Um, you realize the tweet you're posting has a community note saying that it's fake, right?LMCane said:
Oh well, now Alina Habba thrown under the bus!!
uncomfortable conversations in Trump's bedroom at Mar-A Lago!
I wonder if Melania is laughing her @ss off right nowWho’s next in line? @AlinaHabba - you’ve lost that loving feeling… pic.twitter.com/nR6ppM3LoP
— Joe G 🟧 (@EastEndJoe) January 28, 2024
I don't care if you don't like Trump, this is a travesty
57,108 Views |
684 Replies |
Last: 7 days ago by aggiehawg
My guess is that aggiehawg posted something that completely demolished some point that was made and it was swiftly taken care of by mods so aggiehawg doesn't want to engage any more.Im Gipper said:aggiehawg said:I am not allowed to respnd to you..TXAggie2011 said:
What is this a "test case" for?
What's the back story here????
That "truth" allegedly from Trump is fake.
OJ killed Nicole and Ron Goldman. This is a case with nothing tying Trump to it other than a lying crazy *****. And you are well aware of it.GeorgiAg said:OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil suit for the murders. If he went out and attacked the family and others associated with the case like Trump did with E Jean Carroll, he'd also be asking for a suit for defamation.Ellis Wyatt said:Quote:
"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.
If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.
E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
I mean were laws made specifically so that the families could retroactively sue? Were the families seeking a few million bucks and awarded tens of millions?GeorgiAg said:OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil suit for the murders. If he went out and attacked the family and others associated with the case like Trump did with E Jean Carroll, he'd also be asking for a suit for defamation.Ellis Wyatt said:Quote:
"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.
If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.
E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
At least try to make an apples to apples comparison, especially if you're going to use language like "I don't know why this is so hard to understand".
The way the evidence was presented, IMO, makes it almost an impossibility that in a legal setting, the only outcome would be finding in Carroll's favor. No Travesty. No weaponization. The result is entirely what Trump wanted.Ellis Wyatt said:Quote:
"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.
If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.
E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.
The man is called Don the Con for a reason. He's a con man. This entire episode, the first trial (Carroll II) and the second (Carroll I) was theater, a con job. Not only did Trump not even offer a defense in Carroll II (only someone who wanted to be found liable wouldn't even say "I didn't do it" in a civil trial), but publicly aggravated the matter so it would get higher ratings.
It's not like Trump is worried about the amount of the award. Not only is it likely he will not be alive for it to affect him, it will never be more than an accounting note for his estate.
This whole thing is a charade to allow Trump to spread his victimhood. Proof that the Biden DOJ is against him (although the federal DOJ has nothing to do with NY State Civil Courts). "Pick up yer pitchforks, and help me fight the evil," is his message.
It is much easier to fool someone than it is to convince someone that he has been fooled.
oh for God sakes!
Yep. Just make up some conspiracy about Trump and it apparently flies with people. "He totally wanted this! This was all by his design!".
If you recall, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case under a higher standard than in the civil case.Ellis Wyatt said:OJ killed Nicole and Ron Goldman. This is a case with nothing tying Trump to it other than a lying crazy *****. And you are well aware of it.GeorgiAg said:OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil suit for the murders. If he went out and attacked the family and others associated with the case like Trump did with E Jean Carroll, he'd also be asking for a suit for defamation.Ellis Wyatt said:Quote:
"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.
If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.
E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Public opinion of whether "he did it' or not is not the legal standard upon which people are judged for making false statements. A civil jury found OJ did it and unless he got that overturned, he's been adjudicated as a murderer. He can complain about the law and legal process but he cannot attack witnesses or the plaintiffs in that case as "whack jobs" and "liars."
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
Getting the first verdict overturned doesn't necessarily get the second verdict overturned. At the time after the first trial when Trump made those statements, the legal ruling was that he did it - and he chose to attack his accuser, not the process or the law. That's still defamatory.
If I called Trump a deviant sexual predator and he tried to sue me for defamation, it'd be thrown out immediately -- he's been adjudicated as such. If he got he first verdict thrown out and then I said it, I'd have to prove the truth of my statements to the jury.
The law is the law. You fight the law. You don't slander and libel the people who use the law.Aggies2009 said:I mean were laws made specifically so that the families could retroactively sue? Were the families seeking a few million bucks and awarded tens of millions?GeorgiAg said:OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil suit for the murders. If he went out and attacked the family and others associated with the case like Trump did with E Jean Carroll, he'd also be asking for a suit for defamation.Ellis Wyatt said:Quote:
"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.
If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.
E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
At least try to make an apples to apples comparison, especially if you're going to use language like "I don't know why this is so hard to understand".
Aggies2009 said:I mean were laws made specifically so that the families could retroactively sue? Were the families seeking a few million bucks and awarded tens of millions?GeorgiAg said:OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil suit for the murders. If he went out and attacked the family and others associated with the case like Trump did with E Jean Carroll, he'd also be asking for a suit for defamation.Ellis Wyatt said:Quote:
"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.
If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.
E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
At least try to make an apples to apples comparison, especially if you're going to use language like "I don't know why this is so hard to understand".
No laws were changed so that she could bring the defamation lawsuit. She brought the defamation lawsuit 3 years before the Adult Survivor's Act, which only allowed her to formally sue for sexual abuse. Over 3,000 people have sued under that law, by the way.
If the ASA didn't exist, nearly everything of substance would have looked the exact same. They would have had an essentially identical trial with the same evidence about whether or not he sexually abused her in order to determine if he defamed her.
Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
Don't forget... The dress she claims she wore during that encounter wasn't even created until years later. Also, a dentist, camp counselor, babysitter's boyfriend, unnamed boss... All raped her at some point according to her. She's also been on CNN to claim rape was sexy to her. I'm hesitant to call her a wacko because I don't have tens of millions of dollars to pay her if she heard me say that.93MarineHorn said:Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
Those goalposts shifted FAST. You went from "I don't know why this is so hard to understand about my example" to completely abandoning that example and saying "Don't libel!" in the span of about 2 posts. Impressive.GeorgiAg said:The law is the law. You fight the law. You don't slander and libel the people who use the law.Aggies2009 said:I mean were laws made specifically so that the families could retroactively sue? Were the families seeking a few million bucks and awarded tens of millions?GeorgiAg said:OJ Simpson was found liable in a civil suit for the murders. If he went out and attacked the family and others associated with the case like Trump did with E Jean Carroll, he'd also be asking for a suit for defamation.Ellis Wyatt said:Quote:
"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.
If someone makes something up about me, this is not going to be my response. His response is not at all unreasonable for an innocent person.
E. Jean Carroll is obviously a whack-a-doodle, as is anyone who found in her favor in these cases.
This whole thing is a blight on our justice system.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
At least try to make an apples to apples comparison, especially if you're going to use language like "I don't know why this is so hard to understand".
I am on Day 4 and have only seen a Bergdorf's manager with no personal knowledge of anything other than the floorplan of the 6th floor and the location of the fitting rooms and the existence of security people and surveillance video on the first floor.93MarineHorn said:Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
And then E. Jean Carroll's testimony. As I am listening to Gouveia currently, Carroll is still on the stand being crossed by Tacopina.
I'm not overly sure of the timeline, but didn't the defamation case come from Trump responding to excerpts from HER BOOK, which had the story about the alleged assault?HTownAg98 said:
Kind of. Critical may be the wrong word, but it definitely helped her case. Kaplan found as a matter of law that Trump had defamed her based on the jury verdict in Carroll II. The case still could have gone forward without that, but the burden would have been on Carroll to prove that what Trump said was defamatory.
So she names Trump in her book, claiming he assaulted her. He, as president, denies the accusation, so is guilty, per the jury in Carroll II, of defaming her.
What am I missing here? Because Trump, as President, didn't sue her back for defamation, then the jury decided he was guilty?
93MarineHorn said:Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
Well he's on tape saying he just goes up and kisses women he finds attractive and grabs them by the private parts. He also argued she wasn't his type and then confused a picture of her with his wife.
People are convicted of crimes based upon circumstantial evidence all the time. He should have put up a better defense. The allegation is weak I agree.
It just looks like the left is trying to retro-fit the grabem by the ***** remark. for the movie.
Quote:
He, as president, denies the accusation, so is guilty, per the jury in Carroll II, of defaming her.
What am I missing here?
Denying it was not why he was liable (guilty is wrong word to use) for defamation.
It was because he said she was being paid to lie and it was a hoax for publicity.
I have questions and concerns as to whether that is defamatory, but that's the actual case. Not that he just denied it.
If Trump had only denied it, and said she made it up, then that would not be defamatory for sure. He may have still lost the trial, but he would have an easy case of appeal.
I'm Gipper
Calling somebody a liar for lying is not defamation.GeorgiAg said:
Say what you want about the first case. This case was about Trump openly thumbing his nose at the U.S. legal system. He dared the jury to do this. Well, to quote the movie, Cool Hand Luke,When you have been adjudicated as having raped someone and then making defamatory comments about it, the legal recourse is to APPEAL. If you comment on the case, you can say "I disagree with the verdict and maintain my innocence, we are pursing an appeal." Go beyond that and you're playing with fire.Quote:
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.
Orange Moron went out and defamed her over and over and over again. Blatantly thumbing his nose.
Then he hires a moron to defend him, thumbs his nose the entire time at the judge, the process and the jury. Trump is the biggest idiot on the planet..
Anyone who supports him makes me seriously question their competency.
Especially when the liar could produce exactly zero evidence, couldn't even tell you the year it happened much less the month or day, openly stated that she would do anything it takes to help the Biden campaign and of the two, has proven to be the liar.
There is nothing that states if somebody accuses you of a crime (of which Trump was never even charged with, much less convicted of), that you are muzzled in how you respond. There never should be, because this is absolutely a case of she said/he responded.
Oh, and the state of NY decided to alter statute of limitation laws specifically to be able to go after Trump on this made up case.
This is an absolute absue of the legal system perpetrated by people who openly stated that their entire purpose upon being elected was to "get Trump". Nahh...no bias here at all, no weighted scales of the justice system at all.
Anybody - and I mean ANYBODY - should be absolutely horrified, angry and pushing back against this use of the legal system, because it is blatantly a case of certain people modifying and using the system to go after a single person simply because they hate him for whatever stupid reason. This is 100% against any concept of what our justice system is suposed to operate like. This is sht I expect to see in Venezuela or Russia or some 3rd world 'stan country run by a dictator.
None of which are worthy of any judgement. Especially when she has a book out and is hawking said book.Im Gipper said:Quote:
He, as president, denies the accusation, so is guilty, per the jury in Carroll II, of defaming her.
What am I missing here?
Denying it was not why he was liable (guilty is wrong word to use) for defamation.
It was because he said she was being paid to lie and it was a hoax for publicity.
I have questions and concerns as to whether that is defamatory, but that's the actual case. Not that he just denied it.
If Trump had only denied it, and said she made it up, then that would not be defamatory for sure. He may have still lost the trial, but he would have an easy case of appeal.
What was the circumstantial evidence in this case? Stupid locker room type comments? That's it?GeorgiAg said:93MarineHorn said:Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
Well he's on tape saying he just goes up and kisses women he finds attractive and grabs them by the private parts. He also argued she wasn't his type and then confused a picture of her with his wife.
People are convicted of crimes based upon circumstantial evidence all the time. He should have put up a better defense. The allegation is weak I agree.
Aggiehawg is reviewing the case. She may be able to provide more details. I just read news reports. She testified in the first case. I don't think he did on the stand. (???). He had his deposition.
Applying Occam's Razor to everything I've seen to date, I surmise this is what really happened:aggiehawg said:I am on Day 4 and have only seen a Bergdorf's manager with no personal knowledge of anything other than the floorplan of the 6th floor and the location of the fitting rooms and the existence of security people and surveillance video on the first floor.93MarineHorn said:Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
And then E. Jean Carroll's testimony. As I am listening to Gouveia currently, Carroll is still on the stand being crossed by Tacopina.
Sometime in the past - maybe 1995, maybe 1996... Who knows? - Trump ran into Carroll at the department store. They were both notorious, if not famous in certain circles, and a conversation ensued. Carroll may or may not have been wearing tights. Based upon the conversation, one thing led to another, and both ended up in a dressing room and went after it. Completely consentual.
Later, sometime between 2017 & 2019, Carroll is writing a book, and sees that Trump, now of the opposite political party as her, and is a President hated by many of her peers, would be a perfect subject along the line of her book topic that could sell a lot of books. Ergo, the encounter is modified into an advesarial encounter from a consentual one and furthers her book thesis that men generally, and Trump specifically, are awful.
Trump, knowing that an honest response that the event occurred but was consentual, would trigger another firestorm of criticism from his political opponents, decides to vocally deny the entire encounter and call Carroll an outright liar... which to an extent, she is.
His denial opens the door for political opponents of the legal bent to have another avenue to sue and see what happens in a hostile jurisdiction to Trump due to his political affiliations.
And here we are...
I'm reminded of a Ron White bit from one of his stand up shows called "I was thrown out of a bar in New York City". (Irony noted)Im Gipper said:Quote:
He, as president, denies the accusation, so is guilty, per the jury in Carroll II, of defaming her.
What am I missing here?
Denying it was not why he was liable (guilty is wrong word to use) for defamation.
It was because he said she was being paid to lie and it was a hoax for publicity.
I have questions and concerns as to whether that is defamatory, but that's the actual case. Not that he just denied it.
If Trump had only denied it, and said she made it up, then that would not be defamatory for sure. He may have still lost the trial, but he would have an easy case of appeal.
"I had the right to remain silent. I didn't have the ability.."
So he perjured himself?Quote:
Trump, knowing that an honest response that the event occurred but was consentual, would trigger another firestorm of criticism from his political opponents, decides to vocally deny the entire encounter and call Carroll an outright liar... which to an extent, she is.
Sorry, your story doesn't ring true.
I don't think Trump has any memory of this broad. I also don't think he raped her or stuck his fingers in her without consent. Maybe they hooked up consensually, maybe he came onto her aggressively and was denied, maybe the whole thing never happened! I think all 3 are plausible.
I don't think Trump perjured himself.
I'm Gipper
If saying she was lying would not have made him liable, then saying she was paid to lie should either.Im Gipper said:Quote:
He, as president, denies the accusation, so is guilty, per the jury in Carroll II, of defaming her.
What am I missing here?
Denying it was not why he was liable (guilty is wrong word to use) for defamation.
It was because he said she was being paid to lie and it was a hoax for publicity.
I have questions and concerns as to whether that is defamatory, but that's the actual case. Not that he just denied it.
If Trump had only denied it, and said she made it up, then that would not be defamatory for sure. He may have still lost the trial, but he would have an easy case of appeal.
Because if the statements in the book were what he is saying is a lie, she got paid for selling that book - and writing the statements in the book, so technically, he's correct.
GeorgiAg said:
Aggiehawg is reviewing the case. She may be able to provide more details. I just read news reports. She testified in the first case. I don't think he did on the stand. (???). He had his deposition.
Trump didn't attend the first trial at all.
Supposedly she had two friends, Birnbach and then Martin that she mentioned it to around the time it allegedly happened. I haven't gotten to their testimony yet to hear what they actually said for such corroboration.93MarineHorn said:What was the circumstantial evidence in this case? Stupid locker room type comments? That's it?GeorgiAg said:93MarineHorn said:Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
Well he's on tape saying he just goes up and kisses women he finds attractive and grabs them by the private parts. He also argued she wasn't his type and then confused a picture of her with his wife.
People are convicted of crimes based upon circumstantial evidence all the time. He should have put up a better defense. The allegation is weak I agree.
I'll post when I do.
The next best scenario based upon Occam's Razor that I see is that it didn't happen at all, and the entire encounter really was lifted from a 2012 Law & Order episode.Im Gipper said:So he perjured himself?Quote:
Trump, knowing that an honest response that the event occurred but was consentual, would trigger another firestorm of criticism from his political opponents, decides to vocally deny the entire encounter and call Carroll an outright liar... which to an extent, she is.
Sorry, your story doesn't ring true.
I don't think Trump has any memory of this broad. I also don't think he raped her or stuck his fingers in her without consent. Maybe they hooked up consensually, maybe he came onto her aggressively and was denied, maybe the whole thing never happened! I think all 3 are plausible.
I don't think Trump perjured himself.
Hell, it could be the most likely scenario.
Thx! Looking forward to reading your thoughts on this.aggiehawg said:Supposedly she had two friends, Birnbach and then Martin that she mentioned it to around the time it allegedly happened. I haven't gotten to their testimony yet to hear what they actually said for such corroboration.93MarineHorn said:What was the circumstantial evidence in this case? Stupid locker room type comments? That's it?GeorgiAg said:93MarineHorn said:Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
Well he's on tape saying he just goes up and kisses women he finds attractive and grabs them by the private parts. He also argued she wasn't his type and then confused a picture of her with his wife.
People are convicted of crimes based upon circumstantial evidence all the time. He should have put up a better defense. The allegation is weak I agree.
I'll post when I do.
93MarineHorn said:Thx! Looking forward to reading your thoughts on this.aggiehawg said:Supposedly she had two friends, Birnbach and then Martin that she mentioned it to around the time it allegedly happened. I haven't gotten to their testimony yet to hear what they actually said for such corroboration.93MarineHorn said:What was the circumstantial evidence in this case? Stupid locker room type comments? That's it?GeorgiAg said:93MarineHorn said:Was there any evidence presented besides her testimony? If not, that's the problem people have with this. I guarantee that if Dr. Ford had brought a civil case against Justice Kavanaugh in some lib infested jurisdiction he would have been "adjudicated" as guilty, in spite of the fact that the ditz couldn't even prove she was ever in the same zip code as her "assaulter".Quote:
Trump was found by a preponderance of the evidence to have forcibly insert his fingers into her private parts by a civil jury. That had been litigated. You can appeal the verdict/judgment on legal grounds for "legal error," not "factual error." If an appellate court finds "legal error" you get a new trial with a new jury to try to negate the plaintiff's burden of proof that you did it.
Well he's on tape saying he just goes up and kisses women he finds attractive and grabs them by the private parts. He also argued she wasn't his type and then confused a picture of her with his wife.
People are convicted of crimes based upon circumstantial evidence all the time. He should have put up a better defense. The allegation is weak I agree.
I'll post when I do.
Birnbach testified Carroll called her minutes after the event, sounding like she was hyperventilating, and described what happened. She testified she told Carroll that what she described sounded like rape. She testified that she encouraged Carroll to go to the polcie and offered to come with her
Martin testified, if I recall, that Carroll visited her a few days after the events and told her the same story. Martin said she advised Carroll to be quiet
Yeah about that. She denied to ever seeing that episode at one point but then she went off on a tangent about writing a skit for SNL where William Shatner was wearing underwear (presumably ladies' underwear) on the outside of his clothes and he was turning and posing admiring himself in a full length mirror. Oh and she WON AN EMMY for that!!!!!jrdaustin said:The next best scenario based upon Occam's Razor that I see is that it didn't happen at all, and the entire encounter really was lifted from a 2012 Law & Order episode.Im Gipper said:So he perjured himself?Quote:
Trump, knowing that an honest response that the event occurred but was consentual, would trigger another firestorm of criticism from his political opponents, decides to vocally deny the entire encounter and call Carroll an outright liar... which to an extent, she is.
Sorry, your story doesn't ring true.
I don't think Trump has any memory of this broad. I also don't think he raped her or stuck his fingers in her without consent. Maybe they hooked up consensually, maybe he came onto her aggressively and was denied, maybe the whole thing never happened! I think all 3 are plausible.
I don't think Trump perjured himself.
Hell, it could be the most likely scenario.
This woman cannot remember the years she got married, nor the years she got divorced. She gives a range of years. She's such a ditz.
Aggies2009 said:My guess is that aggiehawg posted something that completely demolished some point that was made and it was swiftly taken care of by mods so aggiehawg doesn't want to engage any more.Im Gipper said:aggiehawg said:I am not allowed to respnd to you..TXAggie2011 said:
What is this a "test case" for?
What's the back story here????
AggieHawg went through a thread and individually quoted all of 2011's posts and mostly issued personal insults in response to each individual post. She made at least a dozen posts, if not more. Many of her posts are deleted but a couple of the tamer ones are still there.
Now post again after I remind you Trump was found NOT LIABLE for rape, contrary to what your posts have said twice now.GeorgiAg said:There are ways you can criticize a judgment legally and ways you cannot. You can criticize the law and process as being unfair and perhaps say you maintain your innocence. You cannot post on social media one post after another calling your accuser a liar, fraud and whack job after it has been adjudicated otherwise.WHOOP!'91 said:Bolded is a bald-faced lie, and just shows how TDS affects people. Even an attorney is so anti-Trump that they won't be honest about what the jury found.GeorgiAg said:
Say what you want about the first case. This case was about Trump openly thumbing his nose at the U.S. legal system. He dared the jury to do this. Well, to quote the movie, Cool Hand Luke,When you have been adjudicated as having raped someone and then making defamatory comments about it, the legal recourse is to APPEAL. If you comment on the case, you can say "I disagree with the verdict and maintain my innocence, we are pursing an appeal." Go beyond that and you're playing with fire.Quote:
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.
Orange Moron went out and defamed her over and over and over again. Blatantly thumbing his nose.
Then he hires a moron to defend him, thumbs his nose the entire time at the judge, the process and the jury. Trump is the biggest idiot on the planet..
Anyone who supports him makes me seriously question their competency.
In fact, it ISN'T defamation to claim you didn't do something that a jury found you didn't do.
"I disagree with the jury's/court's findings and will vigorously pursue an appeal," "that law is unfair and unjust and should be overturned" and maybe even "I maintain my innocence and despite the jury's finding, I maintain this did not happen" are probably not going to cross the line.
"E Jean Carroll is a liar, whack job, fraud, out to get me, is too ugly for me, etc..." is not kosher. One utterance might be overlooked, but if you do it non-stop over two dozen times, then you are begging to be hauled into court again. Especially given Trump's fame and following. He knows it will reach millions of people. Taking a "I am above the law" and "there's nothing you can do to me" stance will further inflame a jury. Acting like an ass in court and having your lawyer act like an ass in court will likewise hurt you.
If this doesn't make you question Trump's intelligence, I don't understand it.
Again, Watermelon Man on page 9 summarized all of this perfectly:Quote:
The thing about the trial where he was found to be liable is that the evidence against Trump was rather weak.
All he needed to do was take the stand in that trial and say, "I'm sorry, but I don't remember this at all. Ms. Carroll must be mistaken. This was years ago and memories can be tricky, people have vivid memories of things that never happened all the time. I am apologize for the things I said about her, but I felt I was being attacked and I needed to defend myself. I am sorry."
Less than 5 minutes of contrition, along with some decent lawyering for the defendant, and there would not have been a preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of sexual assault. The reason he lost that trial was he provided no evidence, not that the jury didn't believe it
Perhaps a judgement would still have been made for defamation, making the argument that Trump's words were damaging even if assault could not be proven, but it would have been much less. Likely under 7 figures.
If, after that, he would have kept his mouth shut about it, it would have been over. It's really as if this is how Trump wanted it to turn out. He certainly had the opportunity to stop it. Instead, he took great steps to make sure he got this result.
Of course, he had the right to not show any contrition if he didn't want to. A wise man knows when he should exercise his rights and when to keep his mouth shut.
Featured Stories
See All
25:58
1d ago
3.9k
Defense in Review feat. Sean Porter: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Billy Liucci
14:26
1d ago
2.8k
The Film Room: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Stephen McGee
9:03
1d ago
1.3k
LB Blitz: Miami 10, Texas A&M 3
by Sean Porter
21:22
1d ago
1.4k
Pick 'Em & Rip 'Em sponsored by PrizePicks: Week 18
by Matthew Dawson