Well, shit, he’s not a made guy or anything! Just an associate that made friends with them in case he ever needed business or a favor
In other words, a complete dirtbag
Political genius
- Thread starter BuilderBob6
- Start date
In other words, a complete dirtbag
You were at the trial? You heard the evidence…….or lack thereof? How do you know what evidence was presented? From one of your YouTube videos?
I was mistaken in my earlier post when I said the judge, stenographer, bailiffs, and the janitor hated trump. I forgot the jury, who also hates trump, and it was that reason alone that he was found guilty and ordered to pay damages. EVERYONE in the courtroom ignored the law, their oath, and the evidence and convicted trump anyway. They probably all met in the courthouse basement everyday before court to coordinate how they were going to screw trump.
BTW, that was sarcasm as well. For the love of God I hope you don’t think it’s true.
Trump has convinced you all the courts and everyone involved with them is gunning for him. You want to use the “isn’t it a coincidence “ excuse again?
One big omission in your post is you’re the president of the hate Trump club. Your guilty endorsement put the final conviction of Trump in this case ending 28 years of uncertainty. 😂
How the hell did he get to be president of the hate Trump club? I want that title; it’s a badge of honor. Trump has earned the complete offense that so many take because of who he is and what he stands for. As a very proud American I wretch at the thought of his character.
In order for Trump to do the type of business he wanted to do, there was going to be some inevitable confrontation with mob connected people. So, you can either fight them and have a very hard time or you can appease them and be successful. He chose the latter. There's nothing dirtbag about it. Just the reality of business in NY.
So then list the evidence. If it's so abound and convincing, give it to me. I've asked @HoosierfanJM to do so as well and so far I've received nothing.
The trial is not available as a filmed event, but the jury saw this:
Observation: Can one old man cake on orange makeup any heavier? I think not.
Lol wtf. I wasn’t there. You weren’t there. It wasn’t shown publicly (which more trials should be).
My point is that you’ve become so cynical of anybody associated with the judicial system, including a jury of peers, you believe it’s all BS…..when you haven’t seen the evidence. You just disqualify the process because trump is the defendant.
How do you know there’s no evidence when it’s not available to the public? Because trump is innocent of everything in your world. There can’t be any evidence against him. How is that remotely reasonable?
Because I know how our "justice" system works. Especially in HEAVY Democrat districts.
If there was ANY real evidence, you honestly think it wouldn't have been leaked? We have Supreme Court decisions being leaked but the most hated man by the left in a MAJOR leftist district can't leak any evidence? Right.
“Because I say so” is the last vestige of the ignorant.
And on this message board, the ultimate “I’ve been owned” for you is a smile emoji. So if you’ve been completely owned again? Hit this post with a smile emoji.
Last edited:
Just watched the whole video. Was there supposed to be something Earth shattering in there? If this is what the jury convicted on, that's a miscarriage of justice.
No, this is not the entirety of what the jury convicted on. You asked for the publicly available evidence from the case. That was it for publicly available; it's a tiny piece of the evidence.
The point being made by many is that the jury heard all of the evidence and ruled for the plaintiff. You (and I) did not learn about much of that evidence, did not evaluate the witnesses as they testified and were cross-examined, and did not hear the witnesses in the context of the questions asked..
The jury had by far the best understanding of the totality of the situation.
Last edited:
I wouldn't even call that evidence. I know a lot of guys that brag about shit that they don't do, but the do so to sound cool. It's idiotic, but there's nothing to back it up.
There can't be any other evidence other than her word. There's no video. She doesn't even know the year it happened let along the day. NOBODY that I know that has been assaulted or raped forgot the exact year, day, hour, minute that it happened.
Like I said before, exactly like the Kavanaugh accusation. In fact in that case, she tried to bring in a friend to back her up and her friend said she Kavanaugh was never there.
I cannot cite it as I sit here, but I am pretty sure there was more than one witness that stated Carroll told them back when it happened that there was a sexual assault.
So you're telling me they found someone that hates Trump just as much that they are willing to lie about it. Awesome.
Biggest evidence that this did NOT happen is that Mrs Carroll has contradicted herself and she cannot remember at all when it supposedly happened. Two major red flags of a liar.
If that were true a jury would have been extremely unlikely to have ruled in her favor.
You underestimate the power of a one sided political populace.
@HoosierfanJM Here's E. Jean Carroll in a nutshell. Her own words:Google is your friend.
Do you want to know or just bitch about it?
E. Jean Carroll said she kept quiet about assault accusation against Trump for 20 years out of "fear" of him
E. Jean Carroll has accused the former president of rape and then of defamation.www.cbsnews.com
She told Anderson Cooper in an interview how she has rape fantasies and how they are a good thing.
She has a cat named Vagina and a dog named Tits
Here are her posts on X:
"There's no such thing as a slut. Only sexual geniuses"
"How do you know your 'unwanted' sexual advances are unwanted, until you advance it?"
"It's not the most beautiful woman, no no, it's the woman who makes the least mistakes who seduces the most men"
"what can be done about the penis? It gets large when it's small and stays small when you want it large"
This lady has also claimed that 6 other people have raped her, yet she's never filed police charges against any of them.
Haven't seen those with a link, but sure seems like if those are true Trump had a shitty lawyer. "I only hire the best people!"
Also, sexually assaulting an arguably promiscuous woman is still sexual assault.
My opinion? (without being there to hear the evidence, so this is a lot of speculation). Juries sometimes aren't especially sympathetic to the victim/plaintiff, but if the defendant is in the courtroom and is completely horrific, they think of it as bad people hanging out together and take that into account.
Remember (and this is key); the sexual assault verdict was a (relatively for this defendant) small amount. The very large amount was for defamation. For that settlement the jury saw Trump trashing the woman AND THE COURT post verdict, and saw the threats to Carroll that followed.
Last edited:
Actually, it was the judge in the case that didn't allow this stuff as evidence.
Some of it was sustained upon objection, but the jury heard it and some got in. But sure, the rules of evidence were in her favor. You cannot try a victim's potential promiscuity during a sexual assault trial.
First of all, you added to your post about double the amount of the original that I laughed at. Second, I was laughing at your idea the Trump's lawyers were shitty when it was the Judge that disallowed the evidence. It was the shitty leftist Judge, not Trump's lawyers.
No worries. I was still formulating my post and edited it by the time you laughed. I agree that there was damaging stuff about the victim that was not allowed as evidence; Trump's lawyers knew that it wouldn't be allowed so they likely showed it to the jury to plant the seed even though the objection to it was sustained.
That's not always how evidence works. Do you have proof he presented it before the Jury? I haven't found anything in that regard.
In fact, I found just the opposite.
"The judge overseeing the defamation lawsuit filed against Donald Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll has rejected some evidence the former president planned to introduce during the civil trial as it was found to be "irrelevant" to the case.
Last edited:
Habba delved into a 2013 tweet where Carroll wrote, “What CAN be done about the penis? It gets large when you want it small, and stays small when you want it large.” “Those were your words, correct?” asked Habba.
“Yes,” Carroll replied. Trump's attorney continued asking, “And you posted them on a public social media account?”
“Yes.” Carroll also confirmed that the tweet remained on her Twitter account while the trial was ongoing.
While defending herself, Carroll termed the question posted by her on social media as a “philosophical question” which spoke of the dynamics of intimacy between partners. “Sometimes a woman doesn’t feel like making love and the man wants to,” Carroll said.
“You discussed penises?” queried Habba. Carroll responded, “Yes.”
https://www.wionews.com/world/what-...post-takes-centre-stage-in-trump-trial-681489
That's the tweet that was featured in that short media piece; not sure about the others, but maybe so.
However, your gripe (which I understand) is with the rules of civil procedure, not with the judge or jury. A lawyer is not allowed to bring up 'unrelated' sexual history or perceived promiscuity for a potential sexual assault victim. Trump's lawyer were well aware of that going into that trial.
The age of the complaint and totality of the evidence is probably why the bill for that trail was a relatively low $5m. The big hit was for what Trump did and said that was verifiably true; the defamation aftermath. I am quite sure that Trump got some pointed legal advice to have NO comment after the initial verdict, and he completely ignored it and paid a high price.
I'm sorry, but when someone says they have rape fantasies and they are good, that's 100% related.
Yes, Trump has a big mouth, we all know that. I'm not complaining about that. How anyone that is supposedly raped cannot know when it happened is very convenient.
The way you stated it? Seems related to me. What exactly did she say on that front?
CNN cut this portion out of their interview with her online. This was the only place I could find it.
What she said in the clip you linked is NOTHING like what you stated in your post. She said, "The word rape carries so many sexual connotations, This was not sexual. It hurt. I think most people think of rape as being sexy. They think of the fantasies." and "I don't use the word rape; I use the word fight. Sexual violence is in so many stratas in so many places. I just say it's a fight. That way I'm not the victim."
Last edited:
She could not even remember the year, showing it was a farce.
That's a convenient talking point/factual assertion by an anonymous message board poster, coupled with your conclusion.
But is that true? And is that based on the entirety of the trial evidence?
I didn't read the evidence, but wapo uses 'mid-90s', as do several other links I just looked it. Do you have info to the contrary?
Not a reliable source, but here you go (once you are done rofl about her joke to Maddow)
slate.com
An Age-Old Tactic From Trump’s Lawyers Failed to Turn the Jury Against E. Jean Carroll
The verdict could inspire other victims of sexual assault with incomplete recollections to come forward.
The 'age-old tactic' being to try to determine if a defendant can provide evidence he was somewhere else during the alleged assault.
This is what you, a self-proclaimed legal expert, could not identify as a major injustice of this trial, @HoosierfanJM .
This was so corrupt I wonder if her legal team, funded by one of Epstein's billionaire pals, coached her to say she didn't remember because they were afraid if she stated a date, Trump might have been able to prove he was elsewhere, such as in Florida or wherever.
This is what you, a self-proclaimed legal expert, could not identify as a major injustice of this trial, @HoosierfanJM .
This was so corrupt I wonder if her legal team, funded by one of Epstein's billionaire pals, coached her to say she didn't remember because they were afraid if she stated a date, Trump might have been able to prove he was elsewhere, such as in Florida or wherever.
Neither of us heard the evidence, yet one of us (you) is SOOOOO sure there was an injustice.
You think you’re insulting me with the new condescending nickname you came up with, yet you constantly post things that are so diametrically opposed to how our legal system works.
So stuff like this is EXACTLY why I harp on things like admissible evidence instead of defense attorney or opinion media insinuations:
thehill.com
Because valid appeals are always available if counsel or the court acted inappropriately
Habba drops allegation after brushback from Carroll lawyer
Former President Trump’s lead attorney in his defamation case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll quickly dropped an insinuation that the judge had a “mentor” relationship with Carroll’s lead lawyer …
thehill.com
Because valid appeals are always available if counsel or the court acted inappropriately
