Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #101
Trump's Present and Future possible indictments
- Thread starter Sixties Fan
- Start date
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #102
day Roberta Carter, Carroll's attorney, will have w/ it. As she told the judge, "if Mr Trump can find a way to attend wrestling championships etc, surely he could surmount the logistics of attending his own federal trial." And I don't see why she can't make those sorts of
arguments to the jury. Point 3--Trump asked the judge to instruct the jury that he wishes to be present but can't b/c of the it would occasion to the courthouse and the city. Carter mocked this claim, pointing out that NYC has done notorious terrorist crimes w/o incident.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #103
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #104
[ Let him dream ]
lennypartiv
Diamond Member
- Jul 16, 2019
- 28,007
- 21,597
- 2,320
So Sixties Fan denies there is anti-white racism?
Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 55,211
- 16,848
- 2,250
There's more than implication. They're trying to pass laws that would make Trump immune from any prosecution for any state crime.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #107
When a bunch of European White descendants insist in attacking Blacks, Asians, Jews, Indians, Indigenous, etc, on a daily basis.....via laws taking away their rights, verbal or physical attacks......
You can BET that there will be an anti European feelings for ONLY those idiots who live in the past where they were allowed to have slaves and attack others with impunity.
It is not racism, it is defending themselves from the racist mentality that too many European descendants still live by.
Call it racism towards Whites, call it an attack against Christmas, call it whatever you like.
Your crying is nothing more and nothing less than a European crying for the right to be a racist towards anyone they like because you feel that the US is a "WHITE" country and should stay that way.
And because of the inability to accept anybody else's rights to have rights, the minority you do belong to is now doing everything it can to take away any and ALL rights that should be awarded to EVERYONE regardless of Race, Gender or Religion.
Spend this Sunday thinking about it.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #108
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #109
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #110
pyetro
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2019
- 5,538
- 5,762
- 1,940
Yeah so you hope he gets as many years as Hillary did for her crimes right?
pyetro
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2019
- 5,538
- 5,762
- 1,940
If Trump gets convicted of any of these charges, independentthinker will say Dominion flipped the jury votes.
pyetro
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2019
- 5,538
- 5,762
- 1,940
Trump Devotion Syndrome (TDS): mental disease that makes you defend Donald Trump all the time.Oh look, another TDS thread.
Please refer to my map of Soros DA's in the other thread.
They're being booted out of office even as we speak.
Then where will you be?
WEATHER53
Diamond Member
- Apr 13, 2017
- 34,622
- 23,144
- 1,915
Copy cat comes from non thinkers
pyetro
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2019
- 5,538
- 5,762
- 1,940
Yep, "derangement syndrome" was copied by you parrots from Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome and Clinton derangement syndrome.
Copycat. And you're so dumb you thought your buddies were being original.
Clinton derangement syndrome
Even now, any mention of anything good that happened between the end of 1992 and the beginning of 2001 is like waving a red flag.
archive.nytimes.com
WEATHER53
Diamond Member
- Apr 13, 2017
- 34,622
- 23,144
- 1,915
We coined it and 6 months later you dolts started copyingYep, "derangement syndrome" was copied by you parrots from Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome and Clinton derangement syndrome.
Copycat. And you're so dumb you thought your buddies were being original.
Clinton derangement syndrome
Even now, any mention of anything good that happened between the end of 1992 and the beginning of 2001 is like waving a red flag.archive.nytimes.com
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #118
SOBEFUN
To be perfectly fair, that’s NOT the reason that question was asked. The judge is not attempting to seat a jury that believes Trump is, or is not a liar. The question is intended to elicit bias in favor of Trump, which would be the clear inference of an affirmative response.
Andrew Weissmann
of course you are right! was just pointing out what it actually conveys.
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #119
Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 67,391
- 12,054
- 2,290
- Thread starter
- #120
Part 1
Today a federal judge in New York seated a jury to hear E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against Donald Trump. The lawyers made opening statements. The jury consists of nine people: six men and three women.
Unlike the prosecution in Manhattan, the investigations that are still ongoing in Fulton County, Georgia, and before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., this is a civil case. But it’s an unusual one, with high stakes and also some confusing procedural twists. We’ll undoubtedly get into those as the week progresses, but tonight, I want to focus on the stakes.
This case is what has been dubbed Carroll II. It’s the second of two lawsuits brought by Carroll. The first case, Carroll I, is a defamation suit based on Trump’s derogatory comments about Carroll made while he was the sitting president. That case was on hold while the D.C. courts determined whether Trump was acting within the scope of his official duties when he made those comments. Although the court recently ruled, concluding the issue was one that a jury should decide, which presumably frees the case for a future trial, those allegations aren’t at stake this week.
This week’s trial involves a second incident of defamation, in 2022 in a Truth Social post, where Trump called Carroll’s allegation that he had raped her “a Hoax and a lie” and said she wasn’t his type. There is also a charge of battery, based on the rape itself, which Carroll says occurred in the mid-1990s. Normally a charge of that nature would be barred by the statute of limitations this far down the road. But a recently adopted law in New York allows adult survivors of sexual abuse a grace period to sue their alleged attacker now. Carroll filed suit the day the law passed.
That makes this, in a sense, a criminal case dressed up in civil claims. The burden of proof is lower; Carroll need only convince the jury that Trump committed a battery on her by a preponderance of the evidence. If this were a criminal rape trial, it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under New York law, assault is a criminal charge involving the intent to cause injury to another. It can range from a simple misdemeanor to a serious felony charge like assault with an intent to kill or assault with a deadly weapon. If there is a conviction in an assault case, the defendant goes to prison. In New York, battery is a civil tort (an act that injures or harms another person). A plaintiff who files a lawsuit like Carroll’s is seeking monetary damages.
Even though Carroll’s battery charge is a civil one, she will have to convince the jury that Trump more likely than not raped her in a Manhattan dressing room. And that will have repercussions if it happens. The expectation is that two other witnesses who were assaulted by Trump will testify in support of Carroll’s case. Until now, there has been talk of Trump’s pattern of this conduct, buttressed by his own remarks, like the Access Hollywood tape where he talked about grabbing women by the p**** and that he could do that because he was a star. But no court proceeding has ever resulted in a verdict against Trump for assaulting a woman. If Carroll wins this case, and her evidence is quite strong—she told two friends about the attack contemporaneously but didn’t go to the police out of fear Trump could ruin her, something that was sadly borne out by his behavior almost three decades later—the country will again be placed in an unprecedented situation by the former president.
It’s possible that people will accept the verdict. The country will be in a frightening place. The leading candidate for the presidency in a major party will have been adjudged by a jury to be a rapist. Perhaps it will affect his political future, as it should. It is equally possible that it will not, given the GOP’s stunning reversal on issues of morality they used to characterize as their core family values. But the notion that a former president and a current candidate attacked a woman in a department store, lied about it, and savagely defamed her character over it would be a low-water mark in an era full of them.
Alternatively, as has so often been the case, a verdict in Carroll’s favor could be rejected as fake news. Trump has never been shy about damaging the public’s confidence in our legal system when it serves his own ends. There’s no reason to believe he would start now; he doesn’t even plan to be in the courtroom this week. Trump might fulfill his own prophecy that he could shoot a man on 5th Avenue without losing any support by losing a civil case over whether he raped a woman and remaining in place as the leading contender for the Republican nomination.
Somewhere on Earth One, Hillary Clinton is happily playing with her grandbabies as she nears the end of her second term in office. Women have not been reduced to second-class citizenship in 2023 America.
But instead, here we are in post-Trump America, where warning signs are flashing everywhere for anyone who cares to pay attention. And the prospect of the country finally being forced to face what has long been sidestepped, hard proof that the former president didn’t just talk about it, but actually assaulted a woman, will be of major significance no matter how the public reacts.
Today a federal judge in New York seated a jury to hear E. Jean Carroll’s defamation case against Donald Trump. The lawyers made opening statements. The jury consists of nine people: six men and three women.
Unlike the prosecution in Manhattan, the investigations that are still ongoing in Fulton County, Georgia, and before a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., this is a civil case. But it’s an unusual one, with high stakes and also some confusing procedural twists. We’ll undoubtedly get into those as the week progresses, but tonight, I want to focus on the stakes.
This case is what has been dubbed Carroll II. It’s the second of two lawsuits brought by Carroll. The first case, Carroll I, is a defamation suit based on Trump’s derogatory comments about Carroll made while he was the sitting president. That case was on hold while the D.C. courts determined whether Trump was acting within the scope of his official duties when he made those comments. Although the court recently ruled, concluding the issue was one that a jury should decide, which presumably frees the case for a future trial, those allegations aren’t at stake this week.
This week’s trial involves a second incident of defamation, in 2022 in a Truth Social post, where Trump called Carroll’s allegation that he had raped her “a Hoax and a lie” and said she wasn’t his type. There is also a charge of battery, based on the rape itself, which Carroll says occurred in the mid-1990s. Normally a charge of that nature would be barred by the statute of limitations this far down the road. But a recently adopted law in New York allows adult survivors of sexual abuse a grace period to sue their alleged attacker now. Carroll filed suit the day the law passed.
That makes this, in a sense, a criminal case dressed up in civil claims. The burden of proof is lower; Carroll need only convince the jury that Trump committed a battery on her by a preponderance of the evidence. If this were a criminal rape trial, it would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Under New York law, assault is a criminal charge involving the intent to cause injury to another. It can range from a simple misdemeanor to a serious felony charge like assault with an intent to kill or assault with a deadly weapon. If there is a conviction in an assault case, the defendant goes to prison. In New York, battery is a civil tort (an act that injures or harms another person). A plaintiff who files a lawsuit like Carroll’s is seeking monetary damages.
Even though Carroll’s battery charge is a civil one, she will have to convince the jury that Trump more likely than not raped her in a Manhattan dressing room. And that will have repercussions if it happens. The expectation is that two other witnesses who were assaulted by Trump will testify in support of Carroll’s case. Until now, there has been talk of Trump’s pattern of this conduct, buttressed by his own remarks, like the Access Hollywood tape where he talked about grabbing women by the p**** and that he could do that because he was a star. But no court proceeding has ever resulted in a verdict against Trump for assaulting a woman. If Carroll wins this case, and her evidence is quite strong—she told two friends about the attack contemporaneously but didn’t go to the police out of fear Trump could ruin her, something that was sadly borne out by his behavior almost three decades later—the country will again be placed in an unprecedented situation by the former president.
It’s possible that people will accept the verdict. The country will be in a frightening place. The leading candidate for the presidency in a major party will have been adjudged by a jury to be a rapist. Perhaps it will affect his political future, as it should. It is equally possible that it will not, given the GOP’s stunning reversal on issues of morality they used to characterize as their core family values. But the notion that a former president and a current candidate attacked a woman in a department store, lied about it, and savagely defamed her character over it would be a low-water mark in an era full of them.
Alternatively, as has so often been the case, a verdict in Carroll’s favor could be rejected as fake news. Trump has never been shy about damaging the public’s confidence in our legal system when it serves his own ends. There’s no reason to believe he would start now; he doesn’t even plan to be in the courtroom this week. Trump might fulfill his own prophecy that he could shoot a man on 5th Avenue without losing any support by losing a civil case over whether he raped a woman and remaining in place as the leading contender for the Republican nomination.
Somewhere on Earth One, Hillary Clinton is happily playing with her grandbabies as she nears the end of her second term in office. Women have not been reduced to second-class citizenship in 2023 America.
But instead, here we are in post-Trump America, where warning signs are flashing everywhere for anyone who cares to pay attention. And the prospect of the country finally being forced to face what has long been sidestepped, hard proof that the former president didn’t just talk about it, but actually assaulted a woman, will be of major significance no matter how the public reacts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
America's oil industry in serious decline — thanks to Trump: WSJ- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 3
-
Jobs Report Blows Dem's Claims Of Recession Out Of The Water- Started by mudwhistle
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply condemns Trump's attacks on judges- Latest: RoshawnMarkwees
