BillsFanNC Posted February 5 Posted February 5 In DC, NYC and elsewhere you can get a conviction on The Great Orange Menace for removing a mattress tag. And useful idiots will insist the case was bulletproof, as rock solid as it gets, all while accusing you of being blind. So it goes with useful idiots.
ChiGoose Posted February 5 Posted February 5 25 minutes ago, Tenhigh said: Do you honestly think he think he deserved to lose based on this evidence? Seems eerily similar to Clinton and several of the allegations against him. I think it would depend on how credible I found Birnbach’s and Martin’s testimony. There are problems with both Carroll’s testimony and Trump’s deposition that hamper each of their cases. Having credible testimony of Carroll discussing the incident at the time it happened helps alleviate some of the issues with her case. If you don’t find them credible, then I think it’d be hard to find for Carroll.
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 5 Posted February 5 3 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: I think it would depend on how credible I found Birnbach’s and Martin’s testimony. There are problems with both Carroll’s testimony and Trump’s deposition that hamper each of their cases. Having credible testimony of Carroll discussing the incident at the time it happened helps alleviate some of the issues with her case. If you don’t find them credible, then I think it’d be hard to find for Carroll. Would you agree with the statement that Trump lost because he's a stupid liar and had crap lawyers? 1 1
ChiGoose Posted February 5 Posted February 5 1 minute ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Would you agree with the statement that Trump lost because he's a stupid liar and had crap lawyers? In the first Carroll trial (where the jury found he assaulted her), I would not. Joe Tacopina seems like a decent lawyer.
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 5 Posted February 5 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: In the first Carroll trial (where the jury found he assaulted her), I would not. Joe Tacopina seems like a decent lawyer. Stupid + liar yes but bad lawyer no, got it. Rather than saying I've never raped or sexually assaulted anyone he said she's not my type, then he mistook a photo of e jean for his ex wife. Fn stupid liar. Edited February 5 by L Ron Burgundy 1 1
ChiGoose Posted February 5 Posted February 5 11 minutes ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Stupid + liar yes but bad lawyer no, got it. Rather than saying I've never raped or sexually assaulted anyone he said she's not my type, then he mistook a photo of e jean for his ex wife. Fn stupid liar. It’s always good to keep an eye on who is representing Trump for a particular legal issue. Tacopina seems like a good lawyer but he lost a difficult case in which Trump was ordered to pay $5 million. He stopped representing Trump and his replacement not only lost the next case (costing Trump more than $80 million) but was so bad she risked being found in contempt. Aside from being an absolutely terrible client, Trump has a history of stiffing people. That’s why Chris Kise (a good lawyer) required him to pay $3 million up front before he’d represent him. It’s also why he’s currently being represented by people so bad at their jobs that they are putting their licenses on the line.
Tenhigh Posted February 6 Posted February 6 1 hour ago, ChiGoose said: In the first Carroll trial (where the jury found he assaulted her), I would not. Joe Tacopina seems like a decent lawyer. Would you agree that the venue affected the outcome? 1
Tenhigh Posted February 6 Posted February 6 This seems like it should have ended it right there on the spot. https://www.businessinsider.com/e-jean-carroll-rape-corroborator-addresses-anti-trump-views-2023-5 The email Martin sent Carroll in September 2017 included a link to a humorous New Yorker column mocking Trump, who Martin called "orange crush." "This has to stop," Martin wrote at the time. "As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again." "TOTALLY!!!" Carroll responded. "I have something special for you when we meet." 1 1 1 1
ChiGoose Posted February 6 Posted February 6 1 hour ago, Tenhigh said: Would you agree that the venue affected the outcome? Ehh, probably not. You always want a venue that you think will be friendly, but ultimately what decides the case is what is presented at trial. The jury deliberated for three hours and sided with Carroll on every issue except the top one. If they were in the tank for her, they would have given her everything. If it was a bunch of diehard libs determined to stick it to Trump with one or two holdouts, it would have taken longer than three hours. Not to mention one of the jurors admitted he got his news from Tim Pool. People who spend their time thinking about politics tend to believe everyone thinks like they do, but they don’t. The average American doesn’t think that way.
BillStime Posted February 6 Author Posted February 6 Bonnie you better donate now or you’re going to MAGA hell
Tenhigh Posted February 6 Posted February 6 (edited) 10 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Ehh, probably not. You always want a venue that you think will be friendly, but ultimately what decides the case is what is presented at trial. The jury deliberated for three hours and sided with Carroll on every issue except the top one. If they were in the tank for her, they would have given her everything. If it was a bunch of diehard libs determined to stick it to Trump with one or two holdouts, it would have taken longer than three hours. Not to mention one of the jurors admitted he got his news from Tim Pool. People who spend their time thinking about politics tend to believe everyone thinks like they do, but they don’t. The average American doesn’t think that way. So in Tennessee it is still the same outcome? I think you are way off the mark of you believe that. Edited February 6 by Tenhigh 1
Tenhigh Posted February 6 Posted February 6 11 hours ago, Tenhigh said: This seems like it should have ended it right there on the spot. https://www.businessinsider.com/e-jean-carroll-rape-corroborator-addresses-anti-trump-views-2023-5 The email Martin sent Carroll in September 2017 included a link to a humorous New Yorker column mocking Trump, who Martin called "orange crush." "This has to stop," Martin wrote at the time. "As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again." "TOTALLY!!!" Carroll responded. "I have something special for you when we meet." @Ron Burgundy what is there to eye roll here? You don't think the email exchange raises ANY questions? And the fact that she didn't even know the year the rape supposedly happened? Or the fact that she knew it would increase her book sales? You can still dislike Trump AND believe that this case is as thin as one ply. 2 2
L Ron Burgundy Posted February 6 Posted February 6 5 hours ago, Tenhigh said: @Ron Burgundy what is there to eye roll here? You don't think the email exchange raises ANY questions? And the fact that she didn't even know the year the rape supposedly happened? Or the fact that she knew it would increase her book sales? You can still dislike Trump AND believe that this case is as thin as one ply. Raises questions sure. You said should have ended it right on the spot. That's a bigly exaggeration. I think he lost because he's borderline reetarded. He's too stupid to stfu. Then again it's very possible he did it. It's literally something he says he does isn't it? Just walks up to women and grabs them....would you be shocked if he actually did something he said he does? I get you'll defend him no matter what but come on. 1
Doc Posted February 7 Posted February 7 12 hours ago, Tenhigh said: @Ron Burgundy what is there to eye roll here? You don't think the email exchange raises ANY questions? And the fact that she didn't even know the year the rape supposedly happened? Or the fact that she knew it would increase her book sales? You can still dislike Trump AND believe that this case is as thin as one ply. Or what she was wearing. But hey, ot's only OK for Dems to use "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus." 1
Tenhigh Posted February 7 Posted February 7 17 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said: Raises questions sure. You said should have ended it right on the spot. That's a bigly exaggeration. I think he lost because he's borderline reetarded. He's too stupid to stfu. Then again it's very possible he did it. It's literally something he says he does isn't it? Just walks up to women and grabs them....would you be shocked if he actually did something he said he does? I get you'll defend him no matter what but come on. I actually think he is a POS human, but that doesn’t mean he sexual assaulted this woman. I believe you're right that they found him liable because of who he is, which isn’t how its supposed to work. 1 2 1
Recommended Posts