Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 FYI the verdict in the Carroll v Trump civil trial is about to be read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said: The jury has begun deliberations in the E.Jean Carroll v. Trump trial. Unanimity is required for a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, although the jury has wide latitude to determine what happened (i.e., rape, sexual assault, battery) and what the damages should be. I don't expect any immediate verdict, although you never know with juries. The verdict will be read any second now. ETA: Damn you, Scot the Edited May 9 by Tywin et al. Gaston de Foix 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 minute ago, DMC said: Yeah, I really don't..and I hope you don't think you "know better" either. Literally every presidential election this century has been about margins of error within a handful of states. I was responding to Jace there, not karaddin. Sure, but it ain't all about POTUS elections and Jace didn't state that it was, either. That was all you. Now that's definitely a big deal! But it ain't the only thing that matters, and increasingly states that have effectively abolished caring about margins of error in favor of having their politicians pick their voters are more common and more important. Along with when being in power exercising as many ways to exert non-election based control (court packing, court decisions, institutional destruction and decay, not actual enforcement of laws) as they can possibly do. The NC SCOTUS decisions a day ago to repeal three voting rights laws on the same day was a pretty remarkably brazen piece of power grabbing. It's not usual that courts are quite that obvious, especially when they're reversing the decisions that that actual court made just a few years back. That happened because NC got a supermajority in their house thanks to one dem defecting because dems made her feel bad combined with massive dark money pouring in to elect specific NC SCOTUS judges from across the land. End result is more entrenched power. Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) Trump is liable. https://news.bloomberglaw.com Edited May 9 by Ser Scot A Ellison Prince of the North, maarsen, ants and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) I'm not sure why the jury were a no on rape, but yes on sexual assault charges and defamation. $5M isn't bad considering how hard it can be to win these cases. Edited May 9 by Tywin et al. Mindwalker and Ser Scot A Ellison 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 15 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said: Sure, but it ain't all about POTUS elections and Jace didn't state that it was, either. K but it was what we all were talking about and she seemed to be implicitly responding to with "I'm no political scientist." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I'm not sure why the jury were a no on rape, but yes on sexual assault charges and defamation. Same. Doesn't make any logical sense to me. Anyway, I'm glad for her. Could've gone worse. I never expected this to have any impact on voters, other than the inevitable "NO RAPE" memes, anyway. Like NO COLLUSION. Edited May 9 by Mindwalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Mindwalker said: Same. Anyway, I'm glad for her. Never expected this to have any impact on voters, other than the inevitable "NO RAPE" memes... What I'm going to write next is graphic, so I'll put in spoiler tags. Spoiler I thought they said that Carroll testified that she was penetrated, but couldn't say for sure if it was Trump's penis. I've always been of the understanding that is considered rape, but every jurisdiction has it's own standards. Regardless though her story was deemed credible even by jurors that didn't seem to be very attentive. Edited May 9 by Tywin et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: What I'm going to write next is graphic, so I'll put in spoiler tags. Hide contents I thought they said that Carroll testified that she was penetrated, but couldn't say for sure if it was Trump's penis. I've always been of the understanding that is considered rape, but every jurisdiction has it's own standards. Regardless though her story was deemed credible even by jurors that didn't seem to be very attentive. Spoiler I thought she also testified that Trump ejaculated on the dress, but I haven't read the transcripts. There was a whole issue of DNA on the dress that didn't go anywhere, IIRC. Anyway, the verdict is illogical, but psychologically understandable. One juror was unwilling to go as far as finding rape for whatever reason. Maybe political leanings, maybe risk-aversion, maybe contrariness, maybe for the reasons Ty gives above. This wasn't an open and shut case simply by virtue of it being a stale claim. They tend to be viewed with skepticism, and have unique evidentiary difficulties. Ormond and Tywin et al. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 I see. Ugh about the spoiler tagged distinction... It's unfortunate he can't be held criminally accountable. As to the money, we all know that he'll grift more from this than he has to pay... In fact, he'll probably have his PAC pay for it. He actually continued to insult her (and the judge) during the trial. Which is why any of these civil trials are frustrating for me. Good for E. Jean Carroll though, she was very brave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindwalker Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 I was wrong; apparently it's not "NO RAPE" but still "WITCH HUNT, I don't know that woman"... will be better for the grift I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 Yeah, it sucks that he'll never be held criminally liable for what he's done, and the money will come from idiots who still support him, but this is reputationally damaging. Kind of the same deal with Fox and Murdoch. They all deserve far worse, more so than any shark could do, but the ability to deny the obvious is shrinking outside of the people in their cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Yeah, it sucks that he'll never be held criminally liable for what he's done, and the money will come from idiots who still support him, but this is reputationally damaging. Yes, Trump famously has such a great reputation Durckad, Larry of the Lawn and TrackerNeil 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phylum of Alexandria Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 13 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Yeah, it sucks that he'll never be held criminally liable for what he's done, and the money will come from idiots who still support him, but this is reputationally damaging. Kind of the same deal with Fox and Murdoch. They all deserve far worse, more so than any shark could do, but the ability to deny the obvious is shrinking outside of the people in their cult. Hopefully he gets asked about it a lot on camera so that white college educated suburban women remain repulsed by him. Jace, Extat 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said: Hopefully he gets asked about it a lot on camera so that white college educated suburban women remain repulsed by him. IMO, the real benefit of this verdict is that it frames the conversation around a topic about which he is personally and politically vulnerable, and steps on the "Trump is running away with the Republican nomination" narrative that been building a head of steam. It hurts him politically, now and all summer long. Maybe hurting him politically now doesn't matter by the time the Iowa caucus rolls around, or by Nov. 2024. But any effort in that direction is valuable. I should also say, I'm sure that Trump's attorneys offered $5 million or considerably more to E. Jean to drop the case. She didn't do it for the money, which is more than one can say about Dominion, or the Trump University folks etc. Edited May 9 by Gaston de Foix typo Fragile Bird, Kalbear, Phylum of Alexandria and 1 other 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 33 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said: Yes, Trump famously has such a great reputation Eh, there's some value in being able to start every article with a version of, "Trump, who was found guilty unanimously of sexual assault by a jury." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 3 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: Eh, there's some value in being able to start every article with a version of, "Trump, who was found guilty unanimously of sexual assault by a jury." He was found “liable”. You are only found “guilty” if you are accused of criminal charges. FYI. Tywin et al. and ants 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 Criminal charges filed agains George Santos (if that is his name) by the US Justice Department. Under seal until Monday. https://twitter.com/joncoopertweets/status/1656050452658618371?s=46&t=6f2pTCn5vNYPb05sK9Ubrw Martell Spy, Tywin et al., maarsen and 2 others 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: What I'm going to write next is graphic, so I'll put in spoiler tags. Spoiler She testified definitively that his fingers penetrated her vagina. Evidently a juror didn't consider that rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywin et al. Posted May 9 Share Posted May 9 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: He was found “liable”. You are only found “guilty” if you are accused of criminal charges. FYI. Thanks for the correction. But does it not still give media outlets more leeway for what they can say about him? 12 minutes ago, Zorral said: Reveal hidden contents She testified definitively that his fingers penetrated her vagina. Evidently a juror didn't consider that rape. My understanding was that she said that was the minimal amount he did, she just couldn't confirm if it was more that that but felt that it could be. Regardless though we already knew Trump is probably a rapist based on his first wife's statements. Edited May 9 by Tywin et al. Gaston de Foix 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts