Danderman123 Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 43 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: This was a Federal trial in District Court, S.D. New York. You are correct, I mixed up the 2 trials in NY. Because it's a Federal case, appeals will decide legal issues, not the facts of the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted January 22 Share Posted January 22 3 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: You are correct, I mixed up the 2 trials in NY. Because it's a Federal case, appeals will decide legal issues, not the facts of the case. Yes. And the legal issues, among others, are whether the Judge complied with Federal rules of procedure and evidence, as well as precedent judgments in similar cases, in allowing or disallowing certain evidence to be presented in the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 8 hours ago, Danderman123 said: Deflection from this case. You brought it up, now you're claiming deflection. That's hilarious. And from a guy that has a whole thread going about how many women he pays for sex, and how stupid they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 8 hours ago, Danderman123 said: So, you think gogo dancers and random ladies in a department store are the same? You start the discourse by "quoting" Trump claiming than when you are a celebrity, women let you have sex with them, now, because you (being a leftist) care nothing about the truth want to switch up to some nonsense about a department store. But yes, I don't see guys (like you) going to go-go and playing with bar girls significantly different morally from celebrities that play with the women that want to play. Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said: Yes. And the legal issues, among others, are whether the Judge complied with Federal rules of procedure and evidence, as well as precedent judgments in similar cases, in allowing or disallowing certain evidence to be presented in the case. You are correct. But Trump's protestations of innocence will not help his appeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: You start the discourse by "quoting" Trump claiming than when you are a celebrity, women let you have sex with them, now, because you (being a leftist) care nothing about the truth want to switch up to some nonsense about a department store. But yes, I don't see guys (like you) going to go-go and playing with bar girls significantly different morally from celebrities that play with the women that want to play. Do you? The word you are searching for is "consent". 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: You are correct. But Trump's protestations of innocence will not help his appeal. Trump doesn't have to prove he is innocent. Only that the case finding him liable was faulty. And the case is and will further likely be exclusively in written form to a judge panel. Edited January 23 by jerrymahoney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 16 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: The word you are searching for is "consent". You pay bargirls for their consent but condemn celebrities that get it for free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danderman123 Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 21 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: You pay bargirls for their consent but condemn celebrities that get it for free. Do you think you can defend Trump by misleading people? You are gaslighting people here by the implication that she consented. Trump is on trial precisely because he assaulted Ms. Carroll - she certainly didn't give consent. What's stupid about your consent implication is that you are trying to have it both ways: He didn't do it, but if he did, she consented. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 9 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: Trump is on trial precisely because he assaulted Ms. Carroll - she certainly didn't give consent. Just out of curiosity, what year did that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 36 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: You pay bargirls for their consent but condemn celebrities that get it for free. Evidence to back up your slur? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, Danderman123 said: Do you think you can defend Trump by misleading people? You are gaslighting people here by the implication that she consented. Trump is on trial precisely because he assaulted Ms. Carroll - she certainly didn't give consent. What's stupid about your consent implication is that you are trying to have it both ways: He didn't do it, but if he did, she consented. You brought up the old Trump "quote" about celebrities being able to enjoy consensual sex with women, and you have continually tried to imply it makes him a rapist. So according to you, it's not okay that Trump bragged about women wanting to have sex with him, but it is okay for you to brag about having sex with bargirls. At least the women Trump was talking about wanted to have sex with him. The only reason the women you brag about having sex with have sex with you is because they need the money. Then after you pay them to have sex with you, you ridicule and laugh at them. Real classy you are. Now here you are claiming the moral high ground. Typical leftist. Again, I support capital punishment for rape, and if Trump forcibly raped that woman, I would like to see him executed. I don't know how I could be clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Trump’s lawyer has been exposed to COVID. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4421484-e-jean-carroll-trial-trump-lawyers-covid/amp/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 23 Share Posted January 23 Last Tuesday Trump went on a rant fest against Carroll, posting online attacks through the wee hours of the night. Carroll’s lawyers promptly entered those posts in court as evidence of yet more defamation of Carroll by Trump. Trump was back at it yesterday, posting over 40 times in an hour, and once again Carroll was the focus of his unhinged ranting. Look out for these attacks by Trump to also be entered as evidence against him. https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2024/01/22/trump-attacks-e-jean-carroll-in-more-than-40-posts-on-truth-social/amp/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 While it would seem to me Mr. Trump would be best served by staying quiet and hush-hush, I can surmise that he doesn't think it makes any difference. That because he's putting all his marbles on the appeal of the NY State sexual victims 2022 case and, if successful in having the verdict overturned even on sexual assault, he can have all the defamation cases thrown out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said: While it would seem to me Mr. Trump would be best served by staying quiet and hush-hush, I can surmise that he doesn't think it makes any difference. That because he's putting all his marbles on the appeal of the NY State sexual victims 2022 case and, if successful in having the verdict overturned even on sexual assault, he can have all the defamation cases thrown out. And if he fails Carroll becomes a rich lady at his expense. He’s not fighting for the money, he’s lashing out at a woman who has the temerity to stand up to him and defend herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVENKEEL Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: And if he fails Carroll becomes a rich lady at his expense. He’s not fighting for the money, he’s lashing out at a woman who has the temerity to stand up to him and defend herself. You don't really believe your own words, do you? Good one..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 4 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said: You don't really believe your own words, do you? Good one..... The facts of what’s in the line are evident. Trump’s history of directing his venom at women who have the temerity to stand up to him is a matter of record. And Carroll is definitely facing him down, as he stays up nights ranting against her. Edited January 25 by Chomper Higgot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said: And if he fails Carroll becomes a rich lady at his expense. As it stands now, she is already set to be a rich lady at his expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tug Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: As it stands now, she is already set to be a rich lady at his expense. And she’s a fixing to get richer!old Donnie needs to learn to shut up! Lmao 🤣 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Tug said: And she’s a fixing to get richer!old Donnie needs to learn to shut up! Lmao 🤣 She (and her lawyers) have 5 million in the bank already and the current case per Judge Kaplan's instructions is only to determine the amount of financial damage as Trump has already been found liable in the first verdict. The Carroll response to the Trump appeal brief is due 16 FEB 2024. E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer: Trump has ‘no legitimate arguments’ for appeal “I rarely feel more confident about an appeal than I do on this one,” said Robbie Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer. Updated: 05/10/2023 10:18 AM EDT E. Jean Carroll’s legal team says they’re confident that any appeal from former President Donald Trump has “no legitimate argument” after a jury found him liable of sexually abusing and defaming the writer on Tuesday. “I’ve rarely felt more confident about an appeal than I do about this one,” said Robbie Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer, on NBC’s “Today” Wednesday morning. “They have no legitimate arguments for appeal.” https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/e-jean-carroll-kaplan-trump-appeal-00096183 Edited January 25 by jerrymahoney 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placeholder Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) On 1/23/2024 at 8:58 AM, impulse said: Just out of curiosity, what year did that happen? Carroll, 79, alleged that Trump raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman department store across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan some time in 1996 https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-president-trump-biggest-problem-e-jean-carroll-case-did-not-testify Edited January 25 by metisdead Oversize font reset to normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 hours ago, placeholder said: Carroll, 79, alleged that Trump raped her at the Bergdorf Goodman department store across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan some time in 1996 https://www.foxnews.com/media/jonathan-turley-president-trump-biggest-problem-e-jean-carroll-case-did-not-testify The original complaint filed 04 NOV 2019 states: 2. Roughly 23 years ago ... The second complaint filed under the NY State Victims Act 24 NOV 2022 states: 1. Roughly 27 years ago But even given the Fox report date, what was the defense supposed to ask of Trump: Where were you in 1996? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, jerrymahoney said: But even given the Fox report date, what was the defense supposed to ask of Trump: Where were you in 1996? Trump’s lawyers were supposed to at least try to do a better job than Carroll’s lawyers. Trump was supposed to at least try to be more credible than Carro. Trump failed on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said: Trump’s lawyers were supposed to at least try to do a better job than Carroll’s lawyers. Trump was supposed to at least try to be more credible than Carro. Trump failed on both counts. In the first count, would that not be Trump's lawyers fail? Just sayin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 11 minutes ago, Yellowtail said: In the first count, would that not be Trump's lawyers fail? Just sayin' Nevertheless Trump lost the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said: Nevertheless Trump lost the case. But you were wrong and or lying when you said Trump failed on both counts when he only failed on one. It was his lawyers that failed on one. Just trying to keep it honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Yellowtail said: But you were wrong and or lying when you said Trump failed on both counts when he only failed on one. It was his lawyers that failed on one. Just trying to keep it honest. No I wasn’t. Trump’s lawyers were representing him in court, their failure is his failure. Give it up, you are embarrassing yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerrymahoney Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Trump lost one of the first rounds and will likely lose the second. Then it's round two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chomper Higgot Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said: Trump lost one of the first rounds and will likely lose the second. Then it's round two. His continued defamation of Carroll, often rabidly ranting against her online into the wee hours of the night will almost certainly ensure the very best outcome for Carroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now