It takes a lot to get me to raise fairness concerns over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. I was highly critical of Cuomo in his dismissal of the rights of Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation fight when Cuomo not only insisted that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford must be believed but demanded that Kavanaugh take a polygraph examination. However, Cuomo has legitimate objections to a new Justice Department finding that he sexually harassed 13 women over an eight-year period.
The finding came in an agreement with the office of Gov. Kathy Hochul to resolve an investigation into violations of Title VII of sexual discrimination and retaliation between 2013 and 2021.
There was an ample basis for such an investigation, including prior testimony of the women involved in these incidents. However, the Justice Department did not interview Cuomo, according to his counsel. Instead, it relied heavily on the investigation of New York Attorney General Latitia James who is an outspoken critic of Cuomo. Likewise, Hochul’s office is not eager to see Cuomo run again for office. Finally, he has been a critic of the Biden Administration, particularly calling out President Biden for his mismanagement of the border.
That does not mean that there were no violations. Sexual harassment and even assault have been alleged by a significant number of women. They have given evidence in criminal investigations and spoken to state investigators.
However, in 2022, Albany County District Attorney David Soares dropped a criminal complaint against Cuomo for lack of evidence. Later five additional criminal cases were dropped. He is facing pending civil litigation over the allegations of sexual assault.
What is concerning is the government making a declaration of “a pattern or practice of discrimination against female employees based on sex” without giving Cuomo an opportunity to rebut those allegations.
Kristen Clarke, the assistant attorney general in the agency’s civil rights division declared that “the conduct in the Executive Chamber under the former governor, the state’s most powerful elected official, was especially egregious because of the stark power differential involved and the victims’ lack of avenues to report and redress harassment.”
The Justice Department can argue that it was looking at the hostile environment at the Governor’s office, an allegation supported by many women. However, it makes the specific claim on 12 incidents of such abuse by the former governor, a declaration already being widely reported as a type of adjudication.
What is striking is that the report does not give details on the individual cases or findings on their underlying claims. Moreover, it states that the agreement “shall not constitute an adjudication or finding on the merits of the case.”
If that is the case, how was it fair to make a finding that Cuomo is a serial sexual harasser without interviewing him or establishing the underlying truth of the allegations against him? It seems to be declaring that Cuomo harassed a dozen women while saying that he might not have. Few will read or understand that caveat. It is a non-finding finding that will be reported as an adjudicated fact.
James’ office dismissed such objections and declared that Cuomo is now officially a serial assaulter of women: “Andrew Cuomo can continue to deny the truth and attack these women, but the facts do not lie.”
Again, I hold no brief for Andrew Cuomo. However, the Justice Department’s conclusion appears long on conclusions and short on due process in making such a non-finding finding.
Andrew Cuomo has a right to due process!
I guess this means that they’re going to leave his name on that bridge…
The bridge is named after Mario, not Andrew.
“Comme Saturne, la Révolution dévore ses enfants.” Jacques Mallet du Pan
Diogenes:
Et merci à Dieu pour cette petite miséricorde!
😉
Yep, Mespo, sometimes they’re a self-correcting problem.
Anyone with a Penis and a bit of money to cover reasonable Attorney fees is fair-game.
That’s the Motto at our Firm.
“The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report definition of rape: penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
“What he did meets this definition. He raped her.”
According to your words, Joe Biden “raped” Tara Reade.
Yes, if he did what she alleges. But not if he didn’t. Let Reid and her witness be questioned under oath, like E. Jean Carroll and her witnesses were, let Biden and any witnesses on his part be questioned under oath — or refuse to, like Trump did. Let a jury make a finding.
Oh, —- no, they don’t lie under oath.
_________________________________________
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
– President Bill Clinton
And by questioning all of the relevant parties, it was discovered that he was lying.
Just like we may be able to figure out who’s lying by questioning Reid, her witnesses, Biden, and his witnesses.
We have jury trials for a reason.
Just as Biden was/is lying about raping Tara Reade.
Maybe, or maybe Reid is lying or has a false memory. Again: by questioning Reid, her witnesses, Biden, and his witnesses under oath, we may be able to get to the truth.
Discovered how ? By who ? There remains todate no evidence that Trump was in Bergdorfs that day.
And no evidence that Trump met Carroll Ever before. Having been photographed int he same room in the receiving line for a party is NOT met.
You say it was “discovered” that Trump was lying ? How would that be ?
Do you have a single FACT ?
Carroll wrote a book defaming the 40 different men in her life that all had allegedly raped her – not one of those Was Donald Trump.
Purportedly she told freinds about this – though no one is sure when or really sure who did what. Carrol is not even really sure whether it was Rape or Rough Sex or honestly Whether it was Trump or whether it actually happened.
But she knows she was wearing a Dress that had not even been designed intil several years after the 3-4 years that she thinks this might have happened.
It is Possible that Carrol is telling the Truth – it is possible that Trump is lying.
But it is more likely that Covid came from a 3 toed sloth in Africa.
There is a reason that we do not allow claims like this 30 years after the fact.
The plantif can not substantiate their story and the defendant can not even attempt to disprove a claim that might have happened on any of 1000 different days. The odds of having an alibi for the entirety of 4 years is near zero.
As the Supreme court noted in overturning the conviction of Sam Shepard for murdering his pregnant wife.
“In 1966, in Sheppard v. Maxwell, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the “carnival atmosphere” surrounding Sheppard’s first trial had made due process impossible; ”
you honestly think that thye Carnival atmosphere of all the Trump prosecutions is not 10 times worse ?
I doubt you have even heard of Sam Shepard. But I suspect you will as this goes to appeal.
His case is just one of thousands of presidents for throwing out this farce.
But you will Not let Reid and her witnesses be questioned under oath – and Carrol did abysmally both under oath and otherwise – despite a judge that prevented anyone from asking difficult questions , and despite the fact that she could not recall within 3 years when the event took place, and her “witnesses” could not recall when this occured or really anything about it – other than – it really really did happen, because well ya know “Orange man Bad”
I am sure Reid would be ecstatic to have her day in court and an 83M defamation claim against Biden for proclaiming his innocense.
But reid can not get into court because well – statute of limitations.
Of course her claims are 2 decades newer than Carrol’s – But Reid is making the mistake of accusing a Democrat.
If only she would change her story and claim It was Trump that stuck his hand in her vagina, in the cloack room in the senate – she could be rolling in Dough right now.
Would not matter if Trump was in another country at the time the assault occured. Just substitute Trump for Biden and DC Courts would make sure nothing contradicting the claim got into court, and a DC Jury would make short work of convicting Trump because … Ya know “Orange man Bad”
Yes….let a Jury decide….come on down to a Republican County, in a Republican State, and try the case in a Court under a Republican Judge, and have a Republican majority Appeals Court, and a Republican controlled State Supreme Court….and a Jury Pool made up of Republican Blue Collar workers…..and see how it turns out for Cuomo.
If it is fair for Trump then that method should be fair for Cuomo…..would you not say?
A criminal or civil case is tried in the location where the law was broken. If Trump breaks the law in NYC, he gets tried in NYC. If Cuomo breaks the law in Albany, he gets tried in Albany. That’s how our legal system works. If you don’t want to be tried in City XYZ, then don’t break the law in City XYZ.
It’s obvious.
“If that is the case, how was it fair to make a finding that Cuomo is a serial sexual harasser without interviewing him or establishing the underlying truth of the allegations against him?”
I know the author states it in question form to point it out and remain aloof.
We are all aware this is demoncrat standard operating procedure. Fairness doesn’t matter, nor does it count. The demoncrats make the accusation, hold all the cards, make their declarations, then declare victory. The defendant may be excused when a demoncrat, totally supported, given falsehoods to remain signaled pure, and removed from public discussion by censorship and blacklisting.
If it’s not a demon, then outcomes are reversed. Guilt beyond any doubt is declared with no evidence. Fake trials already decided are untaken in public with massive media deception controlling the narrative. Solitary prison cells are turned to the rats and maggots while the innocent is debilitated within, often beaten and tortured. The lawfare never ends, cases are kept open and laws are remade and or twisted beyond recognition just to persecute. Confession through projection occurs constantly, though no absolution is ever achieved.
No fan of Cuomo, but lets see if Cuomo uses Trump tactics and tries to discredit the law and uses coded language to harass the plaintiffs so much that they need police to protect them. And if Cuomo follows Trump’s tactics, it will take MAGA world a New York minute to scream and holler how Cuomo is using those tactics against his enemies.
Fishy is forced into playing soothsayer since even his standard lies won’t cut it
You’re English translation from Russian to English failed you. I wrote “but lets see” and “and if”…. Trump’s tactics are not to discredit laws and using coded language? That’s Trump’s whole ball game is to discredit the law when it’s applied to him and his coded language has caused death threats and police investigations. Your grip on reality is as good as your reading level.
what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely, idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
For a guy that is an expert in everything. from law, to business, to biology, to climate change, you have a terrible vocabulary
FishWings. This is not about Tactics – Trump did not discredit the law – it did that all by itself.
And this “Coded loanguage” Crap is garbage. Honestly what is your claim ? That Trump was sending coded messages to Carroll that only she could understand ? But that you have the magic decoder ring ?
Do you even think a little about the absurd things you say ?
Do left wing nuts ever consider whether what they say makes sense ?
With respect to Cuomo – I honestly hope the allegations against him prove true and that the consequences are severe.
But he is entitled to due process as Trump was and did not get.
In practice Cuomo’s defense should be far harder than Trump’s – the allegations against him are a few years old not decades.
It is likely that pecific datas and times for many of the accusations can be established and it can be verfied that the perpitrator and the victim were together and alone at the time.
It is also likely that people in the Governor’s office communicated with each other about things that had happened – possibly even by email or text and those texts exist.
If there is as I expect credible evidence against Cuomo – then send him to H311.
But if the evidence against Cuomo is as weak as that against Trump – then I do not give a schiff how vile a person I think Cuomo is, those railroading him would be worse.
I do not trust Cuomo – but I do not Trust james either. I have no idea whether I can trust the allegations against him – as we do not actually have concrete testable allegations.
As to your idiocy – I do not give a schiff what Cuomo’s strategy in any hearings that occur is, he is entitled to the full due process that the constitution guarantees – not the clown car version that Trump got.
Whether Civilly of Criminally we hold people accountable only when the allegations can be proven to a high standard.
Orange man Bad is NOT proof, nor is “I hate Cuomo”
I am not a new yorker and I will not end up on a jury for Cuomo. If I did I would be starting from the personal presumption that Cuomo is a bad person and likely did this. But absent real evidence no matter what my personal feelings towards Cuomo I would not be able to convict.
The standard required in our justice system is not “I beleive this person or that one” – the Standard is there is sufficient evidence to prove ALL required elements of the allegation. That is what due process means
Or – before left wing nuts destroyed our courts.
Certainly wouldn’t want to see NYC change complexion. Bad for business.
So Cuomo deserves due process but Trump does not? Oh right I forgot, Cuomo is still a democrat.
Trump is getting due process.
This case made it to a court your unarguably he did not.
There has never been sufficient evidence for an honest judge to allow this case to get past summary judgement against Carrol.
Due process by the way includes the right to cross examine witnesses – not to only as questions the Judge likes.
Anything that challenges the credibility of a witness is always admissible
Due process includes the right to present your own case and your own witnesses – not be limited to what the judge wants to allow you to present.
Due process includes a presumption of innocence – by BOTH the jury and the Judge.
Due process requires that the Plantiff and the judge try the case in the court room.
The allegation belongs to the plaintiff it is the plaintiff that sacrifices they right to free speach outside the court room by choosing to bring the case inside the court. The defendat did not chose to be in court – the court has no power over their speech outside the doors of the courtroom, and inside the court the judges power over the speech of those before him is limited to the restrictions necescary to assure the orderly application of due process. Anything else is prejudicial error.
Contra your claims – whether it is Trump or Cuomon and despite the fact that judges beleive they are entitled to it – there is no entitlement of the court to respect.
Respect ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE must be earned.
Being respected is not a right.
Being beleived is not a right.
Due process is a right.
The presumption of innocence is a right.
Sorry , you don’t know what youre’ talking about. There IS an entitlement by judges, no matter the venue, to respect, by litigants, witnesses, attorneys and others appearing before them. There is such a thing as contempt–both direct and indirect. Indirect contempt is deliberate failure to comply with a court order. Direct contempt is disrespect shown to the Judge during a hearing or trial, and both Trump and his clueless attorney-model are both guilty of the latter. But the Judge, knowing that this conduct came right from the Trump “victimhood” playbook, deliberately did NOT sanction either of them, but he DID threaten to jail the attorney-model after she repeatedly failed to comply with his rulings. She actually told the Judge to cease and desist speaking to her in a manner she didn’t like. NO one else I’ve ever been aware of can get argumentative with a judge and not get sanctioned. But this Judge wasn’t giving Trump or his attorney-model the ammunition they wanted. The jury saw the obvious disrespect shown to the judge, and it is likely reflected in the judgment.
Rules for thee but not for D’s!
Once again the Department of Justice exercises its authority to benefit the party faithful (Letitia James, Kathy Hochul) and punish enemies while demonstrating the absurdity of its name.
Not a Cuomo fan, but he does deserve due process.
The women are also entitled to their day in court.
I would say this is gross incompetence, but that seems to be a trend with DAs with Ds after their name. Does anyone really think a DA is going to be fair and unbiased running on a platform he is going to get someone in particular? Meanwhile, he lets stalkers of famous singers out without so much as a ‘huh.” BTW, that stalker was found outside of her NYC home, 5 minutes after he got out on no cash bail.
Upstate, seeing that stalker outside his victim’s home so soon after being charged was disgusting and very troubling.
And there is zero evidence in the E. Jean Carroll case against Trump, but that seems to be going along swimmingly for her.
Evidence from multiple people was presented at trial. Trump’s admission on tape of grabbing women by the p**** without getting their consent was also presented as evidence. And in the first trial, Trump refused to testify, which allows an adverse inference in a civil trial.
It hasn’t been going swimmingly for her. She’s gotten many threats. That’s one of the reasons for damages.
without their consent? That’s not what he said, he said “they let you do it.”
That’s like a physical abuser saying “I punched her and she let me do it.”
The quote, “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the p****. You can do anything.” also includes him saying “I don’t even wait.” He doesn’t get consent before doing it. He just does it. No surprise that a rapist says “they let you do it.”
He doesn’t claim that they say “yes.” Sounds like you don’t really understand consent.
Reads like your plugging in your own assumptions to make your narrative work.
BTW I’m “Moochie” not another annoying “Anonymous”.
No, his comment is an indictment on Hollywood culture (most of dnc’s CA donors). But I don’t blame you for trying, making Trump appear anti-women allows the masses of poorly-college-educated white women believe they are voting against a monster and not for wars in Ukraine, gaza, Yemen, Iran, TX or DIE or open borders, etc. all meant to disguise their bloodlust for aborting kids they’d never want to raise because they screwed some moron.
Neil Bobacon: Trump’s comment is an indictment of his narcissism and arrogance, which also drives his disrespect even for his spouses (3 so far). He cheated on them and consorted with nude models and an adult “actress” because he’s a misogynistic pig. Trump IS a monster–an arrogant liar who has divided this country worse than any foreign adversary could, all based on that massive ego. He has one of the worst records as POTUS–COVID out of control, turned around the booming economy inherited from Obama into the worst recession since the Great Depression, lost 5 million jobs, started a trade war with China, insulted our allies and NATO and lobbied to get Russia back into the G-7 to pay back Putin for helping him cheat his way into office. Ashli Babbitt is dead because of his lies–does he even care that he induced her to go to Washington and invade the Capitol all based on the fact that his ego cannot handle the fact that the majority of American voters rejected him? He calls Nikki Haley, his own chosen UN Ambassador “bird brain” because she’s running against him. He’s cheering now for our economy to crash and is trying to scuttle the bipartisan border security bill because he thinks it will help him get re-elected. Voting against Trump is voting against a malignant narcissist who exists to get attention, adulation and praise, and who calls members of our armed services “suckers” and “losers”–someone who sided against America and with Putin, publicly, at Helsinki, someone who wants to take away health care from millions of Americans because it’s called “Obamacare”, and who never has had any plan for replacing it–someone whom the rest of the world mocks for his ignorance and arrogance. He would, once again, destroy our economy. His tax cuts resulted in a record deficit, and he promses more tax breaks for the wealthiest individuals and corporations. He also brags about being responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade—if Trump somehow cheats his way back into office, Republicans plan on an nationwide ban on abortion–so they lied about it being a “state issue”. Women and men who love them DO care about a woman’s right to control her own destiny and for victims of rape and incest to have the choice to terminate.
“Without their consent….” The left will carry a lie so long that it becomes “truth” in their Orwellian world. “Good people on both sides.” “Unarmed individual” in the Michael Brown case as if trying to take a cop gun makes you “unarmed”. “Unarmed individual” when the guy had a knife. “Hands up, don’t shoot”.
The left lies, the media repeats the lie, the lie becomes legend. This is why we have layoffs all over liberal media. This is why “historians” like Michael Beschloss and Douglas Brinkley are no longer listened to or even taken seriously any longer.
I used to love these historians and I read their articles and yes even their books, but after watching them tell Biden he is FDR and seeing the claims they make about Trump has made me give up on both of them forever.
hullbobby: you can add Nikole Hannah Jones winning the Pulitzer Prize after the NYT published her slanted “1619 Project” described as “historical account” re-framing slavery and now being taught in our schools.
“The New York Times’ 1619 Project entered a new phase of historical assessment when the paper published a scathing criticism by five well-known historians of the American Revolution and Civil War eras.”https://www.aier.org/article/fact-checking-the-1619-project-and-its-critics/
Great addition Lin, thanks!
“Evidence from multiple people” to an event that allegedly took place *26 years* before the “trial.”
When you blow up the statute of limitations, to appease an angry mob (“Me Too”), your criminal justice system is an abomination.
Do you also object to the NY law that allowed child survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil suits years later? Your argument certainly sounds like it.
now that is a really really really obnoxious stretch…..
you know perfectly well that there are tolling provisions for certain incapacities affecting adults as well
I can tell that you haven’t read the law in question. “Before, survivors of child sexual abuse had from one (1) to five (5) years to bring a civil lawsuit against their abuser(s). … Now, the CVA helps survivors by extending the statute of limitations for civil claims so that survivors can file a claim until they are 55 years old. … The CVA allows survivors of child sexual abuse – who were unable to file a [civil] lawsuit under the old law – to have a one (1)-year “look back” period during which they can file a civil claim. This means that a civil case which had already expired under the old statute of limitations can now be filed within this one (1)-year period.” (https://www.nycbar.org/get-legal-help/article/personal-injury-and-accidents/new-york-child-victims-act/) That’s not a tolling provision.
Respectfully, and actually, I can tell that you do not understand any of this.
It is my clear inference that Sam was referring to the EXTENSION of tolling provided through
NY Gov’s executive order. See attached, https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nysda.org/resource/resmgr/covid_court_reopening_pdfs/executive_orders_202.8_202.1.pdf
I regret that you did not read the actual Notice, which refers to “tolling provisions.”
See, e.g., -https://www.natlawreview.com/article/governor-cuomo-s-tolling-new-york-statutes-limitation-has-ended-what-did-it
“Pursuant to Executive Order 202.67, the suspension for civil cases in Executive Order 202.8, as modified and extended in subsequent Executive Orders, that tolled any specific time limit for the commencement, filing, or service of any legal action, notice, motion, or other process or proceeding as prescribed by the procedural laws of the state, including but not limited to the family court act, the civil practice law and rules, the court of claims act, the surrogate’s court procedure act, and the uniform court acts, or by any statute, local law, ordinance, order, rule, or regulation, or part thereof…”
Please note the it affects tolling of civil cases in general.
Thanks anyway.
Respectfully, lin, you had trouble following the exchange and inferred incorrectly:
Sam: “‘Evidence from multiple people’ [quoting my 8:43 AM comment yesterday] to an event that allegedly took place *26 years* before the ‘trial.’ When you blow up the statute of limitations, to appease an angry mob (“Me Too”), your criminal justice system is an abomination.”
Me: “Do you also object to the NY law that allowed child survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil suits years later? Your argument certainly sounds like it.” [that should have read “survivors of child sexual abuse”]
You: “now that is a really really really obnoxious stretch …” (and yes, I’m cutting off your quote there because the referent of “that” is my response to Sam, which is what I was responding to; as for your about tolling provisions, that was NOT about Sam’s claim or my response to Sam’s claim, so I ignored it).
Sam’s complaint about “blow[ing] up the statute of limitations” and a trial 26 years later was a reference to NY’s Adult Survivor’s Act. The ASA — a law, not an executive order — is what allowed Carroll to file the civil suit against Trump decades later. Re: your response that “It is my clear inference that Sam was referring to the EXTENSION of tolling provided through NY Gov’s executive order,” your inference is wrong.
I pointed out that NY passed an analogous law with the Child Victims Act, another law, not an executive order.
Thanks anyway.
1. This is what you said: “Do you also object to the NY law that allowed child survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil suits years later?” (totally missing what Sam said, which relates to tolling EXTENSIONS, not the original “laws”),
2. This is what you said: “That’s not a tolling provision.” (totally incorrect and missing what I said)
please, move on. thanks anyway. I do not want to use up good blog space on silliness.
No, Sam’s comment was NOT about tolling. It was about the ASA.
And no, I won’t move on. I also don’t believe that reconciling differences is silly, and if you do, well, you spend plenty of time using up blog space on silliness. I think you don’t want to do it here because you don’t want to admit that you’re wrong. I very explicitly referred to “the NY law that allowed child survivors of sexual abuse to bring civil suits years later.” Sam wasn’t referring to tolling, and I wasn’t either, as I pointed out to you.
Thanks anyway.
Then came New York’s Adult Survivors Act, which has this year made clear just how many shocking accounts of abuse and institutional complicity were still untold long after Me Too was declared dead. Passed in 2022, its year-long “lookback window” temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on filing civil suits for sexual abuse; it expired the day after this past Thanksgiving.
Anonymous says:
January 28, 2024 at 11:33 AM
The ASA as well as the CVA, are tolling provisions. The ASA does not create new crimes or new causes of action for civil offenses. An adult does not invoke the ASA for a crime that was not a crime when committed. BOTH acts provide a “window of opportunity” for those who suffered offenses long ago.
The ASA as well as the CVA, are tolling provisions. The ASA does not create new crimes or new causes of action for civil offenses. An adult does not invoke the ASA for a crime that was not a crime when committed. BOTH acts provide a “window of opportunity” for those who suffered offenses long ago.
Point taken, you’ve convinced me that I was wrong to say that it’s not about tolling. Lin is still wrong in her “inference that Sam was referring to the EXTENSION of tolling provided through NY Gov’s executive order,” as both the ASA and the CVA are laws, not executive orders, and Sam was not talking about the executive order on tolling due to Covid but was instead talking about the ASA.
(1) I am the “Anonymous” at 11:33 to whom you blindly responded, admitting that I was right about tolling provisions.
(2) The ASA, cited and relied on by you, was not passed until 2022. Carroll’s well-publicized 2019 lawsuit was for defamation based on an alleged “rape” which Trump denied and allegedly defamed her about.
ASA had nothing to do with it at the time.
(3) Ironically, the ASA was first introduced and published for public viewing in 2019 as a tolling provision. https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/S6810….. Equally ironic, the E.O. 202.8 et seq. that I cited was signed just a few months later, in March 2020 (pretty early in the Covid scene).. Neither you nor I know whether the E.O. served as a flashing light/beacon alerting claimants in such well-publicized cases that ASA was pending and could be used for amended pleadings….I doubt either Cuomo or those who prepared/presented a draft E.O. to him, had any idea that ASA would not pass for another two years….
(4) I remind you that Sam’s comment, to which you responded, stated, “When you blow up the statute of limitations…”
(5) You now agree that the ASA as well as the CVA are tolling measures defeating statutes of limitations.
Again, thanks anyway.
statutes of limitation.
lin, as you can see, when someone makes a convincing argument — in this case explaining that “The ASA as well as the CVA, are tolling provisions” because “The ASA does not create new crimes or new causes of action for civil offenses. An adult does not invoke the ASA for a crime that was not a crime when committed” — I have no problem changing my mind and admitting that I was wrong. Had you simply said that earlier on under your own name, I would likewise have said that I was wrong when I said things like “Sam wasn’t referring to tolling, and I wasn’t either” and “[The CVA is] not a tolling provision,” and “Sam’s comment was NOT about tolling.” My understanding of tolling was more limited, and I thank you for helping me understand it better, and now that I understand it better, I have no problem saying *to you* that you’re right that both the ASA and CVA are tolling provisions.
Now that you also understand the situation better, I don’t know if you still think that my introduction of the CVA “is a really really really obnoxious stretch.” Either way, your “inference that Sam was referring to the EXTENSION of tolling provided through NY Gov’s executive order” was wrong. Can YOU admit that you were mistaken about that? And your discussion of the tolling from the EO was irrelevant.
As for “ASA had nothing to do with [the original defamation suit] at the time,” that’s true. It’s also true that after the ASA was passed in May of 2022, effective on November 24, 2022, Carroll filed a second suit the day it became effective, alleging both defamation and battery (rape and groping), and that case, known as Carroll II, was tried before the original suit, known as Carroll I.
I was referring to Carroll II in my original comment (“Evidence from multiple people was presented at trial. Trump’s admission on tape of grabbing women by the p**** without getting their consent was also presented as evidence. And in the first trial, Trump refused to testify, which allows an adverse inference in a civil trial.”). Carroll II was the first trial, and that described the evidence presented in Carroll II. Sam then referenced my claim about Carroll II in his claim ““Evidence from multiple people” to an event that allegedly took place *26 years* before the “trial.” When you blow up the statute of limitations, to appease an angry mob (“Me Too”), your criminal justice system is an abomination.” After all, there was no change in the SoL for the defamation counts in the two cases.
Sam’s second sentence implies that he would also think that about the CVA, at least if he thinks the Me Too movement is analogous to the movement to get justice for child survivors who didn’t talk about their sexual abuse until long after the original SoL had expired.
Again, thanks anyway.
Anonymous, are you equating repressed childhood memories with this woman? Seems a stretch. Now do Tara Reid for us.
No, and I already did. You were silent in response.
BTW, if you doubt that I already responded to you about Tara Reid, and that you said nothing in response, my comment to you about it was on January 27, 2024 at 9:20 AM.
A member of the Idiocracy doesn’t recognize that with children the time clock starts when they reach eighteen. Why do you wish to expose your ignorance?
“Why do you wish to expose your ignorance?”
It doesn’t care. It’s only desire is to divert attention from the truth, via deflection.
Actually, Sam, I was bringing attention to the truth of NY’s Child Victims Act and your hypocrisy.
Why do *you* wish to expose your ignorance of the NY law in question?
Evidence? She cant provide evidence of Year, or the month, or the day of week
for physical assault, that would be needed to launch an investigation.
Yes, and I have personally witnessed many rapes in Bergdorf’s dressing room. What a great place to get away with it. No one likely to come around – even if she screams!
YHpu sayu there was evidence from multiple people.
This would be people who saw Trump in Bergodorfs raping Carrol ?
No, this is left wing nut women who claim that Carrol gave them a story years in the past – there not sure when, there not sure of the details, their not sure it was trump. Pretty much there not sure of anything. The testimony is hearsay – which unders some circumstances is adminssible.
As to the Access hollywood tape – There is no admission of doing anything without consent.
And as a spearate matter – there are no people who have come forward to say that Trump actually did what was said int he tape.
Threats from third parties are NOT a basis for damages.
Can the people who are crime victims because of Laticia James lax enforcement of the law sue her for damages.
As a matter of law there is no liability for the bad acts of third parties unless you direct them.
I would further note that defamation requires ACTUAL damages. Your fears are not actual damages.
Trump is not responsible for the fact that the left in this nation have beome mental health basket cases suffering from anxiety and depression and scared of their own shadows.
If people have Threatened Carrol – that is a crime and they should be prosecuted – and that is the way to deal with that.
But this is more left wing idiocy – other people are responsible for your fears ?
Those of you one the left are an actual threat to the peace and stability of the world. You are a real threat of crime and violence to all of us.
Since you have taken power – violent crime rates have massively increased – that is not a threat, that is not a fear, that is not people being triggered. That is REALITY – can we all go to court and hold you personally responsible for not just are fears – but the very real increase in harm you have caused ?
Those of you on the left are complete morons. You never think more than one level deep about your own arguments, you never consider how they would actually work in the real world. You never consider that they work far better AGAINST you than against those you hate.
It is noticable that this story follows closely on the heels of the absurd E Jean Carrol verdict, also in New York. It appears that there is an atmosphere of sexual hysteria in that state or more likely in New York City. Males, it seems, are the new special enemy of “progressive” culture.
Yeah, if evidence is presented that two powerful men engaged in sexual harassment or assault, then it’s definitely sexual hysteria.
The point of Turley’s article is that there never was “evidence” regarding Cuomo because there was never a judicial proceeding. We are living in a time when the DOJ makes administrative findings of guilt, a bit like the Soviet Union in Stalin’s day.
Edwardmahl,
Well said.
No, that’s not what JT said.
In fact, he noted “a significant number of women … have given evidence in criminal investigations and spoken to state investigators. However, in 2022, Albany County District Attorney David Soares dropped a criminal complaint against Cuomo for lack of evidence. Later five additional criminal cases were dropped. He is facing pending civil litigation over the allegations of sexual assault.”
JT’s main point is: “What is concerning is the government making a declaration of “a pattern or practice of discrimination against female employees based on sex” without giving Cuomo an opportunity to rebut those allegations.”
But if you read the agreement, it actually says “the United States determined that, during the Cuomo administration, the Executive Chamber engaged in: a) a pattern or practice of discrimination against female employees based on sex, in violation of Title VII, by subjecting them to and tolerating a sexually hostile work environment created by Cuomo between about 2013 and 2021.”
So it’s only accusing Cuomo of creating a “sexually hostile work environment.”
And the reason it likely didn’t invite Cuomo to rebut the allegations is because the focus of the agreement is about the behavior of the Executive Chamber, not about Cuomo’s behavior.
BTW, the word “evidence” isn’t limited to court proceedings. If it were, you’d have to conclude that there’s no evidence of Biden assaulting Tara Reid, “because there was never a judicial proceeding.”
“the United States determined that,
Really, I smell the stink of pedantry.
The United States has no ability to make any determination.
Officers of the United States with appropriate power and jurisdiction can.
You avoiding the “who” tells me something is amiss
I would not say that Biden raped or assaulted Tara Reade based on her allegations. I would say that her allegations are better founded than the allegations of Carrol against Trump. In any event, the DOJ should not be in the business of expressing its opinion about the guilt of anyone it is not prosecuting.
I will be happy to look at real evidence – do you have any ? Nothing that has been presented in court comes close to being sufficient.
Nothing presented thus far allows us to tell whether this is the Steubenville High School rape or the Duke lacrosse rape.
Each of us is free to beleive as we wish. What we are not free to do is sanction people through law without due process and without compelling proof.
“. . . an atmosphere of sexual hysteria . . .”
Yep. Right down there with the witch hunt of the bizarre McMartin preschool trial. Same cause, same effect.
More specifically it’s white males. Women found a weapon they’re only too willing to exploit leaving real victims to suffer.
This is not about women vs. Men. It is about very specific women and very specific men.
The #metoo movement absolutely demonstrated that many many many men have behaved attrociaously and even criminally.
It also demonstrated that many women lie about sexual assault.
We can not throw people into a pond and determine the truth by seeing who floats and who does not.
We make our choices based on evidence, and the standard of the law is that holding someone accountable for something they did not do is more damaging to the rule of law than not holding someone accountable for something they did do – hence the presumpiton of innocence and the rewquirement to prove an allegation.
Many allegations that are not proven are true. Sometimes murders go free.
Personally E. Jean Carroll is the least credible person to have made a public allegation of sexual assault that I am aware of ever.
It is more than she does not meet the standard of proof. It is that Trump is correct – she is crazy.
You are free to beleive differently. but you are not free to impose sanctions based merely on your beleif.
You need evidence that actually goes beyond – I beleive A and not B.
The special enemy of progressives is the catch of the day. Today men, Tomorrow women who do not wish to compete in sports against men,
The next day catholices, and then parents.
Letitia James is an evil woman and she needs to be held accountable for her “activism” in place of her legal obligations. This woman does everything for political reasons, brags about it and then waddles away smirking. The fact that this woman can go after an ex president and an ex governor with the weakest cases and remain immune to counter-attacks tells you why places like NY are getting worse all the time.
When courtrooms in NY are handing out 83 million dollars to a woman that appears to be a tad loopy who claimed something happened 25 years ago, offers no proof, goes on TV to make a fool of herself with Anderson Cooper and then claim injury when the person she put in an untenable situation reacts wildly it has a chilling effect. When a NY courtroom takes away a business worth 100s of millions of dollars and bans a family from working in the city ever again for a supposed crime that had no victims, is common practice and was politically motivated, it will also have a chilling effect.
Letitia James needs to be investigated, removed from office and shunned forever for turning our judicial system into Russian law practices.
This comment was from me, HullBobby, for some reason I had to sign in again???
But folks, I did sign in and therefore everyone gets to know that the comment is from a particular person, HullBobby, and not one of the way too many people that go by the “name” of Anonymous.
HullBobby,
Thank you for clarifying who you are.
It has happened to me a few times with my comments too.
It also appears the dress she claims she was wearing when the alleged assault happened was not even made in 1994. New York Times fact-checkers say the dress was not made til after 1994.
Good point (again) Upstate!
There is some confusion there – aparrently DK’s records are not very good and it is impossible to be certain. HOWEVER it appears that the dress was not made until 2001.
BTW there is still no day that this alleged incident took place. There is no year. Carrol herself is unsure. her witnesses are unsure when they were told. There is absoltuely no evidence of any kind to determine when this took place – or even When Carrol purportedly told a few friends.
There are other serious problems.
Carrol did not come forward during the 2016 election. She did not come forward when the access hollywood tape was released.
Eventually she wrote a book accusing something like 40 men in her life of rape – not one of which was Trump.
She has a long long long history of speaking out about sexual violence – both done to her and others. The ONLY person she seems to have felt no need to accuse over the years was Trump – until recently.
None of her freinds came forward before. None of them add a single fact or any substance to the allegations.
Glad to have you back, HullBobby. Weren’t you in a comedy as a Nascar driver ?
No JW, “HullBobby” is my homage to the late great Golden Jet, Bobby Hull, my childhood idol. Even though I was not from Chicago and later came to realize that Bobby Orr is the greatest ever!
Gordy Howe. Even Phil Esposito agrees
Bobby Orr changed the game and is the greatest hockey player ever. Gordie was awesome, I saw him a few times in the 60s,but Hull was more exciting and Orr was just better.
No evidence, assertions by authority figures, mindless parroting by the media – the MO of progressives. the question is: why are you surprised? We have seen this many times over the last 10 years.
No man should hire any woman under the age of 70.
People should constrain their own behavior so they don’t sexually harass or assault others.
Of course people should not harass or abuse any person, but you better hope you or your son (if you have one) don’t get accused many years after something may not have happened.
The point, which seems to elude you, is sometimes people are innocent. Liberals only feel bad for people that actually commit crimes, even violent crimes, are proven to have committed the crime and then get a slap on the wrist for some political reason.
Hey Anonymous, do you believe Tara Reid? Shouldn’t Joe Biden be thrown out of office for his harassment of her? What, you don’t believe her? See how it works.
Yes, of course people are sometimes innocent. But that doesn’t mean that Trump or Cuomo or Biden or any other specific person are innocent.
As for Tara Reid, I think she, and those she’d call on for evidence, and Biden, and those he’d call on for evidence, should be questioned under oath. Just as occurred in Trump v. Carroll. Trump was given the opportunity to testify. He chose not to, presumably knowing that in a civil trial it allows an adverse inference (either he knew, or he chose incompetent counsel). If he was innocent, why didn’t he testify and remove the possibility of that adverse inference?
Maybe the Biden / Tara matter could be resolved if the Senate records held by the U. of Maryland were released.
If Crooked Joe is really interested, why not release those records ?
I assume that you meant “innocent,” not “interested.” I didn’t say that he’s innocent.
Legally, you’re allowed to attribute an adverse inference to someone who refuses to testify in a civil trial, but they only have to hand over records that are relevant to discovery. What’s your evidence that any such records exist? At any rate, he doesn’t have to hand over anything for discovery unless Reid files a civil suit against him. What is she waiting for?
They should, but that is not protection against claims of sexual harassment.
This is why we require evidence prior to sanctioning people for allegations.
Tomorow you could be accused of having raped someone 30 years ago – at a time unspecified.
How are you planning to prove that you did not ?
Sounds like you’re a fan of discrimination.
“Me too” requires Cuomo be jailed for not less that 50 years, and pay $500 million on compensatory damages.
Its not so much the facts of the case, but the seriousness of the charges.
“[H]ow was it fair to make a finding that Cuomo is a serial sexual harasser without interviewing him or establishing the underlying truth of the allegations?” (JT)
You wouldn’t have my head under Madame Guillotine — would you?
only solution is to Defund the UniParty.
It has too much power. Cut 50% of federal funding: colleges, cities, states and non-profits where anyone gets $100k+
Let Democrats fund their own failure
hey it is the way fascist work! Target acquired, target destroyed. Facts to be made up as needed
But wait, we MAGA conservatives are the fascists and will end democracy. How can the Democrats turn on one of them? Welcome to the real fascist Professor Turley, they eventually turn on each other as they don’t check all the purity boxes. Question is will he and other moderate democrats still vote D. If not, this madness continues unabated