• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: The Trump Presidency (XXX)

Status
Not open for further replies.
welshdean said:
According to Meidas Touch, Tacopina isn't calling any witnesses.
link
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what kind of witness they could call. :confused:

Someone to establish Trump's whereabouts for a few minutes decades ago ?

A character witness ?

They just have to hope that the opposition don't prove their case IMO.
 
The Don said:
I'm not sure what kind of witness they could call. :confused:

Someone to establish Trump's whereabouts for a few minutes decades ago ?

A character witness ?

They just have to hope that the opposition don't prove their case IMO.
Click to expand...

Character Witnesses.

Like Roger Stone, Rudi Giuliani, Kellyanne Conway...
 
The Don said:
According to Meidas Touch, Tacopina isn't calling any witnesses.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what kind of witness they could call. :confused:
Someone to establish Trump's whereabouts for a few minutes decades ago ?
A character witness ?
Click to expand...
Well, in theory they could try to find a psychologist of some type to explain why Carroll's actions were inconsistent with assault. (Although I'm pretty sure anyone they would find would be on the fringes of science.)
 
Norman Alexander said:
Wonder when people will catch on to the notion that Trump is a vexatious litigant, plus a prodigious purveyor of SLAPP lawsuits.
Click to expand...

I think I've mentioned this, after the recent Fox/Dominion lawsuit, a bunch of MAGAts have come out of the woodwork with, "Why doesn't someone sue CNN over the Russian hoax?"

Of course, Trump has sued CNN over the "Russian hoax" and every other thing. And he's lost every time. Not a "they settled for half of the cost of the lawsuit" lost (like those MAGAts claiming Fox "won" the Dominion case because they only paid $800 mil), but dismissed. Gonzo. Get it outta my courtroom lost.

Trump sues everyone all the time. And usually loses.
 
Looks like the video where Trump confused Carroll with his ex-wife will be played in court.

From: NBC News
Jurors hearing E. Jean Carroll's civil suit against Donald Trump on Thursday were shown a deposition video of the former president confusing the accuser with his ex-wife Marla Maples....In the excerpts played for the jury in Manhattan federal court, Trump maintained that despite the Maples mixup, Carroll was "not my type." Later he was asked if the three women he'd married were his type. "Yeah," he answered....Trump also acknowledged that when Carroll went public with her claims in a book she'd written, the then-president accused her of trying to boost her sales with a made-up story for financial and political reasons, even though at that point he didn't know her political affiliation, her financial situation or her publisher. Asked what the basis for his allegations were, Trump answered, "I don't know."

And unsurprisingly, even though he might be facing charges for defamation, he keeps shooting his mouth off. (But he said he might go to NY after all...)

Trump, however, told reporters on a golf course in Ireland on Thursday that he was "going back to New York" because of the case. Asked if he was going to the trial, he said, "I'll probably attend," according to a Sky News video of his remarks. "She's a fake," he said of Carroll. "It's a disgrace," he added.
 
Segnosaur said:
And unsurprisingly, even though he might be facing charges for defamation, he keeps shooting his mouth off. (But he said he might go to NY after all...)

Trump, however, told reporters on a golf course in Ireland on Thursday that he was "going back to New York" because of the case. Asked if he was going to the trial, he said, "I'll probably attend," according to a Sky News video of his remarks. "She's a fake," he said of Carroll. "It's a disgrace," he added.
Click to expand...

This specifically the kind of thing that the judge warned Tacopina might cross specific legal boundaries and put his client in legal jeopardy.
 
The Don said:
I'm not sure what kind of witness they could call. :confused:

Someone to establish Trump's whereabouts for a few minutes decades ago ?

A character witness ?

They just have to hope that the opposition don't prove their case IMO.
Click to expand...

George Santos: I was the Bergdorf Goodman sales assistant helping Carrol and Trump look for a gift and Trump never went into the dressing room.
 
My unqualified speculation is they've given up on the trial and are planning on appeals to get the verdict overturned claiming said witnesses and the AH tape should have been inadmissible.

Failing that they'll bargain for a small settlement now as opposed to waiting for years to get a larger final settlement. I'd speculate with a tad more evidence that Trump is skilled at that tactic.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
George Santos: I was the Bergdorf Goodman sales assistant helping Carrol and Trump look for a gift and Trump never went into the dressing room.
Click to expand...


I can picture the whole defense

I was never there.
and it was consensual.
and she sexually assaulted me.
and it wasn’t me it was Bill Clinton.
and the Russians did it.
 
Ladewig said:
I can picture the whole defense

I was never there.
and it was consensual.
and she sexually assaulted me.
and it wasn’t me it was Bill Clinton.
and the Russians did it.
Click to expand...

You forgot the part about the statute of limitations has passed
 
Ladewig said:
I can picture the whole defense

I was never there.
and it was consensual.
and she sexually assaulted me.
and it wasn’t me it was Bill Clinton.
and the Russians did it.
Click to expand...

I could see all except for that last one. Trump habitually doesn't blame the Russians. He wants to suck up to them and get in on their corrupt business.

Still, you forgot the whole "This is all an evil Democrat plot! They're targeting innocent me in yet another witch hunt because of how evil and corrupt they are!" shtick.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
My unqualified speculation is they've given up on the trial and are planning on appeals to get the verdict overturned claiming said witnesses and the AH tape should have been inadmissible.

Failing that they'll bargain for a small settlement now as opposed to waiting for years to get a larger final settlement. I'd speculate with a tad more evidence that Trump is skilled at that tactic.
Click to expand...
A few things going against him...

It looks like the courts have started to wise up and are handling his appeals a lot faster than they had been in the past. Its possible that any appeal he launches will get shot down in days as opposed to months/years.

And I suspect Carroll is not in this for the money. (Its not like Dominion/Fox news, where they would be willing to take the money and run). She's probably quite happy with a "guilty" verdict (ok, civil trial, so not actually "guilty" but "liable") and won't agree to any settlement that allows Trump to squirm out of responsibility. (Look at how he handled the Trump university settlement... tried to make it seem like he was being "generous" by giving money to the claimants.)
 
trump said yesterday he is cutting short his trip to Ireland to return to New York because of the Jean Carroll lawsuit trial. “I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me and I have a judge who’s extremely hostile,” trump said. trump has been vacationing at the resort he owns in Doonbeg. However, his attorney Joe Tacopina told the media he does not expect trump to attend any of the hearings.

Meantime, at the trial, yesterday jurors saw the video of trump's deposition.
At one point [in the deposition], presented with a photograph, the former president confused a former wife for the woman suing him for alleged rape. The picture featured Carroll, Trump and their spouses of the time. The former president looked at Carroll in the photograph and mistook her for his second wife, Marla Maples.

“That’s Marla. Yeah, that’s my wife,” he said.

Carroll’s lawyer pointed out that it was her client.

Trump replied: “It’s very blurry.” Guardian news link
Click to expand...

The photo in question -- see below -- is not blurry and the image of Carroll standing in front of trump is very clear.
 

Attachments

  • Never even met her.jpg
    Never even met her.jpg
    106.9 KB · Views: 12
pgwenthold said:
You forgot the part about the statute of limitations has passed
Click to expand...
And the part that because said statute of limitations has passed, this trial is civil, not criminal. I believe the rape allegation only needs to be background to the defamation charges.
 
Last edited:
When Trump gets around to dictating his autobiography, he will have a chapter on this best rape ever. Even the victims all agree they enjoyed their time. The chapter will be "The Art of the Rape."

He may use the term swoon, though. He swooned her.
 
Own worst enemy. There has been some push back from the judge presiding over the Jean Carroll trial, the judge that trump described as being "very hostile" Thursday to the media in Ireland. Earlier Judge Lewis Kaplan had expressed concern with trump's rants about the case on TruthSocial. Mediate reports:
In the days before the trial started, Trump posted insults on social media that did not amuse Judge Lewis Kaplan, to say the least. Tacopina told the court he would “try to address” the public postings about the case “with my client.”
“Well, I hope you’re more successful,” Judge Kaplan responded. He continued that Trump “may or may not be tampering with a new source of potential liability. … And I think you know what I mean.” Mediaite link
Click to expand...

Thursday Judge Kaplan apparently expressed concern over trump's statements he planned to return to New York to confront Jean Carroll, whom trump described as "a disgrace." trump's attorney, Joe Tacopina, however, has stated he does not expect trump to attend the trial. This led to the following exchange between Tacopina and Kaplan:
“I know you understand what I am dealing with,” Trump’s attorney Joe Tacopina told Senior U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan during a sidebar conference on Thursday.
“I’m not implying dishonesty on your part,” Kaplan told Tacopina, according to the transcript.
Click to expand...
 
Tero said:
When Trump gets around to dictating his autobiography, he will have a chapter on this best rape ever. Even the victims all agree they enjoyed their time. The chapter will be "The Art of the Rape."

He may use the term swoon, though. He swooned her.
Click to expand...

His old lawyer was out saying that a husband can’t rape his wife after the allegations about him raping Ivana came to light (he was wrong New York had changed their law by then), but in the end it wasn’t “rape rape”, just a bit of battery and totally consensual sex.
 
Darat said:
His old lawyer was out saying that a husband can’t rape his wife after the allegations about him raping Ivana came to light (he was wrong New York had changed their law by then), but in the end it wasn’t “rape rape”, just a bit of battery and totally consensual sex.
Click to expand...

And the right number of zeroes on the check.
 
Darat said:
His old lawyer was out saying that a husband can’t rape his wife after the allegations about him raping Ivana came to light (he was wrong New York had changed their law by then), but in the end it wasn’t “rape rape”, just a bit of battery and totally consensual sex.
Click to expand...

I think Ivana changed her story for some reason other than it wasn't true. Whether Trump threatened her, paid her off, or if she did it because of her children is anyone's guess. But I totally believe he did what she first described.
 
I found very interesting statements made by a lawyer for one of the convicted Jan6 rioters. It was in a memorandum submitted to argue for a lighter sentence. This past January the defendant, Peter Schwartz, had been convicted of assaulting Capitol Police. (He got 14 years.)
Schwartz’s lawyers wrote that his actions “were not motivated by any desire for personal financial gain or any other type of benefit” but rather “by a misunderstanding as to the facts surrounding the 2020 election,” and that Schwartz “knew next to nothing about the 2020 election and listened to sources of information that were clearly false. NBC News link
Click to expand...

Schwartz listened to sources of information that were clearly false? Probably the greatest source of false information about the 2020 election was none other than-
 

Attachments

  • Undisputed world champion liar.jpg
    Undisputed world champion liar.jpg
    98.8 KB · Views: 10
newyorkguy said:
I found very interesting statements made by a lawyer for one of the convicted Jan6 rioters. It was in a memorandum submitted to argue for a lighter sentence. This past January the defendant, Peter Schwartz, had been convicted of assaulting Capitol Police. (He got 14 years.)


Schwartz listened to sources of information that were clearly false? Probably the greatest source of false information about the 2020 election was none other than-
Click to expand...
It sounds like the usual conservative formula. He rioted and tore up the place and tried to kill people but he should be excused because he was too stupid and ignorant not to.
 
Peter Schwartz' lawyer wasn't asking the court to 'excuse' his client, he was asking that the prison sentence be on the low range, 4 1/2 years (Schwartz got 14).

But my point wasn't about Peter Schwartz, it was about donald trump. That the 'walls of history' seem to be closing in on trump in regards to his 2020 election fraud fantasy. How many times have I heard trump say, heard with my own ears, "There was massive fraud, everyone knows it."

  • Peter Schwartz lawyer tells a federal judge his client was motivated by information that was "clearly false."
  • Former vice president Mike Pence aid in a recent speech that trump's "reckless words endangered everyone at the Capitol that day."
  • In a text message Tucker Carlson called trump "a demonic force."

It is becoming clear that history -- if not the average Republican voter -- is rejecting trump's 2020 election narrative as clearly false and undeniably self-serving. Everyone from sportscaster Bob Costas to Peter Schwartz' lawyer acknowledges it. When will trump be held legally accountable? Is it right that he was able to damage our society through lies and deceit yet at no legal cost?
 
Stacyhs said:
I think Ivana changed her story for some reason other than it wasn't true. Whether Trump threatened her, paid her off, or if she did it because of her children is anyone's guess. But I totally believe he did what she first described.
Click to expand...
What she described in the book was rape, all that she changed was the word rape.
 
Since the Dominion v Fox lawsuit settlement, I'm wondering if Trump still pushes the 'stolen election' lie. Does anyone here know?
 
Darat said:
What she described in the book was rape, all that she changed was the word rape.
Click to expand...

A bit more than that:

"[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage," Ivana wrote in a 1993 statement. "As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a 'rape,' but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense."

“I have recently read some comments attributed to me from nearly 30 years ago at a time of very high tension during my divorce from Donald. The story is totally without merit,” Ivana said in a statement to CNN.

“That was all just the lawyers' talk”, she said, after having previously clarified she did not accuse him in “a literal or criminal sense”.

I think she had to walk it back as best she could. She couldn't say it never happened because she had said it in a sworn deposition, but for some reason having to do with Trump, she needed to minimize it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom