Quote:

---

The fact that some people think this whole thing is legit and okay is extremely scary.

---

Having now watched the entire evidentiary portion of this trial, it has a very Blasey-Ford feeling to it. Few details of when, how, how long, etc.

Most of the witnesses called really did not have much, if any personal knowledge of the incident. Didn't advance the narrative. Maybe once I hear the closings, something might loop it in. Why this trial lasted two weeks is beyond me.

She continued to sleep with her ex-husband after she claims he had strangled her three times and was otherwise violent with her.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The fact that some people think this whole thing is legit and okay is extremely scary.

---

Having now watched the entire evidentiary portion of this trial, it has a very Blasey-Ford feeling to it. Few details of when, how, how long, etc.

Most of the witnesses called really did not have much, if any personal knowledge of the incident. Didn't advance the narrative. Maybe once I hear the closings, something might loop it in. Why this trial lasted two weeks is beyond me.

She continued to sleep with her ex-husband after she claims he had strangled her three times and was otherwise violent with her.

---

Well, she DID say that rape was sexy, so.....

Thanks for your opinion on the matter.

Quote:

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

Yeah, about that. Reid Hoffman tweeted out that he was funding E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits against Trump.

George Conway had a meeting set up at a party to sell Carroll on how they were going to change the law to help her sue Trump. He even brought his I-pad woth a presentation on it. Then he hooked Carroll up with Kaplan and Hoffman.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

Yeah, about that. Reid Hoffman tweeted out that he was funding E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits against Trump.

George Conway had a meeting set up at a party to sell Carroll on how they were going to change the law to help her sue Trump. He even brought his I-pad woth a presentation on it. Then he hooked Carroll up with Kaplan and Hoffman.

---

Oops.

You might not be allowed to respond to a new person pretty soon.

lol

Never was defamation lawyer. Was not doing trial law when social media became a thing.

So can anyone answer what are the elements for showing economic damages for social media "reputational repair'? What is that? Launching bots? Is that all it is for the "repair" effort?

I know there was some weird "expert" testimony during the Depp/Heard trial, which frankly to me was laughable.

Crying about losing twitter or podcast followers, although having a monetizing aspect which is totally dependent on twitter and youtube, censorship more than free market is just dumb. Again, to me.

Aggies2009 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

Yeah, about that. Reid Hoffman tweeted out that he was funding E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits against Trump.

George Conway had a meeting set up at a party to sell Carroll on how they were going to change the law to help her sue Trump. He even brought his I-pad woth a presentation on it. Then he hooked Carroll up with Kaplan and Hoffman.

---

Oops.

You might not be allowed to respond to a new person pretty soon.

---

E. Jean Carroll testified to this.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

---

What's the back story here????

---

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.

---

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.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

Yeah, about that. Reid Hoffman tweeted out that he was funding E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits against Trump.

George Conway had a meeting set up at a party to sell Carroll on how they were going to change the law to help her sue Trump. He even brought his I-pad woth a presentation on it. Then he hooked Carroll up with Kaplan and Hoffman.

---

Maybe that was why he got some emotional when he found out about the verdict. He said he had to go outside and take a walk to compose himself. Imagine exacting revenge against whom you believe to be one of the worst people in the world, and you actually against all odds, win and win big! Against one of the richest most powerful men in the history of the world (can't say smartest, everyone would laugh at that).

shiftyandquick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

Yeah, about that. Reid Hoffman tweeted out that he was funding E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits against Trump.

George Conway had a meeting set up at a party to sell Carroll on how they were going to change the law to help her sue Trump. He even brought his I-pad woth a presentation on it. Then he hooked Carroll up with Kaplan and Hoffman.

---

Maybe that was why he got some emotional when he found out about the verdict. He said he had to go outside and take a walk to compose himself. Imagine exacting revenge against whom you believe to be one of the worst people in the world, and you actually against all odds, win and win big! Against one of the richest most powerful men in the history of the world (can't say smartest, everyone would laugh at that).

---

Conway? He did that?

I think it's in this thread where I posted a twitter link where he was talking on CNN about his reaction to the verdict/award.

shiftyandquick said:

---

I think it's in this thread where I posted a twitter link where he was talking on CNN about his reaction to the verdict/award.

---

Some help? Where?

Ag with kids said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

---

What's the back story here????

---

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.

---

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.

---

---

Oh, how shall I go on? Take it up with staff.

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

---

What's the back story here????

---

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.

---

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.

---

---

Oh, how shall I go on? Take it up with staff.

---

No.

If "Many of her posts are deleted but a couple of the tamer ones are still there" is true you could at least link to them to prove your case...

Even socks can search, right?

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

TheAngelFlight said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

What is this a "test case" for?

---

I am not allowed to respnd to you..

---

What's the back story here????

---

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.

---

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.

---

---

Oh, how shall I go on? Take it up with staff.

---

Ride or Die with AggieHawg, you're at the wrong bar ol boy.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Aggies2009 said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

The point seems to be flying right over your head. If you are accused of something, but no date - including the year - is given, how do you mount a defense?

If someone shows up and accuses you of assaulting her sometime in the in the 4 years you attended A&M at the Dillards on Harvey Road, how can you defend yourself other than saying it never happened? How do you provide an alibi?

---

And if you say it never happened, you're on the hook for tens of millions of dollars in defamation.

The fact that some people think this whole thing is legit and okay is extremely scary.

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

That Reid Hoffman scumbag funded her case, right?

HTownAg98 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Seems like those are all things his defense counsel should have done. They didn't do that. In fact, I'm not sure what all they did, if anything.

---

Well the judge kept interrupting all of their attempted cross examination efforts ordering them to move on and sustaining every objection made by Carroll's counsel even without any apparent grounds for either the objection or why the judge sustained them.

I have seen some crotchety judges in my day but this guy is way over the top for lack of judicial temperament.

---

How much of that do you think is due to the judge being a crotchety old fart versus Alina Habba not having a clue as to what she's doing?

---

Interesting take. Forget that it is a judge strongly predisposed to be against the defendant. Forget that its a jury strongly predisposed to be against the defendant. Forget that the plaintiff is relying on a 25 year old accusation with a 3 year window of when the event took place. Forget that her 2 corroborating witnesses are also predisposed against the witness.

Let's forget all the irregularities of the case, and let's trash the defendant's attorney. (Not defamation at all, of course.)

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/11/11619460/elle-magazines-e-jean-carroll-creates-a-money-making-breakup-app aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The fact that some people think this whole thing is legit and okay is extremely scary.

---

Having now watched the entire evidentiary portion of this trial, it has a very Blasey-Ford feeling to it. Few details of when, how, how long, etc.

Most of the witnesses called really did not have much, if any personal knowledge of the incident. Didn't advance the narrative. Maybe once I hear the closings, something might loop it in. Why this trial lasted two weeks is beyond me.

She continued to sleep with her ex-husband after she claims he had strangled her three times and was otherwise violent with her.

---

Was there anything about this App that Carroll was supposedly wrote with that was a game based upon breaking up relationships using among other things, accusations of assault? The app is called Evil, Evil, Evil.

You can't make this crap up.

https://www.vox.com/2015/10/11/11619460/elle-magazines-e-jean-carroll-creates-a-money-making-breakup-app

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

I think it's in this thread where I posted a twitter link where he was talking on CNN about his reaction to the verdict/award.

---

Some help? Where?

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3440975/replies/66866940

shiftyandquick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

You can deny that it happened. What you can't do is say that someone is paying you to lie, which is what Trump did.

---

Yeah, about that. Reid Hoffman tweeted out that he was funding E. Jean Carroll's lawsuits against Trump.

George Conway had a meeting set up at a party to sell Carroll on how they were going to change the law to help her sue Trump. He even brought his I-pad woth a presentation on it. Then he hooked Carroll up with Kaplan and Hoffman.

---

Maybe that was why he got some emotional when he found out about the verdict. He said he had to go outside and take a walk to compose himself. Imagine exacting revenge against whom you believe to be one of the worst people in the world, and you actually against all odds, win and win big! Against one of the richest most powerful men in the history of the world (can't say smartest, everyone would laugh at that).

---

Right. And it didn't matter how he got it there. It just mattered that it worked. The shattered faith in our justice system is just an acceptable byproduct.

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

Can't believe anyone is defending the judge and jury in this. Crazy the judge can twist it to mean whatever they want.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

Those of you that agree with the court decision, can you point to ANY EVIDENCE besides the plaintiff's and her friends' hazy memories regarding the "assault"? We reject the finding because the dingbat liar has changed her mind about what year the alleged attack occurred. She is accusing Trump but has ZERO actual evidence. Simple enough for you?

Democrats are emotionally driven people that have hatred for Trump and don't need a valid reason to find him guilty even with an incredibly pathetic case. Brett Kavanaugh would suffer the same fate if Dr. Ford brought a case against him NYC or some other liberal city.

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

Perfect example of how old Roland Freisler would have handled the matter.

Maybe it came down to she said he said and the jury went with her story ?

Maybe that's where the defendants past words and life choices hurt him ?

The subsequent words from the defendant and actions in the courtroom made the amount at the defamation trial so high, imo.

It seems to me Trump would have been wiser to attend the first trial and not attend the second one ?

ShaggySLC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

Can't believe anyone is defending the judge and jury in this. Crazy the judge can twist it to mean whatever they want.

---

After spending the majority of two days going back to read the unofficial transcripts of the original trial in which Joe Tacopina and other lawyer's from his firm represented Trump, this Judge, Kaplan, is a disgrace and should not be on the bench. He was more of an advocate and lawyer for E. Jean Carroll than Roberta Kaplan was at times. A fact that Tacopina stated in his motion to dismiss after three days of trial.

This second trial on damages was a foregone conclusion based upon the judge's behavior in the first. Habba may not have been the most experienced attorney to try that second case but the deck was stacked against her and her client.

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

That is not at all what occurred. Not sure where you got that from? The jury instructions are available on pacer for anyone to read:

ShaggySLC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

Can't believe anyone is defending the judge and jury in this. Crazy the judge can twist it to mean whatever they want.

---

And what if what you are responding to never actually occurred?

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

I didn't see those. Nor do I have the time to go through real-time tweets. Please provide a legal summary if you know of one.

Btw, if you are Trump and trying to argue that you sexually assaulted her, but that wasn't rape--that distinction isn' particularly meaningful to me. Although we already know that it means zero to his supporters.

Judge repeatedly said that in front of the jury. Judge restricted Trump's testimony and ordered the jury to disregard any statement that went to his denying guilt of sexually assaulting her because the first jury found he had. But the judge went further and claimed the jury had found Trump digitally assaulted her when the jury verdict form did not say that.

shiftyandquick said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Those of you that reject the findings of the original court decision (the $5 million), can you point to a credible source that discusses why that finding was made, based on court evidence?

---

So the Inner City Press live tweeting of the court proceedings was not enough for you? That jury found her not credible on her rape claim. And Trump did not appear at that trial.

It was after the jury's verdict saying not enough evidence for them to find a rape occurred but nonetheless, the judge overruled that finding and stated any form of sexual assault counts as a rape. And that is how he instructed the jury in the second trial.

---

I didn't see those. Nor do I have the time to go through real-time tweets. Please provide a legal summary if you know of one.

Btw, if you are Trump and trying to argue that you sexually assaulted her, but that wasn't rape--that distinction isn' particularly meaningful to me. Although we already know that it means zero to his supporters.

---

If you're Carroll and you're trying to argue that Trump is guilty of assault, you ought to be able to provide the date it happened without changing your story when it's shown you were lying.

Why do YOU think Trump is guilty? What would you base that decision on? You libs on this thread got NOTHING and you know it. Play semantics and keep deferring to some liberal kangaroo court, it's all you've got. This travesty came about because of weak minded, emotionally driven partisans that don't give a damn about justice, only getting Trump. It's pathetic.

aggiehawg said:

---

Judge repeatedly said that in front of the jury. Judge restricted Trump's testimony and ordered the jury to disregard any statement that went to his denying guilt of sexually assaulting her because the first jury found he had. But the judge went further and claimed the jury had found Trump digitally assaulted her when the jury verdict form did not say that.

---

Would you as a lawyer have advised Trump to :
1. attend the first civil trial and pull out all stops in hopes to be found not guilty on sexual assault
2. Refrain from saying derogatory things about the victim in the run up to the defamation trial
3. advise him to not attend the defamation civil trial in hopes to keep the amount lower ?

aggiehawg said:

---

Judge repeatedly said that in front of the jury. Judge restricted Trump's testimony and ordered the jury to disregard any statement that went to his denying guilt of sexually assaulting her because the first jury found he had. But the judge went further and claimed the jury had found Trump digitally assaulted her when the jury verdict form did not say that.

---

That's vastly different from what you said. You said the judge disregarded the prior verdict and instructed the second jury that Trump had raped the plaintiff. That's just not true.

Of course the judge is not going to let Trump deny an issue in the second trial that had been found in the first trial. That's simple issue preclusion and wholly proper.

MASAXET said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Judge repeatedly said that in front of the jury. Judge restricted Trump's testimony and ordered the jury to disregard any statement that went to his denying guilt of sexually assaulting her because the first jury found he had. But the judge went further and claimed the jury had found Trump digitally assaulted her when the jury verdict form did not say that.

---

That's vastly different from what you said. You said the judge disregarded the prior verdict and instructed the second jury that Trump had raped the plaintiff. That's just not true.

Of course the judge is not going to let Trump deny an issue in the second trial that had been found in the first trial. That's simple issue preclusion and wholly proper.

---

Man, I feel like such an outsider. Findings in civil trials become undeniable facts in future trials. A judge and jury of angry leftists gets to simply declare what is established and what is not, and henceforth what a defendant can argue. Great system we have here.