Exhausting Court Proceedings on the Horizon

[ClydeR]

But if Trump were to win, the number of unresolved cases is unprecedented for a presidential candidate, according to political scientists and historians.

Trump faces significant open litigation tied to his businesses: angry members at his Jupiter, Fla. golf course say they were cheated out of refunds on their dues and a former employee at the same club claims she was fired after reporting sexual harassment. There’s a fraud case brought by Trump University students who say the mogul’s company ripped them off for tens of thousands in tuition for a sham real estate course.

Trump is also defending lawsuits tied to his campaign. A disgruntled GOP political consultant sued for $4 million saying Trump defamed her. Another suit, a class action, says the campaign violated consumer protection laws by sending unsolicited text messages.

If elected, the open lawsuits will tag along with Trump. He would not be entitled to immunity, and could be required to give depositions or even testify in open court. That could chew up time and expose a litany of uncomfortable private and business dealings to the public.

One Trump case, over non-payment of tips to caterers at Trump SoHo Hotel in New York City, is scheduled to go to trial a week before Election Day.

Even in the waning days of the campaign, in a speech Saturday in Gettysburg outlining his first actions if he wins the White House, Trump threatened to sue all of the women who’ve accused him of unwanted sexual advances, saying all of them are lying.

More... (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/25/pending-lawsuits-donald-trump-presidency/92666382/)

Trump's election will make these cases even harder for him to settle.



There's another big problem that you will only hear about from me.. Remember that time Bill Cosby was accused of sexually assaulting some women and he said he didn't do it? It was too late for the women to sue him for sexual assault, but when he said he didn't do it, they sued him for defamation, claiming that his denial amounted to defamation of their character. Cosby's accusers have not had much luck suing for defamation so far. Here's a summary of how one court ruled..


In the ruling Thursday, Schwab found no grounds for defamation, writing that the multiple claims were "pure opinion" and a "far cry from labeling [Hill] (and the other women who have made similar public assertions) as liars or extortionists."

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/us/bill-cosby-defamation-lawsuit-dismissed/)

Trump has been far more direct than Cosby was in addressing his accusers..



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu2AQ2JEXjU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu2AQ2JEXjU


Gloria Alred must be giddy. If she can get these clients, then she will be the center of all of the entire world's media attention.

[ClydeR]

Remember when I wrote this?


There's another big problem that you will only hear about from me.. Remember that time Bill Cosby was accused of sexually assaulting some women and he said he didn't do it? It was too late for the women to sue him for sexual assault, but when he said he didn't do it, they sued him for defamation, claiming that his denial amounted to defamation of their character. Cosby's accusers have not had much luck suing for defamation so far. Here's a summary of how one court ruled..

Trump has been far more direct than Cosby was in addressing his accusers..

Gloria Alred must be giddy. If she can get these clients, then she will be the center of all of the entire world's media attention.



You all know that I hate saying I told you so, but sometimes you just have to..


LOS ANGELES— A former contestant on “The Apprentice” who previously accused Donald Trump of making unwelcome sexual advances toward her, kissing her on the lips and groping her in a Beverly Hills hotel filed a defamation lawsuit Tuesday against the president-elect over his denials of her allegations, CBS Los Angeles reported.

Summer Zervos announced the lawsuit at a Los Angeles news conference with her attorney, Gloria Allred, who represents multiple women who have made allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump has vehemently denied the allegations, and he specifically rebuffed Zervos’ accusations.

More... (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/summer-zervos-contestant-on-the-apprentice-sues-donald-trump-for-defamation/)

[ClydeR]

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=150522-2017

You have to pass a captcha to read it.

[ClydeR]

There have been a few developments in the Zervos case.


President Trump wants to derail a defamation suit filed by a former contestant on his reality TV show “The Apprentice” by claiming immunity through his job as the nation’s commander-in-chief, according to court papers made public Tuesday.

More... (http://nypost.com/2017/03/28/trump-trying-to-use-presidency-to-derail-grope-accusers-lawsuit/)

[Tgo01]

There have been a few developments in the Zervos case.

So that's why Trump wanted to become president! To avoid this lawsuit! The man really is a genius.

[ClydeR]

So that's why Trump wanted to become president! To avoid this lawsuit! The man really is a genius.




A New York State judge ruled on Tuesday that a defamation lawsuit brought by a woman who has said President Trump made unwanted sexual advances could go forward, raising the possibility of a public airing of other allegations of sexual misconduct against the president.

More... (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/nyregion/trump-defamation-lawsuit-new-york-summer-zervos.html)


You can read the actual ruling at http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?IndexNo=150522-2017
You have to pass a captcha and then it's the first thing on the list.

To avoid a lot of hassle -- and not as an admission of any wrongdoing -- Trump should pay her off and make her sign a nondisclosure agreement.

[cwolff]

To avoid a lot of hassle -- and not as an admission of any wrongdoing -- Trump should pay her off and make her sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Trump don't settle. He fights every lawsuit. I know this because he said so.

[ClydeR]

A judge ruled Tuesday that President Donald Trump can be deposed in a defamation lawsuit brought last year by Summer Zervos, a former contestant on "The Apprentice” who says Trump kissed and groped her after she appeared on the show.

More... (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/05/trump-depose-summer-zervos-lawsuit-624186)


I'm already exhausted.

[Androidpk]

Hey didn't that judge get the memo that Trump is above the law?? Trump could literally rape Sarah Sanders in the Oval Office then smash her head in with a hammer and the law couldn't touch him.

[cwolff]

Hey didn't that judge get the memo that Trump is above the law?? Trump could literally rape Sarah Sanders in the Oval Office then smash her head in with a hammer and the law couldn't touch him.

More importantly, Pence could shoot trump in the Oval office, immediately assume the presidency, and dismiss any investigations into the shooting and pardon himself for it just for fun. Being POTUS is like having a superpower. You're no longer capable of breaking the law because the Law is the King and the King is Law.

[Androidpk]

More importantly, Pence could shoot trump in the Oval office, immediately assume the presidency, and dismiss any investigations into the shooting and pardon himself for it just for fun. Being POTUS is like having a superpower. You're no longer capable of breaking the law because the Law is the King and the King is Law.

I'd be okay with that scenario.

[Androidpk]

In a hearing Tuesday in Manhattan, Judge Jennifer Schecter set deadlines for discovery, saying that all party depositions should be completed by Jan. 31, 2019. All non-party depositions are due the following month.

[ClydeR]

The defamation lawsuit brought against Trump by Summer Zervos is moving into an important stage. Zervos filed papers with the court asking the court to compel Trump to answer questions about other women who made similar accusations. Zervos filed the papers yesterday, but nobody seemed to notice.


In court documents filed Tuesday, Zervos and her legal team requested pre-trial evidence from the dozen other women who've reported similar accounts of sexual misconduct by Trump as well as "any other women who have made such complaints to or about" Trump, either privately or publicly.

The information is relevant to proving Trump "made his defamatory statements with common-law malice" and that he acted with "actual malice," according to the lawsuit.

Since Trump "insisted unequivocally that he had never inappropriately touched any woman," information on his other accusers would be "directly relevant" to see "whether his statements about Ms. Zervos were substantially true as a whole," the court documents state.

In addition, the information requested is "potentially relevant" because "of the distinct patterns of behavior that have emerged," such as "luring women to the Beverly Hills Hotel under false pretenses" and "groping women in the precise manner described the 'Access Hollywood' tape," according to the lawsuit.

More... (https://abcnews.go.com/US/summer-zervos-demands-information-trump-accusers-defamation-suit/story?id=57321911)

[ClydeR]

The article says that, unless a higher court intervenes, Trump will have to answer questions in the lawsuit.


In a lengthy decision of great significance, a New York appeals court has affirmed a decision that President Donald Trump must face a defamation lawsuit brought by season-five Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos.

More... (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/donald-trump-not-immune-apprentice-stars-defamation-lawsuit-ny-appeals-court-rules-1194742)


The opinion (read in full here (http://nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2019/2019_01851.htm)) also addresses Clinton v. Jones, a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, which determined that presidents aren't immune from civil actions in federal court.

" Congress has not passed any law immunizing the President from state court damages lawsuits since Clinton v Jones was decided," writes Renwick. "Therefore, because Clinton v Jones held that a federal court has jurisdiction over the kind of claim plaintiff now asserts and because there is no federal law limiting a state court from entertaining similar claims, it follows that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over actions against the President based on his purely unofficial acts."

[Methais]

Trump don't settle. He fights every lawsuit. I know this because he said so.

lol soywolff :lol:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/TSAmVfg-LL4/maxresdefault.jpg

[Methais]

I'd be okay with that scenario.

Using your own retard logic, you just made a death threat to Trump.

[Parkbandit]

Shocker.. Fallen is masturbating in a solo thread.


Fuck off Fallen.

[Methais]

Shocker.. Fallen is masturbating in a solo thread.


Fuck off Fallen.

cwolff is helping too!!!!!!4

[ClydeR]

With Schecter's ruling, Trump and the contestant Zervos' camps face a Jan. 31 deadline for the president to participate in a deposition. That means Trump could be forced to testify in court by the end of January. Trump's attorneys have indicated they plan to seek other legal avenues to further delay his deposition in the case.

Zervos accused Trump of sexually assaulting her at Beverly Hills Hotel in 2007. Trump denied assaulting Zervos, and she sued him for defamation in January 2017, claiming he called her a liar when she disclosed her accusations while he was making his 2016 presidential bid.

More... (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-testify-apprentice-defamation-case-1472786)

Testifying in a deposition is how Bill Clinton got in trouble. I'm going to go not very far out on a limb and predict that Trump will not be deposed.

[ClydeR]

NEW YORK (AP) — Lawyers for a woman who accuses President Donald Trump of raping her in the 1990s are asking for a DNA sample, seeking to determine whether his genetic material is on a dress she says she wore during the encounter.

More... (https://apnews.com/0475983f6c1e40628d2a3058e270a747)

Trump has already said he never met her in his life. His "DNA" could not possibly be on her dress. If she gets his "DNA," how do we know she won't give it to a hostile foreign power so that they can clone him and have a Trump on their own to lead them against us?

[Methais]

Trump has already said he never met her in his life. His "DNA" could not possibly be on her dress. If she gets his "DNA," how do we know she won't give it to a hostile foreign power so that they can clone him and have a Trump on their own to lead them against us?

Isn't this the chick from some video a year or two ago about the same shit where she was basically so nuts that nobody on either side except someone like BacKKKlash could take her seriously?

[Methais]

Isn't this the chick from some video a year or two ago about the same shit where she was basically so nuts that nobody on either side except someone like BacKKKlash could take her seriously?

Stunned Anderson Cooper Cuts To Commercial When Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Calls Rape "Sexy" (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/25/stunned_anderson_cooper_cuts_to_commercial_when_tr ump_accuser_e_jean_carroll_calls_rape_sexy.html)

I'm sure them trying to bring this garbage back again right as the impeachment trial is crumbling for democrats is a total coincidence too.

[Tgo01]

Isn't this the chick from some video a year or two ago about the same shit where she was basically so nuts that nobody on either side except someone like BacKKKlash could take her seriously?

Yup. Turns out her story almost matched up perfectly with an older episode of Law & Order.

The store it happened at, happening at the lingerie department, same city. I think the only details that were different were the names, obviously.

[Methais]

Yup. Turns out her story almost matched up perfectly with an older episode of Law & Order.

The store it happened at, happening at the lingerie department, same city. I think the only details that were different were the names, obviously.

https://media.giphy.com/media/FfpKvdYKmwmKuGHrZX/giphy.gif

[ClydeR]

Trump just sued a whole bunch of people over the 2016 election. Not the 2020 election that he lost, but the 2016 election that he won. The first listed defendant is Hillary Clinton.


The new lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in Fort Pierce, Fla., accuses Clinton, her campaign, various campaign aides, former FBI Director James Comey, the Democratic National Committee and others of racketeering conspiracy for allegedly joining in “an unthinkable plot” to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia in the 2016 presidential election.

More... (https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/24/donald-trump-sues-hillary-clinton-and-allies-russia-00020174)


The sprawling, 108-page complaint (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157/gov.uscourts.flsd.610157.1.0.pdf) reads like a greatest-hits of Trump’s long-held grievances against the public figures most closely associated with the investigation of his campaign’s ties to Russia in 2016. It stitches together disparate details unearthed in the ongoing investigation by special counsel John Durham, as well as long-known details about the FBI’s Russia probe and special counsel Robert Mueller’s subsequent investigation.

[LOL BRIELUS]

Noone cares

[Seran]

Noone cares

Trump does.

[Parkbandit]

Trump does.

Seran does.

Because Trump.

Here he is whenever he hears something about Trump:

https://i.makeagif.com/media/1-22-2017/LifOJK.gif

[Orthin]

Seran does.

Because Trump.

Here he is whenever he hears something about Trump:

https://i.makeagif.com/media/1-22-2017/LifOJK.gif

That is also me the day after Chorizo queso

[Methais]

I care.

Fixed.

[Bhaalizmo]

That is also me the day after Chorizo queso

Pussy

Wanna go get some Thai?

[ClydeR]

The battery and defamation civil court case against Trump is scheduled to start April 17.

Unfortunately, New York does not allow televising court cases. Instead of seeing Trump and Carroll testify for ourselves, we will have to rely on reporters to describe it to us.


(The Hill) – A federal judge ruled on Friday that E. Jean Carroll can use the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape and the testimony of two other women who have accused former President Trump of sexual assault as evidence at trial in her defamation case.

More... (https://www.wowktv.com/news/u-s-world/judge-in-e-jean-carrolls-suit-against-trump-says-jury-can-hear-other-accusers-access-hollywood-tape/)


The “Access Hollywood” tape from 2005, which resurfaced ahead of the 2016 presidential election, captured Trump boasting about his apparently unsolicited advances on women.

“When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” he said, adding, “Grab them by the [expletive]. You can do anything.”

Kaplan noted that the tape is relevant in Carroll’s case given that “a jury reasonably could find, even from the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape alone, that Mr. Trump admitted in the ‘Access Hollywood’ tape that he in fact has had contact with women’s genitalia in the past without their consent, or that he has attempted to do so.”

In the case of the two other accusers, Trump argued that their allegations are “vastly different” from Carroll’s, a claim that Kaplan dismissed as “not very persuasive.”

[Methais]

The battery and defamation civil court case against Trump is scheduled to start April 17.

Unfortunately, New York does not allow televising court cases. Instead of seeing Trump and Carroll testify for ourselves, we will have to rely on reporters to describe it to us.

Reporter: Trump took the stand and I hate him sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much!!!!

Seran: That's some really fantastic reporting and should be considered the gold standard of journalism.

https://media.tenor.com/P5_hF2KzfqEAAAAC/uhhuh-clap.gif

[ClydeR]

Republicans who fear having their entire party tainted by the negative publicity surrounding Trump's criminal indictment can breathe a sigh of relief. The unrelated civil case against Trump by the woman who accuses him of rape will begin in just three weeks, unless something happens to delay it again. That should distract from all the hoopla surrounding Trump's criminal indictment about his payments for a porn star.

[ClydeR]

Republicans who fear having their entire party tainted by the negative publicity surrounding Trump's criminal indictment can breathe a sigh of relief. The unrelated civil case against Trump by the woman who accuses him of rape will begin in just three weeks, unless something happens to delay it again. That should distract from all the hoopla surrounding Trump's criminal indictment about his payments for a porn star.

The lawyer defending Trump in this case is the same lawyer who has been on teevee over the past few days talking about the criminal case relating to the porn star hush money. There are no witnesses and no physical evidence. It's just the plaintiff's word against Trump's word. A jury will decide and, unlike in a criminal case, the jury need not be unanimous.

[ClydeR]

We are at the horizon..


Donald Trump has asked a United States District Court judge to delay his upcoming rape trial in New York by a month, with lawyers asking for a “cooling off” period after the negative mass media coverage surrounding his indictment and arrest in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.

The civil trial, currently scheduled for April 25, comes after former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll accused the former president of raping her in the mid-1990s and sued him for defamation after he denied the allegation.

In a letter to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan released Tuesday night, Trump attorneys Joseph Tacopina and Alina Habba request a four-week adjournment in the trial, saying Trump’s right to a fair trial hinges on the “cooling off” period after “the recent deluge of prejudicial media coverage concerning his unprecedented criminal indictment and arraignment in Manhattan.”

More... (https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-asks-to-delay-his-rape-trial-after-new-york-indictment-drama?ref=scroll)

[ClydeR]

We are at the horizon..




Last week, Trump's lawyers urged U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in federal court in Manhattan to grant a four-week "cooling-off" period to at least May 23 to give Trump a fair trial, citing a recent "deluge of prejudicial media coverage" of criminal charges against him.

In a written order on Monday, Kaplan said Carroll's case was "entirely unrelated" to the New York state-level prosecution, in which Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in connection with a hush money payment made to a porn star before the 2016 election.

Kaplan said there was no reason to assume it would be easier to seat a fair and impartial jury in May. He said some media coverage was based on Trump's own public statements.

"It does not sit well for Mr. Trump to promote pretrial publicity and then to claim that coverage that he promoted was prejudicial to him," Kaplan wrote.

More... (https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-rejects-trumps-request-delay-trial-rape-accuser-carrolls-lawsuit-2023-04-17/)


Too bad it won't be televised.

[ClydeR]

E. Jean Carroll, the writer who accuses former President Donald Trump of raping her in a New York department store in the mid-1990s, began testifying at a civil trial for her lawsuit on Wednesday.

“I’m here because Trump raped me,” Carroll testified. “He lied and shattered my reputation and I’m trying to get my life back.”

More... (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/26/trump-lawyer-blasted-for-e-jean-carroll-social-media-attack.html)

Trump did not attend the trial. He says he will not go unless he is called as a witness. The plaintiff has said that she will not call him as a witness. Why would she? Trump's testimony would benefit Trump.

My assessment is that Trump will lose if he does not testify. This is a civil case. There is no right to refuse to take the stand because of fear of self-incrimination.

This trial is an entirely unrelated to the 34 felonies for which he was indicted in March.

[Tgo01]

Wait that obvious lie of a case actually went to trial and the judge didn't laugh her out of court?

What a joke the Democrats have turned our country into.

[ClydeR]

The rape trial is not going well for Trump. If he doesn't bother to show up to deny the allegations, then he will lose. Since it is a civil trial, there would be no jail time but he would have to pay money to his accuser. Although he can afford to lose some money, another consequence would be that after a verdict against him, anybody would be able to call him a rapist, and it would be a legal truth, because a jury will have said so.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

The rape trial is not going well for Trump. If he doesn't bother to show up to deny the allegations, then he will lose. Since it is a civil trial, there would be no jail time but he would have to pay money to his accuser. Although he can afford to lose some money, another consequence would be that after a verdict against him, anybody would be able to call him a rapist, and it would be a legal truth, because a jury will have said so.

No one cares because in the 40? years since it's happened it wasn't even relevant until he became a politician. We all know what that means, which is this is 100% political. Just like the other shit that's been thrown against the wall that hasn't stuck. He's a billionaire playboy who got ass and now whores from pornhub want to cash in.

[ClydeR]

I heard Trump went to Scotland. That was a mistake. If he does not testify, he will lose this case. If he loses this case, it will mean he is a rapist.

The political consequences to Trump of losing this case would be much more consequential to Trump than when the Trump organization was convicted of criminal conduct. It would be worse than cheating on his wife with a porn star. It would be worse than inciting an insurrection. It would be worse than stealing nuclear secrets. It would be worse than being arrested for falsifying business records. The country will not elect a President in 2024 who has been determined by a court proceeding to be a rapist. If he is smart, he will jump back on a plane and rush to New York to deny the allegations against him.

[Methais]

I heard Trump went to Scotland. That was a mistake. If he does not testify, he will lose this case. If he loses this case, it will mean he is a rapist.

The political consequences to Trump of losing this case would be much more consequential to Trump than when the Trump organization was convicted of criminal conduct. It would be worse than cheating on his wife with a porn star. It would be worse than inciting an insurrection. It would be worse than stealing nuclear secrets. It would be worse than being arrested for falsifying business records. The country will not elect a President in 2024 who has been determined by a court proceeding to be a rapist. If he is smart, he will jump back on a plane and rush to New York to deny the allegations against him.

No one* cares. DeSantis > Trump > Anyone democrats put up.

Go practice buying cold cuts all by yourself Latrin.


*Except Seran, but NPCs aren't really people.

[ClydeR]

No one* cares.

Not many care now. But if Carroll wins, everybody will care, including you. I predict you will care enough to post about it many times.

Of all his cases, this is the one Trump should least ignore.

[Seran]

I heard Trump went to Scotland. That was a mistake. If he does not testify, he will lose this case. If he loses this case, it will mean he is a rapist.

The political consequences to Trump of losing this case would be much more consequential to Trump than when the Trump organization was convicted of criminal conduct. It would be worse than cheating on his wife with a porn star. It would be worse than inciting an insurrection. It would be worse than stealing nuclear secrets. It would be worse than being arrested for falsifying business records. The country will not elect a President in 2024 who has been determined by a court proceeding to be a rapist. If he is smart, he will jump back on a plane and rush to New York to deny the allegations against him.

I think you meant to say, "I heard Trump fled the country to Scotland."

[Methais]

Not many care now. But if Carroll wins, everybody will care, including you. I predict you will care enough to post about it many times.

Of all his cases, this is the one Trump should least ignore.

Fun fact: No one cares about anything you post Latrin.

The only thing about your "prediction" that might be accurate will be me making fun of retards like Seran regardless of the outcome of this case, which I suppose could technically be considered me posting about it if that happens to be the topic at the time.

DeSantis > Trump > Any democrat

[Tgo01]

If he loses this case, it will mean he is a rapist.

You've said some pretty dumb ass things over the years, but the idea that losing a civil case of all things make one a rapist has to be at least in the top 5 of dumb ass things you've said.

[Seran]

You've said some pretty dumb ass things over the years, but the idea that losing a civil case of all things make one a rapist has to be at least in the top 5 of dumb ass things you've said.

Tell that to OJ Simpson who was acquitted of murder and then had to pay millions in civil damages for murder.

[Methais]

Tell that to OJ Simpson who was acquitted of murder and then had to pay millions in civil damages for murder.

Add civil trials vs. criminal trials to the list of things Seran can't wrap the clump of NPC cells in his skull around.

https://i.imgur.com/q5Zc5MZ.mp4

[ClydeR]

With his rape accuser E. Jean Carroll’s three-day stint on the witness stand in the rearview mirror, Donald Trump’s attorney officially confirmed on Tuesday that the former president will not testify at his trial.

More... (https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/e-jean-carroll-rape-suit/trump-will-not-testify-live-at-e-jean-carroll-rape-trial-his-attorney-officially-confirms/)


I don't understand Trump's reasoning. The incident happened more than 20 years ago. Carroll cannot produce any eye witnesses other than herself. It should be easy for Trump to deny.

If the jury does their job, they will base their decision only on what they hear at the trial. All they have heard is testimony that Trump raped Carroll. Although Trump has denied it in public remarks, the jury will not get to hear him deny it. I can only assume he fears being questioned by Carroll's attorney.

Perplexing.

[ClydeR]

Trump answering questions from a golf resort in Ireland..


He said he had been “falsely accused” and that he was cutting short his trip to Scotland and Ireland to go back to New York, claiming he was being targeted because he was a “famous, rich and political person that’s leading the polls by 40 points”.

“I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me and I have a judge who’s extremely hostile. I’m going to go back, and I’m going to confront this woman, this woman is a disgrace and it shouldn’t be allowed to happen in our country,” he told journalists as he began his round of golf in Doonbeg.

“I’ll be going back early because a woman made a claim that’s totally false, it was fake, she’s a fake, she wrote a book, she’s a Democrat,” he said, targeting his accuser, writer E Jean Carroll.

“I have no idea who she is, it’s ridiculous. She made a claim, she wrote a book, she made a claim.” He made repeated references to a coat which he said his legal team had accepted could be used in evidence, but suggested then that it had not been produced.

More... (https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2023/05/04/trump-to-call-hotel-doonbeg-on-the-ocean-because-we-have-the-ocean-and-nobody-else-does/)


Trump's answers above sure make it sound like he is taking my advice that he must testify in the case if he does not want to lose. His lawyer told the court earlier this week that Trump would not testify and that Trump would not be calling any witnesses or offering any evidence.

[ClydeR]

Trump's lawyer still says that Trump will not testify. That seems inconsistent with Trump's statement earlier today that he would return to the United States and "confront" Jean Carroll. I thought that by "confront," he meant he would see her in court and testify under oath, as she did. But apparently he plans to "confront" her by talking about her on his social media platform and in speeches.

I wonder if Trump has considered that, if the jury rules in Carroll's favor, he will be asked about it many times in debates and interviews. When he is asked, will he call her a liar again? Part of her lawsuit against him is for defamation.

[Elanthil]

Trump may be a dickhead, but I'll choose him over Biden any day.

[Suppressed Poet]

Trump's lawyer still says that Trump will not testify. That seems inconsistent with Trump's statement earlier today that he would return to the United States and "confront" Jean Carroll. I thought that by "confront," he meant he would see her in court and testify under oath, as she did. But apparently he plans to "confront" her by talking about her on his social media platform and in speeches.

By confront he explicitly means to grab that lying money grubbing whore by the pussy.

[Solkern]

Trump's lawyer still says that Trump will not testify. That seems inconsistent with Trump's statement earlier today that he would return to the United States and "confront" Jean Carroll. I thought that by "confront," he meant he would see her in court and testify under oath, as she did. But apparently he plans to "confront" her by talking about her on his social media platform and in speeches.

I wonder if Trump has considered that, if the jury rules in Carroll's favor, he will be asked about it many times in debates and interviews. When he is asked, will he call her a liar again? Part of her lawsuit against him is for defamation.


The last thing any lawyer representing Trump wants, is to put him on the stand under oath.

[Gelston]

The last thing any lawyer representing Trump wants, is to put him on the stand under oath.

No lawyer worth their shit ever puts their own client on the stand. Even if they are 100% verifiably innocent.

[Elanthil]

Trump just needs to admit he grabbed her by the pussy!

[Parkbandit]

Trump just needs to admit he grabbed her by the pussy!

Even if he didn't?

[ClydeR]

Even if he didn't?


We'll know for sure in a few days. Is Trump a rapist? Is his accuser lying? All will be revealed when the jury rules.

[Bhaalizmo]

We'll know for sure in a few days. Is Trump a rapist? Is his accuser lying? All will be revealed when the jury rules.

Regardless of what the jury rules, fuck that guy.

[Parkbandit]

We'll know for sure in a few days.

We will? Do we have actual evidence?

Or are we just going to believe 1 person over another for an event that allegedly took place 30 years ago because orangemanbadandwewilldoanythingtostophimfromrunnin gforpresidentagain.


Is Trump a rapist? Is his accuser lying? All will be revealed when the jury rules.

No matter what the outcome is: We will never know for sure since it happened 30 years ago.

[Parkbandit]

Regardless of what the jury rules, fuck that guy.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o7TKN9IUHHFXWyPlK/giphy.gif

[Elanthil]

I heard, from a reliable source, that Trump once put peanut butter on his dick and shoved it in a bird feeder! It MUST be true because a democrat said it!

[Methais]

Regardless of what the jury rules, this is how Trump makes me feel because I can't stop thinking about him:

https://media3.giphy.com/media/lgkIEmOUL5PVu/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952eq41ba3bok3ujl25mbysvdpy5e2mh 74ms39o8r57&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

This is correct.

[ClydeR]

It's in the hands of the jury now.

I say there's an 80% probability that the jury rules in Carroll's favor.

How much will they award her? My guess is $3.8 million.

Make your predictions! Who will win? If you think Carroll will win, how much will the jury award?

[Solkern]

It's in the hands of the jury now.

I say there's an 80% probability that the jury rules in Carroll's favor.

How much will they award her? My guess is $3.8 million.

Make your predictions! Who will win? If you think Carroll will win, how much will the jury award?

She gets a free #metoo tattoo.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It's in the hands of the jury now.

I say there's an 80% probability that the jury rules in Carroll's favor.

How much will they award her? My guess is $3.8 million.

Make your predictions! Who will win? If you think Carroll will win, how much will the jury award?

I don't care either way. If Trump runs against Biden, he gets my vote no matter how many things the democrat's and liberal media throw at him. I'd vote for my dog over another 4 years of America last and the Biden criminal syndicate.

[drumpel]

I don't care either way. If Trump runs against Biden, he gets my vote no matter how many things the democrat's and liberal media throw at him. I'd vote for my dog over another 4 years of America last and the Biden criminal syndicate.

Just had a truck driver stop in for a pickup at work - he made mention that he wishes Biden would get his shit together and fix the high prices of stuff, especially gas/diesel.....he even said that he wish he never voted for him because of how shitty the economy turned under him and actually wants Trump back in office to fix things.

[Methais]

Just had a truck driver stop in for a pickup at work - he made mention that he wishes Biden would get his shit together and fix the high prices of stuff, especially gas/diesel.....he even said that he wish he never voted for him because of how shitty the economy turned under him and actually wants Trump back in office to fix things.

Gosh, it's almost as if everything normal people were saying before the 2020 election was totally accurate.

Seran will be along shortly to tell us about how Biden is the best president ever because gas prices went down 2 cents this month or something, after going up 4823749023473% immediately after Biden took office and how Biden is working hard to keep prices down.

[ClydeR]

The jury has already reached a verdict. That was very quick, especially if they ruled in Carroll's favor, in which case they also have to decide the dollar amount to award.

[Solkern]

The jury has already reached a verdict. That was very quick, especially if they ruled in Carroll's favor, in which case they also have to decide the dollar amount to award.

$5m in damages

[Suppressed Poet]

$5m in damages

He will sell a few limited edition NFT trading cards tonight and make more than that.

[Seran]

$5m in damages

So Trump is officially a rapist.

[Methais]

So Trump is officially a rapist.

There is no burden of proof in a civil trial. Not that that will stop you from pretending this was a criminal trial anyway though.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So Trump is officially a rapist.

Wrong.

[Suppressed Poet]

So Trump is officially a rapist.

No. He was found liable in a civil case for battery & defamation. That is nowhere near the same thing as being a convicted rapist, but I know you are foaming at the mouth to say so.

[Flap]

So Trump is officially a rapist.

Yes, but that's been on the record since the 90's when Ivana told Harry Hurt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Wow there sure are a lot of them! Almost like he's a huge piece of shit rapist!

[Flap]

Yes, but that's been on the record since the 90's when Ivana told Harry Hurt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Wow there sure are a lot of them! Almost like he's a huge piece of shit rapist!

Oh and pedo too, I forgot that important fact.

[Bhaalizmo]

Yes, but that's been on the record since the 90's when Ivana told Harry Hurt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Wow there sure are a lot of them! Almost like he's a huge piece of shit rapist!

Your facts will not be welcomed here sir.

True facts though.

A truism you could say.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Your facts will not be welcomed here sir.

True facts though.

A truism you could say.

Did you miss the last part of the link? the word allegations? Might want to look that up. Wait until you see the allegations against the Biden Crime Syndicate coming soon. That's gonna be fun watch Seran try to spin them.

[Seran]

Yes, but that's been on the record since the 90's when Ivana told Harry Hurt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Wow there sure are a lot of them! Almost like he's a huge piece of shit rapist!

It's pretty funny that Trump has already declared himself a victim and he's appealing because his constitutional right to be heard was violated. Trump declined to testify in the case, so I'm not entirely sure his denying himself the opportunity and then complaining about it is a valid legal defense.

[Solkern]

No. He was found liable in a civil case for battery & defamation. That is nowhere near the same thing as being a convicted rapist, but I know you are foaming at the mouth to say so.


Did you miss the last part of the link? the word allegations? Might want to look that up. Wait until you see the allegations against the Biden Crime Syndicate coming soon. That's gonna be fun watch Seran try to spin them.

Allegations, and a civil case he was found liable for battery, I sure as hell won’t let my daughter near someone that has a rap sheet like that, or let my son hang out with him. I don’t think any of you would.

Of course I won’t let my daughter anywhere near Biden either.

[Suppressed Poet]

Allegations, and a civil case he was found liable for battery, I sure as hell won’t let my daughter near someone that has a rap sheet like that. I don’t think any of you would.

I wouldn’t let my children near any politician.

[Solkern]

I wouldn’t let my children near any politician.

You missed my edit lol, but I agree!

[Parkbandit]

Allegations, and a civil case he was found liable for battery, I sure as hell won’t let my daughter near someone that has a rap sheet like that, or let my son hang out with him. I don’t think any of you would.

Of course I won’t let my daughter anywhere near Biden either.

What, specifically, is on his "rap sheet"?

[Flap]

Did you miss the last part of the link? the word allegations? Might want to look that up. Wait until you see the allegations against the Biden Crime Syndicate coming soon. That's gonna be fun watch Seran try to spin them.

Are any of those allegations that Biden raped a 13 year old? You know, like Trump did right before his buddy Jeffy Epstein?

[Suppressed Poet]

What, specifically, is on his "rap sheet"?

Lots of rap sheets mention Trump, but any list would be incomplete without the late great Mac Miller.


https://youtu.be/74TFS8r_SMI

[Suppressed Poet]

Are any of those allegations that Biden raped a 13 year old? You know, like Trump did right before his buddy Jeffy Epstein?

Oh you want to bring Epstein and Democrat Party politicians & supporters into this convo?

Edit: 13 is way too old for Biden as evidenced by his on camera public sexual assaults of little girls. ::sniff sniff::

[Shaps]

Sort of insane when you think about it:

7 years of trying to get Trump on anything... what do they get him on? A 30 year old accusation - that was never reported to the Police - that can never be proven - that was tried only in a civil court - in a jurisdiction that actively hates Trump.

I have no idea if he did/didn't do it... and Trumps crude comments definitely didn't help his case...

But after everything + the kitchen sink thrown at him... let's just say my plausibility meter doesn't really buy it.

There was literally no evidence, just her testimony... to which she couldn't even remember the day, month, or year (changed it multiple times)...

Odd that her allegations first appeared in the Magazine she ran for decades - as opposed to anywhere else.

But hey... they finally got him I guess.

Doing some research... her legal team was paid for by Reid Hoffman - you can look him up, but a money guy for the Democratic Party super PACs. Fun note... he's now on a special "independent advisory board" for DoD. LOL - can't make this shit up.

"In December 2018, the New York Times broke a story alleging that Hoffman had "put $100,000 into an experiment that adopted Russia-inspired political disinformation tactics on Facebook" during the 2017 special Senate race in Alabama, which allegedly targeted Roy Moore voters."

Yup.. nothing fishy going on though.

Some will think like Seran... me... I'll follow the money.

[Seran]

Sort of insane when you think about it:

7 years of trying to get Trump on anything... what do they get him on? A 30 year old accusation - that was never reported to the Police - that can never be proven - that was tried only in a civil court - in a jurisdiction that actively hates Trump.

I have no idea if he did/didn't do it... and Trumps crude comments definitely didn't help his case...

But after everything + the kitchen sink thrown at him... let's just say my plausibility meter doesn't really buy it.

There was literally no evidence, just her testimony... to which she couldn't even remember the day, month, or year (changed it multiple times)...

Odd that her allegations first appeared in the Magazine she ran for decades - as opposed to anywhere else.

But hey... they finally got him I guess.

Doing some research... her legal team was paid for by Reid Hoffman - you can look him up, but a money guy for the Democratic Party super PACs. Fun note... he's now on a special "independent advisory board" for DoD. LOL - can't make this shit up.

"In December 2018, the New York Times broke a story alleging that Hoffman had "put $100,000 into an experiment that adopted Russia-inspired political disinformation tactics on Facebook" during the 2017 special Senate race in Alabama, which allegedly targeted Roy Moore voters."

Yup.. nothing fishy going on though.

Some will think like Seran... me... I'll follow the money.

You know it's interesting that you as always go straight to a conspiracy, never mind that an impartial panel of jurors found Donald Trump to have sexually assaulted a woman, you're more interested in spinning it as some sort of political hit job.

But don't you worry there are at least four other Criminal investigations that are wrapping up that I'm sure will be handing out additional indictments any day now.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You know it's interesting that you as always go straight to a conspiracy, never mind that an impartial panel of jurors found Donald Trump to have sexually assaulted a woman, you're more interested in spinning it as some sort of political hit job.

But don't you worry there are at least four other Criminal investigations that are wrapping up that I'm sure will be handing out additional indictments any day now.

Bro... Shaps is the players corner of you, only on the right. It's your mirror image.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Allegations, and a civil case he was found liable for battery, I sure as hell won’t let my daughter near someone that has a rap sheet like that, or let my son hang out with him. I don’t think any of you would.

Of course I won’t let my daughter anywhere near Biden either.

Agreed, both are the worst. And yet somehow, top two for the most powerful position in the world. What a fucking travesty.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Are any of those allegations that Biden raped a 13 year old? You know, like Trump did right before his buddy Jeffy Epstein?

I"m pretty sure corn pop likes little kids playing with his leg hair, or some shit like that. Yeah, Biden is VERY INCREDIBLY CLEARLY A PEDOPHILE. Caps for emphasis.

[Solkern]

Agreed, both are the worst. And yet somehow, top two for the most powerful position in the world. What a fucking travesty.

^ this. Absolutely blows my mind.

[Shaps]

Bro... Shaps is the players corner of you, only on the right. It's your mirror image.

1. I'm neither right or left... I'm a true liberal.
2. I'm nothing like Seran - I always provide links + references + documented FACTUAL information out there for anyone to find, if they took the time.
3. As I said, I have no idea if he did it or not - but you have to admit a 30 year old accusation, with absolutely zero evidence, by someone in their own magazine (to drive sales) made the allegations - then after she was fired, kept it up with money supplied by a Democrat Super PAC donor.
4. Does #3 sound familiar at all to you? I'll reference you to Brett Kavanaugh. Eerily similar situation wouldn't you say?

I'll take you calling me any name you want... other than Seran.

[Solkern]

1. I'm neither right or left... I'm a true liberal.
2. I'm nothing like Seran - I always provide links + references + documented FACTUAL information out there for anyone to find, if they took the time.
3. As I said, I have no idea if he did it or not - but you have to admit a 30 year old accusation, with absolutely zero evidence, by someone in their own magazine (to drive sales) made the allegations - then after she was fired, kept it up with money supplied by a Democrat Super PAC donor.
4. Does #3 sound familiar at all to you? I'll reference you to Brett Kavanaugh. Eerily similar situation wouldn't you say?

I'll take you calling me any name you want... other than Seran.

Obviously, there was enough evidence to get a guilty verdict.

[Shaps]

Obviously, there was enough evidence to get a guilty verdict.

There was? Odd... thought it was just her saying it happened. Did she have police reports, hospital records, texts, phone messages, anything else? Or just what she said?

If that's evidence, then I guess you are correct.

Also... tell me why she first published it in the magazine she ran vs. filing a case against him at the start? I mean... if she'd truly been aggrieved, wouldn't you think a victim would file charges instead of just writing about it in the magazine she operated?

But, I'm sure you're 100% correct. It happened exactly as she said it did, no doubt.

[Solkern]

There was? Odd... thought it was just her saying it happened. Did she have police reports, hospital records, texts, phone messages, anything else? Or just what she said?

If that's evidence, then I guess you are correct.

Also... tell me why she first published it in the magazine she ran vs. filing a case against him at the start? I mean... if she'd truly been aggrieved, wouldn't you think a victim would file charges instead of just writing about it in the magazine she operated?

But, I'm sure you're 100% correct. It happened exactly as she said it did, no doubt.

Shaps, what was the verdict? Verdicts are based on evidence, and circumstantial evidence is still evidence, and other things. There was enough to get a conviction, and to say there wasn’t, would mean he would have been found innocent.
Or let me get this right, everything was fake, it’s a giant conspiracy and they are just out to get Trump. Trump is telling the truth and the others are all lying?

If there was enough evidence to show what you said about her doing it for a magazine, or whatever you think her motives were/are, why wasnt he found innocent?

The simple fact is, they both argued their side, and her evidence seemed more of a truth than Trumps. He was found liable and that’s it. He will appeal and lose the appeal, and that’s the end of it.

[Solkern]

1. I'm neither right or left... I'm a true liberal.
2. I'm nothing like Seran - I always provide links + references + documented FACTUAL information out there for anyone to find, if they took the time.
3. As I said, I have no idea if he did it or not - but you have to admit a 30 year old accusation, with absolutely zero evidence, by someone in their own magazine (to drive sales) made the allegations - then after she was fired, kept it up with money supplied by a Democrat Super PAC donor.
4. Does #3 sound familiar at all to you? I'll reference you to Brett Kavanaugh. Eerily similar situation wouldn't you say?

I'll take you calling me any name you want... other than Seran.

I take this with skepticism, I can’t remember one time I’ve seen you bash a Republican, but you consistently bash democrats. You’ve consistently came out and defended policy, people etc etc etc on the right, but nothing ever on the left, that I can recall.

Even others think you are right. You can claim whatever you please, but your posting history shows a clear side.

That goes for everyone, you can easily look through their posting history and see which way they lean, some lean more than others.

[Parkbandit]

Obviously, there was enough evidence to get a guilty verdict.

There is no guilty verdict in a civil trial.

[Solkern]

There was? Odd... thought it was just her saying it happened. Did she have police reports, hospital records, texts, phone messages, anything else? Or just what she said?

If that's evidence, then I guess you are correct.

Also... tell me why she first published it in the magazine she ran vs. filing a case against him at the start? I mean... if she'd truly been aggrieved, wouldn't you think a victim would file charges instead of just writing about it in the magazine she operated?

But, I'm sure you're 100% correct. It happened exactly as she said it did, no doubt.

Well, let’s look at some of it.
Mainly Roger Ailes, who Trump claimed in 2022, he met 7 or 8 years ago.
Why is this important? Well Ailes was Trump’s friend back in 1995, a full 20ish years before Trump said he met the guy. They did interviews, had friendly banter etc etc.
Ailes was Carroll’s boss, and she was afraid if she reported it at the time, she would have been fired. Which is fair imho.
Dude claimed she wasn’t his type, but pointed to her and said that’s my ex-wife… then said the photo was blurry when it was not blurry at all. Trump kept getting himself in trouble, like regarding Carroll’s husband.
"Nice guy," Trump said in the deposition.

And then he caught himself.

"I thought, I mean. I don't know him," Trump said. "But I thought he was pretty good at what he did."

Trump lied during his deposition countless times, and was caught countless times, how can you trust a damn thing he said?

[Solkern]

There is no guilty verdict in a civil trial.

Yeah liable, I shouldn’t use them interchangeably, my bad bro.

[Shaps]

Well, let’s look at some of it.
Mainly Roger Ailes, who Trump claimed in 2022, he met 7 or 8 years ago.
Why is this important? Well Ailes was Trump’s friend back in 1995, a full 20ish years before Trump said he met the guy. They did interviews, had friendly banter etc etc.
Ailes was Carroll’s boss, and she was afraid if she reported it at the time, she would have been fired. Which is fair imho.
Dude claimed she wasn’t his type, but pointed to her and said that’s my ex-wife… then said the photo was blurry when it was not blurry at all. Trump kept getting himself in trouble, like regarding Carroll’s husband.
"Nice guy," Trump said in the deposition.

And then he caught himself.

"I thought, I mean. I don't know him," Trump said. "But I thought he was pretty good at what he did."

Trump lied during his deposition countless times, and was caught countless times, how can you trust a damn thing he said?

Again - I didn't say if he did it or not. I have no idea.

Saying he lied, when she lied also... is a wash in my opinion.

My main sticking point is - she never filed anything accusing him of something, prior to her writing an article that was a straight accusation. That is a FACT. Then her defense was paid by a Democrat Super PAC donor with some shady dealings already. That is a FACT.

What he said or she said are NOT facts.

I'm sure you remember everyone from 30 years ago though. God help you if you are accused of something and fuck up in a response. That's the amazing part about something like this... there is absolutely ZERO way to confirm/deny that it did/didn't happen. There are no FACTS to support or defend against it.

So /shrug.

[Solkern]

Again - I didn't say if he did it or not. I have no idea.

Saying he lied, when she lied also... is a wash in my opinion.

My main sticking point is - she never filed anything accusing him of something, prior to her writing an article that was a straight accusation. That is a FACT. Then her defense was paid by a Democrat Super PAC donor with some shady dealings already. That is a FACT.

What he said or she said are NOT facts.

I'm sure you remember everyone from 30 years ago though. God help you if you are accused of something and fuck up in a response. That's the amazing part about something like this... there is absolutely ZERO way to confirm/deny that it did/didn't happen. There are no FACTS to support or defend against it.

So /shrug.

Can you show me, where she lied in court and it was proven?

[Parkbandit]

It was a he said / she said claim she cashed in on. She was bankrolled by the left, it took place in one of the most leftists states in the country and was against someone the left hates more than anyone. It takes place just prior to an election that the left will have an absolute meltdown if he's elected and will do literally anything to make sure he doesn't get elected again.

Is anyone surprised at the outcome?

I'm not at all.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It was a he said / she said claim she cashed in on. She was bankrolled by the left, it took place in one of the most leftists states in the country and was against someone the left hates more than anyone. It takes place just prior to an election that the left will have an absolute meltdown if he's elected and will do literally anything to make sure he doesn't get elected again.

Is anyone surprised at the outcome?

I'm not at all.

Not a lawyer, but I'd assume Trump can appeal? I'd imagine he'll fight this for years if so.

[Shaps]

Can you show me, where she lied in court and it was proven?

Sure... her own testimony - though major outlets won't highlight it.

https://www.fingerlakesdailynews.com/national-news/e-jean-carroll-testifying-in-civil-case-says-she-cant-recall-date-of-alleged-trump-attack

"“When do you believe Donald Trump assaulted you?” her attorney, Mike Ferrara, asked Carroll during her testimony Wednesday.

“This question, the when, the when, the date, has been something I’ve constantly trying to pin down,” Carroll said.

At first she said she thought it was 1994 or 1995, but she said her friend Lisa Birnbach published an article about Trump for New York magazine in February 1996.

“Lisa never would have gone down to Mar-a-Lago … if she knew what Donald Trump had done to me,” Carroll said, leading her to believe the alleged attack occurred in 1996.

In her opening statement, Carroll attorney Shawn Crowley suggested the lack of specificity doesn’t matter.

“While Ms. Carroll doesn’t remember exactly when this happened, she remembers almost every detail of what happened, and her testimony alone will be enough for you to find Donald Trump liable in this case,” Crowley said.

That first sentence bolded alone... should really raise red flags... we're not talking what day, we're not talking what month, she doesn't know the YEAR.

Not sure what else you want. Believe what you will... I'll believe the money.

Also... what happened to this evidence?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/e-jean-carroll-who-says-trump-raped-her-seeks-his-n1126796

"E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump raped, her seeks his DNA to test against sample from her dress"

""The Donna Karan coatdress still hangs on the back of my closet door, unworn and unlaundered since that evening," she wrote. She donned it for a photo accompanying the magazine piece."

"Advice columnist E. Jean Carroll's lawyers served notice to a Trump attorney Thursday for Trump to submit a sample March 2 in Washington for "analysis and comparison against unidentified male DNA present on the dress."

BUT - surprise surprise...

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

"Judge rejects Trump offer to provide DNA sample in E. Jean Carroll rape defamation case"

"Kaplan also said that Trump had no justification for making his offer on the condition that Carroll’s lawyers be ordered to turn over a previously undisclosed appendix to a report on male DNA found on a dress she has said she was wearing when Trump allegedly attacked her."

So, you tell me.... They claim to have DNA results of 4 people on this alleged "dress"... Trumps Team says they want the results turned over to the Court, prior to him providing his DNA sample so the results can't magically be changed... but the Judge says nah, not happening.

Sounds like it really happened to me. Nothing fishy going on at all.

If this is the standard and preponderance of evidence needed to get a guilty verdict... god help us all.

You keep believing what you want - I'll keep posting FACTS.

[Seran]

As expected Shaps has nothing. Keep flying your ring wing conspiracy theories and accept as fact Trump sexual assaulted a woman, there's a judgment proving it.

[ClydeR]

Who is more convincing?

Clinton..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsfyVPh8A-E

or..

[ClydeR]

Trump..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDU0vvu3fko

[ClydeR]

In a written statement, Trump said the judge hated him more than humanly possible. First of all, it's not possible to have someone more than humanly possible. Second, the judge went out of his way to give Trump an opportunity to defend himself. When Trump's lawyer rested his case at the end of the week without present any -- and I mean absolutely zero -- evidence, the judge gave Trump until Sunday night to change his mind. If Trump had just been brave enough to go to court, confront his accuser in person, and testify, then he might have won. The sad truth is that he was too scared, which is exactly the sort of behavior you would expect from a bully sexual abuser.

[Shaps]

In a written statement, Trump said the judge hated him more than humanly possible. First of all, it's not possible to have someone more than humanly possible. Second, the judge went out of his way to give Trump an opportunity to defend himself. When Trump's lawyer rested his case at the end of the week without present any -- and I mean absolutely zero -- evidence, the judge gave Trump until Sunday night to change his mind. If Trump had just been brave enough to go to court, confront his accuser in person, and testify, then he might have won. The sad truth is that he was too scared, which is exactly the sort of behavior you would expect from a bully sexual abuser.

How do you prove a 30 year old false accusation is false? You tell me...

Again - I don't know if it did or didn't occur... I know she can't tell you what year it was. I know they didn't submit the supposed DNA test results from the "dress" to the Court. I know the Judge wouldn't let Trump submit his DNA. I know her legal fees were paid for by a Democrat Super PAC donor.

So you tell me... would you take the stand when literally everything in the media for the past 7 years has been attempting to destroy you?

Easy for you to say... I doubt you'd have the balls though.

[Shaps]

As expected Shaps has nothing. Keep flying your ring wing conspiracy theories and accept as fact Trump sexual assaulted a woman, there's a judgment proving it.

Lol... except for her testimony. Just move along you fucking lemming.

[ClydeR]

Not a lawyer, but I'd assume Trump can appeal? I'd imagine he'll fight this for years if so.

Carroll had two suits for defamation against Trump. Frist, she sued him for calling her a liar while he was still President. Then, she sued him again for calling him a liar after he as no longer President. The suit that just concluded was the second of the two. The first suit has been stalled, because Trump claimed that he could not be sued for something he said while he was President. The Biden Justice Department intervened in that case on Trump's behalf, asserting that Trump was an employee of the government at the time, acting in the course of his employment, and that the suit should have been brought
against the government, instead of against Trump. And since the government is immune from suit for defamation, the DoJ said, the case should be dismissed. That complicated issue is still working its way through the courts. It is possible that there will be another trial relating to that earlier defamatory statement, depending on how that issue is resolved.

You are correct about the appeal. There will probably be appeal rulings during the presidential campaign, which will keep this case in the spotlight.

[ClydeR]

How do you prove a 30 year old false accusation is false? You tell me...

By denying it.

[Parkbandit]

By denying it.

Sorry, how do you SUCCESSFULLY prove a 30 year old false accusation is false?

"We should always believe the woman" (except when the woman claims a Democrat did this.. then she's just a money grubbing whore.)

[Alfster]

I'd think you'd want to testify to that...

[Solkern]

It was a he said / she said claim she cashed in on. She was bankrolled by the left, it took place in one of the most leftists states in the country and was against someone the left hates more than anyone. It takes place just prior to an election that the left will have an absolute meltdown if he's elected and will do literally anything to make sure he doesn't get elected again.

Is anyone surprised at the outcome?

I'm not at all.

No matter where the trial was held, it wouldn’t have been fair.

[Solkern]

Not a lawyer, but I'd assume Trump can appeal? I'd imagine he'll fight this for years if so.

Pretty sure he has just two appeals he can do, appeals court and the New York Supreme Court.

[ClydeR]

Sorry, how do you SUCCESSFULLY prove a 30 year old false accusation is false?

"We should always believe the woman" (except when the woman claims a Democrat did this.. then she's just a money grubbing whore.)


Accused men successfully deny such claims all the time. Remember Brett Kavanaugh? To be successful, the accused must show up. "80 percent of success in life is just showing up," according to Woody Allen, who obviously knows a lot about this sort of thing.

[Parkbandit]

I'd think you'd want to testify to that...

Defendants in a civil case rarely ever take the stand.

[ClydeR]

Defendants in a civil case rarely ever take the stand.


I don't have any statistics to refute you, but that does not sound true. In a civil trial, the plaintiff can force the defendant to testify. If Carroll thought Trump's testimony would have been at all helpful to her, she would have called him to testify. She did not call him to testify because she feared that his denials would have hurt her case. In his absence, she had the right to cherry pick portions of his deposition video and play those for the jury. Trump could have called himself to testify.

It may be true that in criminal cases the defendant rarely testifies, because criminal defendants have a right to refuse to testify.

I said from the very beginning that Trump's failure to testify would cause him to lose. I was right about that. I also said that a loss in this case would prevent Trump from winning a general election. I stand by that prediction. I do not believe voters will elect a sexual abuser. If Republicans are smart, they will cut their losses and nominate another candidate.

[Seran]

Defendants in a civil case rarely ever take the stand.

A dumb abstraction you didn't bother to cite data on. Trump submitted to a video deposition and declined to provide testimony. The jury on the preponderance of the evidence ruled Trump did knowingly harm a woman he sexually abused and harmed. Trump fucked up both by hurting that women and by failing to testify.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I don't have any statistics to refute you, but that does not sound true. In a civil trial, the plaintiff can force the defendant to testify. If Carroll thought Trump's testimony would have been at all helpful to her, she would have called him to testify. She did not call him to testify because she feared that his denials would have hurt her case. In his absence, she had the right to cherry pick portions of his deposition video and play those for the jury. Trump could have called himself to testify.

It may be true that in criminal cases the defendant rarely testifies, because criminal defendants have a right to refuse to testify.

I said from the very beginning that Trump's failure to testify would cause him to lose. I was right about that. I also said that a loss in this case would prevent Trump from winning a general election. I stand by that prediction. I do not believe voters will elect a sexual abuser. If Republicans are smart, they will cut their losses and nominate another candidate.

The frequency with which defendants in a civil trial take the stand can vary depending on several factors, including the specific circumstances of the case, the advice of legal counsel, and the strategic considerations of the defense team. Here are a few points to consider:


1. Not Mandatory: In a civil trial, defendants are generally not required to testify or take the stand. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and the defendant's decision to testify is typically voluntary.


2. Witness Testimony: The defense may present witnesses other than the defendant to provide testimony and evidence supporting their case. These witnesses can include experts, fact witnesses, or character witnesses.


3. Risk and Benefit Analysis: The decision for a defendant to testify often involves a careful evaluation of the potential risks and benefits. Testifying may provide an opportunity to present their side of the story directly to the jury, but it also exposes them to cross-examination and potential challenges to their credibility.


4. Legal Advice: Defendants receive guidance from their legal counsel, who assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the credibility of the defendant as a witness, and the potential impact of their testimony on the overall defense strategy.


5. Case-specific Factors: The nature of the case, the specific allegations, and the available evidence can influence the decision to testify. If the defense believes that the plaintiff's case is weak or lacks substantial evidence, they may choose not to put the defendant on the stand.


6. Prior Statements: It's important to note that if a defendant decides to testify, their prior statements and actions can be examined and used against them during cross-examination.


Ultimately, the decision of whether a defendant takes the stand in a civil trial is made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances and legal strategy involved.

[Solkern]

The frequency with which defendants in a civil trial take the stand can vary depending on several factors, including the specific circumstances of the case, the advice of legal counsel, and the strategic considerations of the defense team. Here are a few points to consider:


1. Not Mandatory: In a civil trial, defendants are generally not required to testify or take the stand. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff, and the defendant's decision to testify is typically voluntary.


2. Witness Testimony: The defense may present witnesses other than the defendant to provide testimony and evidence supporting their case. These witnesses can include experts, fact witnesses, or character witnesses.


3. Risk and Benefit Analysis: The decision for a defendant to testify often involves a careful evaluation of the potential risks and benefits. Testifying may provide an opportunity to present their side of the story directly to the jury, but it also exposes them to cross-examination and potential challenges to their credibility.


4. Legal Advice: Defendants receive guidance from their legal counsel, who assesses the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the credibility of the defendant as a witness, and the potential impact of their testimony on the overall defense strategy.


5. Case-specific Factors: The nature of the case, the specific allegations, and the available evidence can influence the decision to testify. If the defense believes that the plaintiff's case is weak or lacks substantial evidence, they may choose not to put the defendant on the stand.


6. Prior Statements: It's important to note that if a defendant decides to testify, their prior statements and actions can be examined and used against them during cross-examination.


Ultimately, the decision of whether a defendant takes the stand in a civil trial is made on a case-by-case basis, considering the specific circumstances and legal strategy involved.

Yup that is true, but a civil defendant can decline, but only on a question-by-question basis, to answer questions based on his 5th Amendment privilege, but he can be forced to take the stand.

[Parkbandit]

A dumb abstraction you didn't bother to cite data on. Trump submitted to a video deposition and declined to provide testimony. The jury on the preponderance of the evidence ruled Trump did knowingly harm a woman he sexually abused and harmed. Trump fucked up both by hurting that women and by failing to testify.

Do you have different US data that suggests most civil defendants take the stand?

No?

Shut the fuck up then retard.

[Parkbandit]

Yup that is true, but a civil defendant can decline, but only on a question-by-question basis, to answer questions based on his 5th Amendment privilege, but he can be forced to take the stand.

A defendant cannot be forced to take the stand in a civil case.

Please stop.

[Solkern]

A defendant cannot be forced to take the stand in a civil case.

Please stop.

Actually you can, the 5th stops you from answering questions, but you can still be forced to take the stand. It’s different than a criminal case.

[Seran]

Do you have different US data that suggests most civil defendants take the stand?

No?

Shut the fuck up then retard.

Which data are you referring to? You've not posted shit.

[Parkbandit]

Actually you can, the 5th stops you from answering questions, but you can still be forced to take the stand. It’s different than a criminal case.

You sure about that?

Testifying in a Legal Proceeding
At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against their will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

[Exit]

You sure about that?

Testifying in a Legal Proceeding
At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against their will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

I reckon it was 2017? I had a civil trial I had to attend while on a business trip to Boston. Our lawyers made the defendant take the stand. It seems that you are a bit of a daft, and I can’t be arsed enough to go into it with you, as you seem to like to get into a row, even when you don’t know what you are talking about. Stop being a muppet.

[Seran]

You sure about that?

Testifying in a Legal Proceeding
At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against their will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

Fifth amendment only applies to criminal cases. In a civil case, the individual wishing to assert a fifth amendment claim against self incrimination if they can show there is the threat of their testimony being used against them in a future court proceeding. See Supreme Court Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367

[Suppressed Poet]

I’m not satisfied. We need Time4Fun with her law degree to come in here and spit the facts.

[Neveragain]

Fifth amendment only applies to criminal cases.

So, you admit that President Trump wasn't convicted of any criminal activity.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/lFHtqqh6orvAhbiGmy/giphy.gif

[Solkern]

You sure about that?

Testifying in a Legal Proceeding
At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against their will. However, a defendant who does choose to testify cannot choose to answer some questions but not others. Once the defendant takes the witness stand, this particular Fifth Amendment right is considered waived throughout the trial.

https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

Are you sure about that?

Do you even bother to read what you post or link? This is a civil case, not a criminal case.

Please stop

[Solkern]

Fifth amendment only applies to criminal cases. In a civil case, the individual wishing to assert a fifth amendment claim against self incrimination if they can show there is the threat of their testimony being used against them in a future court proceeding. See Supreme Court Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367

Yes, they can still invoke the 5th, but it’s only on a question to question basis, he can’t use the 5th to refuse to take the stand.

[Seran]

Yes, they can still invoke the 5th, but it’s only on a question to question basis, he can’t use the 5th to refuse to take the stand.

Anyone can make the claim, but the Constitutional right has been clearly defined to protect one from testifying against oneself where criminal proceedings are pending, ongoing or where testimony could result in criminal proceedings. As the Statute of Limitations for Trump's crime of sexual assault and battery have passed, he had no such fifth amendment right.

[Solkern]

Anyone can make the claim, but the Constitutional right has been clearly defined to protect one from testifying against oneself where criminal proceedings are pending, ongoing or where testimony could result in criminal proceedings. As the Statute of Limitations for Trump's crime of sexual assault and battery have passed, he had no such fifth amendment right.

What I mean is, if the lawyer asked him a question where his answer would cause him criminal problems in the future, he can plead the 5th to that question. He can’t invoke the 5th to not stand trial, invoking the 5th in a civil case is a question by question basis. I’m not talking about trump specifically, just generally speaking.

[Seran]

What I mean is, if the lawyer asked him a question where his answer would cause him criminal problems in the future, he can plead the 5th to that question. He can’t invoke the 5th to not stand trial, invoking the 5th in a civil case is a question by question basis. I’m not talking about trump specifically, just generally speaking.

You're right, I misread your post. I apologize.

[Methais]

You know it's interesting that you as always go straight to a conspiracy, never mind that an impartial panel of jurors found Donald Trump to have sexually assaulted a woman, you're more interested in spinning it as some sort of political hit job.

But don't you worry there are at least four other Criminal investigations that are wrapping up that I'm sure will be handing out additional indictments any day now.

I really wish you were trolling because I hate having to accept the fact that it's possible for someone as stupid as you to exist.

[Methais]

I"m pretty sure corn pop likes little kids playing with his leg hair, or some shit like that. Yeah, Biden is VERY INCREDIBLY CLEARLY A PEDOPHILE. Caps for emphasis.

Corn Pop was just trying to save those kids from being molested by Biden and that's why Biden says Corn Pop is a bad dude.

[Methais]

Obviously, there was enough evidence to get a guilty verdict.

There's also no burden of proof in a civil trial.


There was enough to get a conviction, and to say there wasn’t, would mean he would have been found innocent.

There are also no convictions in a civil trial. It's either ruled in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant. Or nobody at all. Pretty big difference.

[Methais]

Keep flying your ring wing conspiracy...

https://i.imgur.com/p6Myzp5.jpg

[Methais]

WOW WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!!!!!1one

https://i.imgur.com/ryhYPlj.png
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1656270521787613184

Statute Of Limitations On Sexual Assault Eliminated For One Year In New York Following Passage Of The Adult Survivors Act
https://www.forbes.com/sites/douglaswigdor/2022/05/25/statute-of-limitations-on-sexual-assault-eliminated-for-one-year-in-new-york-following-passage-of-the-adult-survivors-act/?sh=794f5bc246fd

https://i.imgur.com/p4mu59H.png
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1656335296085245952?s=20



And just for keks:
https://i.imgur.com/AVJKFv2.png
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1656690214851555328?s=20


^ If you're too stupid to click the link, he's being applauded in the video.

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/ecESE9E.png

[Seran]

Donald Trump: "This woman I don't know must have liked how I raped her because she enjoys television. I mean, I've never touched this woman."

[Methais]

Donald Trump: "This woman I don't know must have liked how I raped her because she enjoys television. I mean, I've never touched this woman."

Because I'm sure rape victims would absolutely love watching a TV show where their supposed rapist is the host and they gleefully stare at him for an hour every week on their TV.

Stop being retarded and gullible.


We'll set aside the part where her entire story was stolen from a Law & Order: SVU episode for now, because I know how easily you get confused. It's because you're retarded.

Season 13 Episode 11: Theatre Tricks


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0q-Vz_Ie68

[ClydeR]

Because I'm sure rape victims would absolutely love watching a TV show where their supposed rapist is the host and they gleefully stare at him for an hour every week on their TV.

The jury has ruled. Unless and until an appeals court overturns the verdict, the facts are established. If the first suit by Carroll against Trump, which was held up because it involved statements made by Trump while he as President, goes to trial, there won't be a need for a jury to determine whether or not Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then lied about it. The only issue will be the amount of additional damages Trump has to pay Carroll, because the fact of the sexual assault in the dressing room is already established.

By failing to appear in court and deny the allegations against him at the trial, Trump ensured his loss and, in my opinion, ensured that he will not be elected President in 2024. This case was more important than any of the other cases or investigations in which he is involved, and he totally blew it.

[Parkbandit]

By failing to appear in court and deny the allegations against him at the trial, Trump ensured his loss and, in my opinion, ensured that he will not be elected President in 2024. This case was more important than any of the other cases or investigations in which he is involved, and he totally blew it.

What?

His poll numbers actually climbed after that Democrat bullshit circus.

[Seran]

The jury has ruled. Unless and until an appeals court overturns the verdict, the facts are established. If the first suit by Carroll against Trump, which was held up because it involved statements made by Trump while he as President, goes to trial, there won't be a need for a jury to determine whether or not Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then lied about it. The only issue will be the amount of additional damages Trump has to pay Carroll, because the fact of the sexual assault in the dressing room is already established.

By failing to appear in court and deny the allegations against him at the trial, Trump ensured his loss and, in my opinion, ensured that he will not be elected President in 2024. This case was more important than any of the other cases or investigations in which he is involved, and he totally blew it.

Pretty damning for sure, but by far the least impactful of what I imagine is going to be the year of ex-presidential indictments. He's got to be sweating the recordings of Rudy selling pardons, Rudy will turn on him in a heartbeat for immunity.

[Solkern]

What?

His poll numbers actually climbed after that Democrat bullshit circus.

Wait, now poll numbers mean something to you? Heh.

[Parkbandit]

Wait, now poll numbers mean something to you? Heh.

No, but how else would you rate a candidate's chances prior to a nomination?

[Seran]

No, but how else would you rate a candidate's chances prior to a nomination?

The candidate mostly likely to win nomination will be one that isn't in prison or under supervised release. Generally a good yardstick.

[Suppressed Poet]

The candidate mostly likely to win nomination will be one that isn't in prison or under supervised release. Generally a good yardstick.

I bet you all the tea in China that Trump won’t be convicted of a crime before the upcoming election.

[Parkbandit]

The candidate mostly likely to win nomination will be one that isn't in prison or under supervised release. Generally a good yardstick.

"OMGOMGOMGOMGOMG! THIS IS IT! IT'S FINALLY HAPPENING!!!!!!!!!!" -Seran the Retard Champion for the 10th time in the past 6 years.

[Methais]

The candidate mostly likely to win nomination will be one that isn't in prison or under supervised release. Generally a good yardstick.

Tell us then, Soyran, what specifically is it that you believe Trump will be in prison for?

Also, remember the 984732942370 other times you were so certain that Trump was going down and in 100% of those instances you were wrong, and are still butthurt over it?

[ClydeR]

I wonder if Trump has considered that, if the jury rules in Carroll's favor, he will be asked about it many times in debates and interviews. When he is asked, will he call her a liar again? Part of her lawsuit against him is for defamation.


That proved prophetic. If there is a jury in the second trial, its function may be limited to determining whether Trump made the new remarks with malice. The fact of the sexual assault has already been established and should not be relitigated.



E. Jean Carroll filed court papers Monday seeking “very substantial” monetary damages from Donald Trump for making scathing remarks about her at a CNN town hall a day after the former president lost a $5 million lawsuit to the writer.

More... (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/22/e-jean-carroll-seeks-very-substantial-damages-from-trump-over-cnn-town-hall-remarks.html)

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It's only ever been a money and politically motivated play, so not surprising.

I hope all the people persecuted on television get litigious. When can we sue for being called Ultra MAGA or deplorables? Or people like Riley Gaines can sue POTUS and his mouthpiece for slander and endangering her life? I love it, sue them all.

[ClydeR]

Marking your calendars will exhaust you..

October 3, 2023 -- New York Attorney General $250 million civil case against Trump, some of his children, Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization and others. Read it. (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22670320/new-york-attorney-general-lawsuit-against-trump-family-members-trump-organization.pdf)

January 15, 2024 -- E. Jean Carroll's first defamation case against Trump, which follows her prior victory in the second case. Temporally confused? Read it. (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23820665/amended-complaint-ii.pdf)

March 25, 2024 -- Manhattan D.A. felony criminal business fraud case against Trump. Read it. (https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf)


I don't know when they will find time for the espionage trial.

[Bhaalizmo]

Marking your calendars will exhaust you..

October 3, 2023 -- New York Attorney General $250 million civil case against Trump, some of his children, Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization and others. Read it. (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22670320/new-york-attorney-general-lawsuit-against-trump-family-members-trump-organization.pdf)

January 15, 2024 -- E. Jean Carroll's first defamation case against Trump, which follows her prior victory in the second case. Temporally confused? Read it. (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23820665/amended-complaint-ii.pdf)

March 25, 2024 -- Manhattan D.A. felony criminal business fraud case against Trump. Read it. (https://www.manhattanda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Donald-J.-Trump-Indictment.pdf)


I don't know when they will find time for the espionage trial.

Oh I'm sure they can squeeze a few more trials in there before the end of 24.

[ClydeR]

The trial date for the documents case has been set (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23883725/trump-documents-case-date-set.pdf) for May 20, 2024. By that date, Republican primary voters will have chosen their candidate, whose nomination will be ratified at a convention in July 2024. Trump is already preparing for the possibility that the could win a majority of primary votes, only to see the delegates turn on him at the convention.

If the documents case actually goes to trial in May 2024 and is not again delayed, then in my opinion Trump will be convicted. He has a few fairly weak legal arguments to make in his defense and almost no factual arguments to make in his defense. Imagine how Republicans will react when their nominee is proven to be a criminal. Will convention delegates in July 2024 honor their state selection and nominate someone doomed to lose and take the House and Senate down with him?


Behind the scenes, however, the Trump team is quietly planning for the most chaotic outcome of a bitter primary war: a fight on the floor of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee next July.

According to five Republicans familiar with the discussions, Trump and his team are making a concerted push to ensure that the convention is packed with loyalists who could fortify their position, should another candidate win enough delegates during the primary to potentially maneuver for the nomination.

The effort includes calls from Trump and his advisers to senior party leadership in early primary states as well as in delegate-rich states later in the calendar, like California, Florida, and Michigan, asking for updates on the delegate selection process, pushing for the selection of MAGA loyalists, and generally emphasizing the importance of the process.

More... (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumpworld-quietly-prepares-for-a-chaotic-convention-floor-fight)

How is Trump going to find time to devote to his campaign? The documents case, alone, will requires a great deal of his time, not to mention the civil case against his company in October, the Carroll defamation case in January, the business records falsification criminal case in March, a possible criminal case in Georgia, and, possibly a criminal case relating to January 6.

If you want a fun campaign, then, sure, vote for Trump. If you want something more than entertainment, find somebody else. Nothing can rescue Trump from his legal troubles. It's time to move on.

I get exhausted just reading about it.

[Parkbandit]

I get exhausted just reading about it.

Imagine being such a low energy coward that you get exhausted by reading.

[Shaps]

Weird how the documents thing was 2 years ago.. but oddly... it disappeared for a year.. and now suddenly reappears before the election.

I'm sure that's just how the Justice system works.

Also sort of odd... what happened to all the documents that Joe Biden was found to have in his garage?

I mean.. if we're trying 1 President for something.. why aren't we trying the other for the exact same thing?

All just a mix-up I'm sure.

[Methais]

Weird how the documents thing was 2 years ago.. but oddly... it disappeared for a year.. and now suddenly reappears before the election.

I'm sure that's just how the Justice system works.

Also sort of odd... what happened to all the documents that Joe Biden was found to have in his garage?

I mean.. if we're trying 1 President for something.. why aren't we trying the other for the exact same thing?

All just a mix-up I'm sure.

Seran should be along shortly to tardsplain why it's d-d-d-d-d-different in Biden's case.

[ClydeR]

Seran should be along shortly to tardsplain why it's d-d-d-d-d-different in Biden's case.

This link (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839658/trump-indictment-document.pdf) is the full text of the federal indictment against Trump in the documents case. The top of the first page lists all of the US Code sections for the crimes being charged against Trump. They are all quoted below. Which section or sections do you think Biden, Pence or Clinton violated?

The problem charging Biden, Pence or Clinton is that they lacked intent. Clinton came much closer than Biden or Pence to violating the law, but the case against her would have been a very difficult case to prove. According to Comey (https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system), "no reasonable prosecutor" would have charged Clinton. There is no case to be made at all against Biden or Pence. If the facts recited in the indictment against Trump are true, the documents case against him will be easy to prove, and he will surely be found guilty. Instead of posting nasty things about the prosecutor on social media, he should be attempting to negotiate a plea deal.


18 U.S.C. § 793(e): Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1512(k): Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.


18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A): Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to ... cause or induce any person to (A)withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1): Whoever corruptly (1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1519: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any foreign government, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1): Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; or (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1): Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.


18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2): Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.


18 U.S.C. § 2: (a)Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b)Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCMjd7irLM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCMjd7irLM

[Suppressed Poet]

This link (https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839658/trump-indictment-document.pdf) is the full text of the federal indictment against Trump in the documents case. The top of the first page lists all of the US Code sections for the crimes being charged against Trump. They are all quoted below. Which section or sections do you think Biden, Pence or Clinton violated?

The problem charging Biden, Pence or Clinton is that they lacked intent. Clinton came much closer than Biden or Pence to violating the law, but the case against her would have been a very difficult case to prove. According to Comey (https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system), "no reasonable prosecutor" would have charged Clinton. There is no case to be made at all against Biden or Pence. If the facts recited in the indictment against Trump are true, the documents case against him will be easy to prove, and he will surely be found guilty. Instead of posting nasty things about the prosecutor on social media, he should be attempting to negotiate a plea deal.


18 U.S.C. § 793(e): Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; ... Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1512(k): Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.


18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(2)(A): Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to ... cause or induce any person to (A)withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding; ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1): Whoever corruptly (1)alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1519: Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any foreign government, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1): Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; or (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1): Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.


18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2): Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; ... shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.


18 U.S.C. § 2: (a)Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b)Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCMjd7irLM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThCMjd7irLM

You realize this is a jury trial and Trump is the front runner for the Republican nomination for president, right? I can anticipate you would tell me jurors are impartial & may only make a verdict based on the facts of the case. Yes, I’m aware. The problem of this case is that nobody in America is impartial to Trump & he is running for political office of the highest level. I say this to mean despite whatever slam dunk evidence our federal government think they have, Trump is innocent of all charges with full rights to legal defense until he is convicted unanimously by 12 jurors of his peers. As they say, anything can happen in a jury trial.

[ClydeR]

You realize this is a jury trial and Trump is the front runner for the Republican nomination for president, right? I can anticipate you would tell me jurors are impartial & may only make a verdict based on the facts of the case. Yes, I’m aware. The problem of this case is that nobody in America is impartial to Trump & he is running for political office of the highest level. I say this to mean despite whatever slam dunk evidence our federal government think they have, Trump is innocent of all charges with full rights to legal defense until he is convicted unanimously by 12 jurors of his peers. As they say, anything can happen in a jury trial.

The trail will be held in -- and the jury pool drawn from -- a place that voted for Trump over Biden in the 2016 election (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/trump-trial-documents-florida-jury.html). To convict Trump, all 12 jurors must find him guilty. If even one juror refuses, he cannot be convicted. Trump appointed the judge. Every benefit of the doubt will be given to Trump. Yet, because of the overwhelming weight of the evidence against him, he will certainly be found guilty if this matter goes to trail.

[~Rocktar~]

The trail will be held in -- and the jury pool drawn from -- a place that voted for Trump over Biden in the 2016 election (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/trump-trial-documents-florida-jury.html). To convict Trump, all 12 jurors must find him guilty. If even one juror refuses, he cannot be convicted. Trump appointed the judge. Every benefit of the doubt will be given to Trump. Yet, because of the overwhelming weight of the evidence against him, he will certainly be found guilty if this matter goes to trail.

Yeah, waiting for the election interference charges against the prosecutors since they aren't charging Biden and Clinton.

[Suppressed Poet]

The trail will be held in -- and the jury pool drawn from -- a place that voted for Trump over Biden in the 2016 election (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/trump-trial-documents-florida-jury.html). To convict Trump, all 12 jurors must find him guilty. If even one juror refuses, he cannot be convicted. Trump appointed the judge. Every benefit of the doubt will be given to Trump. Yet, because of the overwhelming weight of the evidence against him, he will certainly be found guilty if this matter goes to trail.

John Hickley Jr.
Lorena Bobbitt
OJ Simpson
Casey Anthony
R Kelly (2008 trial)

That is just off the top of my head, but the above cases also had overwhelming evidence to support a conviction.

I don’t have a crystal ball. Maybe Trump will be convicted. Don’t kid yourself that this is going to be easy or a slam dunk case for the government. You are setting yourself up for a meltdown if you believe that an acquittal or mistrial is outside the realm of possibility. I’m telling you now it’s likely to happen.

[Parkbandit]

You are setting yourself up for yet another meltdown if you believe that an acquittal or mistrial is outside the realm of possibility.

FTFY.

There is no way you will ever find an impartial jury of 12 people for this trial.

[time4fun]

Weird how the documents thing was 2 years ago.. but oddly... it disappeared for a year.. and now suddenly reappears before the election.

I'm sure that's just how the Justice system works.

Also sort of odd... what happened to all the documents that Joe Biden was found to have in his garage?

I mean.. if we're trying 1 President for something.. why aren't we trying the other for the exact same thing?

All just a mix-up I'm sure.

It's like you've never heard of an investigation before. It's a former US President- they need to make sure this is actually a case worth bringing, and they brought in a Special Prosecutor for the case as it was in the public's interest to do so. That takes time. So yes, this is actually how the Justice system works.

And if you truly don't understand that the Trump situation is factually, legally different from that of Biden and Pence's, then you're just ignorant and clueless.

And for the record- the DoJ treated all three cases identically. No one was charged for anything that was returned to the Federal government and wasn't shared with people who had no legal right to view the material.

Trump just happens to be the only idiot who refused to return Federal property and shared classified information publicly with people who had no clearance. Or is your stance now that refusing to return classified information to the Federal government and sharing it with civilians is no different from returning it immediately after its found, and that it doesn't matter whether or not you decided to share HIGHLY classified information with people who had no right to see it?

Sorry, I'm being silly here. I forgot to give you your favorite third option- or did you want to distract with personal attacks and indulge in rhetorical fallacies to avoid having to answer a basic question?

[~Rocktar~]

It's like you've never heard of an investigation before. It's a former US President- they need to make sure this is actually a case worth bringing, and they brought in a Special Prosecutor for the case as it was in the public's interest to do so. That takes time. So yes, this is actually how the Justice system works.

And if you truly don't understand that the Trump situation is factually, legally different from that of Biden and Pence's, then you're just ignorant and clueless.

And for the record- the DoJ treated all three cases identically. No one was charged for anything that was returned to the Federal government and wasn't shared with people who had no legal right to view the material.

Trump just happens to be the only idiot who refused to return Federal property and shared classified information publicly with people who had no clearance. Or is your stance now that refusing to return classified information to the Federal government and sharing it with civilians is no different from returning it immediately after its found, and that it doesn't matter whether or not you decided to share HIGHLY classified information with people who had no right to see it?

Sorry, I'm being silly here. I forgot to give you your favorite third option- or did you want to distract with personal attacks and indulge in rhetorical fallacies to avoid having to answer a basic question?

Whatever makes you feel better and sleep at night. Biden had multiple classified documents from when he was a Senator. You know, when he had ABSOULTLY no right or ability to have in his possession EVER, no Senator ever does. Then there is the whole "stored in a garage with no security and in the presence of a crack head and hookers" vs "stored in a locked residence with Secret Service protection." Lastly, the failure to prosecute Biden and Clinton along with the timeline desperately suggests election interfearance.

Your post is filled with assertions that are not fact and your emotional bias.

Your suggestion that the DOJ has treated the cases identically is patently absurd and just highlights your deep and perhaps terminal case of both shit to the brains and Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Keep slugging down the copium, it might help but I doubt it. Or do you want to pull out yet another fake degree, ridiculous internship or other attempt at building your non-existent internet cred?

[Solkern]

Biden had multiple classified documents from when he was a Senator. You know, when he had ABSOULTLY no right or ability to have in his possession EVER, no Senator ever does.

Yeah this is incorrect, Senators handle, possess, and look at classified documents all the time.

Your post is filled with things that are not fact, but go ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want.

[Seran]

Weird how the documents thing was 2 years ago.. but oddly... it disappeared for a year.. and now suddenly reappears before the election.

I'm sure that's just how the Justice system works.

Also sort of odd... what happened to all the documents that Joe Biden was found to have in his garage?

I mean.. if we're trying 1 President for something.. why aren't we trying the other for the exact same thing?

All just a mix-up I'm sure.

Are you also going to shed tears when the trial against Donald Trump begins May of next year? Or will you actually remember that the conservative Trump appointee, Judge Aileen Cannon chose to delay the trial until mid next year? Since you conveniently overlooked the fact the investigation itself was delayed this year as Trump had illegally retained documents for a year and a half, then delayed another few months trying to get the same judge to supersede her authority to obstruct justice on his behalf?

[~Rocktar~]

Yeah this is incorrect, Senators handle, possess, and look at classified documents all the time.

Your post is filled with things that are not fact, but go ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want.


Yeah this is incorrect, Senators handle, possess, and look at classified documents all the time.

Your post is filled with things that are not fact, but go ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want.

Incorrect, they are not allowed to take them home, haul them around, keep them unsecured and there are a certain class of documents that they can't have outside of a special secure room in the Capitol building. Biden was in possession of all levels of documents. Remember the one that was caught trying to sneak documents out in his pants? Yeah, that kind of document. Fuck off and go support murdering more children because your feelings were hurt.

[Parkbandit]

Sorry, I'm being silly here.

Sweetie, you spelled stupid wrong again.

Remember when you fell for the Dossier... and believed that Trump stole the election... or the Russian Collusion... or the Ukraine call...

Your record on anything Trump is a testament of how being gullible, stupid and ignorant isn't a great look.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah this is incorrect, Senators handle, possess, and look at classified documents all the time.

Your post is filled with things that are not fact, but go ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want.

Notice how he used the word "had" and "from" and you even quoted that? Anyone with an IQ above 43 could figure out that he was saying that Biden "had" in his possession, items "from" when Joe Biden was a Senator that he had no business having after leaving that job.

[Solkern]

Incorrect, they are not allowed to take them home, haul them around, keep them unsecured and there are a certain class of documents that they can't have outside of a special secure room in the Capitol building. Biden was in possession of all levels of documents. Remember the one that was caught trying to sneak documents out in his pants? Yeah, that kind of document. Fuck off and go support murdering more children because your feelings were hurt.

That is factually incorrect, it’s based off the level of the classified documents, as long as an approved safe or container is storing them, they are indeed allowed to take them home.

[~Rocktar~]

That is factually incorrect, it’s based off the level of the classified documents, as long as an approved safe or container is storing them, they are indeed allowed to take them home.

No matter the level of document, a cardboard box in an unlocked garage does not meet this requirement. Keep guzzling the copium.

[Parkbandit]

That is factually incorrect, it’s based off the level of the classified documents, as long as an approved safe or container is storing them, they are indeed allowed to take them home.

A Senator is allowed to take classified documents home with them now?

Good to know.

Sorry, can you give a cite for that?

Thanks.

[~Rocktar~]

A Senator is allowed to take classified documents home with them now?

Good to know.

Sorry, can you give a cite for that?

Thanks.

And store them in an unlocked garage, in carboard boxes with a meth addict and hookers milling about.

[Methais]

Yeah this is incorrect, Senators handle, possess, and look at classified documents all the time.

Your post is filled with things that are not fact, but go ahead and believe whatever bullshit you want.

And what do they do after they're done looking at them?

Be specific.

[Seran]

The circus that are the attempts to distract from Donald Trump's illegal actions with whataboutisms are hilarious.

[ClydeR]

https://i.imgur.com/ZIImDzO.png
https://twitter.com/charlesbethea/status/1684615571537580032

[Methais]

https://i.imgur.com/ZIImDzO.png
https://twitter.com/charlesbethea/status/1684615571537580032

"NOW HIRING" :rofl:

Gee I wonder why they're short...

[Gelston]

"NOW HIRING" :rofl:

Gee I wonder why they're short...

Everywhere is short.

[Methais]

Everywhere is short.

Still can't imagine why...

[Gelston]

Still can't imagine why...

Mostly pay issues. Even your old "BACK THE BLUE!!!1111" Republican strongholds are like "Nah, we aren't going to vote to increase a millage tax to pay them better."

There is a lot of burn out too. A bunch of people will go into law enforcement and realize it isn't for them. You lose a lot of friends. Your neighbors become a little scared of you. You're no longer invited to the neighborhood parties. Reason you usually see cops hanging out with cops almost exclusively.

[Parkbandit]

Mostly pay issues. Even your old "BACK THE BLUE!!!1111" Republican strongholds are like "Nah, we aren't going to vote to increase a millage tax to pay them better."

There is a lot of burn out too. A bunch of people will go into law enforcement and realize it isn't for them. You lose a lot of friends. Your neighbors become a little scared of you. You're no longer invited to the neighborhood parties. Reason you usually see cops hanging out with cops almost exclusively.

If you are a cop and your neighbors become a little scared of you.. you're in the wrong neighborhood.

[Gelston]

If you are a cop and your neighbors become a little scared of you.. you're in the wrong neighborhood.

Everyone has something to hide, I don't care who you are.

[Parkbandit]

Everyone has something to hide, I don't care who you are.

From the police?

I have absolutely zero to hide from the police. One of my best friends is a cop, my god daughter is a cop, my niece is a cop, her husband is a cop.

You're projecting.

[Gelston]

From the police?

I have absolutely zero to hide from the police. One of my best friends is a cop, my god daughter is a cop, my niece is a cop, her husband is a cop.

You're projecting.

yOu'rE pRoJeCtInG

k.

[Parkbandit]

yOu'rE pRoJeCtInG

k.

Most people aren't afraid of cops.

IF you are, then maybe you are correct: You have something to hide.

But it's not "everyone" at all.

[Gelston]

Most people aren't afraid of cops.

IF you are, then maybe you are correct: You have something to hide.

But it's not "everyone" at all.

Hint hint, I am in law enforcement. This is my observations. Stop arguing to argue.

[Parkbandit]

Hint hint, I am in law enforcement. This is my observations. Stop arguing to argue.

When you use blanket statements like "Everyone has something to hide" it should throw up a red flag.

It didn't in your case, which is more about you than anyone else.

Dirty cop gotta guilty conscious?

[Gelston]

When you use blanket statements like "Everyone has something to hide" it should throw up a red flag.

It didn't in your case, which is more about you than anyone else.

Dirty cop gotta guilty conscious?

Good God you are a massive faggot.

Everyone has secrets, dimwit. I didn't say it was all illegal shit, but when people see someone whose job it is to investigate shit, they are extra careful.

You done?

[Parkbandit]

Good God you are a massive faggot.

Everyone has secrets, dimwit. I didn't say it was all illegal shit, but when people see someone whose job it is to investigate shit, they are extra careful.

You done?

We're talking about cops. You claim that the neighbors are all afraid of cops because "everyone has something to hide"...

You were wrong, stupid and extra sensitive. "MY NEIGHBORS DON'T LIKE ME!"

SPOILER: Your neighbors aren't afraid of cops and have something to hide.. they just don't like you.

[Gelston]

We're talking about cops. You claim that the neighbors are all afraid of cops because "everyone has something to hide"...

You were wrong, stupid and extra sensitive. "MY NEIGHBORS DON'T LIKE ME!"

SPOILER: Your neighbors aren't afraid of cops and have something to hide.. they just don't like you.

No, this is a pretty common occurrence amongst everyone I know. Once they park that car in their lot, the invitations to the BBQ stop coming. It isn't just a me thing.

Also, you don't know me. Stop pretending you know anything about anyone.

[Parkbandit]

No, this is a pretty common occurrence amongst everyone I know. Once they park that car in their lot, the invitations to the BBQ stop coming. It isn't just a me thing.

Also, you don't know me. Stop pretending you know anything about anyone.

I bet your mom used to tell you that all those kids at school are just jealous of you and that is why you were never invited to their birthday parties.

[Gelston]

I bet your mom used to tell you that all those kids at school are just jealous of you and that is why you were never invited to their birthday parties.

No, I was always invited to birthday parties. Do you wish to continue to be a prick or?

[Suppressed Poet]

I wouldn’t want to be a cop. They have a difficult & publicly scrutinized job for not a lot of money. Just like in any other profession, there are good cops and there are a minority of bad apples. I have deep respect for good moral law enforcement officers that adhere to their oath of respecting & upholding the Constitution.

[Parkbandit]

No, I was always invited to birthday parties. Do you wish to continue to be a prick or?

"I know what all cops go through because I'm in law enforcement. Everyone has something to hide. Also, I was always invited to birthday parties." -Gelston 2023

https://media1.giphy.com/media/uGvPiVRwouTuyMyzrS/200w.gif?cid=790b7611f7lgp9wf8lir16mews843zwt931s2 z29uur760i9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

[joeyb]

reasonable people are at least a little scared of cops because cops can do anything they want with impunity and reasonable people recognize that. the only people who say they aren't at least a little scared of cops are privileged non-thinking idiots who live in a bubble and think that any time a cop uses excessive force is because the other person "just didn't comply".

that is until they get the cops called on them by an even more privileged person or the ruling class and then get their ass beat or thrown in jail and start crying about their rights.

point i'm trying to make is parkbandit is an idiot who doesn't understand anything outside of his nursing home

[Parkbandit]

reasonable people are at least a little scared of cops because cops can do anything they want with impunity and reasonable people recognize that. the only people who say they aren't at least a little scared of cops are privileged non-thinking idiots who live in a bubble and think that any time a cop uses excessive force is because the other person "just didn't comply".

that is until they get the cops called on them by an even more privileged person or the ruling class and then get their ass beat or thrown in jail and start crying about their rights.

point i'm trying to make is parkbandit is an idiot who doesn't understand anything outside of his nursing home

You seem pretty upset today, Beta Cuck. What happened... wife kicked you out again?

[Gelston]

"I know what all cops go through because I'm in law enforcement. Everyone has something to hide. Also, I was always invited to birthday parties." -Gelston 2023

https://media1.giphy.com/media/uGvPiVRwouTuyMyzrS/200w.gif?cid=790b7611f7lgp9wf8lir16mews843zwt931s2 z29uur760i9&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

Why are you so triggered?

[joeyb]

beta cuck? god damn you are so old and cringe

[Neveragain]

reasonable people are at least a little scared of cops because cops can do anything they want with impunity and reasonable people recognize that. the only people who say they aren't at least a little scared of cops are privileged non-thinking idiots who live in a bubble and think that any time a cop uses excessive force is because the other person "just didn't comply".

that is until they get the cops called on them by an even more privileged person or the ruling class and then get their ass beat or thrown in jail and start crying about their rights.

point i'm trying to make is parkbandit is an idiot who doesn't understand anything outside of his nursing home

One of my parents best friends was a cop on the local police force, we never had a reason to be nervous around him unless we were being stupid teens. His youngest daughter was hot AF, so getting together for cards or whatever was always ok.

This was back in the late 70's early 80's though, before the cops became a military branch.

[Gelston]

reasonable people are at least a little scared of cops because cops can do anything they want with impunity and reasonable people recognize that. the only people who say they aren't at least a little scared of cops are privileged non-thinking idiots who live in a bubble and think that any time a cop uses excessive force is because the other person "just didn't comply".

that is until they get the cops called on them by an even more privileged person or the ruling class and then get their ass beat or thrown in jail and start crying about their rights.

point i'm trying to make is parkbandit is an idiot who doesn't understand anything outside of his nursing home

The fuck we can. Everything is on camera. I’m a deputy sheriff, we don’t have civil service protections like PD guys do. We do anything that even remotely looks improper we are fired with no recourse.

[Arqueto]

Why are you so triggered?

No horse in this race, but you've been contrarian and pedantic and argued for the sake of it quite a bit over the years but this one seemed to somehow tickle your britches.

[Gelston]

No horse in this race, but you've been contrarian and pedantic and argued for the sake of it quite a bit over the years but this one seemed to somehow tickle your britches.

Have I? I see my self as centered. It brings arguments. In this last exchange, where do you think I was wrong?

[Seran]

reasonable people are at least a little scared of cops because cops can do anything they want with impunity and reasonable people recognize that. the only people who say they aren't at least a little scared of cops are privileged non-thinking idiots who live in a bubble and think that any time a cop uses excessive force is because the other person "just didn't comply".

that is until they get the cops called on them by an even more privileged person or the ruling class and then get their ass beat or thrown in jail and start crying about their rights.

point i'm trying to make is parkbandit is an idiot who doesn't understand anything outside of his nursing home

Parkbandit /is/ an idiot, but members of law enforcement don't have the impunity you think that they do. Qualified immunity only goes so far as the officer is not blatantly breaking a law, something several overtly violent officers have learned recently. Officers may close ranks, there may be community protection, and the union's supporting officers are pretty powerful, but the law is the law. Officers of fifty years ago acted with blatantly impunity, but today's officers with recorded dispatches, body cameras and a society where everyone is recording everything they can to make a buck, law enforcement is -well- monitored.

Law enforcement should be respected, and folks should absolutely mind themselves in their presence. Fear is going too far though, the only ones with anything to legitimately fear from an officer is a criminal afraid of being caught.

[Parkbandit]

Have I? I see my self as centered. It brings arguments. In this last exchange, where do you think I was wrong?

Saying "everyone has something to hide" which has already been proven wrong... but it was a stupid hill you decided to die on just to be argumentative.

Something like "yea, not everyone, but a lot of people are guarded when it comes to relationships with law enforcement" and it would have been done.

Why are you so triggered?

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit /is/ an idiot,

Bro... the reigning Retard Champion should take the word "idiot" out of his/her repertoire so he/she doesn't look like he/she has zero self awareness.

[Gelston]

Saying "everyone has something to hide" which has already been proven wrong... but it was a stupid hill you decided to die on just to be argumentative.

Something like "yea, not everyone, but a lot of people are guarded when it comes to relationships with law enforcement" and it would have been done.

Why are you so triggered?

I wasn’t asking you. Thanks.

[Parkbandit]

I wasn’t asking you. Thanks.

An argumentative cop. No wonder your neighbors don't invite you over for anything.

"PEOPLE DON'T LIKE ME BECAUSE I'M A COP" is just a.. wait for it... cop out.

SPOILER: It's not your occupation that turns people off.. it's just your personality.

[Gelston]

An argumentative cop. No wonder your neighbors don't invite you over for anything.

"PEOPLE DON'T LIKE ME BECAUSE I'M A COP" is just a.. wait for it... cop out.

SPOILER: It's not your occupation that turns people off.. it's just your personality.

k

[joeyb]

Parkbandit /is/ an idiot, but members of law enforcement don't have the impunity you think that they do. Qualified immunity only goes so far as the officer is not blatantly breaking a law, something several overtly violent officers have learned recently. Officers may close ranks, there may be community protection, and the union's supporting officers are pretty powerful, but the law is the law. Officers of fifty years ago acted with blatantly impunity, but today's officers with recorded dispatches, body cameras and a society where everyone is recording everything they can to make a buck, law enforcement is -well- monitored.

Law enforcement should be respected, and folks should absolutely mind themselves in their presence. Fear is going too far though, the only ones with anything to legitimately fear from an officer is a criminal afraid of being caught.

the police are a fascist organization with an extreme amount of power. law enforcement in no way should be respected since it only acts to oppress and protect capital, as well as does nothing to prevent crime.

this is why liberals are so fucking stupid. you have your BLM signs in your front yard, change your FB profile to some stupid picture that makes you feel like you're helping whatever movement has been co-opted that month and then say shit like "the only ones with anything to legitimately fear from an office is a criminal of being caught". like, dude, are fucking serious? how much has your brain been damaged to actually believe this. this is the worst kind of bootlicking and why liberals are literally the worst. i could post 10 videos of police brutality and excessive use of force that happened this year where pigs have acted without any consequence. just because we have body cameras now doesn't mean a god damn thing, it just shows more how awful police actually are.

[joeyb]

Saying "everyone has something to hide" which has already been proven wrong... but it was a stupid hill you decided to die on just to be argumentative.

Something like "yea, not everyone, but a lot of people are guarded when it comes to relationships with law enforcement" and it would have been done.

Why are you so triggered?

lol dude shut the fuck up. these stupid semantic arguments are so fucking pathetic and only shows how you have nothing real to say. "derp derp, aaaactuuallllyy, not EVERYONE has something to hide". yes, i'm sure not literally every living person in this world of 8 billion people has something to hide, but any thinking person can understand what he's trying to say and his point is a good one.

you're literally the most annoying person and i'm assuming the only reason you're still married is because your wife collects your social security checks and all she has to do to keep you happy is roll you to a computer so you can mash you keyboard a few times a day to feel important

[~Rocktar~]

lol dude shut the fuck up. these stupid semantic arguments are so fucking pathetic and only shows how you have nothing real to say. "derp derp, aaaactuuallllyy, not EVERYONE has something to hide". yes, i'm sure not literally every living person in this world of 8 billion people has something to hide, but any thinking person can understand what he's trying to say and his point is a good one.

you're literally the most annoying person and i'm assuming the only reason you're still married is because your wife collects your social security checks and all she has to do to keep you happy is roll you to a computer so you can mash you keyboard a few times a day to feel important

Words have meanings and ignoring that is the sign of the weak willed, smooth brained, lazy and immature. Damn, in short order you are really working on getting a shot at the title.

[Seran]

the police are a fascist organization with an extreme amount of power. law enforcement in no way should be respected since it only acts to oppress and protect capital, as well as does nothing to prevent crime.

this is why liberals are so fucking stupid. you have your BLM signs in your front yard, change your FB profile to some stupid picture that makes you feel like you're helping whatever movement has been co-opted that month and then say shit like "the only ones with anything to legitimately fear from an office is a criminal of being caught". like, dude, are fucking serious? how much has your brain been damaged to actually believe this. this is the worst kind of bootlicking and why liberals are literally the worst. i could post 10 videos of police brutality and excessive use of force that happened this year where pigs have acted without any consequence. just because we have body cameras now doesn't mean a god damn thing, it just shows more how awful police actually are.

What part of law enforcement or even the Constitution do you think allows law enforcement to proactively arrest would be criminals before a crime even occurs? That isn't how the world works, we're not in Minority Report dude. The police only have as much authority that is granted to them and even then it only enforces the laws passed by citizens. Criminals are oppressed, why is that a bad thing to you?

[Parkbandit]

lol dude shut the fuck up. these stupid semantic arguments are so fucking pathetic and only shows how you have nothing real to say. "derp derp, aaaactuuallllyy, not EVERYONE has something to hide". yes, i'm sure not literally every living person in this world of 8 billion people has something to hide, but any thinking person can understand what he's trying to say and his point is a good one.

you're literally the most annoying person and i'm assuming the only reason you're still married is because your wife collects your social security checks and all she has to do to keep you happy is roll you to a computer so you can mash you keyboard a few times a day to feel important

You seem upset MacGayver. Why?

Is it because you literally told us you can't satisfy your wife, pay your rent let alone buy a house and can't break into your dream job of gay porn?

That's because you have always been a loser and will never amount to anything.

[Methais]

Parkbandit /is/ an idiot, but members of law enforcement don't have the impunity you think that they do. Qualified immunity only goes so far as the officer is not blatantly breaking a law, something several overtly violent officers have learned recently. Officers may close ranks, there may be community protection, and the union's supporting officers are pretty powerful, but the law is the law. Officers of fifty years ago acted with blatantly impunity, but today's officers with recorded dispatches, body cameras and a society where everyone is recording everything they can to make a buck, law enforcement is -well- monitored.

Law enforcement should be respected, and folks should absolutely mind themselves in their presence. Fear is going too far though, the only ones with anything to legitimately fear from an officer is a criminal afraid of being caught.


Current score:

Plurals: 9942742
Seran: 0


And you call other people bootlickers. :rofl:

[joeyb]

What part of law enforcement or even the Constitution do you think allows law enforcement to proactively arrest would be criminals before a crime even occurs? That isn't how the world works, we're not in Minority Report dude. The police only have as much authority that is granted to them and even then it only enforces the laws passed by citizens. Criminals are oppressed, why is that a bad thing to you?

lol who the fuck is saying that? My point Seran is that we hold police high up on a pedestal as these beacons of justice, shining through the criminal darkness and bestowing their light on the innocent and just, the only thing keeping us safe. the fact is, they do not actually _prevent_ crime, they react to it and most of the time they don't even do that! moreover, their job statistically isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous!

i can't tell if you're trolling or you are just extremely lib brained, but they only "enforce laws passed by citizens"? do you honestly believe in this country that citizens are responsible for the laws passed? do you actually believe that police operate within those boundaries? police are the most corrupt gang in existence and they literally have no obligation to actually help or defend a citizen that is in need or distress. their only purpose is to serve capital, not you or me.

do you honestly believe they only oppress criminals? that they aren't corrupt or abuse their power? as a recent example, look up the report that came out by the DOJ into the minneapolis police department and get back to me. lol

do you have a BLM sign in your yard Seran?

you and all libs who believe this shit are who he's talking about here:
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1659586391758499841?s=20

[joeyb]

Words have meanings and ignoring that is the sign of the weak willed, smooth brained, lazy and immature. Damn, in short order you are really working on getting a shot at the title.

yeah you stupid fuck, and being able to interpret meaning from those words is a sign of not being a fucking retard. you and parkbandit are obviously failing at that by missing the point he was making. fly away bug

[joeyb]

You seem upset MacGayver. Why?

Is it because you literally told us you can't satisfy your wife, pay your rent let alone buy a house and can't break into your dream job of gay porn?

That's because you have always been a loser and will never amount to anything.

what's that thing called when you're an extremely old and sad disabled man who has no life and who's family hates him and you try to stay relevant by parroting words you read on the internet that you think all the cool kidz are using and you never have anything funny or relevant to add to any conversation so you just copy shit other people are saying and you're too stupid to actually debate a point? hmm, what's that called, starts with a "P"

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I changed my mind, I'm voting for Trump if he gets the nom. Disgusting what the liberals have done to the DOJ and all the other three letter agencies.

[joeyb]

what have they done that wasn't done before

[Seran]

lol who the fuck is saying that? My point Seran is that we hold police high up on a pedestal as these beacons of justice, shining through the criminal darkness and bestowing their light on the innocent and just, the only thing keeping us safe. the fact is, they do not actually _prevent_ crime, they react to it and most of the time they don't even do that! moreover, their job statistically isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous!

i can't tell if you're trolling or you are just extremely lib brained, but they only "enforce laws passed by citizens"? do you honestly believe in this country that citizens are responsible for the laws passed? do you actually believe that police operate within those boundaries? police are the most corrupt gang in existence and they literally have no obligation to actually help or defend a citizen that is in need or distress. their only purpose is to serve capital, not you or me.

do you honestly believe they only oppress criminals? that they aren't corrupt or abuse their power? as a recent example, look up the report that came out by the DOJ into the minneapolis police department and get back to me. lol

do you have a BLM sign in your yard Seran?

you and all libs who believe this shit are who he's talking about here:
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1659586391758499841?s=20

The number of officers relieved of duties for violating their oaths and others who have additionally been brought up on charges where criminal acts exceeded qualified immunity speaks for itself. Are you legitimately believing that those instances are an example of what universally occurs in police departments in our country, or are you so personally biased against law enforcement by the small number of modern examples that you're unable to think rationally on the subject.

The Black Lives Matter movement wasn't to universally end law enforcement, it was to bring about changes to perceived unfairness of bias against people of color, to promote additional community resources to treat community or mental illness problems without law enforcement intervention where possible, and to shed light on the need for universal body cameras and rare instance where a disciplined officer is offered positions of trust when ample evidence shows they are unqualified. I don't have "BLM sign in my front yard." whatever dumb thing I'm sure that implies in your mind.

Police do every day operate in our civilian operated system of justice, apparently you think otherwise but you're in the minority there.

[Parkbandit]

hmm, what's that called, starts with a "P"

Let's see.. it starts with a "p" and you have very little experience with it?

Pussy?

Performance?

Philanthropic?

Personality?

Personable?

Pleasant?

Powerful?

Popular?

Pretty?

Passionate?

Phenomenal?



WAIT, I know: Prosperous!

[Methais]

lol who the fuck is saying that? My point Seran is that we hold police high up on a pedestal as these beacons of justice, shining through the criminal darkness and bestowing their light on the innocent and just, the only thing keeping us safe. the fact is, they do not actually _prevent_ crime, they react to it and most of the time they don't even do that! moreover, their job statistically isn't even in the top 10 most dangerous!

i can't tell if you're trolling or you are just extremely lib brained, but they only "enforce laws passed by citizens"? do you honestly believe in this country that citizens are responsible for the laws passed? do you actually believe that police operate within those boundaries? police are the most corrupt gang in existence and they literally have no obligation to actually help or defend a citizen that is in need or distress. their only purpose is to serve capital, not you or me.

do you honestly believe they only oppress criminals? that they aren't corrupt or abuse their power? as a recent example, look up the report that came out by the DOJ into the minneapolis police department and get back to me. lol

do you have a BLM sign in your yard Seran?

you and all libs who believe this shit are who he's talking about here:
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1659586391758499841?s=20

You must be new to Seran.

I assure you he isn't trolling. He's really that dumb and gullible.



The number of officers relieved of duties for violating their oaths and others who have additionally been brought up on charges where criminal acts exceeded qualified immunity speaks for itself. Are you legitimately believing that those instances are an example of what universally occurs in police departments in our country, or are you so personally biased against law enforcement by the small number of modern examples that you're unable to think rationally on the subject.

The Black Lives Matter movement wasn't to universally end law enforcement, it was to bring about changes to perceived unfairness of bias against people of color, to promote additional community resources to treat community or mental illness problems without law enforcement intervention where possible, and to shed light on the need for universal body cameras and rare instance where a disciplined officer is offered positions of trust when ample evidence shows they are unqualified. I don't have "BLM sign in my front yard." whatever dumb thing I'm sure that implies in your mind.

Police do every day operate in our civilian operated system of justice, apparently you think otherwise but you're in the minority there.

^ See what I mean?

[~Rocktar~]

yeah you stupid fuck, and being able to interpret meaning from those words is a sign of not being a fucking retard. you and parkbandit are obviously failing at that by missing the point he was making. fly away bug

You cannot miss what does not exist. Piss off child.

[~Rocktar~]

https://youtu.be/cNoc9pN7Fnc

[Shaps]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/fDOnEHxyxnU?feature=share

Another video Trump can play.

[ClydeR]

“I think for Republican voters, the biggest thing they have to look at now is that we’re gonna have a guy running for president who, from March 4 probably for the next four-to-six weeks, will be every day in a courtroom in Washington, D.C., and not campaigning against Joe Biden,” Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “The Lead.”

“This is disastrous for the Republican Party,” he continued. “And this is why I’ve been saying — right from the time I got into the race — that given his personal conduct, given the stuff that he did himself, that he simply can’t be our nominee.”

More... (https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4176266-christie-predicts-trumps-jan-6-trial-date-will-be-disastrous-for-gop)

Unlike in civil cases, such as the Carroll defamation lawsuit that Trump skipped, the defendant in a criminal case must be present during all stages of the trial, including jury selection, unless the judge excuses the defendant's attendance, which the judge is not supposed to do except in emergencies. If the trial takes more than a month, as Christie predicted, will that be bad or good for Trump as he seeks the Republican nomination? Christie says it will be bad for the Republican Party. I'm having trouble imagining how it would likely play out.

[~Rocktar~]

Unlike in civil cases, such as the Carroll defamation lawsuit that Trump skipped, the defendant in a criminal case must be present during all stages of the trial, including jury selection, unless the judge excuses the defendant's attendance, which the judge is not supposed to do except in emergencies. If the trial takes more than a month, as Christie predicted, will that be bad or good for Trump as he seeks the Republican nomination? Christie says it will be bad for the Republican Party. I'm having trouble imagining how it would likely play out.

Election interfearance.

[ClydeR]

The jury has ruled. Unless and until an appeals court overturns the verdict, the facts are established. If the first suit by Carroll against Trump, which was held up because it involved statements made by Trump while he as President, goes to trial, there won't be a need for a jury to determine whether or not Trump sexually assaulted Carroll and then lied about it. The only issue will be the amount of additional damages Trump has to pay Carroll, because the fact of the sexual assault in the dressing room is already established.

By failing to appear in court and deny the allegations against him at the trial, Trump ensured his loss and, in my opinion, ensured that he will not be elected President in 2024. This case was more important than any of the other cases or investigations in which he is involved, and he totally blew it.


Just as I predicted, the jury's determination of the facts in the earlier case precluded relitigating that issue on the current case. The issue for this case is how much Trump must pay, since the occurrence of the sexual assault has already been established.


E. Jean Carroll won a partial victory in her defamation lawsuit against former President Trump on Wednesday, with the judge ruling a trial is needed only to determine how much Trump must pay the writer in damages.

More... (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4189475-judge-hands-e-jean-carroll-partial-victory-in-trump-defamation-lawsuit/)


Kaplan ruled that a jury’s May verdict in Carroll’s other lawsuit against Trump, which found him liable for the assault itself and defaming Carroll last fall, is controlling in the case.

[Parkbandit]

Just as I predicted, the jury's determination of the facts in the earlier case precluded relitigating that issue on the current case. The issue for this case is how much Trump must pay, since the occurrence of the sexual assault has already been established.

To be fair.. you are probably the only one who reads your posts.

[Suppressed Poet]

Just as I predicted, the jury's determination of the facts in the earlier case precluded relitigating that issue on the current case. The issue for this case is how much Trump must pay, since the occurrence of the sexual assault has already been established.

Seriously, what is with you replying to your own posts and often referring to yourself in third person?

[Methais]

Just as I predicted, the jury's determination of the facts in the earlier case precluded relitigating that issue on the current case. The issue for this case is how much Trump must pay, since the occurrence of the sexual assault has already been established.

Shut the fuck up retard.

[Parkbandit]

Seriously, what is with you replying to your own posts and often referring to yourself in third person?
https://media4.giphy.com/media/3o7TKN9IUHHFXWyPlK/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47ebbw372g8t1g149mf1hu7n3y2ed6 8iz53pc6wj65&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g

[ClydeR]

To be fair.. you are probably the only one who reads your posts.

Knowing that you read my posts is enough. I am fulfilled.




Seriously, what is with you replying to your own posts and often referring to yourself in third person?

Didn't Agatha Christie say people who refer to themselves in third person are geniuses? Other people who do it are Tigger, Dobby and Donald Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/17/third-person-in-chief-how-trump-keeps-referring-himself-third-person/).

[Suppressed Poet]

Didn't Agatha Christie say people who refer to themselves in third person are geniuses? Other people who do it are Tigger, Dobby and Donald Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/17/third-person-in-chief-how-trump-keeps-referring-himself-third-person/).

The Rock says it doesn’t matter why you’re an illeist.

https://i.imgflip.com/1yz02y.gif

[Parkbandit]

Knowing that you read my posts is enough. I am fulfilled.

While that would probably fulfill your need for attention... I have bad news for you: I rarely ever read your posts.

You aren't funny, you aren't clever and you aren't worthy of my time.

[Methais]

Knowing that you read my posts is enough. I am fulfilled.





Didn't Agatha Christie say people who refer to themselves in third person are geniuses?

No, she said that they're retarded cunts. She also specified that in your particular case, it's with a capital R, for ClydeRetard, which she said would one day in the future exist on some shitty forum for a text based game that also didn't exist yet at the time she said it.

If you think I'm lying, just ask Latrin's mommy. I heard about it from her.

[ClydeR]

The full text of the court ruling in the Trump New York civil fraud case is available at https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23991865/trump-ny-fraud-ruling.pdf

The discussion of the facts starts on page 20.

The judge ruled that Trump, his two adult sons, several of his companies and two employees engaged in fraud. Because it is a civil case, not criminal, the consequences, which have not yet been fully determined, will be loss of business licenses and the payment of money.

[ClydeR]

Trump and his son Eric have both said on social media that the judge in the New York civil fraud case ruled that Mar-a-Lago has a value of $18 million. The discussion of Mar-a-Lago in the ruling seems to have upset them more than any other part of the ruling. They have misread the ruling. At no point did the judge rule that Mar-a-Lago has a value of $18 million. Instead, the judge ruled that Trump did not offer any admissible evidence that would, regardless of whether or not it was true, rebut the AG's evidence that Trump overvalued Mar-a-Lago.

The only evidence offered by Trump was an affidavit by a real estate broker from Florida, who was described by Trump's attorneys to the court as "the most accomplished and knowledgeable ultra-high net worth real estate broker in Palm Beach, Florida." In a footnote, the court added, "At oral argument, his domain of expertise was enlarged to nationwide status." The judge said the affidavit could not be relied upon because it was pure speculation and did not point to any evidence. If Trump had just introduced an appraisal showing the value he claimed, that would have been sufficient to avoid summary judgment, even if the judge later found the appraisal to be unpersuasive. Why wouldn't he order an appraisal? People do it all the time when dealing with real estate, and appraised values often differ greatly from tax assessed values. Ponder that.

Trump pleaded the Fifth more than 400 times when he was deposed for this case.

In summary, the judge did not determine the value of Mar-a-Lago. He just ruled that Trump had not offered any evidence to counter the AG's evidence. Without countering evidence from Trump, there was no point in having the AG present her evidence at the trial. Hence, the summary judgment.

I don't understand why Trump fails to take court cases seriously. Remember that he did not even show up or offer any evidence in the Carroll defamation suit against him. He did not respond to document requests in this case, until the judge started fining him $10,000 per day, which fine was upheld by appellate courts.

In the below excerpt from the ruling, SFC = Statement of Financial Condition.


Notwithstanding, the SFCs' values do not reflect these land use restrictions. Donald Trump's SFCs for 2011-2021 value Mar-a-Lago at between $426,529,614 million and an overvaluation of at least 2,300%, compared to the assessor's appraisal. NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 769-779.

In an attempt to rebut the OAG's demonstration, defendants rely on the opinion affidavit of Lawrence Moens, who they purport is "the most accomplished and knowledgeable ultra-high net worth real estate broker in Palm Beach, Florida." 22 Moens claims that "the SOFC were and are appropriate and indeed conservative." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1292 at 35-36 (emphasis added). The Moens' affidavit states in a conclusory fashion that because he believes "this unique property offers to an elite purchaser the unparalleled opportunity to own an exclusive and extensive family compound in the most desirable sections of Palm Beach... the valuations in the SOFC were reasonable and below my estimate for the market value of the property each year." NYSCEF Doc. No. 1435. Moreover, Moens opines that "[i]f Mar-A-Lago was available for sale, I am confident that in short order, I would be in a position to produce a ready, willing and able buyer who would have interest in securing the property for their personal use as a residence, or even, their own club." ld. at 29. Critically, Moens does not opine at what price he is "confident" he could find a buyer (although he opines separately, without relying on any objective evidence, that he believes that as of 2023 the property is worth $1.51 billion23).

It is well-settled that: "[w]here the expert's ultimate assertions are speculative or unsupported by any evidentiary foundation, however, the opinion should be given no probative force and is insufficient to withstand summary judgment." Diaz v New York Downtown Hosp., 99 NY2d 542, 544 (2002); also Gardner v Ethier, 173 AD2d 1002, 1003-4 (3d Dept 1991) ("the expert affidavit is also inadmissible because it is conclusory and the views are apparently based to a great extent on hearsay statements from unspecified witnesses as well as upon speculations on the part of the expert"). Accordingly, defendants' reliance on the Moens affidavit is unpersuasive and certainly insufficient to rebut OAG's prima face case.

Defendants further imply that they may ignore the plain language of the 2002 Deed restrictions because they would likely be able to use the Florida judicial system to get out of their contractual requirements; they further assert that because they may successfully breach their contract in the future, they were not required to consider the restrictions of the 2002 Deed when valuing the property. NYSCEF Doc. 1292 at 48-51. This argument is wholly without merit. At the time in which the defendants submitted the SFCs, the restrictions were in effect, and any valuations represented to third-parties must have incorporated those restrictions; failure to do so is fraud. Assets values that disregard applicable legal restrictions are by definition materially false and misleading.

Accordingly, OAG has demonstrated liability for the false valuation of Mar-a-Lago as appears in the SFCs from 2014-2021.

[ClydeR]

Trump post on social media..


Today’s Ruling about a Company that has done a magnificent job for New York State fails to acknowledge the fact that Murder and all other forms of Violent Crime have reached record levels in New York State. Can you imagine ruling against me for having done business perfectly, and yet letting people go on a rampage on the sidewalks of New York? This is the Judicial conduct that is forcing thousands of companies to flee New York for other environs, while virtually nobody comes back to the City or State. A very sad Day for the New York State System of Justice!

Since Trump is soon likely to be selling multiple valuable properties in New York, he should not be running down its reputation. I predict that Trump will soon be bragging on New York as the best place in the nation to live and own property.

[Seran]

He can deny the ruling all he wants, but the New York based Trump Organization is being dissolved, it's assets placed in receivership, licenses revoked, and likely to be facing a $250m civil penalty for the gross financial malfeasance, lies, and fraud. His posts ain't changing that.

[Solkern]

He can deny the ruling all he wants, but the New York based Trump Organization is being dissolved, it's assets placed in receivership, licenses revoked, and likely to be facing a $250m civil penalty for the gross financial malfeasance, lies, and fraud. His posts ain't changing that.

And so it begins.

Trump never had to worry about lawsuits and whatnot before, because he always had more money than the other people. Not this time, the tactics he used before won’t work.

Dude offered zero fucking evidence. He can claim whatever he wants, offered nothing to support it. Lol

[Suppressed Poet]

And so it begins.

Trump never had to worry about lawsuits and whatnot before, because he always had more money than the other people. Not this time, the tactics he used before won’t work.

Dude offered zero fucking evidence. He can claim whatever he wants, offered nothing to support it. Lol

Did you and the other folks that suffer from TDS get motivated enough about this news to perform the dark ritual that summons that she-devil Time4Fun?