What lies?Antoninus said:
But, please, carry-on with the lies.
The judge is corrupt. That's a given.
Trump: Judge Lewis Kaplan (Jean Carroll case) is "highly corrupt"
13,274 Views |
216 Replies |
Last: 7 mo ago by richardag
The judge is corrupt. That's a given.
Antoninus said:The sexual assault case was tried first, with a finding that the assault did take place. That finding "carried forward" into the subsequent defamation case.TXAggie2011 said:
To be clear, the vast majority of the monetary damages from the lawsuits were for defamation, which has nothing to do with the one year law for sexual assault claims. The defamation could have been brought (and were brought) without the one year window.
Sure. But again, to be clear, the "sexual assault" case was also a defamation case. And the substantive evidence in the "sexual assault" case would have mostly looked the same with or without the formal sexual assault claim. In order to determine if he defamed her, they had to make some kind of "judgment" as to whether they believed he sexually assaulted her.
I only make the comment because this line about the 1-year look back law gets thrown around a ton without the context that it really had little affect on the monetary outcome of the case.
True.TXAggie2011 said:
I only make the comment because this line about the 1-year look back law gets thrown around a ton without the context that it really had little affect on the monetary outcome of the case.
"Only" $5mm versus $83mm
ThunderCougarFalconBird
Joined:
Oct 10, 2006
Posts:
49,081
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
shouldn't you be out selling those two more teas?Antoninus said:
so, how do you propose resolving disputed fact issues?
You don't trust judges. You don't trust juries.
Do you plan to call a seance?
or do we just believe the defendant, when you like the defendant, and then believe the complainant, when you like the complainant?
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,841
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:by a jury, not by this judge being so heavily criticized.Old McDonald said:
trump can whine all he wants, won't change that he was found liable in court for sexual abuse
Trump got his day in court.
You couldn't have an unbiased thought if your life depended on it. Maybe sit this one out before you have another full-blown meltdown.
Quote:
Trump: Judge Lewis Kaplan (Jean Carroll case) is "highly corrupt"
How dare Trump Kaplan is only "mediumly corrupt"
Exactly. Judges have a code of conduct for a reason they are expected to follow. This one didn't, or even disclose the conflict of interest in his corrupt relationship with the plaintiff's attorney;bobbranco said:What lies?Antoninus said:
But, please, carry-on with the lies.
The judge is corrupt. That's a given.
That is not 'morally wrong' let alone even an unfair criticism to lob publicly at this disgraceful jurist. Further, it's the same clown who presided over the sham trial of SBF, Democrat party friend. But again, note that 200 lawyers joined the International Association of DEMOCRATIC lawyers complaints against him in the recent past too;Quote:
Donald Trump's lawyers will use an "insane" and previously unknown "conflict of interest" between E. Jean Carroll's lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.
Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan's "mentor."
"It was never disclosed. It's insane and so incestuous," Habba said, insisting neither the 79-year-old judge nor Roberta Kaplan, 57, who aren't related, disclosed the "conflict of interest" and a violation of judicial ethics rules.
I mean, they can say what they want about Kaplan but Trump...well he is not allowed to complain about his political opponents in robes. And I point that out because his history of disregarding the code of judicial conduct, and bias/corruption in so doing, is quite remarkable (snip from the 40 page link above);Quote:
Dozens of legal organizations around the world representing more than 500,000 lawyers along with over 200 individual lawyers today submitted a judicial complaint documenting a series of shocking violations of the judicial code of conduct by United States Judge Lewis A. Kaplan targeting human rights lawyer Steven Donziger after he helped Indigenous peoples win a historic judgment against Chevron in Ecuador to clean up the pollution caused by decades of oil drilling with no environmental controls.
The complaint was formally filed by the National Lawyers Guild in conjunction with the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL). IADL was founded in Paris in 1946 to fight to uphold the rule of law around the world and has consultative status with UN agencies.
Five pages in length with a 40-page appendix with 15 exhibits, the complaint is to be turned over to the chief judge in the federal appellate court in New York that oversees the trial court where Kaplan sits. The complaint is signed by an unprecedented number of legal organizations from approximately 80 countries collectively representing 500,000 lawyers
The TDS around Trump's comments surrounding his lawfare persecution is amazing to behold, because it is so tremendously absurd to even try to take seriously.
I would love to see if that complaint was ever resolved. It was filed over four years ago, but I can't find where anything has come of it. At best, it looks like a bunch of *****ing and moaning by an attorney that was subsequently disbarred.
LOL, the organization that filed it represents 500K attorneys and over 200 joined them in the motion. I'm sure they were all disbarred.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,841
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Where did you go to law school again?
I can never remember.
I can never remember.
nortex97 said:
LOL, the organization that filed it represents 500K attorneys and over 200 joined them in the motion. I'm sure they were all disbarred.
So you don't know if it was resolved either then? People keep throwing this out there, but I would think it would be relevant to know if the complaint is still live, if it was tossed, or if no other action was taken.
Imma let you figure this one out for yourself, big guy. If you need help with lexisnexis let me know.HTownAg98 said:nortex97 said:
LOL, the organization that filed it represents 500K attorneys and over 200 joined them in the motion. I'm sure they were all disbarred.
So you don't know if it was resolved either then? People keep throwing this out there, but I would think it would be relevant to know if the complaint is still live, if it was tossed, or if fonevother action was taken.
I'm doing doing research for you. If it was resolved, let's see it and not play hide the football.
I don't know the result (or merits) of this complaint, but the international association of democratic lawyers and its american chapter national lawyers guild are a communist group.
I know. Why are we or any republicans waiting to do this? Crap, do it to Bill Clinton. That's the low hanging fruit. Go after Obama for Fast and Furious and killing a border agent. If there is no immunity, go after them all.Hungry Ojos said:
I really wish that the right would pull a "E. Jean Carroll" back on Biden. He raped Tara Reade a long time ago but no one cared because he was a Democrat, but wouldn't it be great if some southern jurisdiction passed a law to set aside limitations, then have some hometown jury, like in Vidor, Texas scheme to lawfare him to the tune of $350 million? Wouldn't that be interesting. And I bet everything I have that the board's liberals would have a completely different take than the bird-chest puffing they've been doing to Trump. What's good for the goose…
stop whining dude. I personally don't give a rat's ass about Kaplan or the EJC case. But I do find the whining about judges tiresome given that Trump does it every time things don't go his way. and in this case, it wasn't the judge who decided his fate.Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:barbacoa taco said:by a jury, not by this judge being so heavily criticized.Old McDonald said:
trump can whine all he wants, won't change that he was found liable in court for sexual abuse
Trump got his day in court.
You couldn't have an unbiased thought if your life depended on it. Maybe sit this one out before you have another full-blown meltdown.
Whining? LOL @ this accusation after Emmett Sullivan, Engoron, this corrupt clown Kaplan, Leticia James, Jack Smith, the Colorado Supreme Court of democrat hacks, and of course the sham prosecution from Fanni in Georgia. The sad pathetic fact is the left uses lawfare from hack prosecutors/DA's using hack judges against their political opponents.barbacoa taco said:stop whining dude. I personally don't give a rat's ass about Kaplan or the EJC case. But I do find the whining about judges tiresome given that Trump does it every time things don't go his way. and in this case, it wasn't the judge who decided his fate.Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:barbacoa taco said:by a jury, not by this judge being so heavily criticized.Old McDonald said:
trump can whine all he wants, won't change that he was found liable in court for sexual abuse
Trump got his day in court.
You couldn't have an unbiased thought if your life depended on it. Maybe sit this one out before you have another full-blown meltdown.
It's not 'whining' to point it out; it is astute observation.
They thought Vindman/Ciaramella/Shiff/Liz Cheney were just a road map to more legal/procedural/judicial challenges to their authority. That's all this is and it should absolutely be called out every single time for that bull*****
Oh, and by the way, if the left weren't doing this to Trump 24/7 he might just not be in the cat bird's seat for the nomination and win in November.
Antoninus said:
JImbo, are you yelling at clouds again?
None of that post relates in any way to Trump publicly making defamatory statements about a federal judge.
Let me help you with your adjectives....Derogatory statements about a corrupt federal judge.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,841
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:stop whining dude. I personally don't give a rat's ass about Kaplan or the EJC case. But I do find the whining about judges tiresome given that Trump does it every time things don't go his way. and in this case, it wasn't the judge who decided his fate.Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:barbacoa taco said:by a jury, not by this judge being so heavily criticized.Old McDonald said:
trump can whine all he wants, won't change that he was found liable in court for sexual abuse
Trump got his day in court.
You couldn't have an unbiased thought if your life depended on it. Maybe sit this one out before you have another full-blown meltdown.
Who is whining? I'm pointing out that you popped your head up to perform your little schtick again. If this were anyone but Trump you'd feel differently. That makes you a beyond-obvious hypocrite. That's why you only show up on certain threads.
Trump is not very likable. I wanted RD for the GOP ticket. However, some of you have TDS so bad it's borderline psychotic and has completely blinded you to your own hypocrisy.
have you seen me making some big case for why EJC was right and why the award was justified? no. because I haven't. I really don't care about civil trials involving high profile people. I just don't. The jury decides what it decides, and I usually assume the jury knows more about the case than I do, because in 100% of cases, they do.
Same with Kyle Rittenhouse. I don't particularly like the guy, but the jury decided the way it did and that was the end of it.
I don't give a **** about Trump's civil legal affairs. He's been involved in THOUSANDS of lawsuits, and this one is just another. I DO care about his criminal trials, because those are of national importance given that he's been accused of serious crimes and is the GOP nominee. This has nothing to do with him being unlikable.
Same with Kyle Rittenhouse. I don't particularly like the guy, but the jury decided the way it did and that was the end of it.
I don't give a **** about Trump's civil legal affairs. He's been involved in THOUSANDS of lawsuits, and this one is just another. I DO care about his criminal trials, because those are of national importance given that he's been accused of serious crimes and is the GOP nominee. This has nothing to do with him being unlikable.
Yes, except they opened a time window for this specifically to target Donald Trump.barbacoa taco said:
I don't give a **** about Trump's civil legal affairs. He's been involved in THOUSANDS of lawsuits, and this one is just another.
And there are no criminal charges pending against him with a scintilla of credibility.
ok great, then the trials should show that and he should easily be acquitted.
oh wait, Trump is fighting for his life to avoid seeing any of these trials start. i wonder why.
oh wait, Trump is fighting for his life to avoid seeing any of these trials start. i wonder why.
barbacoa taco said:
ok great, then the trials should show that and he should easily be acquitted.
oh wait, Trump is fighting for his life to avoid seeing any of these trials start. i wonder why.
Because the judges and prosecutors are corrupt.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,841
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:
I don't give a **** about Trump's civil legal affairs. He's been involved in THOUSANDS of lawsuits, and this one is just another. I DO care about his criminal trials, because those are of national importance given that he's been accused of serious crimes and is the GOP nominee. This has nothing to do with him being unlikable.
So you're crime fighter. Neat.
Only one thing…why don't I see you with the same vigor in Biden threads?
Oh yeah…
Because he is running for President. Which is exactly why the DOJ coordinated all of this to occur this year, not a year or two ago. You know all of this, and if you were intellectually honest, you wouldn't dispute it.barbacoa taco said:
ok great, then the trials should show that and he should easily be acquitted.
oh wait, Trump is fighting for his life to avoid seeing any of these trials start. i wonder why.
Meanwhile, President Potato is not competent to stand trial, but IS competent to run the country.
Who is actually running the country, and why does that not bother you?
So, no answer beyond childish snarkThunderCougarFalconBird said:shouldn't you be out selling those two more teas?Antoninus said:
so, how do you propose resolving disputed fact issues?
You don't trust judges. You don't trust juries.
Do you plan to call a seance?
or do we just believe the defendant, when you like the defendant, and then believe the complainant, when you like the complainant?
color me surprised.
the reason I know you're wrong is because the DOJ was stupid to wait this long to bring charges and everyone is rightfully pissed at Merrick Garland for it. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the charges predated Trump's campaign announcement, everyone knows federal trials take a long time and Trump would do everything in his power to delay. Garland really ****ed up.
Trump is partly running because he knows he is guilty and he wants to escape accountability by shutting down the prosecutions. Everything he does, and i mean EVERYTHING, is evidence of a guilty mind. Like his absolutely desperate and pathetic attempt to delay the NY trial on presidential immunity grounds.
Trump is partly running because he knows he is guilty and he wants to escape accountability by shutting down the prosecutions. Everything he does, and i mean EVERYTHING, is evidence of a guilty mind. Like his absolutely desperate and pathetic attempt to delay the NY trial on presidential immunity grounds.
And this group of far right nutcases is piling on their side, because they filed a complaint against a hard ass Democrat judge who was mean to (sorta) Republican Donald TrumpBMX Bandit said:
I don't know the result (or merits) of this complaint, but the international association of democratic lawyers and its american chapter national lawyers guild are a communist group.
Hollywood could not write this ****
barbacoa taco said:
the reason I know you're wrong is because the DOJ was stupid to wait this long to bring charges and everyone is rightfully pissed at Merrick Garland for it. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the charges predated Trump's campaign announcement, everyone knows federal trials take a long time and Trump would do everything in his power to delay. Garland really ****ed up.
Trump is partly running because he knows he is guilty and he wants to escape accountability by shutting down the prosecutions. Everything he does, and i mean EVERYTHING, is evidence of a guilty mind. Like his absolutely desperate and pathetic attempt to delay the NY trial on presidential immunity grounds.
You
Have
Lost
Your
****ing
Mind.
Some Junkie Cosmonaut
Joined:
Apr 13, 2004
Posts:
44,841
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
barbacoa taco said:
the reason I know you're wrong is because the DOJ was stupid to wait this long to bring charges and everyone is rightfully pissed at Merrick Garland for it. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the charges predated Trump's campaign announcement, everyone knows federal trials take a long time and Trump would do everything in his power to delay. Garland really ****ed up.
Trump is partly running because he knows he is guilty and he wants to escape accountability by shutting down the prosecutions. Everything he does, and i mean EVERYTHING, is evidence of a guilty mind. Like his absolutely desperate and pathetic attempt to delay the NY trial on presidential immunity grounds.
You are so emotional about this subject. It is obviously your cause on here.
Why doesn't Joe Biden raise the same emotions for you?
Be honest.
The correct path here should have been to dismiss the case as there could be no finding of fact, given that the plaintiff couldn't remember what year it happened, there was no physical evidence and no witnesses. How could there be finding of fact in this case? What we had was a finding of opinion by a dimwitted jury based on the foggy memory of one TDS riddled woman. Pathetic.Quote:
Antoninus said:
so, how do you propose resolving disputed fact issues?
You don't trust judges. You don't trust juries.
Do you plan to call a seance?
or do we just believe the defendant, when you like the defendant, and then believe the complainant, when you like the complainant?
They actually got the timing right for maximum election interference. They needed the cases open, pending, and trials scheduled during the thick of campaigning. They couldn't file them much earlier because any Trump convictions due to extremely biased DC and NY jury pools would be appealed, and probably get overturned handily on the merits in appeals, so they needed to try to time the potential initial verdicts for September/October.
The jury had no choice because all of the EVIDENCE pointed to his obvious innocence. It must have crushed you when you found out he shot 3 white criminals (not black saints) that had chased him down instead of just letting him run away.Quote:
have you seen me making some big case for why EJC was right and why the award was justified? no. because I haven't. I really don't care about civil trials involving high profile people. I just don't. The jury decides what it decides, and I usually assume the jury knows more about the case than I do, because in 100% of cases, they do.
Same with Kyle Rittenhouse. I don't particularly like the guy, but the jury decided the way it did and that was the end of it.
the extent to which you don't let the facts interfere with your arguments is truly impressive.Ellis Wyatt said:
they opened a time window for this specifically to target Donald Trump.
And there are no criminal charges pending against him with a scintilla of credibility.
What's emotional about it? Facts? Facts that make your guy look bad?
I know it's hard to have to constantly defend Trump, but anytime I make points attacking him you always fall back on your dumb ad homs.
Biden doesn't "raise the same emotions" because he's not under indictment and so far there's no evidence he committed crimes, after years of searching by his political opponents. I'd love for Biden to step down and not run again, but that's a separate issue
I know it's hard to have to constantly defend Trump, but anytime I make points attacking him you always fall back on your dumb ad homs.
Biden doesn't "raise the same emotions" because he's not under indictment and so far there's no evidence he committed crimes, after years of searching by his political opponents. I'd love for Biden to step down and not run again, but that's a separate issue
Featured Stories
See All
21:36
13h ago
1.7k
No. 13 Aggies dispatch East Texas A&M in Friday's home opener, 87-55
by Olin Buchanan
54:36
23h ago
5.0k
47:49
1d ago
2.2k
5 Thoughts: No. 13 Texas A&M 87, East Texas A&M 55
by Luke Evangelist
99:23
20h ago
1.5k
BillyPilgrim
Something I just noticed from the current 2025 commit list…….l
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
30