Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Trump found guilty and ordered to pay $5m


pellinore

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Doug1066 said:

He likely won't win the next one either.  His bungled defense just made it easier for Biden.

But I hope he gets nominated.  That will help a lot of down-ballot Democrats.

Doug

I hope he doesnt' get nominated, but unfortunately it will depend on the agenda the partys have, whether they want the democratic candidate to win or not.   I agree he won't win if he is nominated, but I doubt he will be nominated, he is too big a liability now.   Too many dark, nasty things have been stirred up from the bottom of the pot and that may have been their whole reason for using him before, now the rest is just a big distracting circus.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, weaselrunner said:

Ok so who is going to find the next thing to bring against him???

There's plenty to choose from.  :lol:

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems MAGA folks want a country run by Twitter and Dear Leader's words of Truth.  No need for evidence, just a post. No need to show up in court, just state your claim on your own social network.  You can only get a fair trial from people that love you and believe every word you say?

No evidence, no rule of law, no Constitution, just Trump.  Every leader should be above the law, Is that what makes a country great or a sh**hole?. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Edumakated said:

I find it really bad that our system allows for civil suits in situations like this....

Actually the Statute_of_limitations on Rape in NY is like 3 years, so she couldn't sue starting in 1998. But the NY state passed a law allowing civil suites for one year going back forever. It was now or never.

20 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Why guess at this point, when we can wait for the court documents to be available?  The trial is over and the 12 people who needed to be convinced were. 

It was 9 jurists. Just a nit pick.

:innocent:

20 hours ago, Gromdor said:

See, here is an example that could have happened.  She just needed to produce a few witnesses at the store that saw this famous man and this woman together with his hand on her butt.

Which she didn't do AFAIK. She has lifelong friends whom she told, and who corroborated they were told. But none of them know what year it was.

18 hours ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

That’s correct, if her clothing from the day of the Rape were admissible ( She saved Them ) the DNA on them could have proven rape. But, because she never went to hospital or reported the Rape to the police she could never prove it so many years later. But, with the findings she is still vindicated, I am actually surprised she won because of the time that has gone by.:yes:

From what I read. There was no sperm, or related material, found in the dress. Even the fact she kept it is entirely her own account. No one else verified the dress.

Probably why they couldn't prove rape even with a lower standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

So it seems MAGA folks want a country run by Twitter and Dear Leader's words of Truth.  No need for evidence, just a post. No need to show up in court, just state your claim on your own social network.  You can only get a fair trial from people that love you and believe every word you say?

No evidence, no rule of law, no Constitution, just Trump.  Every leader should be above the law, Is that what makes a country great or a sh**hole?. 

Where's her evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Edumakated said:

When did we start convicting people on a "probably" with no evidence.

When?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

If he thought what he said was his defense then of course he was found liable (civil case remember?)   His attitude counts for a lot in that kind of case.   And like @pellinore pointed out, even in a criminal case you need to be careful what you say and how you say it.  Some people are their own worst enemy.

The thing here is it’s just blatantly obvious to keep your mouth shut. His lawyers must have rolled their eyes when they told him. Trump being narcissistic Trump acted like Trump. Maybe the establishment has finally figured out how to defeat him

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

So it seems MAGA folks want a country run by Twitter and Dear Leader's words of Truth.  No need for evidence, just a post. No need to show up in court, just state your claim on your own social network.  You can only get a fair trial from people that love you and believe every word you say?

No evidence, no rule of law, no Constitution, just Trump.  Every leader should be above the law, Is that what makes a country great or a sh**hole?. 

Trump is conditioning his base to his autocratic style and they’re lapping it up

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Trump missed his calling as a proctologist at American Mercy Hospital. He likely could be head proctologist considering how far up everyone’s butt he has his head in.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Who is voting for him now?   he didn't win the last election.   

Republicons. Even McConnell, after years on racist attacks against his wife, will vote for Bloated Orange Mess because Republicons value POWER over principles. And Ted Cruz, no principles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, acidhead said:

Where's her evidence?

Testimony: Hers and her witnesses. Bloated Orange Mess chose not to testify. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/e-jean-carroll-kaplan-trump-appeal-00096183

Quote

“I rarely feel more confident about an appeal than I do on this one,” said Robbie Kaplan, Carroll’s lawyer.

I really think it depends. Depends on the jury and the judge. 

The fact there was no confirmation on rape, but no specific witness of him even touching her, sets up the possibility of canceling this win. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/e-jean-carroll-kaplan-trump-appeal-00096183

I really think it depends. Depends on the jury and the judge. 

The fact there was no confirmation on rape, but no specific witness of him even touching her, sets up the possibility of canceling this win. 

I wouldn't be surprised if this was repealed. It's a really grey area IMO

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if this was repealed. It's a really grey area IMO

The video I posted lays it out according to Dershowitz. He said anyone else but Trump an appeal would be a slam dunk and he also said Trump's Constitutional rights were violated.

Yeah it's going to be appealed but Get Trump is in vogue.

Dershowitz also wrote a book. Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

I wouldn't be surprised if this was repealed. It's a really grey area IMO

I would.  It was a decision by a jury in a civil court.  It was at first E. Jean Carrol's word against Donald Trump's.  Then of course they brought in a couple of other witnesses and the Access Hollywood tape.  

Donald Trump did not attend the trial, his lawyers presented no defense, he ran away then he claimed he would come back and testify and the judge gave him extra time to do it, but he did not.  None of that speaks well of innocence.

He insulted the judge, the jury, the defendant and her lawyers.  He did not have a credible defense.  He might have been convincing if he had just said no, instead of saying it was impossible because she was not his type.

So, a preponderance of evidence convinced the jury that there was at least a 51% chance that  Carrol was telling the truth and Trump was lying.   Trump's behavior has certainly come down on the side of guilt.

So if you brush up on your law, a civil case does not require evidence to be beyond a reasonable doubt, it only requires a preponderance of evidence. 

Trump says his constitutional rights were violated.  Well, the judge gave him a chance to testify so he was not silenced.  He was even able to get his message out on TV and Truth Social, so I think an appeal on that charge will not go far.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

It was clearly a "he said - she said" case but what he said in his "defense" made it clear that she was probably correct in her accusations.  That's all that's needed in a civil case.   I think you need to examine your feelings and thoughts about this and figure out why you are taking it so personal.   And that is just my opinion, not that I think I am better than you.  It's just that I find it helpful to my sanity to do what I suggest you do.   You can't go around stuck in "everything is political" and the "other side" is always wrong mentality.  It does not serve you, it puts you in a weak position ripe for manipulation.

Forgive me, as I have not really followed this case at all, so maybe what I'm about to ask has a very simple answer. I was under the impression Trump chose not to testify, so where did Trump say ANYTHING in his defense? Was it the lawyers who said these things (did his lawyers literally argue in a civil trial, in front of a judge and jury that billionaires rightly or wrongly have a right to grab women by the p****)? I'm going to listen to the Alan Dershowitz video sometime today, I have generally found him to be a very insightful lawyer. 

 

6 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Who is voting for him now?   he didn't win the last election.   

Over 74 million votes, more than any other incumbent president in history. And he is the STRONG favourite in the current Republican primaries ($1.45, according to the bookmakers).  He isn't getting the majority of all American voters, and I don't expect him to win the majority if he becomes the Republican candidate, but he is certainly more popular than you are alleging, and by far and away the most popular Republican candidate there is right now. 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/e-jean-carroll-kaplan-trump-appeal-00096183

I really think it depends. Depends on the jury and the judge. 

The fact there was no confirmation on rape, but no specific witness of him even touching her, sets up the possibility of canceling this win. 

Yeah but you didn't think she would get this far either. 

I'm hoping any appeals Trump may attempt result in more fines. Something appropriate like fifty or a hundred million. Unlikely but I'd love to see it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Over 74 million votes, more than any other incumbent president in history. 

But less votes than Uncle Joe. And Bloated Orange Mess received fewer electoral college votes. A two-time loser.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Portre said:

But less votes than Uncle Joe. And Bloated Orange Mess received fewer electoral college votes. A two-time loser.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTqXoz-Kvd2LCJ-Uq17Vc5

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Forgive me, as I have not really followed this case at all, so maybe what I'm about to ask has a very simple answer. I was under the impression Trump chose not to testify, so where did Trump say ANYTHING in his defense? Was it the lawyers who said these things (did his lawyers literally argue in a civil trial, in front of a judge and jury that billionaires rightly or wrongly have a right to grab women by the p****)? I'm going to listen to the Alan Dershowitz video sometime today, I have generally found him to be a very insightful lawyer. 

As lawyers act for their clients, one could argue that anything that is said in court by a lawyer is them speaking on behalf of their clients. Trump certainly said nothing directly to the court as he chose not to participate. As to the bolded part: I believe that's paraphrased from a statement he made at his deposition. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Yeah but you didn't think she would get this far either. 

I'm hoping any appeals Trump may attempt result in more fines. Something appropriate like fifty or a hundred million. Unlikely but I'd love to see it. 

Interestingly I wonder why nobody has ever advocated means testing fines

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/e-jean-carroll-kaplan-trump-appeal-00096183

I really think it depends. Depends on the jury and the judge. 

The fact there was no confirmation on rape, but no specific witness of him even touching her, sets up the possibility of canceling this win. 

I believe it will be overturned also. Just not enough evidence. But the political damage for Trump is compounding nicely at 10% PA on female voters

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Portre said:

But less votes than Uncle Joe. And Bloated Orange Mess received fewer electoral college votes. A two-time loser.

Ok, and what is the relevance to my comments? Or are you just using it as an excuse to demonstrate just how much you dislike Trump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

As lawyers act for their clients, one could argue that anything that is said in court by a lawyer is them speaking on behalf of their clients. Trump certainly said nothing directly to the court as he chose not to participate. As to the bolded part: I believe that's paraphrased from a statement he made at his deposition. 

So what was the original statement, and was this used as testimony in court? Or was this a statement by Trump's lawyers, I'm simply curious where the information came from, so I can check it out and see the entire context and comments. 

Edited by Paranoid Android
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.