Team Trump v/s Everyone

[BDKJMU]

So NY just happens to pass a one time special law opening a 1 year window for adult victims of alleged sexual assault to file civil cases after the statute of limitations has expired. What the the name of the law? The Get Trump While He’s Running For POTUS’ law?

But if he raped her, you’d still want justice regardless. Right?

If he raped her, she wouldn’t have waited 40 years to come forward with an unsubstantiated allegation..

[Ibanez]

Rupert Murdoch absolutely stated that his network told lies about the election being stolen to their viewers, under oath, in his deposition.

In the actual settlememt language FNC didn’t admit to any lies. The whiny CNN anchor in the tweet above is right about that.

They didn’t really have to - the differences between what people like Tucker and Laura said on-air versus what they were saying to each other proved they knew it was all bullshit. They knew it yet perpetuated the belief that this election was stolen.

You’d know that if you got your head out of the sand and read the text messages.

[houndawg]

But if he raped her, you’d still want justice regardless. Right?

If he raped her, she wouldn’t have waited 40 years to come forward with an unsubstantiated allegation..

[houndawg]

But if he raped her, you’d still want justice regardless. Right?

If he raped her, she wouldn’t have waited 40 years to come forward with an unsubstantiated allegation..

Is that a "no"?

BDNCEL

[UNI88]

But if he raped her, you’d still want justice regardless. Right?

If he raped her, she wouldn’t have waited 40 years to come forward with an unsubstantiated allegation..

So now you're a psychologist/psychiatrist who has decades of expertise with rape victims to back up your point that all rape victims report their assaults? Because what I've read on the subject is that it's quite common for the victim to never report an assault or wait a long time to report one.

[BDKJMU]

If he raped her, she wouldn’t have waited 40 years to come forward with an unsubstantiated allegation..

So now you're a psychologist/psychiatrist who has decades of expertise with rape victims to back up your point that all rape victims report their assaults? Because what I've read on the subject is that it's quite common for the victim to never report an assault or wait a long time to report one.

These decades old accusations just happen to come out of the woodwork when someone is running for or being appointed to higher office. Gee what a coincidence. Like that Ballsey Ford woman. Could call it getting Kavanaughed.

[GannonFan]

Technically, she's not suing for rape here. I think the statute of limitations is either expired on that or there wouldn't be enough of a case to think they could get a conviction on that. She's suing for defamation, which is kind of an oddity with this case. She said Trump raped her, he said he didn't, and she's suing him because by saying he didn't he's calling her a liar and hence she's defamed. It's like a go-around of the statute of limitations or when there's not a good case to try the rape charge.

Frankly, I think this case is a reach too. It's very possible that Trump did what she accuses him of, but try him for that. If you can't bring him to court for that, move on. It sucks, but it is why we have a court system - the defendant does have rights as well.

Get Trump for any willful or knowing blocking of recovering top secret documents (can't get him for having them in the first place since apparently everyone has some top secret stuff - but get him for the obstruction if it really happened). If he did anything out and out illegal with the Georgia election (and no, the phone call we have of him isn't enough, there needs to be something more evidence-based) then get him on that. And we should be able to successfully prosecute what he did on Jan 6th, that one should be somewhat easy.

[houndawg]

So now you're a psychologist/psychiatrist who has decades of expertise with rape victims to back up your point that all rape victims report their assaults? Because what I've read on the subject is that it's quite common for the victim to never report an assault or wait a long time to report one.

These decades old accusations just happen to come out of the woodwork when someone is running for or being appointed to higher office. Gee what a coincidence. Like that Ballsey Ford woman. Could call it getting Kavanaughed.

I thought that was when "somebody" clears a couple of million in debt for you just before you get nominated for the SCOTUS? No?

[houndawg]

Technically, she's not suing for rape here. I think the statute of limitations is either expired on that or there wouldn't be enough of a case to think they could get a conviction on that. She's suing for defamation, which is kind of an oddity with this case. She said Trump raped her, he said he didn't, and she's suing him because by saying he didn't he's calling her a liar and hence she's defamed. It's like a go-around of the statute of limitations or when there's not a good case to try the rape charge.

Frankly, I think this case is a reach too. It's very possible that Trump did what she accuses him of, but try him for that. If you can't bring him to court for that, move on. It sucks, but it is why we have a court system - the defendant does have rights as well.

Get Trump for any willful or knowing blocking of recovering top secret documents (can't get him for having them in the first place since apparently everyone has some top secret stuff - but get him for the obstruction if it really happened). If he did anything out and out illegal with the Georgia election (and no, the phone call we have of him isn't enough, there needs to be something more evidence-based) then get him on that. And we should be able to successfully prosecute what he did on Jan 6th, that one should be somewhat easy.

I think his lawyers would be smart to start demanding payment weekly.

[UNI88]

I'm sure it will be appealed but the jury unanimously finds that trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.

It's not a criminal conviction but it happened in a court of law. So much for the claims of blueanon tDS whenever trump is criticized.

[kalm]

I'm sure it will be appealed but the jury unanimously finds that trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.

It's not a criminal conviction but it happened in a court of law. So much for the claims of blueanon tDS whenever trump is criticized.

I mean how can you sexually assault someone if you don’t even know who she is?

[Skjellyfetti]

Surely a boost to his primary campaign

[kalm]

Surely a boost to his primary campaign

[BDKJMU]

I'm sure it will be appealed but the jury unanimously finds that trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.

It's not a criminal conviction but it happened in a court of law. So much for the claims of blueanon tDS whenever trump is criticized.

So 51%+ of a Manhattan jury found Trump liable. 51%+ of a Manhattan, or DC, or San Fran, etc (just insert city that votes 90+% democrat) jury would Trump liable for (insert any allegation here, killing kids, drowning puppies, whatever).

[UNI88]

I'm sure it will be appealed but the jury unanimously finds that trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.

It's not a criminal conviction but it happened in a court of law. So much for the claims of blueanon tDS whenever trump is criticized.

So 51%+ of a Manhattan jury found Trump liable. 51%+ of a Manhattan, or DC, or San Fran, etc (just insert city that votes 90+% democrat) jury would Trump liable for (insert any allegation here, killing kids, drowning puppies, whatever).

It’s his hometown / homefield …

Wouldn’t the same be true for Biden in Idaho and similar deep red locations?

Having served on a jury, I have more faith in them to follow the judge’s instructions and rule based on the evidence.

trump shot himself in the foot repeatedly - saying Carroll wasn’t his type then IDing her in a picture from the time as Marla Maples, stars can do what they want, etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

So 51%+ of a Manhattan jury found Trump liable. 51%+ of a Manhattan, or DC, or San Fran, etc (just insert city that votes 90+% democrat) jury would Trump liable for (insert any allegation here, killing kids, drowning puppies, whatever).

You don’t think the same is true for Biden in Idaho and similar deep red locations?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t see Biden being charged for anything in any locality that went for Trump by 84% (sorry not 90%) like Manhattan did for Biden.

If Trump’s civil trial was held in a location similarly red that Manhattan is Blue he wouldn’t have been found liable.

[kalm]

You don’t think the same is true for Biden in Idaho and similar deep red locations?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t see Biden being charged for anything in any locality that went for Trump by 84% (sorry not 90%) like Manhattan did for Biden.

If Trump’s civil trial was held in a location similarly red that Manhattan is Blue he wouldn’t have been found liable.

Maybe his team would have mounted a defense?

[houndawg]

You don’t think the same is true for Biden in Idaho and similar deep red locations?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t see Biden being charged for anything in any locality that went for Trump by 84% (sorry not 90%) like Manhattan did for Biden.

If Trump’s civil trial was held in a location similarly red that Manhattan is Blue he wouldn’t have been found liable.

Do you think he would have taken the stand in that case?

[UNI88]

You don’t think the same is true for Biden in Idaho and similar deep red locations?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t see Biden being charged for anything in any locality that went for Trump by 84% (sorry not 90%) like Manhattan did for Biden.

If Trump’s civil trial was held in a location similarly red that Manhattan is Blue he wouldn’t have been found liable.

Hopefully this jury ruled based on the preponderance of evidence and not their feelings about trump and hopefully a jury in a red location would do the same.

To assume that he wouldn't be found liable simply because of who he is rather than the preponderance of the evidence is an indictment of people in deep red locations.

[BDKJMU]

I don’t see Biden being charged for anything in any locality that went for Trump by 84% (sorry not 90%) like Manhattan did for Biden.

If Trump’s civil trial was held in a location similarly red that Manhattan is Blue he wouldn’t have been found liable.

Hopefully this jury ruled based on the preponderance of evidence and not their feelings about trump and hopefully a jury in a red location would do the same.

To assume that he wouldn't be found liable simply because of who he is rather than the preponderance of the evidence is an indictment of people in deep red locations.

Lol you are naïve..

[kalm]

Hopefully this jury ruled based on the preponderance of evidence and not their feelings about trump and hopefully a jury in a red location would do the same.

To assume that he wouldn't be found liable simply because of who he is rather than the preponderance of the evidence is an indictment of people in deep red locations.

Lol you are naïve..

So you don’t think he sexually assaulted Carol? Despite his deposition and grab them by the pussy comments?

[UNI88]

Hopefully this jury ruled based on the preponderance of evidence and not their feelings about trump and hopefully a jury in a red location would do the same.

To assume that he wouldn't be found liable simply because of who he is rather than the preponderance of the evidence is an indictment of people in deep red locations.

Lol you are naïve..

How much experience and/or knowledge do you have about juries and how they work?

Anyone, republican, democrat or independent, who serves on a jury and let's their personal opinion of the defendant influence their decision is failing in their duty and should not serve on a jury.

[GannonFan]

Lol you are naïve..

How much experience and/or knowledge do you have about juries and how they work?

Anyone, republican, democrat or independent, who serves on a jury and let's their personal opinion of the defendant influence their decision is failing in their duty and should not serve on a jury.

While I've served on a jury before, and while what you say above is basically true, I think it's a reality that there are plenty of people out there who do serve on juries who do carry their biases into the courtroom and the jury room. Heck, we have plenty of evidence of racial biases impacting trials for basically as long as we've had court cases. In an ideal world and an ideal court system, we wouldn't have that and people could be trusted to put their biases to the side when deliberating. Unfortunately, I don't think we live in an ideal world.

[UNI88]

How much experience and/or knowledge do you have about juries and how they work?

Anyone, republican, democrat or independent, who serves on a jury and let's their personal opinion of the defendant influence their decision is failing in their duty and should not serve on a jury.

While I've served on a jury before, and while what you say above is basically true, I think it's a reality that there are plenty of people out there who do serve on juries who do carry their biases into the courtroom and the jury room. Heck, we have plenty of evidence of racial biases impacting trials for basically as long as we've had court cases. In an ideal world and an ideal court system, we wouldn't have that and people could be trusted to put their biases to the side when deliberating. Unfortunately, I don't think we live in an ideal world.

You are right and BDK is correct that I'm being naïve. Attorneys do try to weed out the most egregious partisans during the selection process. I will also argue that the verdict was unanimous and I don't think it's naïve to believe that some of those jurors voted based on the preponderance of the evidence and not their feelings toward trump.

[BDKJMU]

Lol you are naïve..

How much experience and/or knowledge do you have about juries and how they work?

Anyone, republican, democrat or independent, who serves on a jury and let's their personal opinion of the defendant influence their decision is failing in their duty and should not serve on a jury.

It probably happens often in ‘political’ trials, or trials involving a high profile politician, or ones involvig race. Ex at the Floyd/Chauvin trial one of the black jurors was later shown to have previously traveled to DC to attemd a BLM rally and was photographed wearibg a BLM t-shirt & hat (which meant he would have lied on his juror questionnaire). Clearly calls into question his impartiality. But was allowed.