╌>

83 million?

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  183 comments

By:   Victor Davis Hansen

83 million?
But then another strange thing happened. In 2022, a new law (“The Adult Survivors Act”) was passed in the New York legislature. It also post facto established a twelve-month window (beginning six months from the signing of bill) that permitted survivors of long ago alleged sexual assaults suddenly to sue the accused long-ago perpetrator—regardless of the previous statute of limitations.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Donald Trump in furor stormed out of a New York courtroom for a while, in the defamation suit brought by author and dating/boyfriend/sex-advice columnist E. Jean Carroll. It was just settled against Trump for $83.3 million! The Carroll suit was largely subsidized by Reid Hoffman the billionaire capitalist, and mega-donor to the Democratic Party and leftwing causes.

The subtext of Trump’s rage, aside from the outrageous monetary size of the defamation ruling, is that he was facing—and angered—a leftwing claimant, a quite hostile leftwing judge, and a leftwing New York jury. The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional leftwing criminal prosecutions, leftwing judges, and leftwing juries to come—all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president or been a liberal progressive.


Yet here we are.


The E. Jean Carroll case is the most baffling of all five. She, the alleged victim, did not remember even the year in which the purported sexual assault took place, nearly three decades ago. Observers have pointed out dozens of inconsistencies in her story.

It was never clear what were the preliminaries that supposedly (Trump denies meeting her) led both, allegedly, willingly to retreat together to a department store dressing room, where during normal business hours the alleged violence took place.

Moreover, the sexual assault complaint came forward decades post facto—and only after Trump was running for and then president. Carroll eventually sued him for battery, but well after the statute of limitations had expired and thus the case seemed defunct.

Her claims of defamation injuries arise from being fired from her advice column job at ELLE magazine.

She claimed that Trump’s sharp denials and ad hominem retorts led to her career ruin. But the loss for anyone of a column at 76 does not seem such a rare occurrence, and the absence of a salaried job in one’s late seventies for four years does not seem to equate to a $83 million hit.

And note the allegation that her dispute with Trump led to her firing was strongly denied by the very magazine that cut her loose.

But then another strange thing happened. In 2022, a new law (“The Adult Survivors Act”) was passed in the New York legislature.

It also post facto established a twelve-month window (beginning six months from the signing of bill) that permitted survivors of long ago alleged sexual assaults suddenly to sue the accused long-ago perpetrator—regardless of the previous statute of limitations.

That unexpected opening suddenly gave Carroll’s prior unsuccessful efforts a rebirth. And she quickly refiled with the help of arch-Trump hating billionaire Hoffman. Yet the bill may have been introduced with Trump particularly in mind—given the legislator who introduced it, Brad Hoylman-Siga, was known as another Trump antagonist.

More interestingly, he had earlier introduced and had passed another Trump-targeted bill. That “TRUST” act had empowered particular federal Congressional committees to have access to the New York State once sealed tax returns of high-ranking government officials—such as Trump. That bill’s generally agreed subtext was a green light for anti-Trump members of Congress to obtain legal access to Donald J. Trump's tax returns. So, there is an eerie feeling that the New York legislature may have abruptly passed legislation that was aimed at the past conduct of Donald Trump but only after he entered the political arena.

While these are not quite bills of attainder, there is something unsettling if they are post facto laws aimed at targeting the most famous and controversial man in America and the leading candidate for the presidency. In essence they were targeted statutes designed to make Trump’s prior legally unactionable behavior suddenly quite legally actionable. Trump will be subject to such special treatment all summer and fall. Prosecutors Bragg, James, Smith, and Willis will synchronize their court business for maximum effect. Trump again will face leftwing prosecutors, judges, and juries on charges that are politically driven, involving alleged behavior that is either usually not criminalized or not to the same degree as Trump’s case. (Do we remember the nearly $375,000 federal fine belatedly leveled at an exempt Obama but only five years after his 2008 illegal garnering of, and not reporting, foreign campaign contributions?)

The stakes are higher each day as Trump closes in on the nomination and thus becomes the hope of half the country to end the Biden madness. Somehow Trump will have to stay calm, give no opening to his legion of hostile prosecutors, while conducting a nonstop campaign against Biden (and for a while Hayley), and while fighting to keep his name on various state ballots.

So what we are witnessing is not even the extralegal efforts of Steele/Fusion GPS, Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary Clinton in 2016, or the 2020 “Russian disinformation” ruse/change the voting laws/infuse half a billion dollars to absorb the work of the registrar machinations against Trump. We are way beyond all that. The legal system itself, hand-in-glove with leftwing politicos (compare campaign boasts of James and Willis, or prosecutorial visits to the January 6 committee and the White House) is turning the process of balloting and elections into an embarrassing farce.

Still, Trump will have to soldier on. He must stay controlled amid the tsunamis, not play into the hands of his accusers, and remember that he may soon be the only eleventh-hour hope to stop this mockery of American law, customs and traditions.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

He is right:

This is not America.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

... still trying to litigate the sexual assault. due to critical errors perpetrated by trump's incompetent legal team, he lost his right to do that. the settlement was for defamation, which trump continued to do while the trail was proceeding. the left wing conspiracy theories are the foundation of his persecution claims when he either caves to the inevitable by not appealing the decision or loses the appeal because of the layers of damning evidence that he himself has created.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one month ago

A law that was created to disregard the statute of limitations in order to get at a single individual.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.2  bugsy  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

Oh, cmon Vic.

It is common knowledge that is was only a coincidence that this woman refiled her complaint very shortly after the bill was passed and her lawyer is a Trump hating sycophant s/

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  bugsy @1.1.2    one month ago

One of a multitude of coincidences surrounding Donald Trump and his associates.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @1.1.2    one month ago

a jury of his peers made a decision based upon presented evidence that trump will have to live with.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.5  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.1.4    one month ago

More than likely a highly biased left wing jury that have been hating Trump since before he beat their queen, but most of them probably still have the entire Apprentice series on VHS.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago
A law that was created to disregard the statute of limitations in order to get at a single individual.

"heyyyyyyyy... she was asking for it. she had it coming. I did her a favor and made her famous. now she's mad cause I never called her back. there wasn't a nightstand in that dressing room to drop an envelope on, now she's looking for a payoff 'cause I'm so rich and famous. after all this time I should be off the hook. this is a witch hunt I tell ya. it's all joe biden's fault." /s

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.6    one month ago

No answer to the creation of that law?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.8  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

“…the statute of limitations…”

Is there a limitation to the damage an individual has suffered for the heinous acts of another? Perhaps in the court of law, but for the victim, it is a reality that will live forever. This settlement is a vindication of liability, but will never alleviate the pain. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.9  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @1.1.5    one month ago
More than likely a highly biased left wing jury that have been hating Trump

yeah, that stuff never comes out during the jury qualification/nullification process, unless alina habba fucked that up too... /s

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    one month ago

No answer to the creation of that law?

Laws are created every day all over the country. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.8    one month ago

You understand why statutes of limitations exist, right? So 40 years later after an event allegedly happened you aren’t dragged into court and forced to defend  yourself from he said/she said allegations that boil down to a popularity contest with a jury.  the person suing you doesn’t even have to tell you the year  the incident occurred.  Good luck defending yourself against that.  

but of course, it happened to trump, therefore it is GOOD.  No one ever thinks it could happen to them or their loved ones. If it did, suddenly, their tune will no doubt change and They will wonder why an adult waited decades sue them, after  a defense becomes much more difficult. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.12  bugsy  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    one month ago
yeah, that stuff never comes out during the jury qualification/nullification process

Yea because no one has ever hidden their biases toward the defendant to be able to get on the jury simply to fuck them up financially s/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.10    one month ago

What an amazingly Disingenuous response! 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.14  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    one month ago
No answer to the creation of that law?

I don't live in NY, but in colorado we have our own laws to protect us against traitors. are you mad that partisan majorities in state legislatures can implement their political agenda with laws? or is it only about those majorities that oppose your preferred partisan political agenda? thanks in advance for the cooperation of your POTUS candidate in the run up to defeating autocracy in america.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
1.1.15  afrayedknot  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.11    one month ago

“…after  a defense becomes much more difficult.”

If one didn’t do anything questionable, wrong, or illegal…then their defense would be unquestionably strong enough to withstand judgement, regardless of how much time has passed. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.16  devangelical  replied to  bugsy @1.1.12    one month ago
Yea because no one has ever hidden their biases toward the defendant to be able to get on the jury simply to fuck them up financially s/

no worries. if trump wins the election, he'll make all that money back in unconstitutional emoluments the first year...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1.14    one month ago
I don't live in NY, but in colorado we have our own laws to protect us against traitors.

We have that nationally and you'll be learning of that tomorrow.


are you mad that partisan majorities in state legislatures can implement their political agenda with laws? 

That is the new normal and it defies everything in the Constitution.


is it only about those majorities that oppose your preferred partisan political agenda?

The article speaks for itself. It is weaponizing the law against one man.


 your POTUS candidate

Not long ago I thought he couldn't win. I should be thanking you.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.18  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago
A law that was created to disregard the statute of limitations in order to get at a single individual.

if you're claiming that trump is the only person that's been prosecuted with that law, you should state that clearly, here, now.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.1.19  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

A law that was created to disregard the statute of limitations in order to get at a single individual.

While these are not quite bills of attainder, there is something unsettling if they are post facto laws aimed at targeting the most famous and controversial man in America and the leading candidate for the presidency. In essence they were targeted statutes designed to make Trump’s prior legally unactionable behavior suddenly quite legally actionable. 

This legislation that you refer to was not passed to "get Trump."

The fact that someone thinks it was shows just how much ego and bluster some people have been exposed to.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  afrayedknot @1.1.15    one month ago

one didn’t do anything questionable, wrong, or illegal…then their defense would be unquestionably strong enough to withstand judgement, regardless of how much time has passed. 


Thats insane.  Sounds like what they say to justify show trials,

Try proving you didn’t rape someone who says you did sometime in 1993 or 1994. Can’t show you weren’t there because there’s no specific date. Can’t provide witnesses for the same reason. .

If the woman is more likable  and articulate or has a better lawyer than you, you can’t. it’s why statutes of limitation exist because it’s insanely unfair to try and defend yourself from allegations that happened decades ago. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.21  CB  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    one month ago

The issue is not the wherewithal of the law coming into being; it is does a court find liability for those caught under its authority to act. As for your 'complaint' Donald Trump fell under the law because of his liable act in the ninety's. The court/jury has decided in the first case he lost on this.

Your problem is not with the law, but with this single individual who got caught in its 'net' based on his past act against E. Jean Carroll. 

If you have a complaint that matters. . .share with Donald Trump how he can possibly relitigate the first civil trial. Otherwise, it is time you accept the proper proceedings even when they don't go your way. . . we all do (eventually).

It is time for you to let TRASH end up where it belongs in its proper BIN.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.20    one month ago
Try proving you didn’t rape someone who says you did sometime in 1993 or 1994.

He didn’t have to do that to avoid the defamation suit. All he had to do was say that he didn’t remember things the way she was presenting them. Instead, he - using the power of the presidential pulpit - repeatedly called her a liar, and made other assertions of alleged fact, like he had never met her, she wasn’t his type, and so on. He dug his own grave with his own mouth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.23  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.22    one month ago
He dug his own grave with his own mouth.

Especially after his first trial concluded.

I would not be surprised if Trump believes that laws and accountability are only for 'little' people.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.20    4 weeks ago

Trump lost because he is on video bragging about grabbing women's genitals, including women that he barely knew, and on video saying celebrities like him have been grabbing womens genitals for a million years and it has always been accepted by society. 

Both those videos were introduced as evidence in the Carroll trial. 

He hung himself. 

Why do you keep defending this pos ? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.22    4 weeks ago

"This woman, I don't know her, I never met her.  I have no idea who she is."

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.26  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.25    4 weeks ago

gee, I wonder how melania is holding up under all this negative media at home. the pending NY trial with stormy daniels could push that slavic princess past the marital brink...

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.27  Drakkonis  replied to  Thomas @1.1.19    4 weeks ago
This legislation that you refer to was not passed to "get Trump."

Whether or not Trump is guilty, I can't say. However, if this legislation were not for the purpose of "getting Trump" why is it only temporary? If the specially created law were just and fair, why would a just and fair law expire? Does that actually make sense to anyone? 

Further, did you actually read the link you provided? 

"Today, we take an important step in empowering survivors across New York to use their voices and hold their abusers accountable," Governor Hochul said. "The fight against sexual assault requires us to recognize the impact of trauma within our justice system. I am proud to sign this legislation, which is part of our collective responsibility to protect one another and create an environment that makes survivors feel safe. While our work is not done, eradicating sexual assault begins with our ability to bring the perpetrators of these heinous acts to justice and this legislation is a historic step forward."

Do you understand what is said here? The governor herself already assumes the guilt of the accused. It is the continuation of the "I believe her" movement, which is based on nothing more than accusation is sufficient to determine guilt. She is saying the quiet part out loud. 

If this were really about justice, this temporary law would not be temporary. They know the disaster this law will eventually be legally and that is why it is temporary. Given the people involved in its creation and its intentionally temporary nature, it's pretty obvious why it was created. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.28  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.27    4 weeks ago
"Today, we take an important step in empowering survivors across New York to use their voices and hold their abusers accountable," Governor Hochul said. "The fight against sexual assault requires us to recognize the impact of trauma within our justice system. I am proud to sign this legislation, which is part of our collective responsibility to protect one another and create an environment that makes survivors feel safe. While our work is not done, eradicating sexual assault begins with our ability to bring the perpetrators of these heinous acts to justice and this legislation is a historic step forward."

Link please. Surely one is provided to you to share with 'readers.'

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.29  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.28    4 weeks ago
Link please. Surely one is provided to you to share with 'readers.'

The link, as indicated in the post you are responding to, is in Thomas's comment to which I was responding. I suggest you go there to see the link. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.30  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.29    4 weeks ago

Thank you I located the link in Thomas' comment 1.1.19 This legislation that you refer to was not passed to "get Trump."

And, as I read the "Adult Survivors Act" article provided by Thomas and mentioned by you,  I find this statement:

In 2019, New York extended the statute of limitations to 20 years for adults filing civil lawsuits for a select number of sex crimes. However, that legislation only affected new cases and was not retroactive.

It seems you are mistaken about it being a "get Trump" bill. It does seem that looking back into past cases indefinitely can leave too many lives in shambles. . . so a cut-off for those who are caught up in their past misdeeds makes sense in that it allows civil action to take place without being overtly burdensome to the future lives of many offenders. 

It is Donald Trump's fault that he got caught "red-handed" in a civil case of his own making, because he did not understand that trying to defend himself against E. Jean Carroll was going to end with her winning and him being a "great" loser—two times over!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.31  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.30    4 weeks ago
It seems you are mistaken about it being a "get Trump" bill.

That would be true if the subject were the bill passed in 2019. That is not the case. The referenced bill is the one passed in 2022, which eliminated the statute of limitations and is retroactive and is only in force for a period of one year. I suggest you reread it. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.32  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.31    4 weeks ago

The bill I posted is from the link in friend Thomas' comment. I have found information on the 2022 bill signing into law of the "Adult Survivors Act"  without your aid. Thank God!

The Adult Survivors Act, signed into law by New York Governor Kathy Hochul in May 2022, created a one-year lookback window for individuals who experienced sexual abuse after they turned 18 years old. From November 2022 to November 2023, statutes of limitations were suspended, allowing survivors to file civil lawsuits against their abusers.

As we consider the impact of the Act over the last year, it’s important to remember that one of the reasons why only a third of sexual assaults are reported to the police is that the perpetrator often has influence over the survivor. They may occupy a position of trust, possess economic power over them, or simply be a “public figure” who seems impossible to challenge in court. As a result, it can take years for many survivors to be mentally and emotionally prepared to tell the truth about their experiences.

Creating a lookback window is, in a way, the legal system taking responsibility for its own failure in adequately responding to those who have experienced sexual violence. It represents a softening of the institutional roadblocks survivors face and shows the impact of pro-survivor advocacy, such as the #MeToo Movement, over the past several years.

In June of 2023, in the middle of the lookback window, Harvey Weinstein, the film producer whose conduct brought sexual assault in the film industry out into the open, lost a key appeal.

Was it a success?

In the final months of the window, a wave of new cases naming celebrities like Axl Rose, Sean Combs, Jamie Foxx, and Cuba Gooding, Jr., made the headlines . These cases are important because powerful people in the entertainment industry have habitually preyed upon aspiring artists and ardent fans .

These high-profile lawsuits continue a trend of holding powerful, famous people to account , which can change the way the industry operates and bring compensation to survivors.

But in the long term, the Act’s real impact will likely come from the hundreds of lawsuits filed against institutions , i ncluding prisons and leading hospitals. Of the nearly 3,000 lawsuits filed under the Adult Survivors Act, for example, almost 500 deal with allegations of sexual abuse at Rikers Island.

As these cases move through the court system, they’ll shine a light on systemic abuses in institutional settings, where sexual crimes are often buried. Through the process, those cases will likely reveal failures in management, oversight, and reporting that will have to be corrected, creating safer experiences going forward.

Will it be renewed?

Although there are no current indications that the Act will be extended or renewed, survivors’ advocates believe that a longer time window is needed. A year is a short period of time to make the decision to file a lawsuit, especially over events that happened several years ago. In comparison, the Child Victims Act, which established a two-year window, saw more than 11,000 cases filed.

Regardless of whether the Adult Survivors Act (or some form of it) becomes law again, the last year has shown just how many of those who experience sexual violence need more options to obtain justice and overcome systemic obstacles . In New York and across the country, lawmakers are looking at various ways to make it easier for survivors to come forward — and harder for predators to avoid accountability .


Well Drakk, there you have it! Read the above, don't gloss over it.

The entirety of the "lookback" is explained above and lists a cadre of named individuals and institutions that are involved. This was not about Trump no matter how 'related' and coincidental his and Carroll's case is. Best I can tell you is Donald would have done well to have moved to Florida in the 80s to avoid getting caught in a New York 'lookback' although, Florida may one day do a look back too. I can't say one way or the other. . . but, it is said lawmakers are looking into it—for survivors' sake.

STOP! Defending trashy people, because they will take the pearls from supporters for keeps and 'eat' supporters as swine.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.33  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.32    4 weeks ago
Well Drakk, there you have it! Read the above, don't gloss over it.

Well CB, looks like you were right, because for sure if they had passed this law so that they could prosecute Trump they certainly would have said so, right? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
1.1.34  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @1.1.32    4 weeks ago
Read the above, don't gloss over it.

Furthermore, all you have done here is take a random article from the internet and posted it as evidence. I'm not sure what you think that is supposed to be evidence for. The seeded article says something quite different. Why isn't that evidence? 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.35  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.33    4 weeks ago

You can question the motivations of other people, but you can't prove your conclusions unless you have evidence or insider information. Which you have yet to put on display. Leading with or ending with an open question will not cause it to be a valid conclusion. It's just a rhetorical device.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.36  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.34    4 weeks ago

Sorry, I no longer respond to or ask questions of MAGA supporters, as in the past it takes on a life of its own.  Just make your points as a statement and I will do my best to give you a reply. :)

As for your (new) concern about randomness,  I do not understand what that has to do with this, because the article offered is about the state law in question and its centered in New York with all the proper participants to the signing of the law present.  Stop wasting time with extraneous deflections. . . please.

If the seeded article says something different, then you should point out the relevant discrepancy/ies and not expect me to "divine" what you take to be at issue. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.37  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.27    4 weeks ago
The governor herself already assumes the guilt of the accused. It is the continuation of the "I believe her" movement, which is based on nothing more than accusation is sufficient to determine guilt.

All Trump has to do to rid himself of the accusation, charge, and results of two defamation trials is this: Prove he was not in the Bergdorf Goodman department store during the period/block of time in question.

As for the governor, she is making a comprehensive statement about 'availability' under state law to proceed, she, herself can not bear witness or offer a court date to anybody to be heard in a court of law. You know this, but are letting personal desire blind you to a fact.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
This is not America.

And it shouldn't be for a scumbag who has been charged with sexual assault by at least 18 women. 

Curious as to why the GOP would want a serial rapist for president.

Not to mention cheating on all 3 of his wives.

Gotta love those GOP family values!

P.S. Donald's parents shipped him off to military school when he was a kid for multiple assaults and rapes of little girls. Seems he's been a "grab em by the pussy" sort of guy for his whole life.

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
1.2.1  GregTx  replied to  cjcold @1.2    one month ago
Donald's parents shipped him off to military school when he was a kid for multiple assaults and rapes of little girls.

Do you have citations for that allegation?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.2  cjcold  replied to  GregTx @1.2.1    one month ago

Saw it on Frontline. Read it in a book.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.2.3  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @1.2.2    one month ago

I think if you search youtube, you might be able to find the frontline episode.

What book was it you read?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2.4  cjcold  replied to  bugsy @1.2.3    one month ago

I am not your research assistant.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  cjcold @1.2.2    4 weeks ago

So, no, you don't have a citation for fictitious claims.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
1.2.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  cjcold @1.2    4 weeks ago
P.S. Donald's parents shipped him off to military school when he was a kid for multiple assaults and rapes of little girls. Seems he's been a "grab em by the pussy" sort of guy for his whole life.

Wow, that sounds pretty desperate.  Sounds like something a far left wing nut publication would promote hoping some of it sticks.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 weeks ago

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.3    4 weeks ago

So true, there is no crime that the former 'president' commits, that they don't excuse it for.

They endorse a sexual predator/rapist/assaulter.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2  Nerm_L    one month ago

Hopefully Biden's IRS will collect the taxes.  And, of course, New York will rub SALT in E. Jean Carroll's wound.

Naturally there ain't any sort of ulterior motive for blue islands to seek big judgements.  Victims are always happy to support the Democrat cause -- or else.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @2    one month ago

It was a single purpose law that served its only purpose.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago
It was a single purpose law that served its only purpose.

Kinda like a quid-pro-quo?  

Heads liberals win, tails you lose.  That's democracy for ya.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    one month ago
That's democracy for ya.

And we evidently must vote for more of it to save it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    one month ago

The author of this article is a far right fanatic. He didnt necessarily start out that way , but he ended up that way. 

In his deposition at the first Carroll trial, Trump responded to a question by Carroll's lawyer by saying that grabbing pussy , by celebrities, has been accepted for thousands of years, if not millions. 

Trump also admitted to Billy Bush on Access Hollywood that he had been grabbing women's pussies for years. 

Trump was found liable FOR GRABBING E JEAN CARROLL'S PUSSY.  That was the case. 

Victor davis Hanson should STFU. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago
The author of this article is a far right fanatic.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif


Can you counter any of Hansen's points?  Who was this insane law created for?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
3.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago
Trump was found liable FOR GRABBING E JEAN CARROLL'S PUSSY.  That was the case. 

Defamation doesn't have anything to do with pussies.  Unless, of course, the pussy is fake.  That may be okay in Florida but biology is verboten in New York.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2    one month ago

Trump was found liable for sexual assault. Instead of taking his medicine like a man he ranted and raved against this woman, while he was president of the United States. He made his bed and now he will lie in it. Pun intended. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    one month ago
Trump was found liable for sexual assault. Instead of taking his medicine like a man he ranted and raved against this woman, while he was president of the United States. He made his bed and now he will lie in it. Pun intended. 

But the $83 million award was for defamation; not for sexual assault.  The latest award was a trial on top of a trial that wasn't a trial.  

Liberals are so confused and deluded they can't keep track of which lies they're telling at any given moment.  And, in the end, Donald Trump was not convicted of anything.  The whole legal charade was only about money; liberals' only measure of justice.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.2    one month ago
But the $83 million award was for defamation; not for sexual assault.

Exactly. He kept running his mouth despite being warned by the judges and his own lawyers. He wouldn't shut up and now he has to pay the price. He's a fucking idiot. All he had to do was stop talking about her and he couldn't because he has the restraint of a 5 year old. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Nerm_L  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.3    one month ago
Exactly. He kept running his mouth despite being warned by the judges and his own lawyers. He wouldn't shut up and now he has to pay the price. He's a fucking idiot. All he had to do was stop talking about her and he couldn't because he has the restraint of a 5 year old. 

E. Jean Carroll alleged she was fired from ELLE Magazine in 2020 because Trump smeared her character and reputation.  Out here in the real world, Carroll would have sued ELLE Magazine for defamation.  But all of this is transpiring on a liberal blue island where reality counts for nothing.

Yes, Trump is one of the shittiest of shitty candidates voters will be forced to choose between.  The voting public is being punished because our democracy is a nothing more than a lie.  When a judge convicts before a trial even begins then the United States has become a failed state.  No wonder we're attracting so many illegal immigrants from other failed states around the world; they'll feel right at home.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.4    one month ago
E. Jean Carroll alleged she was fired from ELLE Magazine in 2020 because Trump smeared her character and reputation.  Out here in the real world, Carroll would have sued ELLE Magazine for defamation.

ELLE magazine didn't talk smack about her, trump did. She sued the right person. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @3.2.5    one month ago
ELLE magazine didn't talk smack about her, trump did.

She aslo accused another rich man, Leslie Moonves, of raping her.  He also denied it.  She also claims to have been raped/molested  by numerous other people.  Yet she only sued Trump.   Amazing how that worked. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.7  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.6    one month ago
Amazing how that worked.

Well, when your lawyer is an absolute Trump hater, there really is no amazing to it.

Just expected.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.4    one month ago
When a judge convicts before a trial even begins then the United States has become a failed state. 

Both of the E Jean Carroll cases against Trump were decided by a jury, not a judge. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.9  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.8    one month ago

I believe he is referring to the other New York sham trial where that far leftist Engeron stated Trump was guilty of fraud even before the trial started.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.11  cjcold  replied to  bugsy @3.2.9    one month ago

Hard to believe that anybody in their right mind who is cognizant of all the facts can still defend Trump on any issue. Trump is a world class scumbag.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.12  bugsy  replied to  cjcold @3.2.11    one month ago

[Deleted.]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @3.2.11    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.14  cjcold  replied to  bugsy @3.2.7    one month ago
absolute Trump hater

Proud to hate Trump.

He represents everything that is wrong with America. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.2.15  Split Personality  replied to  bugsy @3.2.9    one month ago
believe he is referring to the other New York sham trial where that far leftist Engeron stated Trump was guilty of fraud even before the trial started.

Judge Engeron didn't refer to Trump as guilty until the sentencing phase.

Otherwise even Alina Saad Habba could have gotten a mistrial or forced a change of judges,

None of Elise Stefanik's complaints which she filed went anywhere yet, either. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
3.2.16  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.2.6    one month ago
She aslo accused another rich man, Leslie Moonves, of raping her.  He also denied it. 

There is plenty of ink out there about the 12 women who accused CBS (Paramount) and Les Moonves of sexual misconduct, harassment and retaliation.  Les had to pay almost 10 million and resign from CBS. Context Sean, context.

She also claims to have been raped/molested  by numerous other people.

I'm sure you have evidence.  Did you read her "tell all" book?

  Yet she only sued Trump.   Amazing how that worked.

American jurisprudence?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.2.17  Greg Jones  replied to  cjcold @3.2.11    4 weeks ago
You haven't presented a single fact.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 weeks ago
Trump was found liable FOR GRABBING E JEAN CARROLL'S PUSSY.

Another failed attempt to spin fiction into fact.  He was found liable for "saying mean things".  That's all.  

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.3.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    4 weeks ago

“He was found liable for "saying mean things".  That's all. “

Isn’t defamation saying the same things?

The attempt to make it anything less is just another example of the obfuscation of the facts presented, the process, and ultimately, the truth. That’s all. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.2    4 weeks ago
Former President Trump is staring down nearly $100 million in total damages to   E. Jean Carroll   after a jury handed the advice columnist a victory at her second trial Friday. The newest verdict orders Trump to pay $83.3 million for defaming Carroll when she came forward in 2019 accusing the then-president of sexual assault decades earlier.

For "saying mean things".  Oh, and it's not like this is the first time she's tried this.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.4  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.2    4 weeks ago

Found liable by a NY jury. Wonder what the verdict would have been if Trump had run and won as a Democrat?

There was no evidence presented during that trial, it was a true his word against her word trial. The defaming part is definitely true, Trump has never learned when to shut his mouth. But it's also interesting that there was no hint of "rape" until her book came out around the same time.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3.5  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.4    4 weeks ago

gee, trump supporters seem very unhappy the jury was anonymous ...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.6  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.4    4 weeks ago

Well, all I can say is this, 'now' is the reality the law is putting forward. There is no need to disparage NY citizens, by the way, not much emotionally different than other citizens coming from across this country. And, Carroll wrote her "memoir" - she is entitled to do so. All Trump had to do was leave the book alone, but he wanted to defame her and. . . do it some more and that, nothing else is why we are here today.

One more thing. . . if Trump defames her one. more. time.  He might have up to a 200 million dollars or the sky is the limit damages ordered against him, in addition, to what it is now. Again, that would be all him.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.7  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.3.6    4 weeks ago
There is no need to disparage NY citizens, by the way, not much emotionally different than other citizens coming from across this country

All I said was that I wondered what the verdict would have been if Trump had run as a Democrat?  Seems to me that you are the one who is disparaging the citizens of NYC. It's well known that NYC is heavily blue, not a problem as everybody is entitled to their own choices. It's also well known that Trump is not a 'well liked' person in NYC, again everybody is entitled to their own opinions. All I questioned is how much did partisan politics play into this? 

And, Carroll wrote her "memoir" - she is entitled to do so. All Trump had to do was leave the book alone, but he wanted to defame her and. 

Sure, she is certainly entitled to write her memoir's. But she's the one who filed suit against Trump stating he raped her. And when NY passed the Adult Survivors Act in 22, she filed the second lawsuit.

About the only one I disparaged was Carroll herself. She filed the first lawsuit around the same time as her book came out, what a great way to get her name and face and the book out in front of the public.

Shame I have to add this disclaimer but here it is. Please note that by no means does anything I've posted here indicate ANY DEFENSE of Trump. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.8  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.7    4 weeks ago
All I said was that I wondered what the verdict would have been if Trump had run as a Democrat? 

No way to know.   While it is fair to speculate that an R will be treated differently than a D in a D-centric jurisdiction, the speculation gets us nowhere.

What matters are the merits of the case.   And, in particular, the merits of the cases against Trump as PotUS rather than these private citizen Trump cases.

My focus, frankly, is on the Jan 6th case and then on the GA and docs cases.    The precedent Trump set as PotUS needs to be mitigated.    The precedent has and will continue to change politics in the USA in a negative way.   The private citizen Trump cases mean nothing, really, in the big picture.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.9  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    4 weeks ago

I always felt the Florida documents case was the strongest case against him. The DOJ should have him dead to rights on obstruction but we'll have to wait and see as the judge appears to be leaning towards him.

As far as the Jan 6th case, I felt this was a bit weaker, but that IMO is the nature that evidence was presented by the Jan 6th committee. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of that case but those who cite the Jan 6th committee as showing a slam-dunk conviction have not really been fair on their review. The Jan 6th committee was not really bi-partisan, carefully crafted the evidence they presented to the public to show what they wanted to show while hiding what they wanted hid and showed to a lot of people that they were not really interested in doing what they were initially set up to do which was to find out what happened to insure that it doesn't happen again. Trump was a big part but I felt they missed the boat by refusing to look at other pieces of the failure. 

Agreed that the private citizen cases are the weakest of the lot and really don't impact politics in the big picture. I have my issues with the Jean Carroll case which I have stated previously. 

Interesting article from the AP on their review of the Trump civil fraud case. It definitely seems to be partisan to me as well as an overreach by the AG. While the outcome of that trial doesn't seem to be in doubt, I have no reason not to believe that it will be tied up in appeals for years and it could very well be overturned down the road.

Key points from AP analysis of Trump's New York civil fraud case | AP News

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.3.5    4 weeks ago

they're big on revenge and retribution - like the former 'president'

and endlessly defending the indefensible

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.7    4 weeks ago

Sounds like victim blaming of Ms. Carroll

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.12  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.9    4 weeks ago

Even without the Jan 6th committee, it is obvious to me that Trump incited his supporters and then further fueled the fire by —in the middle of the insurrection— throwing Pence under the bus with a tweet.   That alone shows Trump was operating against the best interest of the nation.

Adding in testimony from high-ranking politicians whose political careers would be compromised by their testimony was devastating evidence that Trump knew what was taking place and wanted his supporters to continue with the disruption of Congress.   The Rusty Bowers testimony illustrated the same kind of coercion tactics that we could hear for ourselves with the Raffensperger conversation.

The Jan 6th committee's evidence (the under-oath testimonies by R operatives) is difficult to counter.   It is possible, but unlikely.   Reading the indictment, the merits of this case seem quite solid so I expect Trump to be convicted.

In the big picture, it is easy to believe that Trump engaged in a conspiracy to produce fraudulent electors in seven states with the intent of having Pence violate the CotUS and deny the certified SoS results from those states so that the determination of PotUS would be an act of Congress.   Hairbrained as that is, Trump's behavior after losing the election was erratic and irrational.   His behavior since then has been centered on denying the election results and, of course, lying at pretty much every turn about what actually happened.   He was desperate to cling to power and not be seen as a loser.

His abysmal character is obvious.   So is someone like this capable of engaging in the acts as charged?   Does the evidence that is publicly available strongly suggest this?   To me the answer is 'obviously, yes'.

I remain anxious to see this case in particular be adjudicated.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.13  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.12    4 weeks ago

I remain anxious to see this case in particular be adjudicated.

I'm more curious to see the outcome of the SCOTUS review of the Colorado case which removed Trump from the ballot. The two federal cases (Jan 6th and the Florida docs case) do nothing as far as preventing Trump from running and holding the office. If SCOTUS upholds Colorado, there are many more states that will remove Trump from the ballot also. I gave up on Trump shortly after he lost the election and continued to harp about the stolen election. I have little time for someone who constantly lives in the past while running for public office. You want to live in the past then go find a cabin out in the woods and just go away.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
3.3.14  George  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.13    4 weeks ago
I'm more curious to see the outcome of the SCOTUS review of the Colorado

Don't you find it strange that there is a group claiming that trump will be the end of democracy while actively trying to subvert democracy by removing candidates?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.15  Snuffy  replied to  George @3.3.14    4 weeks ago

Strange? Not with this current mix of extreme partisanship. I'm afraid the days of politicians campaigning on what they will do for the American public are long gone and have been replaced by politicians who fling fear and doom-mongering. I personally would not mind if SCOTUS upholds the Colorado decision, maybe then the RNC would finally move away from Trump and let Hailey take over. Polling shows that she has an even better chance of defeating Biden in the general.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.16  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.13    4 weeks ago
The two federal cases (Jan 6th and the Florida docs case) do nothing as far as preventing Trump from running and holding the office.

True.   But they are dealing with the damaging precedent that would linger well past Trump doing harm to the nation.  They are the most important cases IMO.

The SCotUS is unlikely to rule that Trump is ineligible so to me this is mostly of academic interest.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.3.17  afrayedknot  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    4 weeks ago

“What matters are the merits of the case.”

For anyone who understands and appreciates how our legal system works. To undermine the basic principles of such is to make the laws suspect to partisan pressure. A minefield no one should ever have to negotiate. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.18  TᵢG  replied to  George @3.3.14    4 weeks ago

Given the context, do you think I am claiming Trump would be the end of democracy?

Further, it is hardly a stretch to see how a court could find that Trump engaged in insurrection and is no longer eligible.   Your comment implies that this can only be a partisan finding and has no merit.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.3.19  JBB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.15    4 weeks ago

Just because someone says, "Blah Blah Blah" is no excuse...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.20  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.7    4 weeks ago
All I questioned is how much did partisan politics play into this? 

What does it matter?  For example: Fanni Willis, DA, Georgia, will face partisan 'backlash' for what she got herself into with a fellow lawyer she had positioned on the Trump case before her and the state of Georgia. We can assume that 'red' Georgia will put her through the proverbial wringer for her. . . arrogance in doing so with a 'lover.'

The facts of the E. Jean Carroll and Donald Trump saga come because of the intersecting of their lives. . . we are mere onlookers, and interestingly this could have happened and played out the same as it does now. . .without politics. As indeed, the incident occurred before Trump entered and figured prominently in the 'cult' he founded.

In 2017, the plaintiff began drafting a book about twenty-one men who had left
ugly marks on her life. 26 One of those men was Donald Trump. 27

On June 21, 2019, New York magazine published an excerpt from the plaintiff’s then forthcoming book. The excerpt tells a
more detailed version of the allegations outlined above.28 The book was published on July 2,
2019. 29

Roughly two hours after the excerpt was published in New York magazine, the
president issued a public statement to media outlets. It said:

“Regarding the ‘story’ by E. Jean Carroll, claiming she once encountered me at
Bergdorf Goodman 23 years ago. I’ve never met this person in my life. She is
trying to sell a new book – that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold
in the fiction section. Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try
to get publicity for themselves, or sell a book, or carry out a political agenda –
like Julie Swetnick who falsely accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It’s just as bad
for people to believe it, particularly when there is zero evidence. Worse still for a
dying publication to try to prop itself up by peddling fake news – it’s an epidemic.
Ms. Carroll & New York Magazine: No pictures? No surveillance? No video?
No reports? No sales attendants around?? I would like to thank Bergdorf
Goodman for confirming that they have no video footage of any such incident,
because it never happened.

False accusations diminish the severity of real assault. All should condemn false
accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.
If anyone has information that the Democratic Party is working with Ms. Carroll
or New York Magazine, please notify us as soon as possible. The world should
know what’s really going on. It is a disgrace and people should pay dearly for
such false accusations.” 30

The next day, June 22, 2019, a reporter at the White House confronted President
Trump about the story .31

They had the following exchange:

[Reporter:] Mr. President, you had said earlier that you never met E. Jean Carroll.
 There was a photograph of you and her in the late 1980’s — 

[President Trump:] I have no idea who this woman is. This is a woman who has
also accused other men of things, as you know. It is a totally false accusation. I
think she was married — as I read; I have no idea who she is — but she was
married to a, actually, nice guy, Johnson — a newscaster.

[Reporter:] You were in a photograph with her.

[President Trump:] Standing with [my] coat on in a line – give me a break – with
my back to the camera. I have no idea who she is. What she did is – it’s terrible,
what’s going on. So it’s a total false accusation and I don’t know anything about
her. And she’s made this charge against others.

And, you know, people have to be careful because they’re playing with very
dangerous territory. And when they do that – and it’s happening more and more. 
When you look at what happened to Justice Kavanaugh and you look at what’s
happening to others, you can’t do that for the sake of publicity.

New York Magazine is a failing magazine. It’s ready to go out of business, from
what I hear. They’ll do anything they can. But this was about many men, and I
was one of the many men that she wrote about. It’s a totally false accusation. I
have absolutely no idea who she is. There’s some picture where we’re shaking
hands. It looks like at some kind of event. I have my coat on. I have my wife
standing next to me. And I didn’t know her husband, but he was a newscaster. 
But I have no idea who she is – none whatsoever.

It’s a false accusation and it’s a disgrace that a magazine like New York – which
is one of the reasons it’s failing. People don’t read it anymore, so they’re trying
to get readership by using me. It’s not good.

You know, there were cases that the mainstream media didn’t pick up. And I
don’t know if you’ve seen them. And they were put on Fox. But there were
numerous cases where women were paid money to say bad things about me. You
can’t do that. You can’t do that. And those women did wrong things – that
women were actually paid money to say bad things about me.

But here’s a case, it’s an absolute disgrace that she’s allowed to do that.”32
President Trump commented on the story a third time on June 24, 2019, when he
gave an interview to The Hill. As relevant here, he stated: “I’ll say it with great respect: Number
one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?”
33

Procedural Background

On November 4, 2019, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court, New York County,
against President Trump in his personal capacity.34 On the basis of the June 21, June 22, and June 24 statements,
she alleged that the president defamed her under
New York law . 35 

20-cv-7311 10-27-20.pdf

Snuffy, Ms. Carroll had a right to write her book and name names. Apparently, it 'hit' the president on his head and he decided to cry 'foul!' about it and Ms. Carroll slapped him with a defamation lawsuit. The orderly progression after that point found Mr. Trump guilty of sexual assault and defamation. And later on, repeat defamation. We are commenting on that aspect - not Ms. Carroll's motivations or if you will 'planned strategy' to get Trump ('s money or politically).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.21  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.9    4 weeks ago
The Jan 6th committee was not really bi-partisan, carefully crafted the evidence they presented to the public to show what they wanted to show while hiding what they wanted hid and showed to a lot of people that they were not really interested in doing what they were initially set up to do which was to find out what happened to insure that it doesn't happen again. Trump was a big part but I felt they missed the boat by refusing to look at other pieces of the failure. 

It was bi-partisan in the frame of what goes for bi-partisanship in the Capitol in these cases. BTW, the Republicans were given a fair chance to put members on the impeachment committee/s and they OPTED to place 'firebrands' (bullshitters and flamethrowers to "f" it up and burn it down from the start) and rightly (the Speaker) it was not allowed. Thus, the republicans can't cry foul because. . .the rules are the rules: The Speaker controls the processes in the House under HER control where under her control. Like it or lump it.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.22  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.9    4 weeks ago
The Jan 6th committee was not really bi-partisan, carefully crafted the evidence they presented to the public to show what they wanted to show while hiding what they wanted hid and showed to a lot of people that they were not really interested in doing what they were initially set up to do which was to find out what happened to insure that it doesn't happen again.

Exactly the main issue I have had with the Jan 6th committee after a couple days.  Hard to take it seriously 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.23  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @3.3.21    4 weeks ago
BTW, the Republicans were given a fair chance to put members on the impeachment committee

As long as they put someone on the committee that would toe the line.  That is not a fair chance

The Speaker controls the processes in the House under HER control where under her control.

Yes, and now she has set the precedent that was never there before, not giving the minority to choose who they want.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.24  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.22    4 weeks ago

So you are unable to ignore what the Jan 6th committee members said (assuming, irrationally, that their views are all lies) and instead focus on the under-oath testimonies of the high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers with their testimonies.

Do you think, offering just one example, that AZ Speaker Rusty Bowers was lying?   

On what grounds do you categorically ignore sworn testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans who have everything to lose and nothing to gain by testifying against Trump?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.25  Tessylo  replied to  CB @3.3.20    4 weeks ago

Wonderful.  It is a disgrace and the former 'president' should pay dearly for such false accusations and lies about Ms. Carroll,

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.26  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.23    4 weeks ago

I mean we can do political 'combat' about anything but it won't be helpful. It is what it is. As long as we have these political systems and the constitution allows the party system in power to control proceedings. . . we have no choice but to abide by the conditions. For example, the democrats did not like to this day what Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell did to President Obama's choice of Justice Scalia's replacement in 2017 thereabouts. As Majority Leader McConnell made the replacement in the Trump administration of the displaced justice under the Obama Administration the choice yet stands the test of time in service. It is what it is. 

Political 'combat' is killing this country. We are One-even when we foolishly do not acknowledge it.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.27  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.24    4 weeks ago

An investigation committee is supposed to investigate, not start with a conclusion and look for support for that conclusion.  Once it is obvious the committee has an agenda it looses all credibility that you will see anything other than what they specifically want you to see.  It becomes worthless.  The only people that will watch it religiously are those that want their pre conceived notion confirmed in their own mind. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.28  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @3.3.26    4 weeks ago
Political 'combat' is killing this country.

Interesting that it seems to be getting worse by the day

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.29  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.3.20    4 weeks ago
Snuffy, Ms. Carroll had a right to write her book and name names.

And I said that, or did you miss that in my post?  Again, so what? Trump did what he always does which is to punch back, Carroll filed suit citing rape and defamation. She won partially on that as Trump was not found guilty of rape, despite the judge stated that based on the case Trump did indeed rape her. Perhaps Trump has grounds for a defamation case against the judge. 

We are commenting on that aspect - not Ms. Carroll's motivations or if you will 'planned strategy' to get Trump ('s money or politically).

You can comment on what you want to but you don't get to tell me what I can comment on. I merely pondered on what the possible outcome of the court case might have been if Trump had run as a Democrat. The only real motivation I alluded to pertaining to Ms. Carroll is that she had a book come out around the same time. 

You're really not very clear in what your point is because we have agreed on some parts and other parts don't seem to apply to what I posted. So rather than beat around the bush and not be clear, why don't you come out using clear English and make your point? Otherwise take the adult choice and don't bother to read and/or respond.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.30  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.24    4 weeks ago
So you are unable to ignore what the Jan 6th committee members said (assuming, irrationally, that their views are all lies) and instead focus on the under-oath testimonies of the high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers with their testimonies.

That's not really what I or he said. What I said and RDtC copied was 

The Jan 6th committee was not really bi-partisan, carefully crafted the evidence they presented to the public to show what they wanted to show while hiding what they wanted hid and showed to a lot of people that they were not really interested in doing what they were initially set up to do which was to find out what happened to insure that it doesn't happen again.

They even hired a TV producer to produce what was showed to the public. I submit that the evidence, while damning, was also carefully crafted to make a point rather than provide all the evidence. I don't know of anybody who stated that any testimony was a lie, rather it was edited to insure it made the points the committee wanted it to. That's one of the reasons why all those televised testimonies were proceeded by a closed-door deposition so the committee would be sure to ask the "right" questions. 

Now none of what I've said should be taken as a defense of Trump. He fucked up and should be held accountable for what he did. But the optics and what has come out since the change in House leadership surely raises questions around that committee. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.3.31  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.27    4 weeks ago

Standing "O"

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif     jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.32  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.30    4 weeks ago
Now none of what I've said should be taken as a defense of Trump. He fucked up and should be held accountable for what he did. But the optics and what has come out since the change in House leadership surely raises questions around that committee. 

Exactly, well said.  Let the actual trials go forward and let the chips fall where they may.  At least then there will be a defense to make sure it is not just one sided and scripted.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.33  TᵢG  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.27    4 weeks ago
An investigation committee is supposed to investigate, not start with a conclusion and look for support for that conclusion.  Once it is obvious the committee has an agenda it looses all credibility that you will see anything other than what they specifically want you to see.  It becomes worthless.  The only people that will watch it religiously are those that want their pre conceived notion confirmed in their own mind. 

And, yet again, I have made the distinction of the committee itself from the sworn testimonies of the Republicans who testified under oath.   I have made this distinction since the inception of the committee.   I have stated from day one that it is legitimate to argue that the committee is biased.   GIVEN.   But there is substantial content provided beyond the interpretations of the committee.

You refuse to acknowledge the Republican testimonies.

Once again to be crystal clear.   You can ignore everything the committee says and just listen to the testimonies.   There may be other testimonies that counter these (e.g. someone might actually claim that Rusty Bowers, Bill Barr, Pat Cipollone, et. al. were lying) but given what is at stake for these folks and the fact that these are all Republicans (not Democrats) who were highly connected to Trump, that is not likely to be a credible claim.    You can observe what these high-ranking, connected Republicans are saying under oath to the detriment of their political futures.

Ignoring theses sworn testimonies under the umbrella excuse that the committee is biased is a fine example of engaging in a "pre-conceived notion".     It is confirmation bias.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.34  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.30    4 weeks ago
That's not really what I or he said. What I said and RDtC copied was 

I did not claim anyone stated those exact words.   I offered the logical consequence of what he wrote.  That is normal discourse.  

This excuse of "that is not what I wrote" is a dishonest tactic to deflect from dealing with the consequence stated.   If you disagree with the consequence then make an argument.

I submit that the evidence, while damning, was also carefully crafted to make a point rather than provide all the evidence. 

And I submit that one should not ignore the sworn testimonies just because the committee was arguably biased.    But that is what is done.   Trump defenders will indeed claim they have not watched hearings, have not watched the testimonies, and categorically dismiss them.

So they categorically dismiss facts such as Bill Barr explaining how Trump was told by him in no uncertain terms that there was no credible evidence that the election was stolen.   While it is possible that someone might refute Barr, that would be quite unlikely.   And someone could refute Rusty Bowers' claim that Trump and Giuliani were trying to get him to submit false electors.   But given the circumstances (Rusty being the Republican Speaker of the AZ House whose political career would be basically ended by his testimony) a claim that Bowers is flat out lying is unlikely to be credible.

In short, I have stated since day one that it is fair to deem the committee biased.   I have also stated from day one that one can still review the under oath testimonies and draw a reasonable conclusion from same.   What I consistently get back is:  "no, I am not going to even consider those testimonies because the Jan 6 committee is biased".

That is confirmation bias in action.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.36  Right Down the Center  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.33    4 weeks ago

Call it whatever you want.

I have spent as much time explaining my position as I care to.

As my father used to say "If you are not even going to try and understand what I said I am not going to bother talking to you".

I am fine waiting for the trial results.

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
3.3.37  George  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.34    4 weeks ago
This excuse of "that is not what I wrote" is a dishonest tactic to deflect from dealing with the consequence stated. 

this is absolute bullshit, it is intellectually lazy and dishonest to force someone to defend something that they never said because you can’t respond to their actual statements. 

This exact action is why I will not and more posters are no longer responding to your bullshit.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.39  CB  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.3.28    4 weeks ago

And the only ones that can provide a fix for this particular problem is each one of us who value the good use of our time offline and online! :)

Emergency!  Emergency!  Emergency!

?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ff53n2en9yyw61.gif&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=a92b2247e7724b1ccbf30fd0a6e3029bd88f2bec8db85c47f1c44bdc20a737fd&ipo=images

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.40  TᵢG  replied to  George @3.3.37    4 weeks ago
this is absolute bullshit,

Of course, George, if you cannot formulate a real rebuttal, just cry bullshit (among other things).

Note:

RtDC @3.3.22Exactly the main issue I have had [bias] with the Jan 6th committee after a couple days.  Hard to take it seriously 

RtDC claims that his main issue with the Jan 6th committee is that they are biased.     ⇡

And now look how he later confirms this with:

RdTC@3.3.27An investigation committee is supposed to investigate, not start with a conclusion and look for support for that conclusion.  Once it is obvious the committee has an agenda it looses all credibility that you will see anything other than what they specifically want you to see.  It becomes worthless.  The only people that will watch it religiously are those that want their pre conceived notion confirmed in their own mind. 

Categorical dismissal of anything that came from the Jan 6th committee.    

The consequences of these words:

TiG@3.3.24 ☞ So you are unable to ignore what the Jan 6th committee members said (assuming, irrationally, that their views are all lies) and instead focus on the under-oath testimonies of the high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers with their testimonies.

I have yet to see someone who routinely defends Trump even admit that they have reviewed these testimonies.   The common excuse is that they reject everything from the committee.   That means (consequence now) that they will not even consider (independently) the under-oath testimonies of the high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers with their testimonies.   


This exact action is why I will not and more posters are no longer responding to your bullshit.

Here is a thought.   How about you do just that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.41  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.29    4 weeks ago
. Perhaps Trump has grounds for a defamation case against the judge. 

He will lose that case, as you know. Since, it is the judge's opinion of the case. But, a juror decided its context of New York law for this case.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.42  Right Down the Center  replied to  George @3.3.37    4 weeks ago

 61lxT6XHd7L._AC_SL1500_.jpg

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.43  Right Down the Center  replied to  CB @3.3.39    4 weeks ago

I prefer 

DyNVl4IV4AECcEN.jpg

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.44  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.34    4 weeks ago
That's not really what I or he said. What I said and RDtC copied was 
I did not claim anyone stated those exact words.   I offered the logical consequence of what he wrote.  That is normal discourse.   This excuse of "that is not what I wrote" is a dishonest tactic to deflect from dealing with the consequence stated.   If you disagree with the consequence then make an argument.

I disagree with your statement of you offered the logical consequence of what he wrote. Your post of 3.3.24 was :

So you are unable to ignore what the Jan 6th committee members said (assuming, irrationally, that their views are all lies) and instead focus on the under-oath testimonies of the high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers with their testimonies.

Do you think, offering just one example, that AZ Speaker Rusty Bowers was lying?   

On what grounds do you categorically ignore sworn testimony from high-ranking, connected Republicans who have everything to lose and nothing to gain by testifying against Trump?

That doesn't tie what I posted and what he posted in with what you posted. You immediately post about ignoring the committee members and focusing on what was said in testimony. And you ignore what was posted before where the initial testimony was also under oath but behind closed doors and what was shown live was based on those earlier depositions. The earlier depositions are necessary and should not be skipped but one should not assume that the live testimony is exactly the same as the deposition. Those earlier depositions usually lasts for several hours where as the live testimony lasted what, maybe 15-20 minutes per person? 

Nobody is arguing that there was damning testimony given. What we are saying is the live show was carefully scripted. In addition, the initial scope of the committee was presented as to find what went wrong and what needs to change in order to prevent such an occurrence from happening again. Yet the live show only focused on Trump and ignored all the other pieces of the puzzle. This is why a lot of people have issues with the work presented by the committee. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.45  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.29    4 weeks ago

At 3.3.7 you wrote: "About the only one I disparaged was Carroll herself. She filed the first lawsuit around the same time as her book came out, what a great way to get her name and face and the book out in front of the public." 

At 3.3.20 I added this statement from the Court: "On June 21, 2019, New York magazine published an excerpt from the plaintiff’s then forthcoming book. The excerpt tells a more detailed version of the allegations outlined above.28 The book was published on July 2, 2019

Roughly two hours after the excerpt was published in New York magazine, the
president issued a public statement to media outlets.

. . . .

On November 4, 2019, the plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court, New York County,
against President Trump in his personal capacity. 34 On the basis of the June 21, June 22, and June 24 statements,
she alleged that the president defamed her under New York law.


The book published on July 2, 2019 and President Trump responded via a called 'presser' two hours later. The first lawsuit did not enter the frame of this until four months later and a lot of presidential rhetoric (later on to be found to be on-going defamation of E. Jean Carroll) was delivered by various means. 

If this is not clear, let me know what is not clear. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.3.46  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.44    4 weeks ago

Well said

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.47  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.44    4 weeks ago
That doesn't tie what I posted and what he posted in with what you posted. 

Dismissing the testimonies because the committee is arguably biased is a clear refusal to ignore what the committee members stated and just review the testimonies on their own.    The testimonies of high-ranking, connected, Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify are ignored.

Not sure how this can be made clearer.

The earlier depositions are necessary and should not be skipped but one should not assume that the live testimony is exactly the same as the deposition.

That is an entirely different point.   One can still review the testimonies on their own.   All sorts of material was not aired.   Obviously.   But you can review what was aired and draw some very sound conclusions.   Again, is it objective reasoning to categorically dismiss facts such as Bill Barr explaining how Trump was told by him in no uncertain terms that there was no credible evidence that the election was stolen?   While it is possible that someone might refute Barr, that would be quite unlikely.   And someone could refute Rusty Bowers' claim that Trump and Giuliani were trying to get him to submit false electors.   But given the circumstances (Rusty being the Republican Speaker of the AZ House whose political career would be basically ended by his testimony) a claim that Bowers is flat out lying is unlikely to be credible.   These testimonies provide critical information that is ignored by those who do not want to deal with wrongdoing by Trump.

Nobody is arguing that there was damning testimony given. What we are saying is the live show was carefully scripted. 

Other than you, the comments disregard the testimony ... rather than consider them damning.    Further, I am not addressing anything on hypotheses of scripting, etc.   I have stated that the committee is arguably biased so obviously I am not going to deal with various ways in which people thinking bias might manifest.   Not the point I made.

Speaking of point.   This, again, is the point I made:

I have stated since day one that it is fair to deem the committee biased.   I have also stated from day one that one can still review the under oath testimonies and draw a reasonable conclusion from same.   What I consistently get back is:  "no, I am not going to even consider those testimonies because the Jan 6 committee is biased".

That is engaging in willful ignorance ... confirmation bias.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.48  Snuffy  replied to  CB @3.3.45    4 weeks ago
The book published on July 2, 2019 and President Trump responded via a called 'presser' two hours later. The first lawsuit did not enter the frame of this until four months later and a lot of presidential rhetoric (later on to be found to be on-going defamation of E. Jean Carroll ) was delivered by various means.  If this is not clear, let me know what is not clear. 

Ok, that is clear. So I guess your argument is the time between when the book was published and when the lawsuit was filed. Here's a little more info on this.

Yes, the book was released on July 2, 2019 and she filed her first lawsuit on November 4, 2019.

The book in question can be found on Amazon. The Amazon Sales Rank for this book is 27368, you can easily find this information if you go to Amazon and search for the book.

Using the BSR to Sales Calculator   

Amazon Book Sales Calculator - TCK Publishing

You can see that for that sales rank, it works out to an average of 163 sales per month or 11 per day. So in the time between when the book was published and when she filed the lawsuit, approximately 652 books had been sold. Hardly a barnburner. 

Just so you understand what I'm saying, it's entirely possible that she filed the lawsuit in order to get her name and the book in the press to try to boost sales. We can quibble about this all day long but the simple truth is neither one of us knows what's in her mind or what exactly happened back then. She accused Trump of rape, he was found liable of sexual abuse and defamation. Did she file suit to try to bring Trump down? Did she file suit to try to bring her book out into a wider public? There's a lot that we just don't know. 

Of course, your first post in 3.3.20 , the only statement from my post that you copied was "

All I questioned is how much did partisan politics play into this? 

There are sufficient questions around the first trial that I believe that's a valid question to ask. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
3.3.49  Snuffy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.47    4 weeks ago
That doesn't tie what I posted and what he posted in with what you posted. 

Dismissing the testimonies because the committee is arguably biased is a clear refusal to ignore what the committee members stated and just review the testimonies on their own.    The testimonies of high-ranking, connected, Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify are ignored.

Not sure how this can be made clearer.

Once again, that has nothing to do with the original post. The original post that you had issue with is :

The Jan 6th committee was not really bi-partisan, carefully crafted the evidence they presented to the public to show what they wanted to show while hiding what they wanted hid and showed to a lot of people that they were not really interested in doing what they were initially set up to do which was to find out what happened to insure that it doesn't happen again.
Exactly the main issue I have had with the Jan 6th committee after a couple days.  Hard to take it seriously 

Nowhere in there is anybody dismissing the testimonies given. The only objection is the nature of how it was scripted and edited for television. 

So I think I'm done with this conversation. Whatever point your trying to make is just lost as you continue to try to twist what was posted into something you can tear apart. I don't know why you have to bring up something that was not talked about to try to make an argument. Go ahead and have the last word if it makes you feel better, I'm done.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.50  TᵢG  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.49    4 weeks ago
Nowhere in there is anybody dismissing the testimonies given.

What does "Hard to take it seriously" mean to you?

What does "Once it is obvious the committee has an agenda it looses [sic] all credibility that you will see anything other than what they specifically want you to see.  It becomes worthless." mean to you?

Does that connote to you that this individual has considered these testimonies in and of themselves?   


Here is the testimony from Bowers:

Now, explain how someone can watch this testimony and reject what Bowers said as worthless.

And we can do the same exercise with many more testimonies by high-ranking, connected Republicans whose political careers were compromised by testifying.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.51  CB  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.33    4 weeks ago

The bi-partisan aspect of the January 6, 2021 committee was properly established. . .by a rejection of two republicans, Kinzinger and Cheney  (among others and those who surrendered and retired from their elected offices), and later censure and removal from congress based solely on their participation in the fact-finding of the January 6, 2021. This from the so-called, "Party of freedom and liberty" - - until you don't toe the line and act in concert with the MAGAs.  These politicians who acted honestly and within the rules. . . were harassed, mobbed, swatted, and mocked incessantly.  To this day some years later, Senators are retiring because the party has left them with no 'true North' in their political home.

MAGAs have no defense for what it did to its 'fellows.' None. Zilch. Anybody ignoring this fact to make an opposing point is a fraud, an omitter, and probably a proven liar!

 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.52  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.9    4 weeks ago
As far as the Jan 6th case, I felt this was a bit weaker, but that IMO is the nature that evidence was presented by the Jan 6th committee. We'll have to wait and see what comes out of that case but those who cite the Jan 6th committee as showing a slam-dunk conviction have not really been fair on their review. The Jan 6th committee was not really bi-partisan, carefully crafted the evidence they presented to the public to show what they wanted to show while hiding what they wanted hid and showed to a lot of people that they were not really interested in doing what they were initially set up to do which was to find out what happened to insure that it doesn't happen again. Trump was a big part but I felt they missed the boat by refusing to look at other pieces of the failure. 

The Jan 6 committee was televised for at least 15 hours altogether. How many of those 15 hours did you watch? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.53  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.52    4 weeks ago
How many of those 15 hours did you watch? 

Snuffy has implied that he watched some or all of it.   He noted that at least some of the testimonies were damning.

It is the others — those who categorically reject the testimonies under the blanket excuse of a biased committee — who likely did not watch and thus do not know the content provided by these high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers to testify.

To them, the testimonies are worthless because the committee itself is "biased".

see-hear-teachjpg-960x368.jpg

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.54  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.53    4 weeks ago

No one interested in the truth could have watched those 15 hours and concluded it was a sham. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.55  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.54    4 weeks ago

My point has been that even if one deems the committee biased, that does not in any way justify categorically rejecting the sworn testimonies of high-ranking, connected Republicans whose testimonies compromised their political careers.

Those who deem these testimonies worthless (or equivalent language) demonstrate that they are unwillingly to consider that which suggests Trump engaged in wrongdoing.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.3.56  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.55    4 weeks ago

the testimony, such that it was, was not subject to cross examination or or even examination by a non interested party. It was part of a production directed by a television producer for partisan purposes. It’s more of a documentary, where the viewer is shown only the facts and context that further the documentary makers narrative.  As anyone who’s researched the facts behind a popular documentary can tell you, the version the viewer is fed often bears little resemblance to the actual  events 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.57  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.56    4 weeks ago
... the testimony, such that it was, was not subject to cross examination or or even examination ...

I have never claimed this was a court of law.   The fact that there has not been cross examination, etc. does not mean that these testimonies should be categorically ignored — to close your eyes and ears and deem them worthless.

That is just an excuse.

Review the testimony from Bowers and illustrate how it is worthless.     That it provides no useful information to consider.   That witness testimony offers no insight into what might have taken place during the Big Lie campaign.

You react to news from all sorts of talking heads yet here we have individuals from Trumps own party compromising their careers and you do not think it is even worth considering.   That it is just a bunch of staged testimonies scripted by writers with high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromise their political careers by being the actors.   As if Bowers is lying about what he was asked to do. 

When high-ranking, connected Republicans testify under oath against Trump to the detriment of their political careers, anyone who dismisses what they say with excuses like 'no cross examination' or 'the committee was biased' is just making excuses.

It is one thing to say that one would like to also hear the other side.   Of course.   It is very different to categorically reject these Republican testimonies with lame excuses and refuse to even consider what they have to say.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.58  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.56    4 weeks ago

Donald Trump has had THREE YEARS to explain himself concerning Jan 6th, and has never done it, even in the face of serious accusations of wrongdoing on his part.  Is he saving all the good answers for his trial ? LOL. 

What do you think the "other side" of the story is? Maybe you can tell us something that the accused person cannot ? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.59  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.58    4 weeks ago
What do you think the "other side" of the story is?

Well obviously ...

  • There will be witnesses who will state that Trump did not actually know what was going on when the Capitol was under attack and that as soon as he found out he rushed in to save the day.
  • Witnesses will demonstrate that Bowers, Barr, Cipollone, et. al. were all lying.   That they compromised their political careers only to lie about Trump.
  • Under cross examination, Bowers will break down sobbing that he invented his fake electors story because Trump dissed him and it hurt his feelings.
  • Other witnesses will claim that Trump's Pence tweet did not come from Trump but rather from a D operative trying to make Trump look bad.
  • Raffensperger will admit that his phone call with Trump was an audio deep fake.
  • Witnesses will claim that Trump was very skeptical that the election was rigged but under advise of council engaged in the pursuit of 61 frivolous lawsuits, creating fake electors in seven states, suborning Pence to violate the CotUS, etc., because he genuinely believed that he was preserving, protected and defending the CotUS through his actions.

Obviously, right?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.60  CB  replied to  CB @3.3.41    4 weeks ago

Oops! But a jury decided its context of New York law for this case.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.61  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.44    4 weeks ago
What we are saying is the live show was carefully scripted.

So what? This was not a "drama," but it was a PRESENTATION and it was produced in a manner so that laypeople could understand it and find the TRUTH riveting. There is nothing wrong with this. BTW, it is congress' RIGHT to impeach the president in any manner that is PRODUCTIVE and TRUTHTELLING . . .those who do not wish to hear or receive the truth. . .look for 'escape routes' to DISBELIEF of facts. That is unfortunate, but it changes nothing. 

FACTS ARE FACTS. Therefore they "trump" falsity and dismissal. The presentations of the Trump twice impeachments were not as dry treatises—the law and nature of impeachment does not call for it being situated as such.

That is, at the end of the day, the truth of the committee's work will stand the test of time. And only if some group or individual can punch a hole through the facts will denial of the same be acceptable. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.62  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.48    4 weeks ago
Just so you understand what I'm saying, [Snuffy:] it's entirely possible that she filed the lawsuit in order to get her name and the book in the press to try to boost sales.

Speculation. Supposition. The court did not 'deal' with either of the two. Therefore, we have no basis for doing so after the decisions have twice been rendered in a court of law. Do stick with the facts as the court record has established them. Speculation can run wild and because of that it is invalid as a discussion 'tool' because it is not helpful.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.63  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.59    4 weeks ago

Plus, 

Trump will claim he has never met John Eastman and doesnt know who he is, 

- that when he summoned a crowd to DC on Jan 6 with the promise "it will be wild" he meant a party he was going to host in the White House rose garden

- that he told the rioters that he "loved them" because he noticed there were some hot women in their ranks

- that when he asked Raffensberger to find 11,000 votes, he didnt mean for him, he just wanted Raffensberger to prove that 11,000 people in Georgia voted

-that he didnt call the Pentagon or governors of nearby states to help put down the riot because he couldnt find their phone numbers

- that the "fake elector" thing was Nancy Pelosi's idea

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.64  CB  replied to  Snuffy @3.3.48    4 weeks ago
There are sufficient questions around the first trial that I believe that's a valid question to ask. 

Those questions may or may not be legitimate, but we, NT commenters are not the ones to ask them of, Snuffy. This is a civil trial, equipped with proper lawyers, plantiff, and defendant and as such SPECULATION and SUPPOSITIONS were not allowed in the court. . . or, if both speculation and supposition were entered into the proceeding, because it is a jury trial 2x we may never read the actual word for word testimonies of those involved. You can not speak from silence to form the basis for this internet discussion. We can only see, read, hear, what is put before us.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.65  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.63    4 weeks ago
... that the "fake elector" thing was Nancy Pelosi's idea

I think it was Nikki Haley's idea.   You know, to make up for refusing to provide adequate security on Jan 6th.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.3.66  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.65    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.67  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.54    4 weeks ago

Lives were ruined, careers ended, and people were harmed due to their participation in those January 6, 2021 impeachment proceedings.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.68  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.3.56    4 weeks ago

That is rhetorical nonsense. Truth-telling in documentaries is a hallmark trait. Of course, if one side or the other chooses to make a mockery of the "production," the fiduciaries have a responsibility to check 'spoilers' and their mis/dis-information attempts out and leave them on the 'cutting' room floor!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.69  CB  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.57    4 weeks ago

As the critics well know, they had no intention of participating in the production against Trump, because Trump had no proper basis for doing what he did in abusing the office of the president.  Our nation is a sovereign nation, but it does not have a sovereign king amongst any of our 46 presidents.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.70  CB  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.59    4 weeks ago

Those scenarios are the prime reason Trump has been taken to court, the place where facts alone matter and "fancy" bull is purged out under the scrutiny of a wise judge and law.

Which has nothing to do with why we are gathered here on a comment forum to talk about any of this. We are trying to determine solid matters regarding the mentioned cases—not flights of fancy and wishful thinking!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.71  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.3.69    4 weeks ago

It seems to be missed that allegations are made all the time in public.   The Jan 6th committee put forth some highly significant, credible testimony.   But where is the rebuttal?   Trump defenders have had plenty of time to counter the testimonies of Barr, Raffensperger, Bowers, etc.

Nada.   

In place of a rebuttal we have denials and blanket dismissal of all this credible testimony by high-ranking, connected Republicans because ' the committee was biased' .

An old but quite relevant quote:

If-you-cant-dazzle-them-with-brilliance-baffle-them-with-bullshit..png

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.72  CB  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.71    4 weeks ago

Great comment and great saying! I have often used this customized retort: 'Dazzle them with bullshit.'  Without realizing that I must have extracted it from the late, great, W. C. Fields!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.3.73  CB  replied to  CB @3.3.70    4 weeks ago

Indeed judges are so empowered within their courts with a dual purpose of stripping out 'bull,' flights of fancy, and wishful thinking. They are gone within an instant of being discovered in rhetoric.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    one month ago

The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional leftwing criminal prosecutions, leftwing judges, and leftwing juries to come—all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president or been a liberal progressive.

this is undeniable. New York isn’t  literally changing statutes to allow a democrat to be sued…

 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    one month ago
all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president

These cases started long before trump said he was running for president. Nice try. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    one month ago

Are you unfamiliar with how time works, or  what words mean?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.2  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    one month ago

they'll sync that up later with their revised version of events.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.1    one month ago
Are you unfamiliar with how time works

Pretty easy stuff Sean.. When did the case/investigation start? When did trump announce he was running for president? 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.4  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.3    one month ago

heh, trump thought he dodged that bullet the last time he got elected...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.3    one month ago
retty easy stuff Sean.

apparently not. You just ignored half the sentence ""or been a liberal progressive,"  to create a straw man to argue against. And then you apparently don't understand that the criminal indictments came down months  after he declared for the Presidency. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    one month ago
the criminal indictments came down months  after he declared for the Presidency. 

But the INVESTIGATIONS started LONG before that.. Nice try! 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5  Ronin2    one month ago

Either the law applies equally to everyone or no one.

Democrats are quickly bringing about the day when it will apply to no one. They will also be screaming the loudest when that day comes.

Florida, since Trump lives there now, should pass their own defamation law. That if anyone brings false defamation charges against one of their citizens they will be awarded 100 times the punitive damages. Don't worry- they will make sure that it will be a very conservative judge in a Trump strong hold where trial case takes place.

She can be present with a lawyer- but will not be allowed to present evidence in her defense.

The verdict will be in before the jury's seats get a chance to get warm.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    one month ago

It's amazing that people plead innocence for Trump or that he is being victimized or picked on.

In a deposition for the first case, Trump said "celebrities" have always been able to "grab pussies" going back a million years.

In 200? he told a television show that he has grabbed pussies of women he barely knew.

The allegation is that he grabbed Carroll's pussy in the dressing room section of a department store. 

And people wonder why he lost? Its nothing short of incredible. 

There are people in this country who actually WANT Trump to be above the law. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6    one month ago

Prove she was a victim. She fucking can't.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    one month ago

If he kept his fucking mouth shut he might have gotten away with it.  He told Carroll's LAWYER that celebrities get away with grabbing pussies . She asked him if he considers himself to be a celebrity and he said yes. 

The juries took the pos at his word. Get over it. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
6.1.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    one month ago

“She fucking can't.”

There are 83.3 million reasons why she doesn’t need to address such ignorance. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.3  JBB  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1    one month ago

I do not think you understand how justice works here the United States of America. She already has proven it, in an American court with an American judge and an American jury. Case Closed!

original

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.4  bugsy  replied to  JBB @6.1.3    one month ago

Do you believe that someone could have been wrongly convicted based on the false statements of the accuser, or, because this is Trump, there is no way he could actually be innocent?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @6.1.4    one month ago

Do you question every trial?   Do you not recognize this feeble defense of Trump?   He was found liable in a formal trial where evidence was presented, the attorneys from both sides made their cases, the judge issued direction, the jury deliberated, and a verdict was rendered.

But even with all this, you continue defending Trump with the "but but they might have got it wrong".   

( Another example of defending Trump, since you asked for examples. )

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.1.6  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.5    one month ago

Thank you for your opinion

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.1.7  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.5    4 weeks ago

What evidence? 30 year old repressed memories by a serial accuser?

This is just another example of malicious prosecution, as the previously best case being the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings scandal.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @6.1.7    4 weeks ago
What evidence?

You probably should be knowledgeable of the the evidence and arguments made by the attorneys in this legal trial before deeming there was no evidence and that the trial was malicious prosecution.

Again we see the wholly unsupported, absurd defense of Trump of the form:  'If bad for Trump, the system is rigged'.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.8    4 weeks ago

That's all some 'articles' here are about TiG - the malicious prosecution of the former 'president'.

Delusion

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.5    4 weeks ago

I suppose someone somewhere may have made an unfounded personal accusation against Trump, but for all the accusations of his wrong doing to have been "fabrications" he would have to be the unluckiest bastard in the history of the world. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @6    one month ago

Absolutely no one wants Trump to be above the law.

Common sense people know how to look at timelines, and even the accuser's story to see if everything lines up. Trump haters take her word for everything she says because she is out to get Trump...and to leftists, that's all the proof they need.

In this case, the timeline and her story do not add up.

Too many inconsistencies like not knowing when the attack took place, the closeness of her story to a Law and Order episode.....in the same freaking department store, etc.

The woman is a nut case.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @6.2    one month ago
Absolutely no one wants Trump to be above the law.

Oh certainly not 320 .

You offer an armchair legal analysis second-guessing the entire judicial process (evidence, arguments, judge directions, jury deliberation, verdict) of a completed trial while making the silly claim that ' nobody ' wants Trump to be above the law.   

What else should we expect in defense when a trial finds Trump liable (or guilty) other than the equivalent of "the trial was bogus".

But " no one wants Trump to be above the law ".

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.2  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.1    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.3  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.1    one month ago

OK, since thanking someone for their opinion is now considered trolling, I'm going to go ahead and address this.

"You offer an armchair legal analysis second-guessing the entire judicial process"

Because I am not a lawyer, and do not pretend I am, then my opinion is what I have, that's why I opined the way I did. .

""the trial was bogus"."

You put this in quotation marks. Show where I posted exactly this.

"But " no one wants Trump to be above the law "."

Correct

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @6.2.3    one month ago
Because I am not a lawyer, and do not pretend I am, then my opinion is what I have, that's why I opined the way I did. .

So your supporting argument is "I opined".

You put this in quotation marks. Show where I posted exactly this.

Offer at least some semblance of honesty by recognizing the rest of the words in my sentence:

TiG@6.2.1 ☞ other than the equivalent of "the trial was bogus".
 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.5  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.4    one month ago
So your supporting argument is "I opined".

Very good

"Offer at least some semblance of honesty by recognizing the rest of the words in my sentence:"

 You put the words in quotation, trying to say I actually posted those words. If the quotation marks had been left off, your point would have been valid.

It is intellectually dishonest to do so.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @6.2.5    one month ago
 You put the words in quotation

I just cannot imagine how you think ploys like this are effective.   Readers here are not brain dead.   I am confident that everyone here understands that:

TiG @6.2.1 ☞ other than the equivalent of "the trial was bogus".

Does not mean you stated "the trial was bogus" but that you claimed the equivalent of same.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.7  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.6    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.8  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @6.2.7    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.2.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  bugsy @6.2.3    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
6.2.10  bugsy  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.9    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.2.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  bugsy @6.2.10    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.12  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.6    4 weeks ago
Readers here are not brain dead.

... uh, some readers.

 the judgement on trump's fraud case drops by the end of the month. hopefully the judge sets it well above the $370 million the prosecution is asking for due to the level of disrespect and contempt shown by the defendant to the court proceedings during the trial.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
7  Tacos!    one month ago
Carroll eventually sued him for battery, but well after the statute of limitations had expired and thus the case seemed defunct.

The $83 million judgment isn’t for a 30 year-old battery case. It’s for a very recent act of defamation.

the absence of a salaried job in one’s late seventies for four years does not seem to equate to a $83 million hit

The judgment isn’t solely compensation for loss of a job. It’s to punish a billionaire. A few thousand dollars - or even a few million - would not remotely punish a man with Trump’s wealth. In fact, he doesn’t seem intimidated by even this amount, and he enthusiastically continues to talk shit about her and everyone else associated with the case. Shed no tears for this man. He certainly won’t.

Trump again will face leftwing prosecutors, judges

I’ve met many prosecutors. I can’t think of one I would describe as “leftwing.” That job just doesn’t draw from that cohort. The leftwing people all work in the Public Defender’s office. And most judges are pulled from the ranks of prosecutors.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
8  Greg Jones    4 weeks ago

Realistically, this case is likely to be tied up in appeals for years.

Trump will be elected regardless of this kangaroo court's "get Trump" vendetta. 

For the next four years he will be untouchable.

She'll never see a dime of it, and is serves her right

Most of the electorate with a brain and sense of fair play will see this travesty for what it is.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @8    4 weeks ago

Yeah, Trump never does anything wrong.   It is always someone else's fault.      320

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    4 weeks ago

They'll write books about the levels of projection, deflection, denial, and delusion of the cult/supporters/enablers/defendersoftheindefensible of the former 'president' traitor scumbag.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
8.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.1    4 weeks ago

I am confident that you are correct.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9  CB    4 weeks ago
The subtext of Trump’s rage, aside from the outrageous monetary size of the defamation ruling, is that he was facing—and angered—a leftwing claimant, a quite hostile leftwing judge, and a leftwing New York jury. The civil suit serves as a mere preview of four additional leftwing criminal prosecutions, leftwing judges, and leftwing juries to come—all on charges that would never had been filed if Trump either had not run for president or been a liberal progressive.

This is hyperpartisan bull. The article writer apparently sees "Leftwing (dead) people" everywhere. (For the record, Donald Trump has been under investigation for his activities and actions since 2016 and continuing. . .as he has brought legal and civil problems which need clarifying to the front of the nation's consciousness from his first day as president (now former president).

 
 

Who is online

Mark in Wyoming
MonsterMash
mocowgirl
shona1
JohnRussell


62 visitors