Carroll v. Trump ($88 million judgment for Carroll)

#601
#601
I'm just saying this is obvious weaponization of the court and political hit, accusation was not substantiated whatsoever, several of the allogations like the dress (that hadn't even been designed yet) etc were proven to be impossible to be true, her background makes her also clearly a mental sex obsessed nut job. Her funding comes from an Epstein island pedo. If someone is willing to back this because TDS, there is no lie or fake narrative they won't support. It says everything one needs to know about their ethics and honesty.....or complete lack there of. So all by means Tie yourself to this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just bob, Franklin Pierce, davethevol and 1 other person
#603
#603
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
I'm just saying this is obvious weaponization of the court and political hit, accusation was not substantiated whatsoever, several of the allogations like the dress (that hadn't even been designed yet) etc were proven to be impossible to be true, her background makes her also clearly a mental sex obsessed nut job. Her funding comes from an Epstein island pedo. If someone is willing to back this because TDS, there is no lie or fake narrative they won't support. It says everything one needs to know about their ethics and honesty.....or complete lack there of. So all by means Tie yourself to this one.
Click to expand...
The folks chiming in supporting this are riddled with TDS. But it’s like most people with mental illnesses, they have no clue that they are sick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just bob, davethevol and Sgt_Nick_Fury
#604
#604
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
I'm just saying this is obvious weaponization of the court and political hit, accusation was not substantiated whatsoever, several of the allogations like the dress (that hadn't even been designed yet) etc were proven to be impossible to be true, her background makes her also clearly a mental sex obsessed nut job. Her funding comes from an Epstein island pedo. If someone is willing to back this because TDS, there is no lie or fake narrative they won't support. It says everything one needs to know about their ethics and honesty.....or complete lack there of. So all by means Tie yourself to this one.
Click to expand...
What's with the constant "tie yourself to this one" slop? Is this a shtick or a tic?
 
#606
#606
Jxn Vol said:
The folks chiming in supporting this are riddled with TDS. But it’s like most people with mental illnesses, they have no clue that they are sick.
Click to expand...
I agree to a point.

Some don't. Some do. Some would purposely spread any lie, cheat etc to accomplish their goals. They have no morals , are Godless, and thus will say/do anything. They have evil in their hearts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jxn Vol
#607
#607
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
I agree to a point.

Some don't. Some do. Some would purposely spread any lie, cheat etc to accomplish their goals. They have no morals , are Godless, and thus will say/do anything. They have evil in their hearts.
Click to expand...
"Godless". OK. Got your drift now.
 
#608
#608
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
I agree to a point.

Some don't. Some do. Some would purposely spread any lie, cheat etc to accomplish their goals. They have no morals , are Godless, and thus will say/do anything. They have evil in their hearts.
Click to expand...
Well I was about to say the others are partisan hacks that have views that align with communism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sgt_Nick_Fury
#609
#609
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
I'm sorry but that anyone can support such an obvious politically weaponized court seriously, just shows their morals, and ethics to be complete and utter trash.
Click to expand...

The original ruling in May 2023 was a unanimous jury ruling in a civil case....

Not sure how court was overly weaponized there. Ultimately, a jury of his peers deemed that he was guilty civilly by preponderance of the evidence. She, as a private citizen, brought the claims against him - not the State.

If the jury didn't feel he was civilly liable, they could have ruled in his favor.

Generally speaking, I have significant concerns on claims that old.
 
#610
#610
BigOrangeMojo said:
The original ruling in May 2023 was a unanimous jury ruling in a civil case....

Not sure how court was overly weaponized there. Ultimately, a jury of his peers deemed that he was guilty civilly by preponderance of the evidence. She, as a private citizen, brought the claims against him - not the State.

I have my concerns on claims that old.
Click to expand...

Questions have been asked about what the judge allowed the jury to hear. Not to mention, your average New York City resident that couldn’t get out of jury duty is dumber than a box of rocks so let’s see how the appeals go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#611
#611
hog88 said:
Questions have been asked about what the judge allowed the jury to hear. Not to mention, your average New York City resident that couldn’t get out of jury duty is dumber than a box of rocks so let’s see how the appeals go.
Click to expand...

True but the jury's decision in May was going to be about whether they believed him or her more.

It's hard to get 9 people to agree that quick on something.

You just don't take this to trial especially once you see how she performs during depo...he should paid her off.
 
#614
#614
BigOrangeMojo said:
True but the jury's decision in May was going to be about whether they believed him or her more.

It's hard to get 9 people to agree that quick on something.

You just don't take this to trial especially once you see how she performs during depo...he should paid her off.
Click to expand...

No, not really. Not when the jury pool is already biased and only allowed to hear the plaintiffs side. Plus I’m not going to discount outside influence, the trial was in NYC after all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and volgr
#619
#619
BigOrangeMojo said:
The original ruling in May 2023 was a unanimous jury ruling in a civil case....

Not sure how court was overly weaponized there. Ultimately, a jury of his peers deemed that he was guilty civilly by preponderance of the evidence. She, as a private citizen, brought the claims against him - not the State.

If the jury didn't feel he was civilly liable, they could have ruled in his favor.

Generally speaking, I have significant concerns on claims that old.
Click to expand...
Well Was pretty sure you were round file catagory, thanks for clearing it up for future ref.
 
#620
#620
hog88 said:
her public statements
Click to expand...

What statements? Did she make statements that contradicted what she said happened in that dressing room? If she did, Im listening....

The 83.3 million is funny money and will never be upheld. The root question is did the judge err procedurally in allowing/not allowing what may have happened in the dressing room...
 
#621
#621

Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Backed by Known Democrat Party Activists, Mega-Donor Reid Hoffman, Who Backs Haley​


1706332441784.png

1706332485847.png
Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn Corp., walks to the morning session during the Allen & Co. Media and Technology Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, on Friday, July 14, 2023. (David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty)

www.breitbart.com

Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Backed by Mega-Donor Reid Hoffman, Who Backs Haley

The penalty phase of Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll's civil case against the former president kicks off this week.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
#622
#622
hog88 said:
her public statements
Click to expand...

May 2023 ruling on civil trial sexual assault only:

Again, Trump's team did not present a defense, they didn't call him to the stand, they couldn't get an expert qualified, couldn't present evidence in the discovery timelines, and couldn't take advantage of extra discovery for the Reid Hoffman stuff.

The jury heard one side of the story but not solely for the reasons you alluded to....

If you don't present a defense, you don't present evidence timely in discovery, don't qualify experts, you will lose in a civil court as long as the other side doesn't F up...

If you hit me with a car and I'm suing you for injuries, I will win if I am slightly believable if you don't present a defense, present evidence that my neck brace is fake, present an expert that says my whiplash didn't happen...
 
#623
#623
Sgt_Nick_Fury said:
Well Was pretty sure you were round file catagory, thanks for clearing it up for future ref.
Click to expand...

Why, because I'm not brainwashed to realize you actually have to put on a defense, get experts qualified, and submit evidence into discovery by certain dates?

I already said the 83 million is BS and I'm actually skeptical of 20 year old claims but you have to, you know, prepare a defense to counter those claims....
 
#625
#625
BigOrangeMojo said:
May 2023 ruling on civil trial sexual assault only:

Again, Trump's team did not present a defense, they didn't call him to the stand, they couldn't get an expert qualified, couldn't present evidence in the discovery timelines, and couldn't take advantage of extra discovery for the Reid Hoffman stuff.

The jury heard one side of the story but not solely for the reasons you alluded to....

If you don't present a defense, you don't present evidence timely in discovery, don't qualify experts, you will lose in a civil court as long as the other side doesn't F up...

If you hit me with a car and I'm suing you for injuries, I will win if I am slightly believable if you don't present a defense, present evidence that my neck brace is fake, present an expert that says my whiplash didn't happen...
Click to expand...
Not going to be popular with people relying on info from videos from Infowars contributors or retweets of Clay Travis that get posted here, but this is correct.

www.law.cornell.edu

res judicata

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu

Here’s some context about why the May trial where no defense was presented matters. Pretty sure res judicata was carried over from British common law.

This trial was just about damages. Her promiscuous tweeting isn’t relevant to a trial over damages and probably doesn’t get past the rape shield rule if it’s even slightly relevant. (rethinking that one, it probably doesn’t apply to public statements.)

The rules of evidence were passed back in the 1940’s, if I remember correctly. 70-80 years ago. Things have been adjusted, like the addition of the rape shield rule, but the rule limiting the proof to relevant evidence was there from the beginning.

It’s another example of Team Trump *****ing the bed being portrayed as Trump being **** on.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top