Jump to content

Federal Jury Orders Donald Trump to Pay $83.3 Million in Defamation Case


Social Media

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

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.

 

Tend to agree, If he gets back in office it will be the haters and mud throwers that put hime there. 

 

Don't like the bloke much but I have observed how fickle the American voters can be.  There are a lot of them who get star struck at voting time.

The best way to stop his second term would be to field a better candidate than Bidden at the next election. Is that even possible ?

 

Reminds me of how Boris Johnson got into office. Won by default.  Even staunch Lavor voters didn't fancy having Corbyn in the countries driving seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Star struck? It's Republicans who are star struck, Trump is a reality TV star,

 

Exactly.  Well spotted. After all, you would not expect a  die hard Democrat to volte face and vote for Trump !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Absolutely!  At the time of the crime.  Complete medical examination, police report immediately.  DNA samples of both.

 

Not 30 years, I repeat, not 30 years later! 
 

And I don’t buy into the BS that Trump and his lawyers are so powerful against that woman.  


No more/less  powerful today than they were 30, repeat 30 years ago.


Classic example Gold digging 101.

  • Confused 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

Star struck? It's Republicans who are star struck, Trump is a reality TV star, that's his name recognition. Biden got there because 40 years in the senate. Dems aren't so interested in personality politics, they tend to vote the issues. Republicans can't elucidate the issues because they all get back to racism so they need to rely on famous racists who dog whistle their intentions.

40 years in the Senate is nothing to be proud of.  Especially when he’s accomplished nothing.
 

 

  • Confused 3
  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Absolutely!  At the time of the crime.  Complete medical examination, police report immediately.  DNA samples of both.

 

Not 30 years, I repeat, not 30 years later! 
 

And I don’t buy into the BS that Trump and his lawyers are so powerful against that woman.  


No more/less  powerful today than they were 30, repeat 30 years ago.


Classic example Gold digging 101.

And what about the likely backlash of vile name-calling and victim-blaming, that you have demonstrated here and that from your family, friends and the community with a similar penchant?

 

Could you show enough empathy, compassion and restraint to accept their deeply personal decision which can be influenced by many factors, including fear of not being believed, shame, and trauma. 

Sadly, any empathy, compassion and restraint has not been evident here.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LosLobo said:

Will you give your loved one your advice about a speedy report along with your opinion that perpetrators are 'victimised', as you have done in your response here?

Saying the assailant is a victim, is a blatant form of victim-blaming and I would suggest that your loved one may then never report the attack as brave E. Jean Carroll did.

 

Brave???  30 years ago perhaps 

  • Confused 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

And what about the likely backlash of vile name-calling and victim-blaming, that you have demonstrated here and that from your family, friends and the community with a similar penchant?

 

Could you show enough empathy, compassion and restraint to accept their deeply personal decision which can be influenced by many factors, including fear of not being believed, shame, and trauma. 

Sadly, any empathy, compassion and restraint has not been evident here.

 


I’ll go hug a tree!  

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump rape accuser E. Jean Carroll says it would be disrespectful to the women being 'raped around the clock' at the border if she filed criminal charges against the president

 

UPDATED: 07:53 GMT, 24 June 2019

 

E. Jean Carroll appeared on The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell to share her story on Friday night, detailing once more the allegations she had published earlier in the day in New York.

 

But  when asked if she planned to press charges, Carroll quickly said no because it would be disrespectful to the young migrant women crossing the border.

 

 'I would find it disrespectful to the women down on the border who are being raped around the clock down there without any protection,' said Carroll.

 

'They're young women. These women have very little protection there and it would just be disrespectful.' ...

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7172145/E-Jean-Carroll-not-file-rape-charges-against-President-Trump-respect-migrant-women.html

 

 

 


A martyr to boot!  
 

Is a statue being recommend similar to George Floyd, the patron saint of fentanyl.

 

Jean-Carroll, the patron saint of illegal alien women.

  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Smarter people than you on the juries believed her. The judge believed her.

 

I don't guess you've ever served on a jury...  The standing joke is that you don't stand a chance, 'cause all the smart people figure out how to get out of jury duty.  Which I did for 64 years.  Then after I retired, I was called up and I answered the call.  I had nothing else on my schedule.  Pretty much confirmed.   The joke's true.

 

If she doesn't even remember the year that it happened, how does she remember it was Trump?  And it wasn't consensual?

 

 

  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
  • Love It 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point what does  he have to lose ?  So far between all the cases he has lost he owes a lot more than he is worth. His previous lawyers left him because he was not paying them, the lawyer in this case knows she is not getting paid, and is doing this to make a name for herself,.

The problem is that she did :laugh: 

Tired of winning yet? :cheesy:

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Mr Trump,

You would be very wise to avoid any legal advice proffered here by the AN legal eagles.

 

It can't be any worse than Habba's advice. Staring with failure to ask for a jury trial.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ozimoron said:
12 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Where has that been confirmed as factual?

 

https://www.salon.com/2021/02/02/trumps-lawyers-quit-after-he-refused-to-pay-3m-in-legal-fees-despite-raising-170m-report/

Nothing in that link confirms it as factual that he "did not pay his lawyers", as sirineou claimed.   It is a speculative report alleging certain things, that's all but does suggest that he did pay a $1m negotiated fee to the lawyers in question.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

It can't be any worse than Habba's advice. Staring with failure to ask for a jury trial.

 

If I were that clueless and biased, I'd be so embarrassed that I'd try to educate myself.

 

A Manhattan judge said Wednesday there was no option for former President Donald Trump to have a jury trial in the $250 million civil fraud case against him.

 

“We are having a non-jury trial because we are hearing a non-jury case,” Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron said at the seventh day of trial against Trump, according to ABC News.

     --Judge says there was no option for jury in Trump’s fraud case: ‘Nobody forgot to check off a box’

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Good info.  Thanks for that because I have a hard time searching where Google is blocked.

 

Leaving Trump aside, that should scare the beejeezus out of any successful guy that has a jilted lover (or crazy stranger) in their past.  Arbitrarily opening up a yearlong window to extend the statute of limitation...  Especially if you live in a liberal Dem bunghole where the typical jury believes whatever comes out of a woman's mouth, and relishes every opportunity to stick it to the man.

 

Now, back to Trump...  It's a shame those 3700 guys got caught up as collateral damage in this obviously partisan attempt to damage the leading opposition candidate.

 

I don’t spend much time worrying about my past catching up with me.

 

 

Edited by Chomper Higgot
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...