. Those victims don’t get FBI whistleblowers.

Intentionally leaving out any mention of Trump because not really my point.

Republican politician, Republican administration, railroad hatchet job, prosecutor gets no punishment but commits suicide.

US history is riddled with examples of corruption and realpolitiks, I really have no faith in our government or business leaders.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
That said, the concept of too much renumeration to a victim if the accused is a billionaire politician is somewhat ridiculous.

My issue isnt the cost to him. Its the incentive it gives someone to make the accusation.

I just think if hes guilty hes a criminal and should be punished, not paying out like an insurance claim.

@cdtm

Except of course in the Depp case, the legal systems worked. Most everyone assumed Depp was guilty at first, Disney and other studios backed away, then in court the truth came out that Depp was actually the victim, his name was exonerated and he was awarded the damages.

Maybe think before typing? Try.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I don't really disagree with that as without compelling corroborative evidence or a particularly unlikeable accused, rape cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute. That said, the concept of too much renumeration to a victim if the accused is a billionaire politician is somewhat ridiculous.

She should have received a lot more than just 5 million. Trump smeared her name, putting her in danger from his cult as he's done many times before with others who speak out against him.

She received death threats from Trumpers after the accusation was laid, to the point she started keeping a loaded gun next to her bed.

Originally posted by Robtard
@cdtm

Except of course in the Depp case, the legal systems worked. Most everyone assumed Depp was guilty at first, Disney and other studios backed away, then in court the truth came out that Depp was actually the victim, his name was exonerated and he was awarded the damages.

Maybe think before typing? Try.

You know Depp was found guilty before he was found innocent right?

Good lord

Originally posted by cdtm
You know Depp was found guilty before he was found innocent right?

You mean when he lost to the Sun? That wasnt a guilty verdict. IIRC He was suing them and harder burden to prove when going against freedom of the press.

Originally posted by Robtard
She should have received a lot more than just 5 million. Trump smeared her name, putting her in danger from his cult as he's done many times before with others who speak out against him.

She received death threats from Trumpers after the accusation was laid, to the point she started keeping a loaded gun next to her bed.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Absolutely, it's the lack of acknowledgement of that part of the argument from poster: designation "Smurph" that makes no sense, he has said before he has a legal background which is possible and I have no reason to disbelieve him, which is why I am hopeful he will add another layer of information to his comments, so we can see where the hell he is coming from.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Absolutely, it's the lack of acknowledgement of that part of the argument from poster: designation "Smurph" that makes no sense, he has said before he has a legal background which is possible and I have no reason to disbelieve him, which is why I am hopeful he will add another layer of information to his comments, so we can see where the hell he is coming from.

Well he said a litigator.

So I assumed prosecutor. Or something not defense oriented.

Originally posted by Smurph
I have no idea what point you think you're making. I never commented on the fairness of Carroll's verdict or award. Designation "Smurph" made me lol tho.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
So, do you see financial renumeration awarded in the low millions as punitive when the individual being asked to pay it has literally billions. Could awards rather than being punitive, perhaps still be ill equipped to cope with or dissuade the criminal ultra wealthy. Perhaps this is where civil law in and of itself is not a process that will have any affect at dissuading the likes of Trump from criminality, instead more often than not it is a tool to be used by them against their enemies.

In a purely compensatory system, Trump's wealth would be irrelevant. Compensation is entirely about the harm done to the plaintiff. Of course, if Trump had no money, there would be no point in suing him, so his wealth is still a part of the overall narrative.

Punitive principles might increase an award to dissuade particular conduct. Then the focus shifts from solely about the harm done to the plaintiff, to the condemnable conduct of the defendant. To my mind, that's when Trump's resources and power become relevant.

Originally posted by cdtm
Well he said a litigator.

So I assumed prosecutor. Or something not defense oriented.

Originally posted by Smurph
Compensation and punishment are just two overarching principles (among others) that a legal system might rely on in developing its system for damages.

In a purely compensatory system, Trump's wealth would be irrelevant. Compensation is entirely about the harm done to the plaintiff. Of course, if Trump had no money, there would be no point in suing him, so his wealth is still a part of the overall narrative.

Punitive principles might increase an award to dissuade particular conduct. Then the focus shifts from solely about the harm done to the plaintiff, to the condemnable conduct of the defendant. To my mind, that's when Trump's resources and power become relevant.

Also at least in the US system punitive damages are as much about giving a lesson to the party that wronged as it is about restitution to that who was wrong. So money or wealth very much does make a difference and an awards in a civil case. Nothing I am a lawyer but this is just something every American knows at this point.

Originally posted by Smurph
You assumed wrong.