Quote:

---

First, i would not give them a reason to even suspect me of a heinous crime. But I concede the point that anyone can falsely claim an innocent person.

Secondly, I would not slander and lie about my accuser. I would instead prove my innocence by the lack of evidence.

Trump did the former and he was unable to do the latter , likely because of his past words and deeds. I fortunately have neither of those problems, PTL.

---

Here's the problem, though. His past words and deeds were presented to the jury.

E. Jean Carroll's past words and deeds were not allowed by this judge. Not even for impeachment purposes when she was on the stand giving contradictory testimony to her earlier statements made under oath.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

First, i would not give them a reason to even suspect me of a heinous crime. But I concede the point that anyone can falsely claim an innocent person.

Secondly, I would not slander and lie about my accuser. I would instead prove my innocence by the lack of evidence.

Trump did the former and he was unable to do the latter , likely because of his past words and deeds. I fortunately have neither of those problems, PTL.

---

Here's the problem, though. His past words and deeds were presented to the jury.

E. Jean Carroll's past words and deeds were not allowed by this judge. Not even for impeachment purposes when she was on the stand giving contradictory testimony to her earlier statements made under oath.

---

OK. I gotta say, with my limited law knowledge, that doesn't seem fair.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

First, i would not give them a reason to even suspect me of a heinous crime. But I concede the point that anyone can falsely claim an innocent person.

Secondly, I would not slander and lie about my accuser. I would instead prove my innocence by the lack of evidence.

Trump did the former and he was unable to do the latter , likely because of his past words and deeds. I fortunately have neither of those problems, PTL.

---

Here's the problem, though. His past words and deeds were presented to the jury.

E. Jean Carroll's past words and deeds were not allowed by this judge. Not even for impeachment purposes when she was on the stand giving contradictory testimony to her earlier statements made under oath.

---

Hawg, I am curious on a scale of 1 being the worst lawyer you have ever seen and 10 being a modern Perry Mason, where would you score the job Habba did in this case? Other lawyers are welcome to add in their own judgment.

Tara Reade was around Biden plenty. There's no question about it. I bet she can even name a year.

The woman who wasn't can't name the year of the one time she "WAS" around Trump. Not odd at all, right?

I'd call you gullible, but I know that's not your issue.

What should she have done ?

Or your children. Or grand children.

It's BS

Kansas Kid said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

First, i would not give them a reason to even suspect me of a heinous crime. But I concede the point that anyone can falsely claim an innocent person.

Secondly, I would not slander and lie about my accuser. I would instead prove my innocence by the lack of evidence.

Trump did the former and he was unable to do the latter , likely because of his past words and deeds. I fortunately have neither of those problems, PTL.

---

Here's the problem, though. His past words and deeds were presented to the jury.

E. Jean Carroll's past words and deeds were not allowed by this judge. Not even for impeachment purposes when she was on the stand giving contradictory testimony to her earlier statements made under oath.

---

Hawg, I am curious on a scale of 1 being the worst lawyer you have ever seen and 10 being a modern Perry Mason, where would you score the job Habba did in this case? Other lawyers are welcome to add in their own judgment.

---

About a 5. The judge was very harsh with her, though. Only could read unofficial transcripts and there were no cameras since it was in federal court so I really cannot tell how intimidating the judge's tone truly was. But I think I would have fought harder and not have backed down as much as she did.

Quote:

---

E. Jean Carroll's past words and deeds were not allowed by this judge. Not even for impeachment purposes when she was on the stand giving contradictory testimony to her earlier statements made under oath.

---

That's not good at all! Do you have some examples?

Whatever job that young lady did.. good or bad, I think if we are all honest we would agree that her client made it harder for her.

Quote:

---

About a 5.

---

If someone that doesn't know how to use documents for impeachment, how to use a deposition in trial, doesn't know you can't read documents not in evidence, etc gets a "5" I'd hate to see what warrants a 3.

Ags77 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

First, i would not give them a reason to even suspect me of a heinous crime. But I concede the point that anyone can falsely claim an innocent person.

Secondly, I would not slander and lie about my accuser. I would instead prove my innocence by the lack of evidence.

Trump did the former and he was unable to do the latter , likely because of his past words and deeds. I fortunately have neither of those problems, PTL.

---

Here's the problem, though. His past words and deeds were presented to the jury.

E. Jean Carroll's past words and deeds were not allowed by this judge. Not even for impeachment purposes when she was on the stand giving contradictory testimony to her earlier statements made under oath.

---

OK. I gotta say, with my limited law knowledge, that doesn't seem fair.

---

That was one of the quicker 180s I've ever seen on here after blowing so much hot air.

Thanks for that example, that's definitely not appropriate ruling.


But when did I defend this judge??!??

Im Gipper said:

---

Thanks for that example, that's definitely not appropriate ruling.


But when did I defend this judge??!??

---

I'm not necessarily talking to you.

This is not justice. No way does this outrageously ridiculous $83 million award stick on appeal.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

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,

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Everyone should read this "explanation " and understand why lawyers are despised.

Trump should have the right to thumb his nose at that quackery. That's judge and your explanation are q mockery of our legal system.

---

We have a jury system not a twitter / TexAgs F16 jury system. Anyone can spout off any garbage they want to put out there. A judge is the gatekeeper and the jury is selected at random then screened for bias.

7 guys and 2 women decided the case.

If you are accused of punching someone, get tried for battery and are found to have done it you can't go around saying the other person is a fraud and a liar and post stuff online to damage their reputation. You can criticize the process, not the person.

Trump is not above the law that you or I have to follow. He is neither God nor King.

We get it.

Kangaroo courts are preferable to you.

Thanks for the reminder.

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

First, i would not give them a reason to even suspect me of a heinous crime. But I concede the point that anyone can falsely claim an innocent person.

Secondly, I would not slander and lie about my accuser. I would instead prove my innocence by the lack of evidence.

Trump did the former and he was unable to do the latter , likely because of his past words and deeds. I fortunately have neither of those problems, PTL.

---

Here's the problem, though. His past words and deeds were presented to the jury.

E. Jean Carroll's past words and deeds were not allowed by this judge. Not even for impeachment purposes when she was on the stand giving contradictory testimony to her earlier statements made under oath.

---

OK. I gotta say, with my limited law knowledge, that doesn't seem fair.

---

That was one of the quicker 180s I've ever seen on here after blowing so much hot air.

---

Not a 180 at all. The subject was this trial being a travesty. I don't think it is, nor the amount the victim was awarded. The lady introduced something I hadn't heard, and my initial reaction was that it doesn't seem right or fair. Didn't change my opinion on the subject in question.

Antoninus said:

---

aggieforester05 said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

Our system works this way: a jury found that Carroll proved Trump had sexually abused and defamed her by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury listed to all of the evidence from both sides.

---

LOL

---

Wow anyone the believes the quoted text needs to seek immediate mental health treatment. That's either straight up lying or a level of ignorance that is simply stunning in this day and age. Holy Carp!

---

You are myopic.

The assault claim was he/she said. All other things equal, a coin flip. The jury listened to each of them and found her more credible than him. Why?

Candidly, the man comes across as a snake oil salesman. Always has, back into the 80s. If I were on a jury, I would be skeptical of any words that came out of his mouth, and the jury was apparently equally skeptical.

You people refuse to see it because you bought the snake oil.

---

You're surprised that a NYC jury found Trump less credible than Carroll? Big shocker

The problem is a NYC jury has no credibility when it comes to Trump. They would have just as easily found him gully if assassinating Kennedy.

I'm not a Trump loyalist, I just have zero faith in the NYC justice system to be any less than rabidly left wing biased in their application of justice. Candidly, you're an idiot of you except objectivity from the judge or jury in this case.

Liberals lie and cheat, it's what they're good at and honestly it works well for them. They just have less credibility than a crackhead in a jewelry store.

Trump plays the victim role waaay to much

Ags77 said:

---

Trump plays the victim role waaay to much

---

There's a reason for that.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

About a 5.

---

If someone that doesn't know how to use documents for impeachment, how to use a deposition in trial, doesn't know you can't read documents not in evidence, etc gets a "5" I'd hate to see what warrants a 3.

---

That whole exchange with the judge was confusing to me. Again using an unofficial transcript from Inner City Press blogging, why the judge kept demanding her to give him the page and line number from the deposition so he could read it into the record and she couldn't ask any questions about it? Just weird.

When I was a newbie lawyer, had a hearing in front of a judge who was very harsh with me, just because he felt that young lawyers needed to be indoctrinated by fire. My client was freaking out that she wouldn't get a fair hearing because she believed the judge hated me. It was unnerving to say the least.

And juries do pick up on that, when a judge is that hostile towards one side's attorneys.

Rockdoc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Trump plays the victim role waaay to much

---

There's a reason for that.

---

And his followers believe it too much . Maybe that's the reason ?

strbrst777 said:

---

This is not justice. No way does this outrageously ridiculous $83 million award stick on appeal.

---

The moron was bragging he had $400 million in cash and Mar y Lago was worth over a billion and a bunch of other assets

You have $40,000 in cash and a $100,000 home and a bunch of other assets. You get fined $8,330. Does that sound ridiculous for a compensatory and punitive award?

Ags77 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Trump plays the victim role waaay to much

---

There's a reason for that.

---

And his followers believe it too much . Maybe that's the reason ?

---

No. I'm sure you don't get it.

Whistle Pig said:

---

It seems being a pathological liar is a liability in a "he said she said" civil case.

---

Lol, says Biden voter

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,

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.

---

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.

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.

---

You voted for Joe Biden, pal. You lost the right to question anyone else's "competency" 3+ years ago.

I support him as in I'm smart enough to vote for him despite any personal issues I may have with him. Why? Because they're irrelevant.
The end around the state did to get this suit past the SOL is complete bs and should be tossed.

Ags77 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

The thread title " I don't care if you don't like Trump, this is a travesty ".

What is the travesty ? The amount of $$$ awarded the victim or that Trump is liable at all ?

I don't see this as a travesty at all.

---

I had a family member who was railroaded by a corrupt judge, lawyers, and witnesses. The stress eventually caused him to have a heart attack, and he died earlier than he should have.

I sincerely hope that you truly understand the implications of denying justice to anyone you hate.

---

Wow. I'm very sorry for your loss.

I guess I just don't see THIS trial as a travesty. Trump was found liable for sexual assault by a jury in another trial. This trial was to decide the amount in damages done by his words after that trial.

Maybe you are saying the trial where he was found liable was the travesty ? I can understand that. A he said she said verdict is hard to square for whomever is believed to be the liar. I would argue trumps past and present life made it easy to believe her version. I know it would for me if I was a juror in that case.

But if you think it's the amount awarded the victim was the travesty, don't you feel that was a self inflicted wound ?

---

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.

Watermelon Man said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

The thread title " I don't care if you don't like Trump, this is a travesty ".

What is the travesty ? The amount of $$$ awarded the victim or that Trump is liable at all ?

I don't see this as a travesty at all.

---

I had a family member who was railroaded by a corrupt judge, lawyers, and witnesses. The stress eventually caused him to have a heart attack, and he died earlier than he should have.

I sincerely hope that you truly understand the implications of denying justice to anyone you hate.

---

Wow. I'm very sorry for your loss.

I guess I just don't see THIS trial as a travesty. Trump was found liable for sexual assault by a jury in another trial. This trial was to decide the amount in damages done by his words after that trial.

Maybe you are saying the trial where he was found liable was the travesty ? I can understand that. A he said she said verdict is hard to square for whomever is believed to be the liar. I would argue trumps past and present life made it easy to believe her version. I know it would for me if I was a juror in that case.

But if you think it's the amount awarded the victim was the travesty, don't you feel that was a self inflicted wound ?

---

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.

---

Did he even attend that trial ?

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

About a 5.

---

If someone that doesn't know how to use documents for impeachment, how to use a deposition in trial, doesn't know you can't read documents not in evidence, etc gets a "5" I'd hate to see what warrants a 3.

---

That whole exchange with the judge was confusing to me. Again using an unofficial transcript from Inner City Press blogging, why the judge kept demanding her to give him the page and line number from the deposition so he could read it into the record and she couldn't ask any questions about it? Just weird.

When I was a newbie lawyer, had a hearing in front of a judge who was very harsh with me, just because he felt that young lawyers needed to be indoctrinated by fire. My client was freaking out that she wouldn't get a fair hearing because she believed the judge hated me. It was unnerving to say the least.

And juries do pick up on that, when a judge is that hostile towards one side's attorneys.

---

This defendant and his counsel have a long track record of trying to introduce inappropriate and inadmissible info.

This is civil not criminal, so the appellate burden will be higher on Trump than if it were a criminal trial.

Ags77 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Trump plays the victim role waaay to much

---

There's a reason for that.

---

And his followers believe it too much . Maybe that's the reason ?

---

Why change when he knows it works.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

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,

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Everyone should read this "explanation " and understand why lawyers are despised.

Trump should have the right to thumb his nose at that quackery. That's judge and your explanation are q mockery of our legal system.

---

We have a jury system not a twitter / TexAgs F16 jury system. Anyone can spout off any garbage they want to put out there. A judge is the gatekeeper and the jury is selected at random then screened for bias.

7 guys and 2 women decided the case.

If you are accused of punching someone, get tried for battery and are found to have done it you can't go around saying the other person is a fraud and a liar and post stuff online to damage their reputation. You can criticize the process, not the person.

Trump is not above the law that you or I have to follow. He is neither God nor King.

---

You can't defame people with the truth. The things he said about her couldn't be backed up with real evidence because the judge threw it out. And you're defending that unfairness.

Again it's disgusting. It's even more disgusting that you, an attorney, know this and are still twisting the situation.

Again this is why people despise your profession. Absolute den of snakes.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Trump plays the victim role waaay to much

---

There's a reason for that.

---

And his followers believe it too much . Maybe that's the reason ?

---

Why change when he knows it works.

---

EXACTLY

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

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,

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.

---

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.

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.

---

Everyone should read this "explanation " and understand why lawyers are despised.

Trump should have the right to thumb his nose at that quackery. That's judge and your explanation are q mockery of our legal system.

---

We have a jury system not a twitter / TexAgs F16 jury system. Anyone can spout off any garbage they want to put out there. A judge is the gatekeeper and the jury is selected at random then screened for bias.

7 guys and 2 women decided the case.

If you are accused of punching someone, get tried for battery and are found to have done it you can't go around saying the other person is a fraud and a liar and post stuff online to damage their reputation. You can criticize the process, not the person.

Trump is not above the law that you or I have to follow. He is neither God nor King.

---

You can't defame people with the truth. The things he said about her couldn't be backed up with real evidence because the judge threw it out. And you're defending that unfairness.

Again it's disgusting. It's even more disgusting that you, an attorney, know this and are still twisting the situation.

Again this is why people despise your profession. Absolute den of snakes.

---

What's the old saying ? Everybody hates lawyers until you need one.

Ags77 said:

---

Trump plays the victim role waaay to much

---

Envy and hate are sad partners.