ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Would you concur that how each juror voted in the past election may have an impact on how they come to a verdict as well.
Has anyone read the actual transcripts?
No one knows how these jurors voted in recent presidential elections. But both sides have significant tools at their disposal to try and eliminate biased jurors who are incapable of fairly evaluating the evidence--namely moving the judge to strike potential jurors for cause, or in the alternative, using peremptory challenges.
I have not read the transcripts. I don't even know if they are publicly available. But if they are, they likely would exceed 1000 pages in the aggregate.
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 t
For someone who claims to not be a Trumper, you sure do defend him a lot. Don't worry, you're not the first and won't be the last "not-a-Trumper, I swear, just asking questions" round here.
Are there any explicit pro-Trump guys? 90% of them do this weird "I'm not a Republican" song and dance.
For someone who claims to not be a Trumper, you sure do defend him a lot. Don't worry, you're not the first and won't be the last "not-a-Trumper, I swear, just asking questions" round here.
I actually defend common sense, it's absurd to be liable for damages that way and you know that, it's also impossible to have an impartial jury when the defendant is an ex president and the judgement is about how much you trust him, and you know that as well.
I am not a Trumpian at all but i really hate the me too movement and ideas and i see just one of the many reflections of them in this case.
Btw i listed a very leftwing person who was destroyed politically and personally by completly fabricated rape allegations, but maybe you guys don't care because he was french.
I was referring to the first bolded statement.
Habba is alleging that if jurors had known that the lawsuit was bankrolled by a democrat donor, that might have decreased Carroll credibility.
I understand. Would you like to wager on whether this argument is successful on appeal?
Also, this is a super weird argument for Trump to make, seeing as he relentlessly grifts his supporters to pay his legal fees.
No one knows how these jurors voted in recent presidential elections. But both sides have significant tools at their disposal to try and eliminate biased jurors who are incapable of fairly evaluating the evidence--namely moving the judge to strike potential jurors for cause, or in the alternative, using peremptory challenges.
I have not read the transcripts. I don't even know if they are publicly available. But if they are, they likely wou
Not with anonymous juries afaik
I was referring to the first bolded statement.
I understand. Would you like to wager on whether this argument is successful on appeal?
Also, this is a super weird argument for Trump to make, seeing as he relentlessly grifts his supporters to pay his legal fees.
Not a grift, he campaigns for donations saying that, and the payment of legal fees is public from his campaign funds
Probable cause is the standard for search warrants, and in limited cases, warrantless searches. It has nothing to do with the standard of proof in civil cases in the United States.
I thought it was the same expression to mean "more than 50%", my bad. What's the name then for the "51%" thing in civil lawsuits?
Not a grift, he campaigns for donations saying that, and the payment of legal fees is public from his campaign funds
Not sure what to call it, but it boggles my mind that anyone would send him a penny. Much less put him on autopay.
And trumpers wonder (actually they don't) why they keep being called stupid.
I thought it was the same expression to mean "more than 50%", my bad. What's the name then for the "51%" thing in civil lawsuits?
Preponderance of the evidence.
You're throwing a lot of terms of art around without understanding what they mean. "Anonymous jury" also doesn't mean what you think it means.
LOL, I need to take a break. Between the idiocy of the gun nuts and idiocy of the trumpers I'm getting a bit testy.
Time to go fishing!
Not a grift, he campaigns for donations saying that, and the payment of legal fees is public from his campaign funds
You are deliberately missing the point. Regardless of whether you want to call it a grift, does the fact that Trump uses someone else's money to defray his legal expenses make him less credible in your opinion? Or does that logic only work when we are evaluating the credibility of people who oppose Trump in litigation?
Not sure what to call it, but it boggles my mind that anyone would send him a penny. Much less put him on autopay.
And trumpers wonder (actually they don't) why they keep being called stupid.
It boggles my mind that anyone would send money to pay for bail for rioters who put federal buildings on fire as well but everyone has his preferences
You are deliberately missing the point. Regardless of whether you want to call it a grift, does the fact that Trump uses someone else's money to defray his legal expenses make him less credible in your opinion? Or does that logic only work when we are evaluating the credibility of people who oppose Trump in litigation?
Just common sense bro. It's only a coincidence that all the common sense arguments seem to support Trump in some way, I swear.
You are deliberately missing the point. Regardless of whether you want to call it a grift, does the fact that Trump uses someone else's money to defray his legal expenses make him less credible in your opinion? Or does that logic only work when we are evaluating the credibility of people who oppose Trump in litigation?
The logic only works for the accuser of a politician or otherwise very famous or very rich person yes.
In a normal word the entire burden of proof is completly on the accuser, all defendants are expected to deny having committed any crime, so that can't change depending on who's paying for the defense.
The accuser instead might be making up accusations to damage someone or take money from him, and if his actions are paid by someone else, and the entire accusation is based only on the accuser declarations, the trustability of the whole legal action is lower, at least it would be for me, but possibly for some jurors i guess?
Now imagine someone claims kamala harris repeatedly destroyed evidence when she was DA.
This person makes that claim without any evidence at all, he is the author of a book named "Democratic criminal: the history of the illegal path to power of Harris", he was a guy who cleaned offices in the building when Harris was DA, and he is bankrolled by Koch money.
Harris goes public with "false, that never happened, the guy is a liar funded by republicans to smear my reputation", and the guy sues her for defamation.
The left will 24/7 claim that's a bogus lawsuit, they will very probably be right, and you wouldn't write the same you are writing right now about the defamation trial.
Luciom,
There is a huge difference between my comments about Trump's defamation case, and your Kamala example. Evidence was presented in Trump's cases and there were factual findings. The jury found in favor of Carroll on her defamation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to Carroll on Trump's counterclaim for defamation.
In your Kamala example, if the jury rendered a verdict (or the judge granted summary judgment) in favor of the person who accused Kamala of destroying evidence, I almost certainly would not be criticizing the decision.
In fact, in 20 years on 2+2, I am confident that you would not be able find a single example of me criticizing a factual finding by a judge or jury in an analogous circumstance. You would be able to find plenty of examples of me criticizing the behavior of lawyers or the legal reasoning in a court opinion.
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?
I think his other point may be that Carroll has the same incentive to seek the truth of the matter as Trump when she no longer has to be concerned about the expenses of the litigation. Just like Trump = so unfair.
