On 1/28/2024 at 3:27 AM, rattlesnake said:

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, your cartoon showing E. Jean Carroll today, rather than back in the day, is just stupid.

 

On 1/28/2024 at 4:10 AM, Walker88 said:

That's not the whole story. trump refused and refused, and then right before the trial date he said he would do it (maybe), but that was viewed as a delaying tactic.

 

He could have provided it right at the start. He did not.

 

It remains to be seen if he would ever have actually offered it, or if it would become like his tax returns and college transcript. Any day now....really....sure....soon....I promise

 

 

UPDATED WED, FEB 15 202311:52 AM EST

 

The judge noted that Carroll would not be entitled now to get a DNA sample from Trump, because the process of exchanging evidence, known as discovery, is completed.

 

“Her counsel have had plenty of opportunities in both of the two related cases to move to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample,” Kaplan wrote. “Had they done so, they almost certainly would have gotten it. But Ms. Carroll’s counsel never moved to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample. They obviously decided to go to trial without it.”

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/judge-rejects-trump-offer-of-dna-sample-in-carroll-rape-defamation-case.html

 

38 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Trump did offer to provide a DNA sample, but the Judge rejected the offer 

Trimp's team offered a sample well after the deadline, in an attempt to delay the trial. But they never actually provided the sample.

On 1/27/2024 at 11:47 PM, Walker88 said:

True.

 

He's a convicted sex offender, though that's hardly anything of which to be proud.

 

It means he must register with local police wherever he lives as a "Sex Offender".

 

"Hi, my name is donny. I'm a sex offender and I live at Mar-a-Lago"

Registering as a Sex Offender in Florida
If you have been convicted of a sexual felony in the state of Florida, you will be required to register as a sex offender. This mandate is just one way that the state of Florida protects families and innocent children from any sexual predators.

 

https://www.muscalaw.com/criminal-defense/sex-crimes/registration-as-a-sex-offender

 

As for the National sex offender registry:

 

IV. COVERED SEX OFFENSES AND SEX OFFENDERS
SORNA refers to the persons required to register under its standards as “sex offenders,” and section 111(1) of SORNA defines “sex offender” in the relevant sense to mean “an
individual who was convicted of a sex offense.”

 

https://smart.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh231/files/media/document/final_sornaguidelines.pdf

Trump's team was so shocked by the verdict that they haven't gotten around to generating the usual talking points.

 

So, our Trump fluffers are flailing away with no direction.

 

The question is whether the verdict will shut Trump up.

46 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Maybe he couldn't get a stiffy and so was unable to provide a DNA sample ?

Wow.

 

Without your talking points, you guys really have nothing.

 

Trump got hit with an $83 million verdict, and he and his team are out to lunch, no response. Wait until Judge Engeron delivers his verdict next week.

 

Trump is going to be in a state of depression.

 

So, how much are you going to donate to the Trump legal defense fund? I hear Ms. Habba needs more botox.

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Maga snowflakes melt into maga tears. I can probably surf on them soon.

 

By the way, if trump was innocent, he could have squelched the whole thing by providing a DNA sample. Ms Carroll has the dress she wore when trump sexually assaulted her (trump was convicted of that in a civil trial), and has not laundered it.

 

Had trump offered up a sample, and if it did not match the stains on the dress, Ms Carroll would have been greatly discredited and a jury, listening to a "He said, she said" trial, would likely have been hung.

 

Perhaps the reason trump refused to provide a sample is because Ms Carroll told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

 

 

E. Jean Carroll cannot even remember what year she was supposedly "raped." What's left of the US justice system is a a political apparatus worthy of Soviet Russia.

On 1/28/2024 at 4:36 AM, Danderman123 said:

Of course, your cartoon showing E. Jean Carroll today, rather than back in the day, is just stupid.

 

 

"They" means the political and media establishment, not Danderman123.

Congrats to the users of this forum for their relentless wishful thinking and unwavering faith in a Trump imprisonment and disappearance, year after year.

 

A few amusing reminders from 2018 and 2020 below.

 

 

11 hours ago, placeholder said:

It's one thing not to believe her story, it's quite another to impute the desire to attack Trump being behind the passage of that law. You've got nothing.

 

If the Democratic controlled NY congress and Guv'ner hadn't signed the magic limited extension period into law, this lawsuit couldn't have happened.   Nor the rape case.

 

And no.  I don't believe her.  Filing a lawsuit almost 30 years later for a rape that she can't even remember what year it happened.  In a public place, where all she had to do at the time was find store security to report it.  Not to mention all the "Me Too" cases that have been shut down when CCTV video showed the woman to be a very willing participant that just changed her mind later.

 

The case stinks of lawfare and election interference and money grubbing, on several levels.  Even if it wasn't Trump in the dock.

 

2 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

 

UPDATED WED, FEB 15 202311:52 AM EST

 

The judge noted that Carroll would not be entitled now to get a DNA sample from Trump, because the process of exchanging evidence, known as discovery, is completed.

 

“Her counsel have had plenty of opportunities in both of the two related cases to move to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample,” Kaplan wrote. “Had they done so, they almost certainly would have gotten it. But Ms. Carroll’s counsel never moved to compel Mr. Trump to submit a DNA sample. They obviously decided to go to trial without it.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/15/judge-rejects-trump-offer-of-dna-sample-in-carroll-rape-defamation-case.html

 

Which in a civil trial is a smart strategy.

 

The case is settled on which party the Jury believes to be the most credible.

 

Trump’s refusal to provide a sample is an example of raising doubts about the credibility of his defense.

 

Unlike a criminal case, in a civil case the jury cans draw inference from either party refusing to cooperate or provide disclosure, in common parlance ‘if he were innocent he would have cooperated’.

 

Smart work by Carroll and her legal team, characteristically dumb work by Trump and his lawyers.

52 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Congrats to the users of this forum for their relentless wishful thinking and unwavering faith in a Trump imprisonment and disappearance, year after year.

 

A few amusing reminders from 2018 and 2020 below.

 

 

Clutch those straws if they bring you comfort.

 

Remember, past performance is no guarantee of future returns.

17 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If the Democratic controlled NY congress and Guv'ner hadn't signed the magic limited extension period into law, this lawsuit couldn't have happened.   Nor the rape case.

 

And no.  I don't believe her.  Filing a lawsuit almost 30 years later for a rape that she can't even remember what year it happened.  In a public place, where all she had to do at the time was find store security to report it.  Not to mention all the "Me Too" cases that have been shut down when CCTV video showed the woman to be a very willing participant that just changed her mind later.

 

The case stinks of lawfare and election interference and money grubbing, on several levels.  Even if it wasn't Trump in the dock.

 

In the subject of ‘money grubbing’ has Trump started using this ruling against him to fleece his supporters yet?

 

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Unlike a criminal case, in a civil case the jury cans draw inference from either party refusing to cooperate or provide disclosure, in common parlance ‘if he were innocent he would have cooperated’.

On February 15 Judge Kaplan dismissed Trump's offer as an out-of-line delay tactic. Further, the judge argued that the presence of Trump's DNA would not conclusively prove whether a rape occurred as no sperm was detected. In late March, the judge prohibited any mention of DNA evidence at the trial.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

In the subject of ‘money grubbing’ has Trump started using this ruling against him to fleece his supporters yet?

 

If he does, it's a legal and voluntary transaction between consenting parties.  Got a problem with that?

 

11 hours ago, Walker88 said:

I'll tell you:

 

The US is in great shape (save for the violence prone maga types who make death threats to anyone their messiah directs them toward)

 

Great economy that beats every other major industrialized nation.

 

Low unemployment.

 

Infrastructure FINALLY being fixed

 

Record job creation

 

Gas prices below $3 again and 9000 "drill ready leases" going unused, but available for anyone who wants to use them

 

Record stock market

 

Lowered prescription drug prices for the seniors who need it; insulin price slashed from $600/month to $35/month, which surely benefits the fatboy magas

 

A court system that proves NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW.

 

Institutions that stood up to trump's fascist threat and kept democracy whole

 

Looks pretty good to me.

What a joke!  But then smoking pot damages brain cells.
 

You forgot much lower crime, decreased smash and grabs, an end to pushing people in front of subways. much lower percentage of the thugs entering stores and taking anything they want.  $1000. or less, no use calling police.

Of course we can’t forget those fine citizens of BLM and Antifa that wouldn’t harm a soul, now would they.

 

Lest we not forget our fine citizens of major cities run by your Democrats.  Homeless population, tent cities flooding the landscape the likes which have never been seen in our lifetime. Why work when the Dems keep giving away freebies.

 

The list continues.
 

 

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

On February 15 Judge Kaplan dismissed Trump's offer as an out-of-line delay tactic. Further, the judge argued that the presence of Trump's DNA would not conclusively prove whether a rape occurred as no sperm was detected. In late March, the judge prohibited any mention of DNA evidence at the trial.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

Just one example, among many, of the judge being extremely and overtly fair to Trump.

6 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

On February 15 Judge Kaplan dismissed Trump's offer as an out-of-line delay tactic. Further, the judge argued that the presence of Trump's DNA would not conclusively prove whether a rape occurred as no sperm was detected. In late March, the judge prohibited any mention of DNA evidence at the trial.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump

Because DNA would have cleared Trump.  Then the politically motivated kangaroo court would have to drop charges 🦯

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

If he does, it's a legal and voluntary transaction between consenting parties.  Got a problem with that?

 

Don’t get me wrong, grifters extorting money from their marks is often legal, or in the dark grey shadows of legality.

 

It’s not the legality I’m referring to but Trump’s habit of grifting, his marks’ willingness to be conned and the obvious question ’why does a billionaire need to beg money off anyone?’

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Unlike a criminal case, in a civil case the jury cans draw inference from either party refusing to cooperate or provide disclosure, in common parlance ‘if he were innocent he would have cooperated’.

Only a fool cooperates with the authorities!

4 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Only a fool cooperates with the authorities!

I take it that’s you not renewing your visa next year then.

I think Trump needs to pull a Jimmy Swaggart. Might help him bounce back. The punters love a reformed sinner.

 

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

If the Democratic controlled NY congress and Guv'ner hadn't signed the magic limited extension period into law, this lawsuit couldn't have happened.   Nor the rape case.

 

And no.  I don't believe her.  Filing a lawsuit almost 30 years later for a rape that she can't even remember what year it happened.  In a public place, where all she had to do at the time was find store security to report it.  Not to mention all the "Me Too" cases that have been shut down when CCTV video showed the woman to be a very willing participant that just changed her mind later.

 

The case stinks of lawfare and election interference and money grubbing, on several levels.  Even if it wasn't Trump in the dock.

 

You don't seem to understand that this trial is about defamation.

 

Trump couldn't understand that the first trial was over, and he lost. So, he kept yammering about Ms. Carroll, which provoked this second trial. Where the question was defamation, not rape.

 

The Trump fluffers can't address the defamation issue, because their talking points are all from the first trial, where the issue was sexual assault.

 

Your talking points never got updated.

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Only a fool cooperates with the authorities!

I always cooperate with the authorities, when asked.

Just now, Danderman123 said:

I always cooperate with the authorities, when asked.

 

Unless you're guilty of course.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Just one example, among many, of the judge being extremely and overtly fair to Trump.

The motion to exclude DNA came from Carroll, not Trump.

*****

While DNA evidence was thrown out of the case, Trump's lawyers continued to fight for the chance to question Carroll about her comments insinuating she had DNA evidence to prove her sexual-assault claim.

 

In 2021, Carroll tweeted about Trump's mounting legal issues, writing, "Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan District Attorney, has Trump's taxes. Fani Willis, the Georgia Prosecutor, has Trump's phone call. Mary Trump has her grandfather's will. And I have the dress. Trump is basically in deep <deleted>."

 

She also acknowledged in her deposition that she publicly claimed to have Trump's DNA.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-rape-case-lawyers-banned-from-speaking-about-dna-judge-rules-2023-3

 

Edited January 28, 20242 yr by jerrymahoney

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

You don't seem to understand that this trial is about defamation.

 

Absolutely, I do.  But without the rape case, this was a $500,000 defamation suit.  If that.  Which she filed and withdrew before the rape case.

 

The rape case being enabled by a Democrat change in the statute of limitation that allowed the case to be filed, more than 25 years later.  (we don't know how many years because she can't even recall the year it happened).  And now, that time window is conveniently closed.  What are the odds that the window was contrived for the specific purpose of harming the leading opposition candidate?

 

Just out of curiosity, how many other cases proceeded during that time window?  Or was it just Trumps?

 

9 hours ago, G_Money said:

 

 

If someone you care about, like your mother, wife, or daughter, was sexually assaulted, would you advise her to report it and bring accountability to the perpetrator?

 

Reporting could potentially prevent another person from becoming a victim.

 

Or, would you discourage her from reporting due to the likely backlash of vile name-calling and victim-blaming, that you have demonstrated?

Perhaps your attitude could influence the length of time it takes for the victim to muster enough courage to disregard individuals who share your viewpoint.

 

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Just out of curiosity, how many other cases proceeded during that time window?  Or was it just Trumps?

 

Apart from stoking your grievance, why does it matter?

8 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

If someone you care about, like your mother, wife, or daughter, was sexually assaulted, would you advise her to report it and bring accountability to the perpetrator?

 

Reporting could potentially prevent another person from becoming a victim.

 

Or, would you discourage her from reporting due to the likely backlash of vile name-calling and victim-blaming, that you have demonstrated?

Perhaps your attitude would impact how long before the victim summoned up enough courage to ignore people like yourself.

I'd encourage them to report it in time for DNA evidence, photos of injuries and witness statements to be taken (let's be generous 2 weeks).

25+ years later when they can't even put a firm date on their accusations, not so much.

 

As for defamation, she's a nobody, $500 fine at most.

Doesn't really matter as when he's elected President, he'll just pardon himself.

And the more he's victimised, the more votes he will get from normal citizens.

Edited January 28, 20242 yr by BritManToo