Biden's not under indictment because his own DoJ found him to be senile/demented.barbacoa taco said:
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
Please oh learned one, explain to me how there can be a finding FACT based ONE person's fragile memory of an event that supposedly happened decades ago? No other evidence but one person's testimony doesn't seem to be enough. How could her testimony be credible when she can't remember what year the "crime" happened. Please also enlighten me as to what defense can be made when no evidence (date, time, physical evidence) is provided.Antoninus said:this post demonstrates such profound ignorance of the judicial system that it is not really even possible to provide a substantive response.93MarineHorn said:
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.
everything you were whining about goes to the CREDIBILITY of her testimony, not it's admissibility. A judge who dismissed a case on that basis WOULD be rightfully subject to censure
it has been explained, repeatedly, by me and by others. You just don't seem to be able to grasp it.93MarineHorn said:
explain to me how there can be a finding FACT based ONE person's fragile memory of an event that supposedly happened decades ago? No other evidence but one person's testimony doesn't seem to be enough. How could her testimony be credible when she can't remember what year the "crime" happened. Please also enlighten me as to what defense can be made when no evidence (date, time, physical evidence) is provided.
You can't answer me, smart guy. You know it.
barbacoa taco said:
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
Yes, I know that Dems have "made it legal" and that the jury sided with Carol. I'm asking YOU to make an argument of why Carol should've won. YOU. Anyone can say anything and without any evidence, witnesses, times, dates..... the defendant CAN'T make contradictory arguments. The only thing Trump could say is "I didn't do it".Antoninus said:it has been explained, repeatedly, by me and by others. You just don't seem to be able to grasp it.93MarineHorn said:
explain to me how there can be a finding FACT based ONE person's fragile memory of an event that supposedly happened decades ago? No other evidence but one person's testimony doesn't seem to be enough. How could her testimony be credible when she can't remember what year the "crime" happened. Please also enlighten me as to what defense can be made when no evidence (date, time, physical evidence) is provided.
You can't answer me, smart guy. You know it.
very often, lawsuits come down to the question of "who do you believe?"
Two witnesses provide completely opposite presentations of the events. The opponent has the opportunity to show each and every one of the deficiencies in such testimony, all of which you have repeatedly emphasized. everything you were whining about, the jury heard
Despite all that, this jury believed Jean Carol and did not believe Donald Trump.
It's way the ****ing system works
I am wrong about what?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,
If Biden got nailed by some evidence and impeached over it, I'd probably start hi fiving people because that means we dont have to vote for him anymore. But at this point I'm in put up or shut up territory. People talk big game about the Biden crime family and have nothing to show for it. One of the key witnesses in the Hunter Biden investigation was just charged with perjury. This is embarrassing.Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:barbacoa taco said:
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
1) I have pointed out Trump is not "my guy" multiple times. That's part of your problem. You have literally created your own boogeyman and you're projecting it onto others. If anyone offers a somewhat neutral alternative to your nonsense, you immediately classify them in your head as a "tRuMp GuY!" because you, yourself, are extremely biased.
2) The rest of this post is absurdly laughable. However, thanks for highlighting you're a complete and utter partisan hack for the class…as if we didn't know it already.
I have said a half-dozen times on THIS THREAD that her evidence was pretty thin on the sexual assault and that (had I been on the jury) I would not have found him liable.93MarineHorn said:
I'm asking YOU to explain how this isn't grotesquely unfair. I'm NOT asking you how a bunch of NY democrats have railroaded Trump with a case that is astonishingly lacking. Can YOU grasp that? This is an opinion forum and I'm challenging YOU to give an opinion on the merits of this pitiful case. You keep hiding behind the outcome, why?
Why do you think the judge let this proceed with no evidence? Thanks for admitting this was a sham of a trial and a shakedown of Trump. This is why we have no respect for Democrats and especially Democrats in positions of authority. They will unabashedly use their power to persecute political opposition and their voters will cheer while they do it. If you want to see what a real threat to democracy looks like, here it is.Antoninus said:I have said a half-dozen times on THIS THREAD that her evidence was pretty thin on the sexual assault and that (had I been on the jury) I would not have found him liable.93MarineHorn said:
I'm asking YOU to explain how this isn't grotesquely unfair. I'm NOT asking you how a bunch of NY democrats have railroaded Trump with a case that is astonishingly lacking. Can YOU grasp that? This is an opinion forum and I'm challenging YOU to give an opinion on the merits of this pitiful case. You keep hiding behind the outcome, why?
WTF more do you want?
barbacoa taco said:If Biden got nailed by some evidence and impeached over it, I'd probably start hi fiving people because that means we dont have to vote for him anymore. But at this point I'm in put up or shut up territory. People talk big game about the Biden crime family and have nothing to show for it. One of the key witnesses in the Hunter Biden investigation was just charged with perjury. This is embarrassing.Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:barbacoa taco said:
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
1) I have pointed out Trump is not "my guy" multiple times. That's part of your problem. You have literally created your own boogeyman and you're projecting it onto others. If anyone offers a somewhat neutral alternative to your nonsense, you immediately classify them in your head as a "tRuMp GuY!" because you, yourself, are extremely biased.
2) The rest of this post is absurdly laughable. However, thanks for highlighting you're a complete and utter partisan hack for the class…as if we didn't know it already.
Jesus Frakkin Christ!!!!93MarineHorn said:
Why do you think the judge let this proceed with no evidence? Thanks for admitting this was a sham of a trial and a shakedown of Trump.
aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh.richardag said:
An ethical and moral DA would not have brought this case.
On what basis (in your mind) would Judge Kaplan have dismissed the case. Not just "dammit, its what I would have done!" Give us a solid legal basis for dismissal, which would have survived appeal.Quote:
An ethical and moral judge would not have allowed this case to proceed.
MSJ (even a "no evidence MSJ") would have been a waste of time and money in a "he said, she said" case. A competent attorney would not waste his client's money on one.barbacoa taco said:
the DA didn't bring this case. it was a civil case. I'm not sure if Trump tried to get the suit dismissed via summary judgment, but if he did, he obviously didn't succeed.
DA did not bring this case, Roberta Kaplan, a private attorney, did. Suborning perjury in the process.richardag said:
An ethical and moral DA would not have brought this case. An ethical and moral judge would not have allowed this case to proceed. A moral and ethical person would disparage this complete lack of justice.
100% agreement.aggiehawg said:
Had this been a criminal trial (putting aside the SOL issue for a moment) no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case on such a spotty and contradictory evidence.
The defamation claim was not about her attractiveness, of course. The claim of defamation was over Trump's denial of anything happening at all and his lengthy comments about Carroll.Quote:
Is someone calling a woman "ugly" truly defamation? Defamation of a public figure, as an author, former TV personality/advice columnist who was selling a book wherein she made the accusations against Trump first?
She further testified that she did not sue Les Moonves because he only "denied it" and she was not damaged by that denial.
There's an actual reason why getting a change of venue is a thing. If you're in an area that is biased against the defendant from the beginning, getting a fair trial may be difficult...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?
Antoninus said:
At a campaign rally in Rome, Georgia, Trump said:Reported in NewsweekQuote:
Lewis Kaplan, the judge in the Carroll defamation cases, is "a terrible person, a terrible judge" and "highly corrupt."
So, now he is defaming a federal judge.
This guy just CANNOT stop stepping on his own johnson.
No evidence beyond the foggy memory of a woman who has contradicted herself about what year the assault occurred. One woman's faulty, fragile testimony should not be enough to even get inside a courtroom. There's just as much evidence that YOU grabbed Carol by the ***** if she says you did it, same for me or any other man on the planet. It's ridiculous.Antoninus said:aaaaarrrrrrggggghhhhh.richardag said:
An ethical and moral DA would not have brought this case.
People continue to argue the merits of this case with (in their minds) great authority, while they continue to NOT GRASP the most-basic concepts.
THERE WAS NO DA. Carroll I and Carroll II were CIVIL cases.On what basis (in your mind) would Judge Kaplan have dismissed the case. Not just "dammit, its what I would have done!" Give us a solid legal basis for dismissal, which would have survived appeal.Quote:
An ethical and moral judge would not have allowed this case to proceed.
Highly-inappropriate behavior, as is harassing people at dinner in a restaurant.Muy said:
Call me when you show more anger towards Biden and the left for encouraging an actual insurrection but (by?) supporting radicals going to Supreme Court Justices' homes.
I'm pretty sure they'd make an exception for Trump. I'm still waiting for Ford to sue Kavanaugh for that drunken boob grab in 1982. Sue him in NY or any other festering corrupt lib cesspool and make $$$$Antoninus said:100% agreement.aggiehawg said:
Had this been a criminal trial (putting aside the SOL issue for a moment) no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case on such a spotty and contradictory evidence.
barbacoa taco said:
One of the key witnesses in the Hunter Biden investigation was just charged with perjury. This is embarrassing.
Kavanaugh was living in Maryland at the time. Would have to change the law in Maryland. But that jury pool could easily be just as sus as a Manhattan or DC one.93MarineHorn said:I'm pretty sure they'd make an exception for Trump. I'm still waiting for Ford to sue Kavanaugh for that drunken boob grab in 1982. Sue him in NY or any other festering corrupt lib cesspool and make $$$$Antoninus said:100% agreement.aggiehawg said:
Had this been a criminal trial (putting aside the SOL issue for a moment) no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case on such a spotty and contradictory evidence.
It doesn't matter if you don't know what year it happened or that everyone you claim witnessed it doesn't know what you're talking about. It would still be a slam dunk for her.
I've got one question I've never got a straight answer to. Biden had documents in his house from when he was a senator. How did he get those documents out of the SCIF room?barbacoa taco said:
And if you read further and listened to Hur again this morning, you would know that there was absolutely no basis to charge Biden and his and Trump's cases could not be more different.
I think you know this already, but there needs to be a narrative to equate to the two
Biden doesn't remember how he got them. He barely remembers the years he was in the Senate, or as VP at this point.RogerFurlong said:I've got one question I've never got a straight answer to. Biden had documents in his house from when he was a senator. How did he get those documents out of the SCIF room?barbacoa taco said:
And if you read further and listened to Hur again this morning, you would know that there was absolutely no basis to charge Biden and his and Trump's cases could not be more different.
I think you know this already, but there needs to be a narrative to equate to the two
I can answer that: he concealed them and stole them. That is the only possibility.RogerFurlong said:I've got one question I've never got a straight answer to. Biden had documents in his house from when he was a senator. How did he get those documents out of the SCIF room?barbacoa taco said:
And if you read further and listened to Hur again this morning, you would know that there was absolutely no basis to charge Biden and his and Trump's cases could not be more different.
I think you know this already, but there needs to be a narrative to equate to the two
I wouldn't say from all walks of life. Seems like they're all lawyers. Not exactly the most loved profession for a reason.Antoninus said:Dozens and dozens of individuals, from all walks of life and both political parties, scattered from sea to shining sea, are all "corrupt."RogerFurlong said:Quote:
Trump is fighting for his life to avoid seeing any of these trials start. i wonder why.
Because the judges and prosecutors are corrupt.
her one guy is just a liar and a crook.
"Snake Oil!!! Come and get your Snake Oil!!!!"
My mistake.barbacoa taco said:
the DA didn't bring this case. it was a civil case. I'm not sure if Trump tried to get the suit dismissed via summary judgment, but if he did, he obviously didn't succeed.
you are right but not in the way you smugly think you are. Biden was not a president when he took those so he clearly broke the law. Trump was president so it is foggy at best that he broke a law - big difference.barbacoa taco said:
And if you read further and listened to Hur again this morning, you would know that there was absolutely no basis to charge Biden and his and Trump's cases could not be more different.
