On October 23 2025 02:31 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 01:54 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. On October 21 2025 09:17 LightSpectra wrote:On October 19 2025 10:09 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. "In March 2024, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News repeatedly made false statements that the jury found Trump liable for rape." Edit: link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump Have you read your own link to find out why they were false yet? Patiently waiting for an update. Bloody hell you guys made me waste time on researching this thing. Here are some of the links which will source probably all of the stuff I have to say about it: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html#footnote_ref_6https://www.newsweek.com/watch-anderson-cooper-interview-judge-blocked-donald-trump-showing-1863998also wiki link in quoted post. First of all it was civil trial and as such dint require "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof, but only preponderance of the evidence which basically means that chances that he did it, are bigger than he did not. Funnily enough it is often described as a 51% certainty (lol) Now lets look at the evidence: Carroll testimony - kinda obvious, but surely not enough. 2 of her friends testimony, that she told them about it. How was that even allowed? thats basically hearsay, and there is no way to proof whether she told them or not. Jessica Leeds, Natasha Stoynoff - those are unproven allegations as far as I was able to find out. If they were proven they would carry some weight. Picture of Trump and Carroll from 1987 supposed to prove that Trump lied when he said he doesnt know who she is. First thing - I was with my wife on quite few weddings of her friends, I bet i have some pictures talking with people which now I would have no clue who they are. Second thing and more important is Carroll friend testimony itself. Picture is from 1987, her testimony regarding events in 1996: Q. What did she say after she said, Lisa, you are not going to believe what just happened? A. E. Jean said that she had, after work that day, she had gone to Bergdorf's to look around, and she was on her way out -- and I believe it was a revolving door -- and she said on the other side of the glass from her going in, as she was going out, Donald Trump said to her, Hey, you're the advice lady. And she said, You're the real estate guy. And he said, You're so good at advice, you are so smart, why don't you help me pick out a present for a friend? So she thought she would, it sounded like a funny thing, this guy, who is famous. Does that sounds like people who know each other? Trump saying she is not his type - like really? what does that prove? I did that few times, seems nicer than saying I dont like her. "Access Hollywood tape" that proves that Trump is horrible human being, not that he raped Carroll. That one at least carry some weight, but it is rather that it is not impossible he did it, than that it is likely he did it. Security detail and Trump not being able to name anyone from his security from 1996, 23 years later. Also mistaking Carroll for his wife: "Despite attacking Carroll for not remembering the exact year of the alleged incident, Trump was unable to state the exact years of the beginning or end of any of his marriages when asked, and claimed that he was unsure if he had any extramarital affairs during his first marriage (including with Maples, despite this affair having regularly featured in New York tabloids)." Second trial: "Earlier this month, Kaplan ruled that Trump's legal team is not allowed to present the interview to the jury. He also said ahead of the trial that Trump's attorneys are not permitted to argue to the jury that he did not rape or sexually assault Carroll, as this was not relevant to her current defamation case."This trial is limited to the issue of damages sustained as a result of the defendant's June 21 and 22, 2019 statements. Those statements already have been determined to have been false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice," Kaplan wrote. He continued: "The introduction of the Anderson Cooper 360 video needlessly and confusingly would invite the jury to decide this case on the basis of defendant's view that those issues are open to discussion or reconsideration. They are not." " Now to be very clear: I am not saying he didnt rape her, because I dont know if he did or not. What I am saying is that nothing about this "trial" convinced me he did. Timing of the case however and the fact that Carroll lawyers were paid by Trump political opponent: https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/05/10/what-was-reid-hoffmans-role-in-funding-e-jean-carrolls-case/"While Hoffman is known for his work founding LinkedIn, he’s also a big Democratic donor, funding a number of Democratic causes, candidates and legal battles, including civil lawsuits filed by the victims of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a post on LinkedIn." leads me to believe that it was political hitjob rather than any sort of reasonable trial. Got it. Court ruled he did it but you still doubt. So we have two possible scenarios. He’s either in court a lot because of persecution or because he does a lot of crime. The fact that the court found that he did it is, to you, proof of just how extensive the persecution gets. It’s weird that they keep finding that he did the kind of things he brags about doing though. I don’t think you’re understanding the restrictions on the second trial either. The second trial was about whether he was lying about the outcome of the first trial, it was not relitigating the matter resolved by the first trial. The outcome of the first trial was already decided. Of course he wasn’t allowed to go in and argue that he wasn’t defaming her because it was all made up and reopen that question, that’d be absurd.
"Got it. Court ruled he did it but you still doubt." - No, I find it surreal that court ruled that way.
"So we have two possible scenarios. He’s either in court a lot because of persecution or because he does a lot of crime. The fact that the court found that he did it is, to you, proof of just how extensive the persecution gets."
Thats odd take? My post was about one specific case due to he raped her comments. There are exactly 2 cases against Trump which I have issues with Carroll and 34 felonies. My opinion on those two is that if anybody not named Donald Trump was the subject of those they wouldnt even make it to the trial.
"It’s weird that they keep finding that he did the kind of things he brags about doing though." - again, in this specific case I dont think they proved it.
"I don’t think you’re understanding the restrictions on the second trial either. The second trial was about whether he was lying about the outcome of the first trial, it was not relitigating the matter resolved by the first trial. The outcome of the first trial was already decided. Of course he wasn’t allowed to go in and argue that he wasn’t defaming her because it was all made up and reopen that question, that’d be absurd."
The second trial part was somewhat preemptive, in case someone was asking while he didnt try to prove his innocence there.
On October 23 2025 02:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 01:54 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. On October 21 2025 09:17 LightSpectra wrote:On October 19 2025 10:09 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. "In March 2024, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News repeatedly made false statements that the jury found Trump liable for rape." Edit: link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump Have you read your own link to find out why they were false yet? Patiently waiting for an update. Bloody hell you guys made me waste time on researching this thing. Here are some of the links which will source probably all of the stuff I have to say about it: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html#footnote_ref_6https://www.newsweek.com/watch-anderson-cooper-interview-judge-blocked-donald-trump-showing-1863998also wiki link in quoted post. First of all it was civil trial and as such dint require "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof, but only preponderance of the evidence which basically means that chances that he did it, are bigger than he did not. Funnily enough it is often described as a 51% certainty (lol) Now lets look at the evidence: Carroll testimony - kinda obvious, but surely not enough. 2 of her friends testimony, that she told them about it. How was that even allowed? thats basically hearsay, and there is no way to proof whether she told them or not. Jessica Leeds, Natasha Stoynoff - those are unproven allegations as far as I was able to find out. If they were proven they would carry some weight. Picture of Trump and Carroll from 1987 supposed to prove that Trump lied when he said he doesnt know who she is. First thing - I was with my wife on quite few weddings of her friends, I bet i have some pictures talking with people which now I would have no clue who they are. Second thing and more important is Carroll friend testimony itself. Picture is from 1987, her testimony regarding events in 1996: Q. What did she say after she said, Lisa, you are not going to believe what just happened? A. E. Jean said that she had, after work that day, she had gone to Bergdorf's to look around, and she was on her way out -- and I believe it was a revolving door -- and she said on the other side of the glass from her going in, as she was going out, Donald Trump said to her, Hey, you're the advice lady. And she said, You're the real estate guy. And he said, You're so good at advice, you are so smart, why don't you help me pick out a present for a friend? So she thought she would, it sounded like a funny thing, this guy, who is famous. Does that sounds like people who know each other? Trump saying she is not his type - like really? what does that prove? I did that few times, seems nicer than saying I dont like her. "Access Hollywood tape" that proves that Trump is horrible human being, not that he raped Carroll. That one at least carry some weight, but it is rather that it is not impossible he did it, than that it is likely he did it. Security detail and Trump not being able to name anyone from his security from 1996, 23 years later. Also mistaking Carroll for his wife: "Despite attacking Carroll for not remembering the exact year of the alleged incident, Trump was unable to state the exact years of the beginning or end of any of his marriages when asked, and claimed that he was unsure if he had any extramarital affairs during his first marriage (including with Maples, despite this affair having regularly featured in New York tabloids)." Second trial: "Earlier this month, Kaplan ruled that Trump's legal team is not allowed to present the interview to the jury. He also said ahead of the trial that Trump's attorneys are not permitted to argue to the jury that he did not rape or sexually assault Carroll, as this was not relevant to her current defamation case."This trial is limited to the issue of damages sustained as a result of the defendant's June 21 and 22, 2019 statements. Those statements already have been determined to have been false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice," Kaplan wrote. He continued: "The introduction of the Anderson Cooper 360 video needlessly and confusingly would invite the jury to decide this case on the basis of defendant's view that those issues are open to discussion or reconsideration. They are not." " Now to be very clear: I am not saying he didnt rape her, because I dont know if he did or not. What I am saying is that nothing about this "trial" convinced me he did. Timing of the case however and the fact that Carroll lawyers were paid by Trump political opponent: https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/05/10/what-was-reid-hoffmans-role-in-funding-e-jean-carrolls-case/"While Hoffman is known for his work founding LinkedIn, he’s also a big Democratic donor, funding a number of Democratic causes, candidates and legal battles, including civil lawsuits filed by the victims of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a post on LinkedIn." leads me to believe that it was political hitjob rather than any sort of reasonable trial. What would constitute a ‘reasonable trial’ here then? There is seemingly no amount of procedural hoops one can jump through for it to be a fair trial for some. What is the threshold here? Why is Hunter Biden’s laptop fair game but any number of Trump questions a ‘hitjob’
Honestly after this amount of time I think it is really hard to prove rape, barring maybe eye witness or some sort of recording, I know it sucks, but thats the reality. We not talking about procedural hoops here but about quality of evidence.
For analogy: I would say that I like stealing money, then you say that I stole from you million dollars, then Kwark and Jankissa say that you did tell them that I stole million dollars from you after it happened. I say that I dont even know who you are, and you show a picture where we are both in line to a nightclub, 7 years before alleged theft. I say that you are to poor for me to steal million dollars from you, then you show picture of you and Bezos and i mistake you for Bezos. Then you have an expert testifying that you do display behaviours of someone whose money got stolen.
literally nothing here prove that I stole million dollars from you.
As for Hunter laptop - it wasnt a case about laptop, laptop was merely used as a proof. For tax case he plead guilty, for gun case he was found guilty.
On October 23 2025 03:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 02:56 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2025 02:31 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 01:54 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. On October 21 2025 09:17 LightSpectra wrote:On October 19 2025 10:09 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. "In March 2024, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News repeatedly made false statements that the jury found Trump liable for rape." Edit: link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump Have you read your own link to find out why they were false yet? Patiently waiting for an update. Bloody hell you guys made me waste time on researching this thing. Here are some of the links which will source probably all of the stuff I have to say about it: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html#footnote_ref_6https://www.newsweek.com/watch-anderson-cooper-interview-judge-blocked-donald-trump-showing-1863998also wiki link in quoted post. First of all it was civil trial and as such dint require "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof, but only preponderance of the evidence which basically means that chances that he did it, are bigger than he did not. Funnily enough it is often described as a 51% certainty (lol) Now lets look at the evidence: Carroll testimony - kinda obvious, but surely not enough. 2 of her friends testimony, that she told them about it. How was that even allowed? thats basically hearsay, and there is no way to proof whether she told them or not. Jessica Leeds, Natasha Stoynoff - those are unproven allegations as far as I was able to find out. If they were proven they would carry some weight. Picture of Trump and Carroll from 1987 supposed to prove that Trump lied when he said he doesnt know who she is. First thing - I was with my wife on quite few weddings of her friends, I bet i have some pictures talking with people which now I would have no clue who they are. Second thing and more important is Carroll friend testimony itself. Picture is from 1987, her testimony regarding events in 1996: Q. What did she say after she said, Lisa, you are not going to believe what just happened? A. E. Jean said that she had, after work that day, she had gone to Bergdorf's to look around, and she was on her way out -- and I believe it was a revolving door -- and she said on the other side of the glass from her going in, as she was going out, Donald Trump said to her, Hey, you're the advice lady. And she said, You're the real estate guy. And he said, You're so good at advice, you are so smart, why don't you help me pick out a present for a friend? So she thought she would, it sounded like a funny thing, this guy, who is famous. Does that sounds like people who know each other? Trump saying she is not his type - like really? what does that prove? I did that few times, seems nicer than saying I dont like her. "Access Hollywood tape" that proves that Trump is horrible human being, not that he raped Carroll. That one at least carry some weight, but it is rather that it is not impossible he did it, than that it is likely he did it. Security detail and Trump not being able to name anyone from his security from 1996, 23 years later. Also mistaking Carroll for his wife: "Despite attacking Carroll for not remembering the exact year of the alleged incident, Trump was unable to state the exact years of the beginning or end of any of his marriages when asked, and claimed that he was unsure if he had any extramarital affairs during his first marriage (including with Maples, despite this affair having regularly featured in New York tabloids)." Second trial: "Earlier this month, Kaplan ruled that Trump's legal team is not allowed to present the interview to the jury. He also said ahead of the trial that Trump's attorneys are not permitted to argue to the jury that he did not rape or sexually assault Carroll, as this was not relevant to her current defamation case."This trial is limited to the issue of damages sustained as a result of the defendant's June 21 and 22, 2019 statements. Those statements already have been determined to have been false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice," Kaplan wrote. He continued: "The introduction of the Anderson Cooper 360 video needlessly and confusingly would invite the jury to decide this case on the basis of defendant's view that those issues are open to discussion or reconsideration. They are not." " Now to be very clear: I am not saying he didnt rape her, because I dont know if he did or not. What I am saying is that nothing about this "trial" convinced me he did. Timing of the case however and the fact that Carroll lawyers were paid by Trump political opponent: https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/05/10/what-was-reid-hoffmans-role-in-funding-e-jean-carrolls-case/"While Hoffman is known for his work founding LinkedIn, he’s also a big Democratic donor, funding a number of Democratic causes, candidates and legal battles, including civil lawsuits filed by the victims of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a post on LinkedIn." leads me to believe that it was political hitjob rather than any sort of reasonable trial. Got it. Court ruled he did it but you still doubt. So we have two possible scenarios. He’s either in court a lot because of persecution or because he does a lot of crime. The fact that the court found that he did it is, to you, proof of just how extensive the persecution gets. It’s weird that they keep finding that he did the kind of things he brags about doing though. I don’t think you’re understanding the restrictions on the second trial either. The second trial was about whether he was lying about the outcome of the first trial, it was not relitigating the matter resolved by the first trial. The outcome of the first trial was already decided. Of course he wasn’t allowed to go in and argue that he wasn’t defaming her because it was all made up and reopen that question, that’d be absurd. well in his own words he is a true believer that it was a political hit job. who is gonna argue beliefs, especially with someone prone to growing up Homo Sovieticus?  it is fascinating that Trump is able to deconstruct western foundations like the independence of the judiciary for his own gains & shits and giggles way more effectively than any foreign adversary ever could through propaganda. again... a championship class proven liar, cheating scumbag is more to be believed than the courts and a group of his peers looking at the evidence and judging him accordingly... hyper partisanship did a number on people. I also really like his characterization that he was being made to "waste time" learning about a subject to respond to people who had a problem with his assertions on that subject. To him the problem wasn't that he didn't learn about it before making the assertions. To him the waste of time wasn't the time he spent posting assertions before having done any research about the subject. No, to him that was all fine, that was time well spent. It was all stuff that he felt to be true, despite not yet having wasted his time looking into it. It was only after people who knew more about the issue than him told him that he was wrong about the issue that he was forced to "waste time" learning about it. It's one of those classic telling on yourself moments.
Lets rewind shall we: 
On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do.
On October 19 2025 10:09 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. "In March 2024, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News repeatedly made false statements that the jury found Trump liable for rape." Edit: link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump
My assertion seems to be literally quote from wikipedia? Your assertion is: "He is, legally speaking, a rapist" He was not convicted for rape, hence legally speaking he is not a rapist. Thats pretty bad Kwark giving your usual standards.
And I stand by my characterization. It was a waste of time because "Frankly, darling I don't give a damn". Again I dont give a shit about Trump, if he turn out to be guilty in Epstein case I will want him torn apart by horses together with everybody else involved. What I was interested in was democrats loosing this election, and the next one (that may be tall ask, though they seem to do everything they can to ensure that I will get my wish).
On October 23 2025 03:33 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2025 03:22 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 02:56 Doublemint wrote:On October 23 2025 02:31 KwarK wrote:On October 23 2025 01:54 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. On October 21 2025 09:17 LightSpectra wrote:On October 19 2025 10:09 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 09:16 KwarK wrote:On October 19 2025 09:04 Razyda wrote:On October 19 2025 08:57 micronesia wrote:
Considering Trump's the only president to so blatantly weaponize the criminal justice system so far, there's no need to "both sides" this yet. You cant be serious now? How many court cases he faced since he started running for president? You get that he did the things, right? You do understand that, don’t you? Like the court found that he did rape that woman. He is, legally speaking, a rapist. That’s why he was in court for it. It’s not political, he just raped a woman and that’s illegal to do. "In March 2024, George Stephanopoulos of ABC News repeatedly made false statements that the jury found Trump liable for rape." Edit: link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump Have you read your own link to find out why they were false yet? Patiently waiting for an update. Bloody hell you guys made me waste time on researching this thing. Here are some of the links which will source probably all of the stuff I have to say about it: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/05/trump-rape-trial-witness-tracker-00095179https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html#footnote_ref_6https://www.newsweek.com/watch-anderson-cooper-interview-judge-blocked-donald-trump-showing-1863998also wiki link in quoted post. First of all it was civil trial and as such dint require "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof, but only preponderance of the evidence which basically means that chances that he did it, are bigger than he did not. Funnily enough it is often described as a 51% certainty (lol) Now lets look at the evidence: Carroll testimony - kinda obvious, but surely not enough. 2 of her friends testimony, that she told them about it. How was that even allowed? thats basically hearsay, and there is no way to proof whether she told them or not. Jessica Leeds, Natasha Stoynoff - those are unproven allegations as far as I was able to find out. If they were proven they would carry some weight. Picture of Trump and Carroll from 1987 supposed to prove that Trump lied when he said he doesnt know who she is. First thing - I was with my wife on quite few weddings of her friends, I bet i have some pictures talking with people which now I would have no clue who they are. Second thing and more important is Carroll friend testimony itself. Picture is from 1987, her testimony regarding events in 1996: Q. What did she say after she said, Lisa, you are not going to believe what just happened? A. E. Jean said that she had, after work that day, she had gone to Bergdorf's to look around, and she was on her way out -- and I believe it was a revolving door -- and she said on the other side of the glass from her going in, as she was going out, Donald Trump said to her, Hey, you're the advice lady. And she said, You're the real estate guy. And he said, You're so good at advice, you are so smart, why don't you help me pick out a present for a friend? So she thought she would, it sounded like a funny thing, this guy, who is famous. Does that sounds like people who know each other? Trump saying she is not his type - like really? what does that prove? I did that few times, seems nicer than saying I dont like her. "Access Hollywood tape" that proves that Trump is horrible human being, not that he raped Carroll. That one at least carry some weight, but it is rather that it is not impossible he did it, than that it is likely he did it. Security detail and Trump not being able to name anyone from his security from 1996, 23 years later. Also mistaking Carroll for his wife: "Despite attacking Carroll for not remembering the exact year of the alleged incident, Trump was unable to state the exact years of the beginning or end of any of his marriages when asked, and claimed that he was unsure if he had any extramarital affairs during his first marriage (including with Maples, despite this affair having regularly featured in New York tabloids)." Second trial: "Earlier this month, Kaplan ruled that Trump's legal team is not allowed to present the interview to the jury. He also said ahead of the trial that Trump's attorneys are not permitted to argue to the jury that he did not rape or sexually assault Carroll, as this was not relevant to her current defamation case."This trial is limited to the issue of damages sustained as a result of the defendant's June 21 and 22, 2019 statements. Those statements already have been determined to have been false, defamatory, and made with constitutional actual malice," Kaplan wrote. He continued: "The introduction of the Anderson Cooper 360 video needlessly and confusingly would invite the jury to decide this case on the basis of defendant's view that those issues are open to discussion or reconsideration. They are not." " Now to be very clear: I am not saying he didnt rape her, because I dont know if he did or not. What I am saying is that nothing about this "trial" convinced me he did. Timing of the case however and the fact that Carroll lawyers were paid by Trump political opponent: https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/05/10/what-was-reid-hoffmans-role-in-funding-e-jean-carrolls-case/"While Hoffman is known for his work founding LinkedIn, he’s also a big Democratic donor, funding a number of Democratic causes, candidates and legal battles, including civil lawsuits filed by the victims of the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, according to a post on LinkedIn." leads me to believe that it was political hitjob rather than any sort of reasonable trial. Got it. Court ruled he did it but you still doubt. So we have two possible scenarios. He’s either in court a lot because of persecution or because he does a lot of crime. The fact that the court found that he did it is, to you, proof of just how extensive the persecution gets. It’s weird that they keep finding that he did the kind of things he brags about doing though. I don’t think you’re understanding the restrictions on the second trial either. The second trial was about whether he was lying about the outcome of the first trial, it was not relitigating the matter resolved by the first trial. The outcome of the first trial was already decided. Of course he wasn’t allowed to go in and argue that he wasn’t defaming her because it was all made up and reopen that question, that’d be absurd. well in his own words he is a true believer that it was a political hit job. who is gonna argue beliefs, especially with someone prone to growing up Homo Sovieticus? it is fascinating that Trump is able to deconstruct western foundations like the independence of the judiciary for his own gains & shits and giggles way more effectively than any foreign adversary ever could through propaganda. again... a championship class proven liar, cheating scumbag is more to be believed than the courts and a group of his peers looking at the evidence and judging him accordingly... hyper partisanship did a number on people. I also really like his characterization that he was being made to "waste time" learning about a subject to respond to people who had a problem with his assertions on that subject. To him the problem wasn't that he didn't learn about it before making the assertions. To him the waste of time wasn't the time he spent posting assertions before having done any research about the subject. No, to him that was all fine, that was time well spent. It was all stuff that he felt to be true, despite not yet having wasted his time looking into it. It was only after people who knew more about the issue than him told him that he was wrong about the issue that he was forced to "waste time" learning about it. It's one of those classic telling on yourself moments. If I’m happy to gargle Trump’s balls, that must mean you’re happy to gargle Biden’s balls. Or whoever’s. This is where we’re at. It’s not smart argumentation. If it weren’t for things like Trump being in power and the populist right making inroads in Europe, it wouldn’t even be something worth bothering with.
We are forced to consider it on account of it being currently impactful, but that doesn’t stop it being mostly nonsense. Complete and utter bollocks though it might be.
Bolded - translation: We dont giva a damn what others think, but they are in power now, so we have to pretend we do.
To quote a wise man:
On October 23 2025 03:22 KwarK wrote:
It's one of those classic telling on yourself moments.
|
EPT
