Damn, I mean just damn. trump just slandered Carroll again.

[Leo123]

Agreed. She's a gold digging whore. But that's got nothing to do with Trumps defamation. He really should just shut up about it. He gains nothing by bringing it up.

I think he gains respect by not rolling over to a gold digging old whore.

 

[Rigby5]

How long before Trump runs out of money to pay his legal claims?

That is the bad part, in that obviously these 91 charges, lawsuits, and fines, are clearly an attempt to prevent an honest election.
THAT is the only "insurrection" in the last hundred years.
Protesting at the capital can't have been an insurrection because the inauguration was still 2 weeks aways. So they would have had to have been prepared for a 2 week occupation before they could have interfered with the election.

 

[Leo123]

The GOP wasn't going to win the Senate anyways.

I'm not siding with the left on this, because the left is retarded now days. But the funny part about the GOP not winning the senate is that it's going to destroy Trumps revenge fantasy. He won't be able to get any of his first picks passed the confirmation process. The left will block anyone that might be even the least bit loyal to him.

Do you have proof Trump has a 'revenge fantasy?' Seems to me, the left want to falsely project that notion because, if Trump gets elected and he starts reinstating his prior EOs (especially on fossil fuels) they will have a 'history' of that false claim to once again denigrate him.

 

[Rigby5]

Since when does a Jury in the USA require "proof" ??
Neither does Trump nor his crowed need proof, to forward unsubstantiated and false claims, towards an election having been rigged.

If a jury returns a verdict without proof, the appeals are supposed to annul it.

 

[Leo123]

That is the bad part, in that obviously these 91 charges, lawsuits, and fines, are clearly an attempt to prevent an honest election.
THAT is the only "insurrection" in the last hundred years.
Protesting at the capital can't have been an insurrection because the inauguration was still 2 weeks aways. So they would have had to have been prepared for a 2 week occupation before they could have interfered with the election.

Yeah, another reason no one was ever charged with insurrection.

 

[Rigby5]

Are you kidding? You know he's already lost twice here, right?

How Trump could possibly have lost is impossible to image except a very biased jury.
Jean Carroll offered to model lingerie, which requires getting naked in private.
Now who is going to do that unless they are interested in sex?

 

[Kruska]

If a jury returns a verdict without proof, the appeals are supposed to annul it.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove each and every charge beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every time. There is no partial credit for the prosecution! Usually, a deadlocked jury is not sent back to deliberate further more than once or twice. If jurors cannot reach a consensus, at some point the judge will declare a mistrial.

And the Jury in the Carroll's case, reached an unanimous decision. - that Trump is guilty

 

[Care4all]

I doubt God listens to me.

Of course he does! So, be careful of what you say and ask for....!!!

 

[Leo123]

Since when does a Jury in the USA require "proof" ??
Neither does Trump nor his crowed need proof, to forward unsubstantiated and false claims, towards an election having been rigged.

The claims were never determined to be false. Trump's cases were declared to have lacked standing. They were not rejected on lack of merit, in fact, they didn't even look at his cases. They were not rejected for lack of evidence.

 

[Leo123]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove each and every charge beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every time. There is no partial credit for the prosecution! Usually, a deadlocked jury is not sent back to deliberate further more than once or twice. If jurors cannot reach a consensus, at some point the judge will declare a mistrial.

And the Jury in the Carroll's case, reached an unanimous decision. - that Trump is guilty

No, Trump was not found 'guilty' he was found liable to pay her money, that's it.

 

[YoursTruly]

Of course he does! So, be careful of what you say and ask for....!!!

Well, that ship sailed a long time ago.

 

[YoursTruly]

Do you have proof Trump has a 'revenge fantasy?' Seems to me, the left want to falsely project that notion because, if Trump gets elected and he starts reinstating his prior EOs (especially on fossil fuels) they will have a 'history' of that false claim to once again denigrate him.

Do I have proof? That's a retarded question. just listen to any of Trumps speeches.

 

[Care4all]

Well, that ship sailed a long time ago.

Well, I thought it sailed long ago for me too! But surprisingly, God had other plans, and shockingly, He won!

 

[Rigby5]

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove each and every charge beyond a reasonable doubt, each and every time. There is no partial credit for the prosecution! Usually, a deadlocked jury is not sent back to deliberate further more than once or twice. If jurors cannot reach a consensus, at some point the judge will declare a mistrial.

And the Jury in the Carroll's case, reached an unanimous decision. - that Trump is guilty

But obviously without any proof.
No proof was presented, and no proof is possible after 30 years.
In fact, waiting 30 years if proof there was not criminal conduct by Trump.
For it would be illegal and irresponsible for a person to not report a sexual assault, because it would allow the person to continue to harm victims.

So then the only possibility left is that the jury had to be badly biased and selected a verdict based on personal emotions instead of the evidence.

 

[Care4all]

But obviously without any proof.
No proof was presented, and no proof is possible after 30 years.
In fact, waiting 30 years if proof there was not criminal conduct by Trump.
For it would be illegal and irresponsible for a person to not report a sexual assault, because it would allow the person to continue to harm victims.

So then the only possibility left is that the jury had to be badly biased and selected a verdict based on personal emotions instead of the evidence.

The suit was for defamation against Trump for his comments, not for sexual assault or rape.....but....in order for the jury to decide on Trump's defamation or not, they had to determine if she was sexually assaulted by Trump, or not.

This was not a criminal trial for sexual assault, so the jury was not required to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they only needed a preponderance of evidence that showed he was more likely than not, guilty of sexually assaulting, thus guilty of the defamation.

 

[forkup]

Are you aware that Trump WAS PREVENTED FROM PROVING THAT THE ACCUSATION WAS FALSE? Ever since Trump became a public figure (and vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits) he has kept a detailed journal of where he is and whom he interacts with at all times. By NOT EVEN REMEMBERING THE YEAR when this episode supposedly took place, Trump was prevented from proving that he was not even there. This was planned by the plaintiff's team, on instructions from outside.

How else could such a bizarre accusation be disproven? Not possible.

I wasn't aware. Probably has something to do with the fact that you either don't know what you're talking about, or don't care if what you say is true.

Trump was allowed to prove the accusation were false. At the first trial. He didn't, and so a jury decided him liable for sexual assault.

After a jury decides something you can't just try to relitigate it in front of another it's akin to double Jeopardy and is called What is estoppel? What is collateral estoppel? - Ask a Law Librarian .

As to not remembering a year of a traumatic event. It's not uncommon. When I was 12 or 13, about 30 years ago, I was put in the position to have to perform a Heimlich on my Grandmother. I know I was around that age because I remember the school year it happened. Can't tell you if it happened before or after Christmas. I don't know the year my grandfather died just an approximation this because I remember where I was working at the time.

The point is this. Events, even traumatic ones can be both clear, and yet have certain information get lost in time. Including the year it actually happened. Think back at something traumatic that happened around thirty or even twenty years ago and then tell me you're certain about the year?

 

[billyerock123]

How flipping stupid do you have to be? I mean, seriously?



New lawsuit incoming!!

her lawyer is filing suit against him again ... what is that definition of insane ... keep doing something then do it again ...hum, now who is suffering from dementia ...forgot he can't say these things ... or still thinks he's immune

 

[DBA]

Tough shit. Your opinion means less than nothing. A jury already decided. If you don't like that, maybe Russia is the place for you.

The ONLY place he could have lost this case was in NYC. There is a reason L. James didn’t allow her case to leave the city. It has both a totally corrupt judiciary and a very biased jury base.

Let’s see how his cases in Ga go, though a corrupt DA doens’t help there either.

 

[DBA]

Weird! I look at what the rest of us call "reailty", where a jury was unanimously convinced otherwise.

Then I wonder how to square your post with reality.

Either the judge and the lawyers and the jury are corrupt criminals...


... or you just don't know what the hell you are talking about...


Hmm, tough call.

Are we to believe that if the TDS folks on this message board were on the jury they would NOT find him guilty…of anything? PLEASE. No amount of proof or logic can convince any of them of anything that benefits Trump. EVER. What we see on this message board every day is very much indicative of a potential jury in NYC.

 

[Care4all]

Are we to believe that if the TDS folks on this message board were on the jury they would NOT find him guilty…of anything? PLEASE. No amount of proof or logic can convince any of them of anything that benefits Trump. EVER. What we see on this message board every day is very much indicative of a potential jury in NYC.

Nope! None of us would be picked as a juror in this case! We are too partisan and would be rejected!