Trump charged

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Nah. He declassified them all with his mind.

"I'm automatically attracted to classified documents, I just start declassifying them. It's like a magnet, just declassify. I don't even wait, when your a star they let you do it. You can declassify anything. Grab 'em by the ring binder. You can covefe anything"

[Svensson]

this is the part I so fascinating about Trumpism. He says "I have declassified them the moment I moved them out of the WH". Or, "I just said, They are declassified". Or, "I classified them by thinking about declassification".

Thing is, it MUST BE CLEAR to all but the dumbest inverebrates (and DJT is one of them) that there IS A PROCESS for doing this. A declasification process. I mean I can understand if maybe 3-5% of the population who more or less live off the grid don't know this, but not 20-40% as all the trumpists suggest. These processes exist PRECISELY to avoid situations when there is a document that has "classified" stamped on it and the owner claims that it is actually DE-classified. So there must be a paper-trail of what has been declassified, when, why and by whom.

I am absolutely astonished that this is not clear to everyone.....

Worse now, the press treat this as the big AH-HA!!! moment. Like this is the big new revelation that will bury him. THIS WAS SO CLEAR ALL ALONG !!!!!! WAAAAAHHHHH!

anyways, it's almost G&T o'clock here now. I shall calm down and work out how the heck I can get to Istanbul next month.

Cheers.

[Ally]

more trouble for Trump.

Nah. He declassified them all with his mind.

[String]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/donald-trump-classified-documents-development

more trouble for Trump.

[Ally]

His exact words were, and I quote, "“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait,When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab ’em by the *****. You can do anything.”

So you see a hot woman on the street and you don't even wait, you just walk up and grab her by the *****, and you want to claim that's not sexual assault? Grabbing a woman without permission and kissing her is not sexual assault? You have the right to force yourself on any woman's vagina or lips you want? That's not sexual assault?

Let's talk about his comments on how he would use his power and privilege to go into the backstage are of the Miss Universe contest to ogle naked teenagers.

Got any comment on that?

I do love how you dismiss bragging about sexual assault as locker room talk. Men who go around bragging that they can grab women by the ***** with no repercussions and the men who defnd them are degenerate pieces of ****.

So congrats We now know where you stand. You defend men sexually assaulting women as being no big thing. I'm sure you'll defend him using his power to ogle naked women when they're defenseless as also being no big thing.

You're a disgusting piece of ****.

[jason_c]

Yes, her friends were on the Apprentice and she was a MASSIVE fan of her friends. But I like how you parse HER words.

How do you feel about DOnald Trump's words bragging on tape about being allowed to sexually assault women and get away with it because he was famous? I'd love to hear your take on HIS words?

Oh I can believe her friends were on the show. I am not questioning that. She tweeted 'so many good TV shows to watch on a Sunday night' then replied to her own tweet 'she was a massive fan of the Apprentice'. She can watch any TV show she wishes, just a bit strange tweeting she's a fan of the show NOT excited to watch her friend(s).

Trump did not brag of sexual assault. Anyway, a known blowhard exaggerating on a subject men are known to exaggerate on.

[Ally]

Her friends were on the apprentice? Carroll tweeted or wrote she was 'a MASSIVE fan of the Apprentice'. Her use of the capital letters. She did not write 'excited to watch her friends'...'rooting for Alice or Billy Bob to win' on the show. No. Carroll said she is a 'massive fan of the Apprentice'. I'm not buying it that she turned it off when Trump came on when she implies she is a fan of the entire show, the Apprentice.

Yes, her friends were on the Apprentice and she was a MASSIVE fan of her friends. But I like how you parse HER words.

How do you feel about DOnald Trump's words bragging on tape about being allowed to sexually assault women and get away with it because he was famous? I'd love to hear your take on HIS words?

[jason_c]

My comment was in response to how someone can be brought to trial for something they haven't been convicted of. Keep up with your own arguments, sugar. And of course, the lack of a rape trial, this has nothing at all to do with women being publicly humiliated every time they bring a rape charge, especially when the man they are bringing the charge against is a multi-millionaire who bribes his way out of everything. Gee ...shocking. You want talk about the massive failures of bias in our criminal justice system, against poor Donald Trump and the bias against him? Let's talk about rape trials and the slut shaming and victim blaming that goes on. I'll take you to school. Like below.



Actually you are wrong. Not only were they allowed to bring into evidence, they grilled her on it. And her resposne was that two of her friends were on the show and she watched THEIR portions and not the end of the show, when Trump came on.

You know what was also allowed? Donald Trump on tape bragging about how he could get away with sexually assualting women because of his Celebrity.
10

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/social-chat/pub-talk/807966-trump-charged/page10#post809933

See it's funny how many of y'all are out here Defending Donald, when you don't **** about what you are talking about. Man, folks feeling free to talk about **** they are dirt ignorant on but feeling perfectly righteous in their ignorance based opinions. One of the prevailing ills of our society.



He is not a POTUS he's an ex-POTUS and who gives a **** if he is a POTUS. His poltical standing is irrelevant He's a person who brags about sexually assaulting women. It's not a political motivated accusation, when he is LITERALLY on tape BRAGGING about it.

You specifically said 'where the criminal justice system failed'. It didn't fail here. It wasn't even attempted. Not even a complaint to law enforcement.

Her friends were on the apprentice? Carroll tweeted or wrote she was 'a MASSIVE fan of the Apprentice'. Her use of the capital letters. She did not write 'excited to watch her friends'...'rooting for Alice or Billy Bob to win' on the show. No. Carroll said she is a 'massive fan of the Apprentice'. I'm not buying it that she turned it off when Trump came on when she implies she is a fan of the entire show, the Apprentice.

POTUS will have certain rights & responsibilities which not many courts will have had to deal with. As I stated previously though, I'm less certain this case will be overturned or successfully appealed than the Bragg indictment. That case will almost certainly be won by Trump in one court or another.

[Ally]

Criminal justice failed? Criminal justice wasn't even attempted in this instance.

My comment was in response to how someone can be brought to trial for something they haven't been convicted of, which was some BS you were spouting. Keep up with your own arguments, sugar. And of course, the lack of a rape trial, this has nothing at all to do with women being publicly humiliated every time they bring a rape charge, especially when the man they are bringing the charge against is a multi-millionaire who bribes his way out of everything. Gee ...shocking. You want talk about the massive failures of bias in our criminal justice system, against poor Donald Trump and the bias against him? Let's talk about rape trials and the slut shaming and victim blaming that goes on. I'll take you to school. Like below.

Nothing for the best part of 30 years, in which time Carroll publicly stated she was a massive fan of the Apprentice(I don't think the Trump lawyers were allowed to bring in this evidence). Not sure I'd be wanting to watch my rapist on television, but everyone's different, I suppose.

Actually you are wrong. Not only were they allowed to bring into evidence, they grilled her on it. And her resposne was that two of her friends were on the show and she watched THEIR portions and not the end of the show, when Trump came on.

You know what was also allowed? Donald Trump on tape bragging about how he could get away with sexually assualting women because of his Celebrity.

See it's funny how many of y'all are out here Defending Donald, when you don't **** about what you are talking about. Man, folks feeling free to talk about **** they are dirt ignorant on but feeling perfectly righteous in their ignorance based opinions. One of the prevailing ills of our society.

We are, I think, in something approaching a legal 'undiscovered country' when a POTUS is expected to be accused of rape and not respond. But hey, we can't have a partisan politician defend himself against very public accusations.

He is not a POTUS he's an ex-POTUS and who gives a **** if he is a POTUS. His poltical standing is irrelevant He's a person who brags about sexually assaulting women. It's not a political motivated accusation, when he is LITERALLY on tape BRAGGING about it.

[jason_c]

That's not what he said. He said he didn't particularly follow the news but got his info. from Tim Pool. You have ZERO data on the jury's political leanings and wrongly assumed they were from Manhattan, when most of them were from elsewhere. All you're really doing is regurgitating DJT's own talking points.

What you might wish to consider is that your man Trump's big mouth is what caused this lawsuit. He could have kept his mouth shut or said "my lawyers are handling these allegations" and Carroll would not have had any grounds for a suit.

He didn't do that. He's always been the smartest guy in the room and listens to no one. His own lawyers say he is a loose cannon and a nightmare to defend. He created the lawsuit by calling her a nutjob and a liar, so she sued for defamation. Under the law, she has every right to defend herself from slander. Even after the lawsuit was filed, he stupidly doubled down and repeated his allegations.

In effect, his mouth cost him $5,000,000. Those are not the actions of a stable genius.

Nope. A juror said he sometimes listens to podcasts, one of which he said was Tim Pool. He could listen to a dozen other podcasts, we don't know the names of them and the court sure hasn't told us in any greater detail. You already listed what the jurors said a few pages back, now you subtly change the wording to make one appear more MAGA than his known comments suggest.

[rjpalmer]

Someone saying they occasionally listen to independent podcasts, one of which is Tim Pool does not a hardcore MAGA supporter make. I notice you don't 'suspect' this jury member is MAGA or leans right you 'know he is MAGA'. What has been released is the Tim Pool comment, for all we know the same jury member may listen to a dozen other podcasts of various political leanings.

That's not what he said. He said he didn't particularly follow the news but got his info. from Tim Pool. You have ZERO data on the jury's political leanings and wrongly assumed they were from Manhattan, when most of them were from elsewhere. All you're really doing is regurgitating DJT's own talking points.

What you might wish to consider is that your man Trump's big mouth is what caused this lawsuit. He could have kept his mouth shut or said "my lawyers are handling these allegations" and Carroll would not have had any grounds for a suit.

He didn't do that. He's always been the smartest guy in the room and listens to no one. His own lawyers say he is a loose cannon and a nightmare to defend. He created the lawsuit by calling her a nutjob and a liar, so she sued for defamation. Under the law, she has every right to defend herself from slander. Even after the lawsuit was filed, he stupidly doubled down and repeated his allegations.

In effect, his mouth cost him $5,000,000. Those are not the actions of a stable genius.

[jason_c]

He wasn't being sued for rape. He was being sued for defamation--He claimed SHE had lied about being raped. She convinced a jury--which we know included at least one hard-core MAGA supporter--that she hadn't lied about the incident, thus he defamed HER. She was, in effect, defending herself...not the other way around. Trump failed to convince the jury that he was telling the truth about it not happening, based on other women giving compelling testimony, and Carroll haven given compelling testimony.

Why do you think billionaires are above the law?

Someone saying they occasionally listen to independent podcasts, one of which is Tim Pool does not a hardcore MAGA supporter make. I notice you don't 'suspect' this jury member is MAGA or leans right you 'know he is MAGA'. What has been released is the Tim Pool comment, for all we know the same jury member may listen to a dozen other podcasts of various political leanings.

[jason_c]

LOL.. in order to go after the "judge for being "biased" you have to have EVIDENCE that the judge was biased. Of which ... there is none. None of his rulings placed an undue burden on the defendant.

The judge, gave the instruction that is legally required by law. See, we allow people to seek CIVIL justice, when for whatever reason, criminal justice failed. Or even when it succeeds. Civil different than criminal. Same action, different court system. As in ... there being no physical evidence and it being a his word against her word situation the jury gets to decide who they believe. Which is a different standard to PUTTING Someone in jail for the same offense. You can believe someone committed a crime, but not have the sufficient evidence to lead to a conviction. But if that CRIME caused you ACTUAL HARM, you can sue them for the pain and suffering.

How is that a hard concept to comprehend by any adult living in free society? Civil cases exist in the UK too. It is literally NO DIFFERENT. How are you living in a society where you don't comprehend how the system works?

Someone can cause you harm and you are allowed to seek legal damages, regardless of whether they go to jail or not for that harm.

Lawd. The Right Wing defenders are really light in the thinking department, aint they?

Eh? At what point did I suggest this was anything other than a civil trial. I think you are indulging in a bit of strawmanning here. Criminal justice failed? Criminal justice wasn't even attempted in this instance. Nothing for the best part of 30 years, in which time Carroll publicly stated she was a massive fan of the Apprentice(I don't think the Trump lawyers were allowed to bring in this evidence). Not sure I'd be wanting to watch my rapist on television, but everyone's different, I suppose.

I suspect the legal process in this case is not over or completely settled. We are, I think, in something approaching a legal 'undiscovered country' when a POTUS is expected to be accused of rape and not respond. But hey, we can't have a partisan politician defend himself against very public accusations.

[rjpalmer]

I still can't quite figure out why defending yourself publicly against an accusation of rape when you haven't been convicted or arrested for rape is somehow wrong or worthy of a $5million settlement.

He wasn't being sued for rape. He was being sued for defamation--He claimed SHE had lied about being raped. She convinced a jury--which we know included at least one hard-core MAGA supporter--that she hadn't lied about the incident, thus he defamed HER. She was, in effect, defending herself...not the other way around. Trump failed to convince the jury that he was telling the truth about it not happening, based on other women giving compelling testimony, and Carroll haven given compelling testimony.

Why do you think billionaires are above the law?

[Ally]

I'm not an American, nor a lawyer licensed to practice law in New York state. However, one possible way, I think, would be to go after the judge as being biased, infringing his rights in some way. I mean jury trials must have been appealed or overturned before this one, surely? I still can't quite figure out why defending yourself publicly against an accusation of rape when you haven't been convicted or arrested for rape is somehow wrong or worthy of a $5million settlement. I suppose this is what happens when the judge gives a closing statement to the jury indicating that if the jury thought there was >50% likelihood that Carroll was raped that it meant Trump was culpable. Thankfully none of us here are former POTUS on trial in Manhattan.

Edit; I remember when the Stormy Daniels civil case was all done and dusted...until it wasn't.

LOL.. in order to go after the "judge for being "biased" you have to have EVIDENCE that the judge was biased. Of which ... there is none. None of his rulings placed an undue burden on the defendant.

The judge, gave the instruction that is legally required by law. See, we allow people to seek CIVIL justice, when for whatever reason, criminal justice failed. Or even when it succeeds. Civil different than criminal. Same action, different court system. As in ... there being no physical evidence and it being a his word against her word situation the jury gets to decide who they believe. Which is a different standard to PUTTING Someone in jail for the same offense. You can believe someone committed a crime, but not have the sufficient evidence to lead to a conviction. But if that CRIME caused you ACTUAL HARM, you can sue them for the pain and suffering.

How is that a hard concept to comprehend by any adult living in free society? Civil cases exist in the UK too. It is literally NO DIFFERENT. How are you living in a society where you don't comprehend how the system works?

Someone can cause you harm and you are allowed to seek legal damages, regardless of whether they go to jail or not for that harm.

Lawd. The Right Wing defenders are really light in the thinking department, aint they?