How convenient that they were able to charge Trump based on a law that was passed late last year... Almost as if the law was passed specifically for Trump.
Wasn't this woman's case flimsier than a house of cards in the first place, with her allegations only coming out in order to promote her book?
Trump needs to get better lawyers, because the Jury was clearly stacked against him.
Trump needs to get better lawyers, because the Jury was clearly stacked against him.
Good luck getting a jury that isn't stacked against a Republican in New York's hellhole of a judicial system. Shit, good luck getting a judge that isn't stacked against him. You know that the clown running this show trial was taking orders from the bitch's lawyers. It's shame that Trump doesn't dispose of his enemies the way Killary does.
What I was thinking. I know it’s a civil case but it’s crazy that a flimsy accusation from years back can hold up. Plus in New York I’m not sure he can get a fair jury
She even had her friend testify that she called her and told her about it, but neither could provide a date over a period of years… there was no actual evidence of them even being in the department store at the same time ever. There was no defensive wounds, nothing. It was being found guilty simply by accusation.
How convenient that they were able to charge Trump based on a law that was passed late last year...
But Alec Baldwin can kill a woman, and they legally act like he didn't have a gun, because that particular law went into effect after he killed her. It's like there's (at least) two different sets of rules, depending on if you're for or against the regime.
So they didn’t believe her claim that he raped her, but they did believe her claim that he did the other shit? And there is zero evidence besides her testimony?
The phrase gets tossed around a lot lately, but this is legitimate banana republic bullshit.
It will grow Trump's base. This kangaroo court had some success because the trial was held deep in the heart of enemy territory, Madhattan--a leftist snake pit..
So my takeaway from all this thus far is the this is yet another court case where the outcome conveniently works out for both sides.
The right wing gets its usual "nope, doesn't count, Teflon Don wins again, innocent as the day he was born"
Everyone else gets the deliberately worded headline that he had to pay $5 million in damages for SOMETHING, therefore he MUST be in the wrong, even if it was determined by a jury with likely very little evidence about an incident they are to believe happened over thirty years ago.
This wasn't a political hit, this was a political reload.
For example, watching the news, one point they seemed to dwell on was the alleged photo of the accuser. The story goes that Trump kept insisting that it was a picture of Marla, never mind the claim that he did not know or recognize Carroll in the first place. Remember this for later. I absolutely see the whole uniparty media bringing this up in campaign ads as an attack on Trump's mental acuity, poor guy's such a mess he thinks a woman he sexually abused was his own ex-wife! UNFIT FOR OFFICE, UNFIT FOR AMERICA!
So we'll have that, on top of the smarmy Billy Bush "locker room talks" clip that got dredged back up to be weaponized against him again, on top of the OTHER trial we still have to get to with Stormy Daniels (I already almost forgot about that), on top of two impeachments, on top of questioning election integrity now being thoughtcrime with offenders becoming unpersoned as Election Deniers, and we're still in the first half of the year. If this battle got any more uphill it would be a vertical wall. Maybe it already is, I dunno.
There is no tldr, I just wanted to vent about a few things I noticed yesterday. This is why I normally keep my political thoughts to myself.
They argued that he did not rape her but he did "sexual assault", what ever that means. But he was never convicted of that, he is technically innocent until proven guilty so what he said was not a lie. Everything about this is fucked up.
I've heard definitions that included touching someone's shoulder, looking intensely, cat calling or even walking to close - so it is kind of meaningless to me. If you try to kiss a girl at a party that can be sexual assault.
That college study included asking a girl out again if she said no once.
-Hey you want to go out?
-No thanks.
-You sure? it'll be fun.
-No, I'm good, thanks.
-Cool, have a nice day.
Which is how they came to the conclusion that 1 in 4 college women had been sexually assaulted.
If you can be held accountable for drunk driving, then you should be equally accountable for consenting to drunk sex. Sadly, they don't care about consistency, just power.
How convenient that they were able to charge Trump based on a law that was passed late last year... Almost as if the law was passed specifically for Trump. Wasn't this woman's case flimsier than a house of cards in the first place, with her allegations only coming out in order to promote her book? Trump needs to get better lawyers, because the Jury was clearly stacked against him.
Good luck getting a jury that isn't stacked against a Republican in New York's hellhole of a judicial system. Shit, good luck getting a judge that isn't stacked against him. You know that the clown running this show trial was taking orders from the bitch's lawyers. It's shame that Trump doesn't dispose of his enemies the way Killary does.
Lawl.. even kevin spacey had like 3 witnesses died from mysterious accident.
What I was thinking. I know it’s a civil case but it’s crazy that a flimsy accusation from years back can hold up. Plus in New York I’m not sure he can get a fair jury
She even had her friend testify that she called her and told her about it, but neither could provide a date over a period of years… there was no actual evidence of them even being in the department store at the same time ever. There was no defensive wounds, nothing. It was being found guilty simply by accusation.
That is scary. I’m sure no shady women will see this and “suddenly remember” they were harassed
Just you wait, a bunch of women are gonna come out for an easy massive payday in New York.
This is truly bizarre. I know it's big news today, but I haven't seen anybody explain it better than you just did.
But Alec Baldwin can kill a woman, and they legally act like he didn't have a gun, because that particular law went into effect after he killed her. It's like there's (at least) two different sets of rules, depending on if you're for or against the regime.
What law? I haven't heard.
Taylor Swift touched me behind a Waffle House in 2013.
You heard it here first. That's evidence. Don't forget.
I'll be looking forward to the trial in 2050. Here's to hoping you win the ghetto lottery like this cum dumpster did.
Were you dressed provocative?
For Waffle House!?
Naked under the overalls.
I'm sure she had a swift response to seeing that.
So they didn’t believe her claim that he raped her, but they did believe her claim that he did the other shit? And there is zero evidence besides her testimony?
The phrase gets tossed around a lot lately, but this is legitimate banana republic bullshit.
meh its getting appealed. They're high if they think they're getting a cent from this
Does it matter in NY? The odds of a fair trial there seem slim to none.
It's not about the money, it's about the propaganda.
Its red meat for their base to distract them from the dems constant failures.
And no /r/conservatives(refugees) opinions on this matter doesnt count.
It will grow Trump's base. This kangaroo court had some success because the trial was held deep in the heart of enemy territory, Madhattan--a leftist snake pit..
So my takeaway from all this thus far is the this is yet another court case where the outcome conveniently works out for both sides.
The right wing gets its usual "nope, doesn't count, Teflon Don wins again, innocent as the day he was born"
Everyone else gets the deliberately worded headline that he had to pay $5 million in damages for SOMETHING, therefore he MUST be in the wrong, even if it was determined by a jury with likely very little evidence about an incident they are to believe happened over thirty years ago.
This wasn't a political hit, this was a political reload.
For example, watching the news, one point they seemed to dwell on was the alleged photo of the accuser. The story goes that Trump kept insisting that it was a picture of Marla, never mind the claim that he did not know or recognize Carroll in the first place. Remember this for later. I absolutely see the whole uniparty media bringing this up in campaign ads as an attack on Trump's mental acuity, poor guy's such a mess he thinks a woman he sexually abused was his own ex-wife! UNFIT FOR OFFICE, UNFIT FOR AMERICA!
So we'll have that, on top of the smarmy Billy Bush "locker room talks" clip that got dredged back up to be weaponized against him again, on top of the OTHER trial we still have to get to with Stormy Daniels (I already almost forgot about that), on top of two impeachments, on top of questioning election integrity now being thoughtcrime with offenders becoming unpersoned as Election Deniers, and we're still in the first half of the year. If this battle got any more uphill it would be a vertical wall. Maybe it already is, I dunno.
There is no tldr, I just wanted to vent about a few things I noticed yesterday. This is why I normally keep my political thoughts to myself.
My lefty friends haven't even posted a meme about it. One guy, who is a lawyer, is crowing about it. That's about it.
I think even my lefty friends are weary of this, and think it will backfire again.
I'm surprised its only 5M. Isn't Alex Jones on the hook for 1B?
We can't continue living with these people. It's literally impossible
I can live with that. Statement that is.
They argued that he did not rape her but he did "sexual assault", what ever that means. But he was never convicted of that, he is technically innocent until proven guilty so what he said was not a lie. Everything about this is fucked up.
The legal definition of rape specifically refers to penis in vagina. Sexual assault includes groping and everything else
I've heard definitions that included touching someone's shoulder, looking intensely, cat calling or even walking to close - so it is kind of meaningless to me. If you try to kiss a girl at a party that can be sexual assault.
That college study included asking a girl out again if she said no once. -Hey you want to go out? -No thanks. -You sure? it'll be fun. -No, I'm good, thanks. -Cool, have a nice day.
Which is how they came to the conclusion that 1 in 4 college women had been sexually assaulted.
Also included consensual sex that occurred after intoxication. (which I would guess was 90+% of the '1 in 4')
If you can be held accountable for drunk driving, then you should be equally accountable for consenting to drunk sex. Sadly, they don't care about consistency, just power.