|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:On October 14 2016 03:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault.
Then you would be a terrible lawyer, since it's completely irrelevant.
|
Which implies that he would sexually assault someone if they were hot enough. Great defense.
|
On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault.
Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot.
|
On October 14 2016 04:38 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Then you would be a terrible lawyer, since it's completely irrelevant.
You may want to familiarize yourself with the American rules of evidence before making such stupid comments.
|
On October 14 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot.
Like I said, depending upon the case.
|
On October 14 2016 04:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot. Like I said, depending upon the circumstances.
So if you had an all male jury and a brain dead opposition and judge, you'd go for the hail mary shot.
|
On October 14 2016 04:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot. Like I said, depending upon the case.
So basically in the perfect case where you have the perfect jury who will let you get away with anything you want.
And not, say, as a defence to the entire voting population.
|
On October 14 2016 04:37 PassiveAce wrote:
Yeah I think for that argument to fly you need to have some very unusual circumstances lol
All male jury in the deep south I could see it working
I can create a fact set in my mind where that might be an argument, but it is so high risk there are like 2000 other ways to present it without going down the “she isn’t pretty enough”.
But Trump isn’t the Defendant in a sexual assault case. He is in the plaintiff in a defamation of character action, so that line of reasoning isn’t going to be available to him. Arguing that the women are not pretty enough isn’t going to get him where he needs to go. That isn’t going to prove malice or any of the other prongs required for him to make his case.
Edit: LOL, Xdaunt throws out the “it depends on the case” argument. Every defense is viable depending on the fact set of the case. That doesn’t make it likely to succeed or low risk. You can file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in every case if you want. It doesn’t mean you should.
|
|
|
On October 14 2016 04:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot. Like I said, depending upon the case. So basically in the perfect case where you have the perfect jury who will let you get away with anything you want. And not, say, as a defence to the entire voting population.
No, it wouldn't have to be the perfect case. What matters is whether the facts support the plausibility of such a narrative. We very rarely, if ever, deal with absolutes regarding facts at trial. And for the record, attorneys generally can't gameplan their themes based upon presumptions of who is going to be on the jury. Though you can demographically make some general predictions of who is likely to be available on the venire, you really don't know who the fuck you're going to get until you get to trial.
|
On October 14 2016 03:59 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:32 PassiveAce wrote:On October 14 2016 03:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 14 2016 03:22 PassiveAce wrote:
This is the Stephen Colbert campaign that Stephen Colbert didn't have the balls to do. I think the moments of "Holy cow is he really running for president" would be similar, but Colbert wouldn't act nearly as outrageously offensive and sexually deviant as Trump. If he was fully and truly embodying "Stephen Colbert," the character, then he would. Obv Colbert the person is too good a person to go through with it Even Colbert the personality had limitations of how far he was willing to go. I'm pretty sure Trump crossed some of those lines on the very first day of his campaign ("That mexican thing") and never looked back.
Colbert the character held some reprehensible views but tried to be a good person regardless. Trump a horrible person who just happens to have horrible views as well.
|
On October 14 2016 04:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2016 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot. Like I said, depending upon the case. So basically in the perfect case where you have the perfect jury who will let you get away with anything you want. And not, say, as a defence to the entire voting population. No, it wouldn't have to be the perfect case. What matters is whether the facts support the plausibility of such a narrative. We very rarely, if ever, deal with absolutes regarding facts at trial. And for the record, attorneys generally can't gameplan their themes based upon presumptions of who is going to be on the jury. Though you can demographically make some general predictions of who is likely to be available on the venire, you really don't know who the fuck you're going to get until you get to trial.
Okay then.
Describe the circumstances where you would defend your client by implying (and opening yourself up to the prosecution's followup on) the idea that your client would indeed sexually assault someone, just not this particular plaintiff.
|
On October 14 2016 04:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 04:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2016 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot. Like I said, depending upon the case. So basically in the perfect case where you have the perfect jury who will let you get away with anything you want. And not, say, as a defence to the entire voting population. No, it wouldn't have to be the perfect case. What matters is whether the facts support the plausibility of such a narrative. We very rarely, if ever, deal with absolutes regarding facts at trial. And for the record, attorneys generally can't gameplan their themes based upon presumptions of who is going to be on the jury. Though you can demographically make some general predictions of who is likely to be available on the venire, you really don't know who the fuck you're going to get until you get to trial. Okay then. Describe the circumstances where you would defend your client by implying (and opening yourself up to the prosecution's followup on) the idea that your client would indeed sexually assault someone, just not this particular plaintiff.
The argument would be that the Defendant did to feel any sexual attraction to the victim and attempt to remove motive entirely. But I am not sure how you get that statement into evidence without putting your client on the stand to directly as them.
|
For all of you junior attorneys out there who clearly have no idea how any of this works, let me explain how trial lawyering works: you pick the best narrative that you can that accomplishes what you seek to accomplish at trial while also best fitting the available facts. If I'm representing a defendant in a sexual assault case where there's some ambiguity over whether the sexual assault occurred (let's face it, these are the only cases that would go to trial anyway unless we're talking about consent issues), where the plaintiff is ugly, and where the defendant can show a rich history of dating/fucking/whatevering hot women, then I am very strongly going to consider promoting the narrative that the defendant didn't sexually assault the because the plaintiff is out of the defendant's league. If I have some evidence suggesting that the plaintiff has credibility problems or greed problems, then I most certainly will promote that narrative.
Y'all's problem is that you can't fathom the scenario where there's some gray area regarding what happened.
|
On October 14 2016 04:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 04:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2016 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot. Like I said, depending upon the case. So basically in the perfect case where you have the perfect jury who will let you get away with anything you want. And not, say, as a defence to the entire voting population. No, it wouldn't have to be the perfect case. What matters is whether the facts support the plausibility of such a narrative. We very rarely, if ever, deal with absolutes regarding facts at trial. And for the record, attorneys generally can't gameplan their themes based upon presumptions of who is going to be on the jury. Though you can demographically make some general predictions of who is likely to be available on the venire, you really don't know who the fuck you're going to get until you get to trial. Okay then. Describe the circumstances where you would defend your client by implying (and opening yourself up to the prosecution's followup on) the idea that your client would indeed sexually assault someone, just not this particular plaintiff.
Although what he said was disgusting and deplorable--that wasn't actually what XDaunt was saying.
The evidence had is that Trump having a recording of him saying he goes after pretty women. Trumps defense is that accuser is not pretty, hence does not fit the description of the evidence.
Still shitty, but its a different thing than what you're framing.
|
|
|
Um, this isn't a court of law. It's the court of public opinion. That fact is something that has always been a problem for Hillary, less so for Trump until recently.
The lowest odds move that Trump could do at this point would be to attack Michelle Obama, which is why I think the white house is trying to goad him into it.
|
I gotta agree with xdaunt on this one; sometimes it may well be the best play, even if it does sound bad.
|
On October 14 2016 04:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 04:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2016 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 04:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:On October 14 2016 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 04:39 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2016 04:28 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:31 BallinWitStalin wrote:On October 14 2016 03:21 xDaunt wrote:On October 14 2016 03:20 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Arguing she's not pretty enough to be sexually assaulted. A+ response, Donald. You idiot. You really think that other people aren't running through the same math? You really think that matters in cases of sexual assault? As a lawyer? Would this be your defense, if you were defending someone accused of this in court? Depending on the case, yep, I definitely could see myself making that argument in defense of a client accused of sexual assault. Not hard for a halfway competent opposition to wreck you on that. If you had an all male jury you might have a hail mary shot. Like I said, depending upon the case. So basically in the perfect case where you have the perfect jury who will let you get away with anything you want. And not, say, as a defence to the entire voting population. No, it wouldn't have to be the perfect case. What matters is whether the facts support the plausibility of such a narrative. We very rarely, if ever, deal with absolutes regarding facts at trial. And for the record, attorneys generally can't gameplan their themes based upon presumptions of who is going to be on the jury. Though you can demographically make some general predictions of who is likely to be available on the venire, you really don't know who the fuck you're going to get until you get to trial. Okay then. Describe the circumstances where you would defend your client by implying (and opening yourself up to the prosecution's followup on) the idea that your client would indeed sexually assault someone, just not this particular plaintiff. Although what he said was disgusting and deplorable--that wasn't actually what XDaunt was saying. The evidence had is that Trump having a recording of him saying he goes after pretty women. Trumps defense is that accuser is not pretty, hence does not fit the description of the evidence. Still shitty, but its a different thing than what you're framing.
It is also a narrative that doesn’t help Trump, since even if he proves that isn’t attracted to the woman, he won’t help his case against the Times. At all. That doesn’t prove the story isn’t’ news worthy or that the knowingly published an inaccurate story to defame Trump.
|
Who remembers the time that Schwarzenegger got in trouble for fucking the nanny? Anyone remember what the biggest surprise regarding the whole affair was?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
