Jump to content

45 indicated


Cairn Horn88

Recommended Posts

At least the dem campaign ads will be fun. Or should be. “Look Jack, he was impeached twice, led a failed coup attempt, is accused of countless felonies, and was found guilty of sexual assault. But one time I fell off my bike.”

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYT just posted the $5mil figure and this:

Quote

Carroll just walked out of the Manhattan Federal Courthouse smiling ear to ear and holding hands with her attorney Roberta Kaplan.

Since I'm having trouble submitting and I've read a few more posts, I'll add that maybe we could not talk about women as pieces of meat amid discussion of sexual assault? It's fucking embarrassing.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Red Five said:

They played for the jury Dotard's deposition where he said that it's ok for stars to assault women. Slam dunk.

“Unfortunately or fortunately.” ‘I don’t know. Maybe it’s a good thing. I can’t say. You decide. All I can say for sure is I’m a star and that means I can grab women by the pussy. I don’t make the rules.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, C-Man said:

And it won't ultimately make a shit. Unless he's found guilty in a criminal trial, it won't fucking matter to the GQP. He'll spin this as a witch hunt, etc and the MAGATS will go on their merry, blissfully ignorant way and pull the lever for him in November 2024.

Being criminally guilty wouldn’t matter either.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Dog said:

he doesn't know when to shut up.

 

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

That's a helluva loud, incriminating way to ask the clerk, "Now, who do I make the check out to?"  

In fairness to DOTARD, he sexually harasses a LOT of women. Hard to remember them all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Well, won't that technically make him ineligible for the office?

only in the documents case where there is a specific line in the statute that says the convicted is ineligible to hold office. 

of course it's also hard to take office from a jail cell...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"

 

22 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

"I stood in a dressing room at Bergdorf-Goodman and raped somebody, and I won't lose any voters, OK?"

Bergdorf-Goodman’s on fifth avenue, no?

And he did shoot his load, no?

Man, the simulation is getting even more ridiculous with this shit

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Red Five said:

You still don't know who she is, at the conclusion of your rape trial?

What makes you think he paid attention to the goings on of his rape trial?  It’s not like he was in court. 
 

and his mush brain probably doesn’t remember his deposition. 
 

actually, not remembering people you should know is a strong sign of dementia. So maybe he’s actually finally admitting to it. 

Edited by Pato del Muerto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Lurch said:

Nope.

Hell the Supreme Court had to be asked whether or not they could intervene on behalf of a federal judge who had been convicted and sent to fucking prison and still wanted to be a judge from the inside of his cell.

The House voted to impeach, Senate voted unanimously to remove, and this motherfucker actually wanted the SCOTUS to overrule the removal.

But the point is it took acts from both chambers of congress to stop that freak from being a federal judge inside a goddamn prison cell since there is no explicit rule against it. So of course a criminal conviction doesn’t preclude Trump’s run. 

And personally, I don’t want it to. I want Trump to be their nominee. He has no chance to win, and the more damage to the GQP his lingering in the mainstream of it, all the better.

As to Trump having a jury rule against him today…

image.gif.43efce9a627abf2202374c6b505f1292.gif

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Red Five said:

E Jean Carroll herself wasn't even 100% she was raped. She said she couldn't tell if his dick was inside of her or not, which would be really funny in any other context. 

The Right's paragon of masculinity and swordsmanship escaped the rape rap b/c he has a tiny dick.  Perfect. 

  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

Pffft, like a dead Trump wouldn't pull at least 25% in an R primary. Maybe closer to 40 if we can spin up the Q tards that he's not really dead and this is a test of faith. 

That would be the best thing about it.  He'd pull in 25% of the POTUS vote for the next 3 elections...would be awesome. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a huge likelihood of appeal here, of course.

My impression is that the judge is sharp and ran the trial tight but without getting too shitty with Trump and his clowns, so I'm not expecting much there.

And by failing to present a case in chief, I think any "sufficiency of the evidence" appeals are dead in the water.

There is, however, still the issue of the Westfall Act, by which a federal official enjoys official immunity for civil claims arising out of actions in office, which has been interpreted extraordinarily broadly. But I think by failing to develop any trial record of why this might have been connected to Trump as president, as opposed to Trump as person man woman camera tv, they may have fucked that off, too.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Dog said:

this is a pathetic attempt at spin:

 

An old joke about the Soviets from back in the day. The Soves and the US competed in a trackmeet with no other teams present. The US won. Tass reported:

Soviet Union finishes second in international trackmeet. USA finishes next to last.

There was actually a time when you could more easily tell the difference between the two places.

 

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

And it won't ultimately make a shit. Unless he's found guilty in a criminal trial, it won't fucking matter to the GQP. He'll spin this as a witch hunt, etc and the MAGATS will go on their merry, blissfully ignorant way and pull the lever for him in November 2024.

image.gif.0941da137a644ec4456de1edd1cdb113.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And by failing to present a case in chief, I think any "sufficiency of the evidence" appeals are dead in the water.

What's your reasoning here? I don't know New York's law on this, but certainly in Texas I can't think of any reason why a sufficiency of evidence argument requires presenting a case in chief. Now, if you're challenging factual sufficiency, you better have made a motion for new trial and/or directed verdict, but that is a different issue than presenting a case in chief. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red Five said:

You know, back in my day, being found guilty of sexual assault might have been a hindrance in one's quest to be President of the United States.

In the current day, it pretty much disqualifies you from any job except being a GOP politician

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, C-Man said:

And it won't ultimately make a shit. Unless he's found guilty in a criminal trial, it won't fucking matter to the GQP. He'll spin this as a witch hunt, etc and the MAGATS will go on their merry, blissfully ignorant way and pull the lever for him in November 2024.

 

2 hours ago, The Dog said:

he doesn't know when to shut up.

Second verse, same as the first ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you lawdogs translate your sufficiency chief yada yada yada language for the rest of us?

  

55 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is, however, still the issue of the Westfall Act, by which a federal official enjoys official immunity for civil claims arising out of actions in office, which has been interpreted extraordinarily broadly. But I think by failing to develop any trial record of why this might have been connected to Trump as president, as opposed to Trump as person man woman camera tv, they may have fucked that off, too.

 

How fucking broadly do things have to be interpreted when the alleged acts occured decades prior to taking office?

 

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Could you lawdogs translate your sufficiency chief yada yada yada language for the rest of us?

  

 

How fucking broadly do things have to be interpreted when the alleged acts occured decades prior to taking office?

 

It’s hard to say what evidence was lacking when you have multiple claims/evidence essentially intermixed. Let’s the jury and appeals court have a huge margin to say what evidence could be relevant to which claims.

As to the second question, I’m unsure. I don’t know if “retaliation” because you later become a political official triggers it. But maybe? I’ll defer to him for that answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

 

 

If I were ever accused of rape, and the woman said she couldn’t tell if I penetrated, Exhibit A of my defense would be a report from my urologist (I can’t imagine the court would be too happy if it were a dick pic). What a weird, fucked up timeline this is. Kinda proves he has a micro-penis doesn’t it? Surely his defense would’ve done something to address that if possible
 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this shows that a jury will find against him if the evidence is there. Hopefully that carries through to the criminal proceedings which I'm sure will be coming down the pipe. 

It's unfair to ask the court system to save America as it's the job of the American voter to ensure known criminal pieces of shit like this aren't elected. We know this will have Zero effect on the Trump supporters because they have never acted in good faith anyway. They want chaos and insanity even though it will also take them down with it too. 

The hope is that all of this over the next year and a half will have an even bigger effect than in 2020 of getting people that aren't supporters either way and usually don't vote to go out and vote against this piece of shit. That's all we can hope to see at this point. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • blacklab changed the title to 45 indicated


×
×
  • Create New...