Concerned American
Diamond Member
And how is that relevant to a lawyer taking a case on contingency. Please make the attempt to keep up.Lawyers prefer to settle out of court, something Trump never does.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And how is that relevant to a lawyer taking a case on contingency. Please make the attempt to keep up.Lawyers prefer to settle out of court, something Trump never does.
No lawyer would take against Trump on contingency. Trump has a reputation for never settling and delaying and he has deep pockets (or at least his donors do).And how is that relevant to a lawyer taking a case on contingency. Please make the attempt to keep up.
LMAO, yeah he doesn't go hat in hand asking for someone to finance a dubious claim that is thirty years old that won't stand the test of a criminal trial. Try again. You're grasping at straws.No lawyer would take against Trump on contingency. Trump has a reputation for never settling and delaying and he has deep pockets (or at least his donors do).
I couldn't find out who is paying for those lawyers. Do you know or are you just making stuff up again?LMAO, yeah he doesn't go hat in hand asking for someone to finance a dubious claim that is thirty years old that won't stand the test of a criminal trial. Try again. You're grasping at straws.
You asked for a link, I provided it. READ IT.I couldn't find out who is paying for those lawyers. Do you know or are you just making stuff up again?
Untrue. The link you provided only talks about who paid Carroll's lawyers NOT who paid Trump's lawyers. Did I miss it or is this more make believe?You asked for a link, I provided it. READ IT.
Maybe you should learn to write concise replies. Please show me where you asked about Trump's legal fees. This is your post #144Untrue. The link you provided only talks about who paid Carroll's lawyers NOT who paid Trump's lawyers. Did I miss it or is this more make believe?
Maybe reading comprehension is something you need to learn:Maybe you should learn to write concise replies. Please show me where you asked about Trump's legal fees.
No lawyer would take (a case) against Trump on contingency. Trump has a reputation for never settling and delaying and he has deep pockets (or at least his donors do).
LMAO, yeah he doesn't go hat in hand asking for someone to finance a dubious claim that is thirty years old that won't stand the test of a criminal trial. Try again. You're grasping at straws.
Yet a judge and jury found just the opposite. Did you study the court case or just made stuff up yet again?This is your post #144
I couldn't find out who is paying for those lawyers. Do you know or are you just making stuff up again?
Not that it makes any difference--he was defending himself--not trying to get money from a 30 year old "he said, she said" that had no evidence of a crime committed.
Civil case with a judge that should have been recused and it does not have to be a unanimous decision. Only 5 of 6 jurors must decide if a preponderance of evidence suggests in the plaintiffs favor. Criminal must be unanimous and the standard of proof is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Different standards, moron. Thanks for putting your self portrait up for all to see.Maybe reading comprehension is something you need to learn:
Yet a judge and jury found just the opposite. Did you study the court case or just made stuff up yet again?
Guilty is guilty. He may never pay the settlement but he can't be happy about the cost of his lawyers. Justice of a sort. And we still don't know if it is him paying his lawyers or his donors.Civil case with a judge that should have been recused and it does not have to be a unanimous decision. Only 5 of 6 jurors must decide if a preponderance of evidence suggests in the plaintiffs favor. Criminal must be unanimous and the standard of proof is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Different standards, moron. Thanks for putting your self portrait up for all to see.
The result of a civil trial is not guilt moron. Maybe you should climb out of the basement of that shithouse and learn about things you comment on before you make a complete fool of yourself. As for who pays for his defense--maybe it was pro bono. Maybe his donors paid for it, it is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is who is the money behind bringing a civil suit that he has to defend. I visualize Trump getting some major awards to cover the cost of his defense when all of these political prosecutions come up empty handed.Guilty is guilty. He may never pay the settlement but he can't be happy about the cost of his lawyers. Justice of a sort. And we still don't know if it is him paying his lawyers or his donors.
I think it is fair to say the jury found him guilty of sexual abuse and awarded Carroll $5 million in damages. You can call it whatever legal term you wish but to my way of thinking, he was found guilty.The result of a civil trial is not guilt moron. Maybe you should climb out of the basement of that shithouse and learn about things you comment on before you make a complete fool of yourself. As for who pays for his defense--maybe it was pro bono. Maybe his donors paid for it, it is irrelevant. What is not irrelevant is who is the money behind bringing a civil suit that he has to defend. I visualize Trump getting some major awards to cover the cost of his defense when all of these political prosecutions come up empty handed.
You think wrong. The biased NY jury found him LIABLE for sexual abuse with no evidence. The leftist judge interjected her own opinion which also influenced the jury. It was a he said she said that would not stand the test of a criminal charge because there was no evidence. Likely that she'll never see a penny.I think it is fair to say the jury found him guilty of sexual abuse
Yet another conspiracy to undermine the noble Trump. I'm sure the other 25 women who accused him of sexual misconduct were lying and he only settled a couple of the cases because he felt sorry for his accusers.You think wrong. The biased NY jury found him LIABLE for sexual abuse with no evidence. The leftist judge interjected her own opinion which also influenced the jury. It was a he said she said that would not stand the test of a criminal charge because there was no evidence. Likely that she'll never see a penny.
LINKIEYet another conspiracy to undermine the noble Trump. I'm sure the other 25 women who accused him of sexual misconduct were lying and he only settled a couple of the cases because he felt sorry for his accusers.
Apparently they had even less than no evidence or they would be cashing in too, don't you think?
You should read the Fox article, it explains how hard it is to win such a case and why so many women are afraid to come forward. Despite all that, Carroll won her case.Apparently they had even less than no evidence or they would be cashing in too, don't you think?
Yeah, run with that one.You should read the Fox article, it explains how hard it is to win such a case and why so many women are afraid to come forward. Despite all that, Carroll won her case.