Current Affairs Donald Trump POS: Judgement cometh and that right soon

Status
Not open for further replies.
WA Toffee said:
I haven't heard about him being found guilty of rape? Was that one of the 34 charges or a different case?
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump is the name of two related lawsuits by author E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump, who served as the 45th president of the United States. The two suits resulted in a total of $88.3 million in damages awarded to Carroll; both cases are under appeal. Both cases, presided over by Judge Lewis Kaplan, related to Carroll's accusation from mid-2019 (while Trump was in office) that he sexually assaulted her in late 1995 or early 1996. Trump denied the allegations, prompting Carroll to sue him for defamation in November 2019 (a.k.a. Carroll I).

In November 2022, Carroll filed her second suit against Trump (a.k.a.Carroll II), renewing her claim of defamation and adding a claim of battery under the Adult Survivors Act, a New York law allowing sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations. This suit went to trial in April 2023. Evidence included testimony from two friends Carroll spoke to after the incident, a photograph of Carroll with Trump in 1987,[a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump#cite_note-5 testimony from two women who had separately accused Trump of sexual assault, footage from the Trump Access Hollywood tape and his October 2022 deposition.[c] A jury verdict in May 2023 found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, and ordered him to pay $5 million in damages. Trump appealed and made an unsuccessful counterclaim. In July, Judge Kaplan clarified that the jury had found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word.[d][e]

In September 2023, Kaplan issued a partial summary judgment regarding Carroll I, finding Trump liable for defamation via his 2019 statements. The jury verdict from the January 2024 trial was $83.3 million in additional damages. To appeal, Trump secured a bond for this amount plus 10 percent.
 
verreauxi said:
Come on Pete, this is just lazy. You are banging on about a 34-count criminal case in which the defendant was unanimously judged as guilty by a jury, and how the optics are "bad." You want to talk bad optics: the Republicans have had fewer votes in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections but have managed a supermajority on SCOTUS of 6-3, of which two Republican-appointed justices have serious COIs when it comes to presiding over cases regarding January 6th. At least regarding Trump's criminal case, the optics are quite good as it says to the world that the USA still has a justice system that works. The excellent post by @TimHowardsBeardJuice goes into the mechanics of this process and was in response to your post, but it seems you didn't read it. How is a trial by jury against a US citizen bad optics for the USA?
Click to expand...

I may be wrong but I thought it was against the 34 payments made, not 34 totally different offences….
 
LinekersLegs said:
And yet you haven’t explained how the process could have been improved - other than claiming that a different judge ahould have been selected or that it have been done “at the wrong time” without giving any indication as what you feel would be the “right” time.

As I understand it judges are chosen at random from limited pool, the locel DA being able to choose which judge would be a very bad idea.

You have not provided any actual evidence that this judge was unfair or biased.
Click to expand...

He was a judge in a Democrat area and appointed by a Democrat governor….
 
peteblue said:
He was a judge in a Democrat area and appointed by a Democrat governor….
Click to expand...
That is it? That is all you have? That he is from a Dem area and appointed by a Dem governor?

I really look forward to next week Pete when there is the Hunter Biden trial. You can point out that the judge is a Trump appointee, as is the DA, and insinuate it might be something that would happen in Russia to charge a President’s son on the eve of an election by political appointees of his rival.
 
EFCPaul said:
I seriously doubt it. People are hysterical over a few polls which have him ahead but it's as if they've learnt nothing over the past decade, that polls are never an accurate reflection of what the vote will actually be.

People never seem to mention that Trump has never won a popular vote and his support in '24 is going to be lower than ever since all the swing voters now despise him also. In the midterms his candidates were crushed across the country. If the Dems frame this campaign as the chance for the public to put the final nail in his coffin then voters will come out in droves.
Click to expand...
Problem with the American voting system is that so many districts are rigged

The Republican Party is well known for voter suppression in areas that don't vote for them

And don't forget the Supreme Court is heavily stacked with extreme right appointees and has to all intents gone rogue. They've already ignored their own constitution and the 14th amendment which bars insurrectionists from holding federal offices as that would have stopped Trump
 
LinekersLegs said:
That is it? That is all you have? That he is from a Dem area and appointed by a Dem governor?

I really look forward to next week Pete when there is the Hunter Biden trial. You can point out that the judge is a Trump appointee, as is the DA, and insinuate it might be something that would happen in Russia to charge a President’s son on the eve of an election by political appointees of his rival.
Click to expand...

I didn’t know it was happening, but am now looking forward to it…..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top