ex-President Trump

by Luciom P

I think you are allowed to call me an awful person if you disagree with me calling the guardian communist (extremely, wildly radical left if you prefer).

But when they publish this, which is very close to the worst possible thing you can publish ever (this is a lot worse than asking for the genocide of any specific ethnicity, like infinitely worse than that already unacceptable position), i suggest you rethink your opinion on that medium

Oh BTW, a little over a year ago the NY Post did a profile of the same guy and his views. I guess they're terrible communists also?

https://nypost.com/2022/12/01/extinction...

Who said they would regret that? I can't figure out who you're referring to.

Im not wagering, this is a political spiel to discredit their opposition. carrolls lawyers and backers are known trump critics who work pro bono
and with their own agendas. As president he would have better chances.

Trump is appealing the verdict:

"Verdict and aftermath (January 2024–present)
On January 26, 2024, the jury deliberated for three hours and awarded Carroll $7.3 million in emotional damages, $11 million in reputation-related damages, and $65 million in punitive damages, totaling $83.3 million.[214] Trump said he would appeal. This would require him either to pay the award money to the court (which would hold onto it during his appeal) or else seek a creditor to help him with an appeal bond for which he'd pay around $16 million.[216][217] The judge advised the jurors not to disclose that they had served on the trial and forbade them from revealing other jurors' identities.[218]

In a January 29 letter to Judge Kaplan, Habba cited an article from the New York Post asserting that Kaplan, as a senior litigation partner, had served as something like a mentor to junior litigation associate Roberta Kaplan during their nearly two years of overlapping time at the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison law firm in the 1990s. The following day, Roberta Kaplan called the allegations "utterly baseless" and said she could not recall directly interacting with Lewis Kaplan at all during their shared time at the firm. Habba said Roberta Kaplan's response had seemingly resolved the issue.[219]

On January 30, New York Governor Kathy Hochul mentioned the case during a bill-signing ceremony for a law expanding the state's legal definition of rape to include nonconsensual vaginal, anal, and oral contact, effective non-retroactively on September 1, 2024.[11]
"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Ca...

Ah, washoe is back to double (quadruple?) down on his 'don't believe Carroll, or a judge, or a jury, or the dozens of other women who have accused him of sexual harassment/assault - believe the guy who is super respectful of women and never ever lies!'

How many other men has E. Jean Carroll accused of similar stuff?
Do you know the answer to this?
Am I supposed to believe Michael Jacksons accusers too?

Trump is surrounded by people who went to jail ,
Business that got condemn of fraud ,
women accusing him of sexual harassment ,
He had the fbi comes to his properties because he didn’t want to respect the law with classified documents ,
now his been condemn for many cases and others accumulating on top of that ,
His been caught lying many times on crazy stuff like election fraud,
What else do u need to having doubt on his honesty ?

Yes? Does this mean you don't?

Did you think it was totally normal for a grown man to have little boys sleep in his bed??

It's a little more tricky than that.

Trump had only one chance in court (for now, appeal is waiting) to counter the unsubstantiated words of Carroll.

For the weird difference between civil and criminal law in the USA, she didn't have to prove the claim, just convince the jury the claim was more likely than not.

So it's actually a "she said he said" kinda situation, no corroborating evidence.

I find it kinda absurd that you can be legally punished for a she says he says at 51% probability+ (as perceived by the jury) but that is the silly law that applies so be it.

But the judge denying a new trial for the different defamation was really a bad choice. Basically a single jury finds at 51%+ a person credible, then they can call you a rapist and you can't say that's false lol, and everyone else has to believe that jury reading of the situation?

That the legal fees were initially paid by a democrat super donor isn't controversial btw

Did you believe Dominique Strauss Khan accuser? He got destroyed there.

Do you believe the accusers of Assange who claim he is a rapist?

I would believe just about anyone before I believe the serial liar trump.

In New York state court, 5/6 of the jury must agree that the plaintiff carried the burden of proof, and in many jurisdictions, a unanimous jury is required. Also, there are a variety of mechanisms that are designed to prevent defendants from getting railroaded. Before the trial, if the judge concludes that a plaintiff cannot carry his burden based on undisputed facts in the record, the judge can grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant. (The judge also can grant summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, although that is very rare and something that you only see when the evidence in favor of the plaintiff is overwhelming. The judge in Trump's fraud trial granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on liability.) After a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, if a judge concludes that no reasonable jury could have reached a verdict in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence that was submitted, the judge can grant a judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict.

if your opinions are factual, then trump will easily be able to appeal and win

if your opinions are just made up ideas, then trump wont be able to appeal and he wont win

would you like to bet on which on happens?

Trump is not going to win on appeal he should have paid the 5 million and shut up whether he did it or not as it was civil and not criminal

I am always have some skepticism when someone comes forward 20 years later against a famous person . Though I have not read the transcript but I do go you were in a changing room could you not have screamed . Though I have never seen the changing rooms described , was the store busy

Though all you need to look at is Trevor Bauer and the costs of a false accusation

Reality is this case or the Stormy Hush payments or the other NY civil case will have any effect on many voters . These last two are nothing more than political prosecutions that never occur against a regular citizen

Now the Federal cases are a different story

b.s. Trumpers don't care a whit. He's their god.

You implied that Trump had a pending defamation claim against Jean Carroll. Is that something that you just made up?

As usual, you have your facts wrong. It appears that Robbie Kaplan was working on a contingency, which is very, very different than working pro bono.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketw...

Lawyers in the U.S. work on a contingency basis all the time. If I had been representing Carroll in a defamation case against Trump, I would have been dying to work on a contingency basis because it would have been much more lucrative than getting paid by the hour.

You also seem surprised that Carroll's lawyers were critical of Trump. Of course they are critical of Trump! They are Carroll's lawyers. Also, it would be very difficult to find competent representation in NYC that was not critical of Trump. You have to remember that Trump is from the city. Most people here believed that Trump was a dirtbag before he ran for president. That's why Trump accomplished the nearly impossible feat of getting destroyed in a presidential election in his home city.

Why does this strike you as unusual?

Trump's own lawyer essentially withdrew her baseless allegation of a conflict. Is that supposed to be some sort of compelling point in favor of Trump?

A majority yes but if convicted on federal charges polls show he does lose some of them and that puts Biden ahead in the polls.

Please read again, my opinion is that it is banana absurd to be liable civilly for defamation for denying to have committed a crime you haven't been convicted of in a criminal court.

My opinion is that people shouldn't be allowed to claim you are a criminal in public unless you have been convincted of that crime or get caught in flagrancy.

Sorry maybe the 51% in my post was unclear, my point is that each jury member (or a super majority of them) has to be convinced trump did rape with 51%+ probability.

That's absurd tbh

I understood your point. I don't think you understood mine. If jurors are adequate at assessing the odds that something actually happened, and all six jurors conclude that there is at least a 51% chance that something happened, then what are the odds that the thing actually happened? [Hint: it's a lot higher than 51%.]

Also, why are you assuming that each juror thought this was a close call and that Carroll had just barely succeeded in proving that something was more likely than not? That obviously will be the situation in some cases, but I don't have any particular reason to believe that the jury thought this case was a close one.

Democrat superdonor Reid Hoffman bankrolled part of the legal expenses, and Carroll had "forgot" to say that when asked specifically, then she "recollected"

///

Zoom in: Habba said in the letter that the "eleventh-hour disclosure" of funding from Hoffman raises questions about potential bias in the lawsuit.

A philanthropic adviser to Hoffman defended the donation Thursday and said that the grant was made before Carroll filed suit "and we had no prior knowledge that our funding would go to support her in particular."
Habba wrote in the letter that Carroll said "no" when asked during a deposition last year whether "anyone else" was paying her legal fees and that she had a contingency fee arrangement with her counsels, meaning the legal fees are paid only if the case is won.
Trump's lawyer said that she received a letter on Monday from Carroll's attorneys saying she "now recalls that at some point her counsel secured additional funding from a nonprofit organization to offset certain expenses and legal fees."
Zoom out: Roberta Kaplan, a lawyer for Carroll, in a letter to the judge on Thursday opposing a delay in trial wrote that her client last week while preparing for her testimony "recollected additional information" related to the exchange from her deposition last year.

"Accordingly, we promptly disclosed to Trump’s counsel that, while Carroll stands by her testimony about this being a contingency fee case she now recalls that her counsel at some point secured additional funding from a nonprofit organization to cover certain expenses and fees."

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/13/linkedi...

I don't buy this at all. Every time he does another bad thing, they just find a reason to ignore it. Conviction!? Noooooo.. Witch Hunt! Rigged!

If your point is that Habba made some really, really dumb arguments, I get it. The bolded is one of the dumber things I have ever heard a lawyer say. Habba is alleging that a plaintiff (and her lawyers and supporters) are biased in favor of the plaintiff's case. Think about that for a minute. Has it ever been otherwise?

Because given it's just probable cause, and the trial was fully about "she says he says", no hard evidence at all, it's enough to just dislike Trump and/or think the metoo movement is right (ie, it's enough to be left leaning) to automatically believe the woman.

You are literally only being asked "do you think Carroll or Trump is more trustworthy", and that's it, i think it's incredible that's enough to win a civil case but i guess that's the law.

The fact that it was an anonymous jury make it hard to prove of course.

The second bolded was Kaplan.

Habba is alleging that if jurors had known that the lawsuit was bankrolled by a democrat donor, that might have decreased Carroll credibility.