Trump is likely to be found liable for rape. Smug BS like this is a big reason why.
Now it’s entirely possible that Caroll maded the whole thing up, and that the other two women who testified that Trump assaulted them also made up their stories. And that the Access Hollywood tape really was just “locker room talk.” Maybe so, maybe not. It’s also true that an NYC jury would likely find Trump liable for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby and that the NY law lifting the statute of limtitations stinks to high heaven.
But, after extensive discovery and a full trial, we’re (likely) going to have a judgement from a jury finding that Trump is a rapist.
It’s time for Trumpers to take the L. This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh. You cannot run an adjudged rapist for president and hope to win.
@Bauxite
Trump is likely to be found liable for rape. Smug BS like this is a big reason why.
No, it’s really not. And what’s more Bauxite, you ACKNOWLEDGE it isn’t just below.
It’s also true that an NYC jury would likely find Trump liable for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby and that the NY law lifting the statute of limtitations stinks to high heaven.
But apparently that gets ignored because you can complain about Trump’s mean twee-rr, Smug Response.
It’s time for Trumpers to take the L. This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh.
I have been polite to you before Bauxite, and talked through before when we previously discussed Trump.
That stops right goddamn now.
Because NO, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, this is VERY MUCH LIKE THE KAVANAUGH AND THOMAS DRIVE-BYS.
Because unlike you, I happen to remember when the entire MSM turned on its heels in unison for the Five Minute Hates against Kavanaugh, and even responded to his JUSTIFIABLE rage at being falsely accused as Kafkatrap like evidence he was guilty.
Of course, I’m sure you will move goal posts to try and claim some bullshit, arbitrary reason why it “isn’t REALLY (TM)” like the Kavanaugh and Thomas “drive bys.” In spite of following virtually identical MOs and processes, based on the usual trite talking points about how Bad Orange Man is and his Real and Alleged previous behavior while ignoring the fact that drive bys and witch hunts aren’t viewed as the same because of whether or not the person gunned down in a drive by is a gangster or a nun (or in rare cases both) or if the person being burned is really a witch.
And the fact that you have the audacity to try and Victim Blame (because that is what is doing) and try to score a “win” for this over the “Trumpers” on grounds YOU ADMIT do not add up because of the systematic biases of NYC underlines it.
We get it Bauxite. You hate Trump. That’s acceptable.
But victim blaming and spewing this kind of poison on us? That’s something else.
You cannot run an adjudged rapist for president and hope to win.
And you’d like that, wouldn’t you? You’ve certainly been more than happy to engage in special pleading regarding Trump, in spite of the rest of us (including our hosts) trying to ram it through that impermeable skull of yours that this isn’t ultimately about the Great Orange Whale.
All while engaging in intricate sophistry and philosophical aerobatics to try and avoid addressing the points Neo, myself, and a host of others witnessing this atrocity has, usually on grounds of “Well if no Republican can Win/If they can do this to anybody, why bother with Trump?”
Without realizing the problems with that. ESPECIALLY when you realize this is not about who to run for election (and I concede there are many practical reasons to not run Trump for election even without this) and onto a Politicized Trial.
Show some basic fucking humanity and decency and stop trying to get the “Trumpers” to “take an L” and focus more on objecting to the obvious injustice, or go Fuck right Off, because laboriously explaining to you how this really isn’t as different from X or Y as you want to pretend it is got tedious the first or second times I did it.
It’s time for Trumpers to take the L. This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh. You cannot run an adjudged rapist for president and hope to win.
That would be a fair point, Bauxite, if I had any respect for deep blue jury pools. If and when the time comes, we can discuss further. As one might guess, convictions on any of various pending phony charges will only stiffen my resolve.
Agreed with Banned to some degree; I can recognize the pragmatic value in possibly shifting away from Trump after a bogus rape conviction, but that doesn’t actually do more or less to degrade the man himself in truth (and he has done more than enough in actuality to both give credit and blame to himself).
Trying to turn this into a “Lol Trumpers Suck, Trump Sucks” thing was always both stupid and immoral, especially the desperate pre-emptive attempt to claim “Oh, but them doing Kavanaugh and Thomas isn’t REALLY the same.”
this is a fundamental question of justice and accountability, new york is really gotham, dc is the Capitol, in neither is there any law
There are credible claims of rape against Biden. Why aren’t they investigated?
turtler – I’m not sure its even worth responding. You seem to have gone over the edge.
So you think the GOP could persuade voters that three different women fabricated stories and that a judge and nine jurors all got it wrong despite Trump having full discovery and representation throughout the process? After Trump bragged on tape about doing more or less the same thing that he is accused of doing to these women? Do you really think that voters are going to be persuaded because Trump claimed that the plaintiff (and her attorney) are not his type?
Banned Lizard – It really doesn’t matter whether you have any faith in blue jury pools. The matter is whether voters have any faith in blue jury pools.
“Vote for my candidate, the legal process that found him liable for rape is hopelessly corrupt and all three women were lying.”
I’m sorry, that’s not a winning message.
We can pretend the off broadway play is real look passed the mountain of actual murders rapes robberies that this regime has unleashed since 2021
@Bauxite
turtler – I’m not sure its even worth responding.
Judging from the quality (or LACK thereof) of your posts whenever the Great Orange Whale is brought up, it almost certainly isn’t.
But that’s because what you posted was NEVER WORTH POSTING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You seem to have gone over the edge.
Oh, “I seem to have gone over the edge”?
I and many others have put up with weeks, months of your brain, rational faculties, and whatever passes for ethics short-circuiting just about whenever Trump is brought up Of you pushing ludicrous strawmen in an attempt to not merely criticize Trump (something most people on here have done from one degree or another) but to demonize him, while insulting those who support or at some points even defend him.
You’ve even resorted to gaslighting me on occasion.
And now you’ve sunk so low as to blame the victim of an obviously politically bullshit prosecution and use the opportunity to gloat about it to others.
And you are saying I’M the one who “seems” to have “gone over the edge” because I bother using somewhat salty language to describe your hideously illogical and immoral nonsense?
Language that I assure you is a fraction of what this warrants?
So you think the GOP could persuade voters that three different women fabricated stories
Obviously that has worked before, as we eventually managed by pushing through with Kavanagh and a few others (such as Giuliani). You can argue and grandstand all you want about how “Trump is Different” or how those other cases should never have happened in the first place, but Neo – who is HARDLY a Trump Cultist and who I *dare* you to argue has “gone over the edge” (seriously you intellectual coward, do it if you dare) and who has even admitted these charges stick to Trump more than most – has had to POINT OUT that shenanigans like this not only CAN be done against almost any conservative, but HAVE in fact been done against many of them.
You just *ignored* that like you ignore most counterexamples and contrary evidence. Because you have no good way to address them beyond idiotic, illogical special pleading that “This time it’s different!!” Without a good explanation of why.
and that a judge and nine jurors all got it wrong
Which has happened before, and SHOULD be better noted.
The fact that it doesn’t does not in fact argue in FAVOR of your point, but in favor of mine.
Like Ted Stevens asked when he questioned – in despair after an ordeal of years- where one went to get their reputation back, a Republican Party or Conservative Movement that is not well organized enough to OPPOSE unjust political prosecutions of its members and highlight overturns in miscarriages of justice is NOT one that will be competitive in the long run under these conditions, and frankly is one that does not DESERVE to be so.
Precisely because this is a matter that goes BEYOND electability or mere politics.
The fact that you – in your staggering hubris – seem not to GET That or even to be able to pay LIP SERVICE to it is why I curse you for your indifference, illogic, and lack of morals.
despite Trump having full discovery and representation throughout the process?
But will he ACTUALLY have so?
Take a look at how long it took for him to get confirmation that YES, the FBI had spied on him.
Take a look at how the National Archives lied about their role in the raid on Mar-a-Lago and what it took for THAT to be revealed.
Take a look at how hard the Left fought tooth and nail to prevent the revealing of raw footage from January 6th and to suppress Sicknick’s autopsy. And take a look at the attempts to engage in political witch hunts and demonization against Trump’s legal representation in the past.
Are you actually fucking stupid enough to think that Trump and his legal team having full and effective representation AND Discovery is something that can be taken for granted in the wonderful world that is New York City in Current Year?
Do you not even care how nakedly stupid, oblivious, and unhinged this kind of argumentation makes you look like to anybody who bothers to parse through what you write to see what you’re actually saying?
After Trump bragged on tape about doing more or less the same thing that he is accused of doing to these women?
See above. And no, it isn’t “more or less the same thing.”
Of course, if you admitted that, your argument would snap like a twig, as would your attempts to strawman me as some kind of Trump cultist.
So it’s obvious why you are doing it.
Do you really think that voters are going to be persuaded because Trump claimed that the plaintiff (and her attorney) are not his type?
After all this and you STILL don’t fucking get it?
You’re obsessed with VOTES in an ELECTION that may not even be authentic in this discussion about a POLITICAL PROSECUTION?!?!
To HELL with “voters” and to hell with running Trump in an election. I really could go either way on that, as I’ve freely admitted (AND WHICH YOU SHOULD KNOW IF YOU BOTHERED ACTUALLY READING WHAT I’VE WRITTEN TO YOU IN THE PAST).
This goes BEYOND that. Because you shouldn’t have to be “electable” or able to be elected by “voters” from across the country in order to get a fair trial. Which is why it is important to fight things like that. Because even Orange Cheeto Hitler deserves better.
And because this SHOULDN’T be primarily about him. This shouldn’t PRIMARILY be about 2024 or another election or ballots. And if it can be done to Trump, it can be done to just about Anybody, and it certainly can be ATTEMPTED with anyone. Success or failure or whether or not the accusations “stick” to a given personality is of relevance but ultimately a footnote, because to quote someone far smarter and more courageous than you.
THE PROCESS IS THE PUNISHMENT. – Mark Steyn
So how pray tell do you think I or others should respond to your latest bit of vomit on this blog about how “Trumpers” should “take an L” because of Trump’s personality, when you YOURSELF admitted in literally the exact same Goddamn Comment that the trial is almost certainly politically trainted?
Do you really think you deserve a pat on the back and a “You’re right Bauxite, we really should be gloating at Trump and Trumpers because of an election during the little, insignificant fact of a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED WITCH HUNT?”
Well even if you do think that, I think not.
It really doesn’t matter whether you have any faith in blue jury pools. The matter is whether voters have any faith in blue jury pools.
The problem, as I pointed out oh Bauxite, is that a fucking functional justice system SHOULD NOT BE SOLELY RELIANT upon having faith in Leftist/Dem Jury Pools. indeed, it is one major reason why our system is organized the way it does.
And the depths of the taint (starting with the fact that this case was brought at all) shows a systematic failure that is a grave threat to just about anybody who cares about the course of this Republic.
Something you seem to have “missed” in favor of talking about how “Trumpers” should “take an L.”
Because apparently learning from Goddamn History is beyond you.
“Vote for my candidate, the legal process that found him liable for rape is hopelessly corrupt and all three women were lying.”
I’m sorry, that’s not a winning message.
I’m sorry fuckhead but there are far, FAR more important things than just an election, and far, far more important things to WIN (or LOSE) than an election, even an election for the most powerful elected office in human history.
By all means, I have no great problem with casting Trump aside in the general election if that is what is needed.
But if you can’t see why I or many others would have a problem of casting him aside TO THE TENDER MERCIES OF A CORRUPTED, LEFTIST JUDICIARY IN A NAKEDLY POLITICIZED TRIAL then you really HAVE nothing of merit to offer, and should take up my offer to Fuck. Right. Off.
Because at that point you are worse than the proverbial appeaser feeding a crocodile in the hopes of being eaten last.
I say worse, because at least the appeaser feeding the crocodile can theoretically know what he is doing and trying to get out of it, and can put that knowledge to use (such as to buy time so that the crocodile doesn’t have the chance to “eat them last” like in the case of Sweden or Switzerland).
You on the other hand seem to have little acknowledgement and even less awareness of how a crocodile powerful enough to eat Trump on trumped up charges will be powerful enough to do the same to others. HAS in fact done similar to others.
And you offer no succor for dealing with that.
And no, “Don’t run Trump, run someone else and vote harder” ISN’T dealing with that. It’s just dealing with the election.
That has its own merits, but it isn’t rolling back leftist abuse of the judiciary and court systems.
“Vote for my candidate, the legal process that found him liable for rape is hopelessly corrupt and all three women were lying.”
I’m sorry, that’s not a winning message.
Isn’t this just a defamation lawsuit? He won’t be found liable for rape but for defamation. If he loses it just means he didn’t succeed in proving the truth of his statements about plaintiff, as truth is a defense against a defamation charge. But that’s not even in the same zip code as “liable for rape.”
Turtler, please dial it back. You write a lot that’s useful and educational to read, but the bold caps-lock f-bomb stew is starting to annoy me.
@Phillip Sells
Fair enough, but Bauxite’s concern trolling and obsessive vendetta (and gloating) regarding Trump have annoyed me for weeks. This was a particularly bad look precisely because it showed how they apparently focused more on their pet peeve and how it hurt Trump’s chances with the election than on what a harassment and miscarriage of justice it is.
I do not make a habit of cursing profusely, even with those who disagree with me. But I do not see much reason to hold back if I believe someone is acting in bad faith, and my previous experiences with Bauxite (including gaslighting) meant this was one of the final straws for me. Someone who is more obsessed with “Trumpers” and if they can take an L over what this represents for the US as a whole (in large part because they – falsely – tell themselves “this is different!” when it comes to candidates they prefer) is being both insulting to much of their fellows on the blog and wasting the time of those that bother to read through their writings as I did.
And again, I’m not exactly a “Trumper.” Indeed at this point I am Trump Agnostic. But I’m certainly not interested in gloating about Trump’s misfortunes to the expense of pointing out (as Bauxite acknowledges) how *broken* the US Legal system and particularly NYC is.
It’s like the “But the Mean Twee- err, Smug BS!” meme often used to mock or even strawman criticisms of Trump by everybody from David “Creases in Pants” French to our own host, only played literally and adopted as a battle call by someone apparently devoid of awareness (both situational and self). And after a couple months of this in between attempts to discuss the matter civilly I got fed up, and I have no compulsion about outlining why.
Jimmy:
You wrote, “If he loses it just means he didn’t succeed in proving the truth of his statements about plaintiff, as truth is a defense against a defamation charge.”
In what universe should a defamation defendant have to PROVE the truth of his or her statements about plaintiff in order to not be found guilty of defamation? A great deal more than that should be required of the plaintiff in order to win. The defendant’s statements are not presumed false until proven true.
By the way, it is my opinion that saying someone accusing you of a crime is lying about that should NEVER be grounds for a defamation suit. I don’t care if it’s Trump or Biden who says “I didn’t do it,” or Joe Schmo. Should be barred from being grounds for a defamation lawsuit because there is a societal interest in a person being allowed to defend him or herself when accused, even if the person defending himself is lying.
What’s more, saying “she’s not my type” also should not be defamation as a matter of law. It is an opinion about one’s own personal sexual preferences, and that is all it is.
In what universe should a defamation defendant have to PROVE the truth of his or her statements about plaintiff in order to not be found guilty of defamation? A great deal more than that should be required of the plaintiff in order to win. The defendant’s statements are not presumed false until proven true.
Oh, I agree. Proving his statement true would be sufficient, but shouldn’t be necessary. And in this case it means proving a negative, which is especially hard. My point was more that with a NY jury, sadly, it might be necessary for Trump to do that in order to prevail.
But my really main point was that people here and elsewhere keep discussing this as if it were a rape trial, which it’s not.
Vivek.
“In what universe should a defamation defendant have to PROVE the truth of his or her statements about plaintiff in order to not be found guilty of defamation?”
(And I very much doubt that Nancisaurus, and her oh-so-profound opinionating, is a “one-off”…though I suppose SOME might claim that she is no longer a Rep. and therefore doesn’t represent anyone but herself; and never really did represent anyone but herself even when she WAS a Rep; and never had much influence anyway….)
Barry Meislin:
Nancy Pelosi is still a member of the House of Representatives.
Right. Thanks.
Vivek.
FYI – I’ve stopped reading turtler’s comments.
Anyway, it isn’t just a defamation case. Carroll is also making a civil claim for battery. The standard of proof is lower than a criminal case, but the burden of proving the battery claim falls on Carroll. If she wins on the battery claim, it means that the jury believes that she affirmatively proved the elements of battery to the civil standard (i.e., a proponderance or more likely that not).
its hot steaming garbage, served on a bed of larks vomit,
you can’t defend against it, because there is no date attached, it resembles the danchenko dossier that ben smith floated in buzzfeed, as its all hearsay, but the purpose was to destroy lives to further abuses of civil liberties, etc
miguel cervantes – You’re not wrong. The staleness of the claim takes physical evidence out of the picture and makes it impossible for Trump to offer an alibli. That’s the policy reason for having statutes of limitation.
On the other hand, a lot of cases turn on testimonial evidence, on which witnesses the jury finds to be more credible. (That’s yet another reason why Trump’s behavior in the deposition was just plain dumb.)
if you let crazy people out of fatal attraction, pollute the judicial system, thats what a slithy tove like this reid hoffman character does for a living, then the problem is more than trump
he went after Roy Moore, because he was an outspoken defender of christianity, and who did they put in his place, the jackass doug jones who put richard jewell in jail, and let an actual terrrorist eric rudolph escape justice for nearly 10 years,
the dems will loot any bank, like svb or ftx to make sure a wastrel demagogue like warnock is kept in power, a man who has polluted martin luther kings pulpit,
but the white toga right, is so dainty in its deliberations, they cannot suffer the notion of a decent man like walker in that office, it offends their sensibility,
meanwhile the country descends further into the muck and mire,
similar with the golem fetterman, I have stated my reservations with mehmet oz, but he is a functioning human being the dems have no care about that,
@Bauxite
FYI – I’ve stopped reading turtler’s comments.
I’m not surprised. You didn’t have any coherent rebuttals to the points I made, so better not to address.
Granted, I caught you failing to read my comments before, hence why I had to forcibly correct you with quotations. But I suppose it’s good you are making it official.
I only wish I could say the same regarding yours.
But I intend to keep reading your comments, though it rarely gives any edification, pleasure, or even much to think about.
Because more people need to call you out for your particular illogical, immoral species of bullshit. And while nobody else can be made to do so (beyond perhaps Neo due to her role as overseer) and none can be made to do so and comment on them, I volunteer.
And on the off chance you make a cogent point, I will not grudge you that, as has been noticed by many others.
But your Trump Derangement Syndrome has ravaged whatever rational faculties you had, but now it is ravaging your moral compass and principles. And that needs to be called out. Period. Full Stop.
Anyway, it isn’t just a defamation case. Carroll is also making a civil claim for battery. The standard of proof is lower than a criminal case, but the burden of proving the battery claim falls on Carroll.
This is true.
If she wins on the battery claim, it means that the jury believes that she affirmatively proved the elements of battery to the civil standard (i.e., a proponderance or more likely that not).
Or at least that they pretended to do so and that they might as well.
A fact you – again – noted.
It’s also true that an NYC jury would likely find Trump liable for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby and that the NY law lifting the statute of limtitations stinks to high heaven.
But apparently that observation did not stick in what passes for your cranium. Because immediately after you said:
But, after extensive discovery and a full trial, we’re (likely) going to have a judgement from a jury finding that Trump is a rapist.
It’s time for Trumpers to take the L. This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh. You cannot run an adjudged rapist for president and hope to win.
This is Goddamn Fucking Stupid and Immoral for the reasons I mentioned before.
Firstly because you pointedly ignored the probable reasons WHY Trump would be found liable for such things, if he were. Namely a thoroughly tainted jury and unjust political influence. In spite of acknowledging this factor.
Secondly: You insist “this is different from the media drive-bys against Kavanaugh and Thomas” in spite of the fact that No, NO IT REALLY IS NOT. Because the “media drive-bys” were NEVER LIMITED to the Media in those cases, and indeed saw both men forced to confront the bullshit charges in Congress.
Which I might note to those who flunked out of basic civics IS A JUDICIAL organization as well as a legislative one. This is most evident in impeachments where the legislature serves as a very large Jury and Grand Jury, but it is also evident in – you know – assessments of judicial hirings and oversight. And this was by intention, as the Legislature’s judicial role was meant to be a check on the Courts, as was their ability to pass laws contrary to judicial rulings.
The primary difference between those “drive bys” and this is that the legislature as jury was less localized and politically skewed than most NYC Juries can be counted on, but not that the legislature was not acting as a Jury during the Kavanaugh and Thomas hearings.
A fact you pointedly ignore because to acknowledge it would undermine your arguments.
Thirdly: In spite of all this, your first thought is the Election and electability, and gloating that “Trumpers” should take an “L.” As if a frivolous civil suit with nakedly political character is something that can be ignored!
miguel cervantes – You’re not wrong. The staleness of the claim takes physical evidence out of the picture and makes it impossible for Trump to offer an alibli. That’s the policy reason for having statutes of limitation.
It’s not impossible to offer an alibi, and indeed if you had greater awareness you’d know that many such charges have been defeated. As was the case in Kavanaugh. Primarily by forcing the accuser to give a time or at least range of times for the alleged charge and then slapping them down with contrary evidence (if it is available) about the person’s actual location.
And while this can be incredibly ugly and difficult for anyone, and particularly for the average person, Trump’s popularity and infamy offers some assistance because it means he likely had a much better grasp on following it.
On the other hand, a lot of cases turn on testimonial evidence, on which witnesses the jury finds to be more credible.
This is true, but there’s a reason why eyewitness evidence is usually among the weakest. And also why it is generally better to hit them with contrary evidence, especially on placement.
(That’s yet another reason why Trump’s behavior in the deposition was just plain dumb.)
Oh Get Over Yourself Bauxite. Because this is obviously a case of your bias and Trump hatred eroding your judgement.
I’m hardly a Trump cultist, and the second half of the deposition involved a fair bit of flubbing, but it was hardly “plain dumb.” Trump was calm, even-tempered (for him anyway), and explained his argument, including likely traps such as the “my first choice” remarks and the pressure on it. It was not the Greatest, Biggest Deposition Ever (TM) but it was thoroughly serviceable, as was the point Trump made that if someone was going to be insulting to him, he could be insulting back to them.
Which is important because it’s something most people can instinctively grasp (and which has been borne out by miles of testing on things like the Prisoner’s Dilemma) as important in humanizing the accused to the jury and others.
It also comes across as more authentic because of things like the spontaneous mentions about the disgusting nature of doing it on an airplane. Which fits with Trump’s germophobia and the testimony of a lot of fliers and apirplane crews who HAVE seen it and generally concur.
I am not a lawyer (though I am the son of one) and I certainly can’t claim if this particularly testimony will be very effective in swaying a NYC Jury. BUT I CAN SAY that this testimony is broadly what you’d WANT the accused to give.
So while Trump made some screwups (and in particular the lawyer scored some good points by pressing him on the appearance and on his memory issues), his testimony was on the whole far from being “just plain dumb.” And I have half a mind to challenge you to identify what he should have done differently.
But that would require you being able to have a different mode than “Hate Trump, Hate Trump, Hate Trump” to evaluate the deposition more or less evenhandedly. Which you seem incapable of doing, as you have shown here.
And I call upon any other commenter here to make Bauxite OWN this kind of illogical, immoral tripe.
Because even if they want to pretend my own comments aren’t present, they can’t ignore everyone.
So I reiterate my point that If Bauxite is going to focus more on trying to score “Ws” on other conservatives rather than dealing with the more relevant point, they should Fuck Off until they are prepared to actually put forth their arguments in a halfway rational manner that can deal with counterarguments.
I strive to avoid invective even I an conscious of said terms, specially in a whole new language I’ve discovered,
one recalls what sid blumenthal a slithy tove in his own right, who was lipsynching the soviet line since the 70s, said when there was some allegation floated on drudge, this was about 30 years ago, he summoned a dragnet of everyone who had ever looked at him crosswise, in his dark deeds, in the end the jury awarded him one dollar for his efforts, about a decade later he was the recipient of information from two american intel officers, who presented self serving and partial accounts of their dealings with curve ball, rafi alwan, who had been an german intelligence asset in the time he was offering information about the iraqi CBW program, (the twist is despite the veracity of his info, he sued and was awarded monies for his service)
@Miguel Cervantes
I strive to avoid invective even I an conscious of said terms, specially in a whole new language I’ve discovered,
I do too on the whole, but that striving has a place in my priority list and it is not the top. And I do believe that invective obviously serves a purpose, or else it would not have been invented or sustained.
I engage politely and constructively with people who do the same to me, even if we disagree (as the two of us have in the past, miguel). But I struggle to suffer fools gladly, and I see no reason to suffer the gaslighter, the petty bully, and the willfully immoral gladly.
one recalls what sid blumenthal a slithy tove in his own right, who was lipsynching the soviet line since the 70s, said when there was some allegation floated on drudge, this was about 30 years ago, he summoned a dragnet of everyone who had ever looked at him crosswise, in his dark deeds, in the end the jury awarded him one dollar for his efforts, about a decade later he was the recipient of information from two american intel officers, who presented self serving and partial accounts of their dealings with curve ball, rafi alwan, who had been an german intelligence asset in the time he was offering information about the iraqi CBW program, (the twist is despite the veracity of his info, he sued and was awarded monies for his service)
Indeed, which is also why it is important to remember. There are ethical and moral considerations to dealing with unjust legal or judicial verdicts rather than just pragmatic ones. I’ve been quite open to the idea of ditching Trump for the 2024 ticket, and have expressed as such many times over (and I am far from alone here).
But what I am not open to is this kind of nihilistic shrugging about illegitimate lawfare like that by Carroll, under the sort of assumption that “This is different” or that “Trumpers need to take an L.” And because I am not so bankrupt on principles and standards, I would say the same about DeSantis, or even Rubio.
Bauxite apparently is too busy being giddy about “Trumpers” and how they should “L” to realize that the crocodile can eat people other than “Trumpers.” Why they are so blind about this is beyond me, but it is hardly the only failure in their judgement.
I guess I missed a meme class or a meme message alert:
What does “to take an L… ” mean?
R2L–
I think it has to do with the Chicago Cubs flying an “L” flag over Wrigley Field when they lose a home game: “Flying a flag over Wrigley Field to denote wins and losses is a longstanding tradition. Currently, the Win Flag is composed of a large blue letter “W” on a white background while the Loss Flag is a large white letter “L” on a blue background. . . . While not having the popularity of the Win Flag, the Loss Flag has become increasingly popular with clubs who traditionally have rivalries with the Cubs [Cardinals, Brewers, and White Sox].”
There may be other explanations for “taking an L,” though.
@R2L @PA+Cat
Cat has it right, but basically it means “take a loss.”
Bauxite is, as is sadly typical, jumping on this first and foremost to badmouth Trump and those that support or even defend him, and gloat about it.
do a mccain or a romney, well it’s only the legacy of this once shining city on a hill, at stake, the end of everything that has been fought and died for, no biggie,
It’s time for Trumpers to take the L. This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh. You cannot run an adjudged rapist for president and hope to win.
You state the Democrat playbook. That is why the Kavanaugh and Thomas cases were Exactly like this one. Meanwhile Democrat House members rape teenage boys who are there as pages and one runs a gay whorehouse out of his home. Trump’s notorious comment was that women would LET YOU do something. This woman, and probably any others, are being FUNDED by Trump opponents.
The lawyer who promoted the Stormy Daniels story is in PRISON !
Meanwhile Democrat House members rape teenage boys who are there as pages and one runs a gay whorehouse out of his home.
==
The business with Garry Studds was disgusting and unseemly. IIRC, the page in question was of sufficient age (17) that what Studds did would have been deemed criminal in some states but not in others. (The youth in question was neither forced nor drugged). Before he got into politics f/t, Studds was a teacher at a boys’ boarding school. I’m wagering the lapdog media in Massachusetts asked him zero questions about that. Prior to that, he was supposedly in the Foreign Service for a time. Leaving the Foreign Service to teach school is, I’m betting, not a common career move. I doubt he was ever asked about that, either.
==
The excuse Barney Frank offered was that he knew Steven Gobie was turning tricks (that’s how Frank had met him originally), he did not know that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment. By his account, It was when Frank’s landlady complained to him that he ejected Gobie from his home. People who should have known better (Morton Kondracke) assessed Frank’s excuse dispositive.
@Mike K
Expecting Bauxite to actually address the issue or defend their argument is probably a feeble hope, but still one can try. The Orange Whale is an obsession for him, to the point where he ignores the obvious parallels between this and what happened with Kavanaugh and Thomas, and can’t explain why they are different. In particular their analysis (and I use that lightly) of Trump’s deposition was risible.
Trump did not score a home run on this by any means and he did get needled well, but on the whole he preformed well as a deposed defendant. Including pointing out the obvious human factors such as insulting those that insult you first.
This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh.
==
There were no ‘drive-bys’. The self-organizing Hive of politicians, congressional staff, ‘activists’, and the media went to work to destroy both men as soon as they had a straw accuser. Four years later, a pair of reporters wrote a book attempting to make the case against Thomas, even though the evidence against him began and ended with the contentions of Anita Hill and several other women that Joseph Biden did not want to use as witnesses because they had terrible employment histories which would be subject to examination should they be called to testify.
==
Liberal discourse was more variegated in that era, but I think you’d still have to scrounge to find anyone on the portside who was vociferously skeptical of Hill. The closest you got to it in my reading was a contribution to The New Republic by a reporter who said the dirt both sides were peddling was appalling but he’d discovered one thing in interviewing people who had worked with Thomas and Hill at the Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: he’d conducted twenty interviews and found only one person who professed to believe Hill. People who knew her in professional settings did not trust her, but Jill Abramson and Jane Meyer did.
==
There was enough uncertainty in the case of Thomas that Abramson and Meyer could waste their time and their readers’ and play let’s pretend. The Kavanaugh accusations were inane enough that liberals just dropped the subject (without ever admitting she wasn’t a credible accuser). For the most part. There are still elements of the media offering occasional contributions to this ‘drive-by’, just not at book length. (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/23/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-investigation-new-details-500652) and (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/04/28/serious-omissions-in-senate-probe-clearing-brett-kavanaugh-of-sexual-assault-report-says/?sh=524760d7c80a),
==
Note how The Hive takes care of its own. Hill has gone from one BS faculty job to another in spite of a demonstrated paucity of skills (her title at Brandeis is “University Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies”) and Ford was rewarded with a seven-digit sum via GoFundMe (who, for some curious reason, never attempted to shut down the account and direct its contents to someone more to the liking of antagonists of the beneficiary). Curiously, Ford is no longer employed by the school where she was working in 2018.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
well you can’t take this travesty of a mockery of a sham serious,
That New York jury will find for her and he will write a check. A lot of people think this is a criminal trial.
A straight-talking cis-New York urbane.
I have my issues with Trump and I’m not sure if he, DeSantis, or someone else would be best, but it’s reasons like this I still think he is crucial.
Even if Mike K and Miguel are right that this is a sham.
of course its a sham, and the real criminals, like epstein’s clients go free, not to mention the house of scranton,
you can dispute a date, but when there is no date and no evidence,
It does appear to be a sham and that is disgusting.
https://thenationalpulse.com/2023/05/03/e-jean-carroll-keeps-calling-rape-sexy-law-and-order/
House of Scranton has a knack for embarrassing themselves and their allies on multiple levels. To make the worst possible impression, 1. skip the coronation and 2. send emissaries in petty symbolic attire.
I am reminded of Obama’s buffoonish (last second hastily arranged) gift to Gordon Brown on his first state visit.
Absurd clowns, all of them.
Trump is likely to be found liable for rape. Smug BS like this is a big reason why.
Now it’s entirely possible that Caroll maded the whole thing up, and that the other two women who testified that Trump assaulted them also made up their stories. And that the Access Hollywood tape really was just “locker room talk.” Maybe so, maybe not. It’s also true that an NYC jury would likely find Trump liable for kidnapping the Lindbergh baby and that the NY law lifting the statute of limtitations stinks to high heaven.
But, after extensive discovery and a full trial, we’re (likely) going to have a judgement from a jury finding that Trump is a rapist.
It’s time for Trumpers to take the L. This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh. You cannot run an adjudged rapist for president and hope to win.
@Bauxite
No, it’s really not. And what’s more Bauxite, you ACKNOWLEDGE it isn’t just below.
But apparently that gets ignored because you can complain about Trump’s mean twee-rr, Smug Response.
I have been polite to you before Bauxite, and talked through before when we previously discussed Trump.
That stops right goddamn now.
Because NO, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, this is VERY MUCH LIKE THE KAVANAUGH AND THOMAS DRIVE-BYS.
Because unlike you, I happen to remember when the entire MSM turned on its heels in unison for the Five Minute Hates against Kavanaugh, and even responded to his JUSTIFIABLE rage at being falsely accused as Kafkatrap like evidence he was guilty.
Of course, I’m sure you will move goal posts to try and claim some bullshit, arbitrary reason why it “isn’t REALLY (TM)” like the Kavanaugh and Thomas “drive bys.” In spite of following virtually identical MOs and processes, based on the usual trite talking points about how Bad Orange Man is and his Real and Alleged previous behavior while ignoring the fact that drive bys and witch hunts aren’t viewed as the same because of whether or not the person gunned down in a drive by is a gangster or a nun (or in rare cases both) or if the person being burned is really a witch.
And the fact that you have the audacity to try and Victim Blame (because that is what is doing) and try to score a “win” for this over the “Trumpers” on grounds YOU ADMIT do not add up because of the systematic biases of NYC underlines it.
We get it Bauxite. You hate Trump. That’s acceptable.
But victim blaming and spewing this kind of poison on us? That’s something else.
And you’d like that, wouldn’t you? You’ve certainly been more than happy to engage in special pleading regarding Trump, in spite of the rest of us (including our hosts) trying to ram it through that impermeable skull of yours that this isn’t ultimately about the Great Orange Whale.
All while engaging in intricate sophistry and philosophical aerobatics to try and avoid addressing the points Neo, myself, and a host of others witnessing this atrocity has, usually on grounds of “Well if no Republican can Win/If they can do this to anybody, why bother with Trump?”
Without realizing the problems with that. ESPECIALLY when you realize this is not about who to run for election (and I concede there are many practical reasons to not run Trump for election even without this) and onto a Politicized Trial.
Show some basic fucking humanity and decency and stop trying to get the “Trumpers” to “take an L” and focus more on objecting to the obvious injustice, or go Fuck right Off, because laboriously explaining to you how this really isn’t as different from X or Y as you want to pretend it is got tedious the first or second times I did it.
It’s time for Trumpers to take the L. This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh. You cannot run an adjudged rapist for president and hope to win.
That would be a fair point, Bauxite, if I had any respect for deep blue jury pools. If and when the time comes, we can discuss further. As one might guess, convictions on any of various pending phony charges will only stiffen my resolve.
Agreed with Banned to some degree; I can recognize the pragmatic value in possibly shifting away from Trump after a bogus rape conviction, but that doesn’t actually do more or less to degrade the man himself in truth (and he has done more than enough in actuality to both give credit and blame to himself).
Trying to turn this into a “Lol Trumpers Suck, Trump Sucks” thing was always both stupid and immoral, especially the desperate pre-emptive attempt to claim “Oh, but them doing Kavanaugh and Thomas isn’t REALLY the same.”
this is a fundamental question of justice and accountability, new york is really gotham, dc is the Capitol, in neither is there any law
There are credible claims of rape against Biden. Why aren’t they investigated?
turtler – I’m not sure its even worth responding. You seem to have gone over the edge.
So you think the GOP could persuade voters that three different women fabricated stories and that a judge and nine jurors all got it wrong despite Trump having full discovery and representation throughout the process? After Trump bragged on tape about doing more or less the same thing that he is accused of doing to these women? Do you really think that voters are going to be persuaded because Trump claimed that the plaintiff (and her attorney) are not his type?
Banned Lizard – It really doesn’t matter whether you have any faith in blue jury pools. The matter is whether voters have any faith in blue jury pools.
“Vote for my candidate, the legal process that found him liable for rape is hopelessly corrupt and all three women were lying.”
I’m sorry, that’s not a winning message.
We can pretend the off broadway play is real look passed the mountain of actual murders rapes robberies that this regime has unleashed since 2021
@Bauxite
Judging from the quality (or LACK thereof) of your posts whenever the Great Orange Whale is brought up, it almost certainly isn’t.
But that’s because what you posted was NEVER WORTH POSTING IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Oh, “I seem to have gone over the edge”?
I and many others have put up with weeks, months of your brain, rational faculties, and whatever passes for ethics short-circuiting just about whenever Trump is brought up Of you pushing ludicrous strawmen in an attempt to not merely criticize Trump (something most people on here have done from one degree or another) but to demonize him, while insulting those who support or at some points even defend him.
You’ve even resorted to gaslighting me on occasion.
And now you’ve sunk so low as to blame the victim of an obviously politically bullshit prosecution and use the opportunity to gloat about it to others.
And you are saying I’M the one who “seems” to have “gone over the edge” because I bother using somewhat salty language to describe your hideously illogical and immoral nonsense?
Language that I assure you is a fraction of what this warrants?
Obviously that has worked before, as we eventually managed by pushing through with Kavanagh and a few others (such as Giuliani). You can argue and grandstand all you want about how “Trump is Different” or how those other cases should never have happened in the first place, but Neo – who is HARDLY a Trump Cultist and who I *dare* you to argue has “gone over the edge” (seriously you intellectual coward, do it if you dare) and who has even admitted these charges stick to Trump more than most – has had to POINT OUT that shenanigans like this not only CAN be done against almost any conservative, but HAVE in fact been done against many of them.
You just *ignored* that like you ignore most counterexamples and contrary evidence. Because you have no good way to address them beyond idiotic, illogical special pleading that “This time it’s different!!” Without a good explanation of why.
Which has happened before, and SHOULD be better noted.
The fact that it doesn’t does not in fact argue in FAVOR of your point, but in favor of mine.
Like Ted Stevens asked when he questioned – in despair after an ordeal of years- where one went to get their reputation back, a Republican Party or Conservative Movement that is not well organized enough to OPPOSE unjust political prosecutions of its members and highlight overturns in miscarriages of justice is NOT one that will be competitive in the long run under these conditions, and frankly is one that does not DESERVE to be so.
Precisely because this is a matter that goes BEYOND electability or mere politics.
The fact that you – in your staggering hubris – seem not to GET That or even to be able to pay LIP SERVICE to it is why I curse you for your indifference, illogic, and lack of morals.
But will he ACTUALLY have so?
Take a look at how long it took for him to get confirmation that YES, the FBI had spied on him.
Take a look at how the National Archives lied about their role in the raid on Mar-a-Lago and what it took for THAT to be revealed.
Take a look at how hard the Left fought tooth and nail to prevent the revealing of raw footage from January 6th and to suppress Sicknick’s autopsy. And take a look at the attempts to engage in political witch hunts and demonization against Trump’s legal representation in the past.
Are you actually fucking stupid enough to think that Trump and his legal team having full and effective representation AND Discovery is something that can be taken for granted in the wonderful world that is New York City in Current Year?
Do you not even care how nakedly stupid, oblivious, and unhinged this kind of argumentation makes you look like to anybody who bothers to parse through what you write to see what you’re actually saying?
See above. And no, it isn’t “more or less the same thing.”
Of course, if you admitted that, your argument would snap like a twig, as would your attempts to strawman me as some kind of Trump cultist.
So it’s obvious why you are doing it.
After all this and you STILL don’t fucking get it?
You’re obsessed with VOTES in an ELECTION that may not even be authentic in this discussion about a POLITICAL PROSECUTION?!?!
To HELL with “voters” and to hell with running Trump in an election. I really could go either way on that, as I’ve freely admitted (AND WHICH YOU SHOULD KNOW IF YOU BOTHERED ACTUALLY READING WHAT I’VE WRITTEN TO YOU IN THE PAST).
This goes BEYOND that. Because you shouldn’t have to be “electable” or able to be elected by “voters” from across the country in order to get a fair trial. Which is why it is important to fight things like that. Because even Orange Cheeto Hitler deserves better.
And because this SHOULDN’T be primarily about him. This shouldn’t PRIMARILY be about 2024 or another election or ballots. And if it can be done to Trump, it can be done to just about Anybody, and it certainly can be ATTEMPTED with anyone. Success or failure or whether or not the accusations “stick” to a given personality is of relevance but ultimately a footnote, because to quote someone far smarter and more courageous than you.
So how pray tell do you think I or others should respond to your latest bit of vomit on this blog about how “Trumpers” should “take an L” because of Trump’s personality, when you YOURSELF admitted in literally the exact same Goddamn Comment that the trial is almost certainly politically trainted?
Do you really think you deserve a pat on the back and a “You’re right Bauxite, we really should be gloating at Trump and Trumpers because of an election during the little, insignificant fact of a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED WITCH HUNT?”
Well even if you do think that, I think not.
The problem, as I pointed out oh Bauxite, is that a fucking functional justice system SHOULD NOT BE SOLELY RELIANT upon having faith in Leftist/Dem Jury Pools. indeed, it is one major reason why our system is organized the way it does.
And the depths of the taint (starting with the fact that this case was brought at all) shows a systematic failure that is a grave threat to just about anybody who cares about the course of this Republic.
Something you seem to have “missed” in favor of talking about how “Trumpers” should “take an L.”
Because apparently learning from Goddamn History is beyond you.
I’m sorry fuckhead but there are far, FAR more important things than just an election, and far, far more important things to WIN (or LOSE) than an election, even an election for the most powerful elected office in human history.
By all means, I have no great problem with casting Trump aside in the general election if that is what is needed.
But if you can’t see why I or many others would have a problem of casting him aside TO THE TENDER MERCIES OF A CORRUPTED, LEFTIST JUDICIARY IN A NAKEDLY POLITICIZED TRIAL then you really HAVE nothing of merit to offer, and should take up my offer to Fuck. Right. Off.
Because at that point you are worse than the proverbial appeaser feeding a crocodile in the hopes of being eaten last.
I say worse, because at least the appeaser feeding the crocodile can theoretically know what he is doing and trying to get out of it, and can put that knowledge to use (such as to buy time so that the crocodile doesn’t have the chance to “eat them last” like in the case of Sweden or Switzerland).
You on the other hand seem to have little acknowledgement and even less awareness of how a crocodile powerful enough to eat Trump on trumped up charges will be powerful enough to do the same to others. HAS in fact done similar to others.
And you offer no succor for dealing with that.
And no, “Don’t run Trump, run someone else and vote harder” ISN’T dealing with that. It’s just dealing with the election.
That has its own merits, but it isn’t rolling back leftist abuse of the judiciary and court systems.
“Vote for my candidate, the legal process that found him liable for rape is hopelessly corrupt and all three women were lying.”
I’m sorry, that’s not a winning message.
Isn’t this just a defamation lawsuit? He won’t be found liable for rape but for defamation. If he loses it just means he didn’t succeed in proving the truth of his statements about plaintiff, as truth is a defense against a defamation charge. But that’s not even in the same zip code as “liable for rape.”
Turtler, please dial it back. You write a lot that’s useful and educational to read, but the bold caps-lock f-bomb stew is starting to annoy me.
@Phillip Sells
Fair enough, but Bauxite’s concern trolling and obsessive vendetta (and gloating) regarding Trump have annoyed me for weeks. This was a particularly bad look precisely because it showed how they apparently focused more on their pet peeve and how it hurt Trump’s chances with the election than on what a harassment and miscarriage of justice it is.
I do not make a habit of cursing profusely, even with those who disagree with me. But I do not see much reason to hold back if I believe someone is acting in bad faith, and my previous experiences with Bauxite (including gaslighting) meant this was one of the final straws for me. Someone who is more obsessed with “Trumpers” and if they can take an L over what this represents for the US as a whole (in large part because they – falsely – tell themselves “this is different!” when it comes to candidates they prefer) is being both insulting to much of their fellows on the blog and wasting the time of those that bother to read through their writings as I did.
And again, I’m not exactly a “Trumper.” Indeed at this point I am Trump Agnostic. But I’m certainly not interested in gloating about Trump’s misfortunes to the expense of pointing out (as Bauxite acknowledges) how *broken* the US Legal system and particularly NYC is.
It’s like the “But the Mean Twee- err, Smug BS!” meme often used to mock or even strawman criticisms of Trump by everybody from David “Creases in Pants” French to our own host, only played literally and adopted as a battle call by someone apparently devoid of awareness (both situational and self). And after a couple months of this in between attempts to discuss the matter civilly I got fed up, and I have no compulsion about outlining why.
Jimmy:
You wrote, “If he loses it just means he didn’t succeed in proving the truth of his statements about plaintiff, as truth is a defense against a defamation charge.”
In what universe should a defamation defendant have to PROVE the truth of his or her statements about plaintiff in order to not be found guilty of defamation? A great deal more than that should be required of the plaintiff in order to win. The defendant’s statements are not presumed false until proven true.
By the way, it is my opinion that saying someone accusing you of a crime is lying about that should NEVER be grounds for a defamation suit. I don’t care if it’s Trump or Biden who says “I didn’t do it,” or Joe Schmo. Should be barred from being grounds for a defamation lawsuit because there is a societal interest in a person being allowed to defend him or herself when accused, even if the person defending himself is lying.
What’s more, saying “she’s not my type” also should not be defamation as a matter of law. It is an opinion about one’s own personal sexual preferences, and that is all it is.
In what universe should a defamation defendant have to PROVE the truth of his or her statements about plaintiff in order to not be found guilty of defamation? A great deal more than that should be required of the plaintiff in order to win. The defendant’s statements are not presumed false until proven true.
Oh, I agree. Proving his statement true would be sufficient, but shouldn’t be necessary. And in this case it means proving a negative, which is especially hard. My point was more that with a NY jury, sadly, it might be necessary for Trump to do that in order to prevail.
But my really main point was that people here and elsewhere keep discussing this as if it were a rape trial, which it’s not.
Vivek.
“In what universe should a defamation defendant have to PROVE the truth of his or her statements about plaintiff in order to not be found guilty of defamation?”
Oh, that’s easy:
In Pelosiworld! (One of the larger planets in the Icky Way….)
“Pelosi ripped for tweet saying Trump can ‘prove innocence’ at trial”—
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/mar/31/pelosi-ripped-tweet-saying-trump-can-prove-innocen/
(And I very much doubt that Nancisaurus, and her oh-so-profound opinionating, is a “one-off”…though I suppose SOME might claim that she is no longer a Rep. and therefore doesn’t represent anyone but herself; and never really did represent anyone but herself even when she WAS a Rep; and never had much influence anyway….)
Barry Meislin:
Nancy Pelosi is still a member of the House of Representatives.
Right. Thanks.
Vivek.
FYI – I’ve stopped reading turtler’s comments.
Anyway, it isn’t just a defamation case. Carroll is also making a civil claim for battery. The standard of proof is lower than a criminal case, but the burden of proving the battery claim falls on Carroll. If she wins on the battery claim, it means that the jury believes that she affirmatively proved the elements of battery to the civil standard (i.e., a proponderance or more likely that not).
its hot steaming garbage, served on a bed of larks vomit,
you can’t defend against it, because there is no date attached, it resembles the danchenko dossier that ben smith floated in buzzfeed, as its all hearsay, but the purpose was to destroy lives to further abuses of civil liberties, etc
miguel cervantes – You’re not wrong. The staleness of the claim takes physical evidence out of the picture and makes it impossible for Trump to offer an alibli. That’s the policy reason for having statutes of limitation.
On the other hand, a lot of cases turn on testimonial evidence, on which witnesses the jury finds to be more credible. (That’s yet another reason why Trump’s behavior in the deposition was just plain dumb.)
if you let crazy people out of fatal attraction, pollute the judicial system, thats what a slithy tove like this reid hoffman character does for a living, then the problem is more than trump
he went after Roy Moore, because he was an outspoken defender of christianity, and who did they put in his place, the jackass doug jones who put richard jewell in jail, and let an actual terrrorist eric rudolph escape justice for nearly 10 years,
the dems will loot any bank, like svb or ftx to make sure a wastrel demagogue like warnock is kept in power, a man who has polluted martin luther kings pulpit,
but the white toga right, is so dainty in its deliberations, they cannot suffer the notion of a decent man like walker in that office, it offends their sensibility,
meanwhile the country descends further into the muck and mire,
similar with the golem fetterman, I have stated my reservations with mehmet oz, but he is a functioning human being the dems have no care about that,
@Bauxite
I’m not surprised. You didn’t have any coherent rebuttals to the points I made, so better not to address.
Granted, I caught you failing to read my comments before, hence why I had to forcibly correct you with quotations. But I suppose it’s good you are making it official.
I only wish I could say the same regarding yours.
But I intend to keep reading your comments, though it rarely gives any edification, pleasure, or even much to think about.
Because more people need to call you out for your particular illogical, immoral species of bullshit. And while nobody else can be made to do so (beyond perhaps Neo due to her role as overseer) and none can be made to do so and comment on them, I volunteer.
And on the off chance you make a cogent point, I will not grudge you that, as has been noticed by many others.
But your Trump Derangement Syndrome has ravaged whatever rational faculties you had, but now it is ravaging your moral compass and principles. And that needs to be called out. Period. Full Stop.
This is true.
Or at least that they pretended to do so and that they might as well.
A fact you – again – noted.
But apparently that observation did not stick in what passes for your cranium. Because immediately after you said:
This is Goddamn Fucking Stupid and Immoral for the reasons I mentioned before.
Firstly because you pointedly ignored the probable reasons WHY Trump would be found liable for such things, if he were. Namely a thoroughly tainted jury and unjust political influence. In spite of acknowledging this factor.
Secondly: You insist “this is different from the media drive-bys against Kavanaugh and Thomas” in spite of the fact that No, NO IT REALLY IS NOT. Because the “media drive-bys” were NEVER LIMITED to the Media in those cases, and indeed saw both men forced to confront the bullshit charges in Congress.
Which I might note to those who flunked out of basic civics IS A JUDICIAL organization as well as a legislative one. This is most evident in impeachments where the legislature serves as a very large Jury and Grand Jury, but it is also evident in – you know – assessments of judicial hirings and oversight. And this was by intention, as the Legislature’s judicial role was meant to be a check on the Courts, as was their ability to pass laws contrary to judicial rulings.
The primary difference between those “drive bys” and this is that the legislature as jury was less localized and politically skewed than most NYC Juries can be counted on, but not that the legislature was not acting as a Jury during the Kavanaugh and Thomas hearings.
A fact you pointedly ignore because to acknowledge it would undermine your arguments.
Thirdly: In spite of all this, your first thought is the Election and electability, and gloating that “Trumpers” should take an “L.” As if a frivolous civil suit with nakedly political character is something that can be ignored!
It’s not impossible to offer an alibi, and indeed if you had greater awareness you’d know that many such charges have been defeated. As was the case in Kavanaugh. Primarily by forcing the accuser to give a time or at least range of times for the alleged charge and then slapping them down with contrary evidence (if it is available) about the person’s actual location.
And while this can be incredibly ugly and difficult for anyone, and particularly for the average person, Trump’s popularity and infamy offers some assistance because it means he likely had a much better grasp on following it.
This is true, but there’s a reason why eyewitness evidence is usually among the weakest. And also why it is generally better to hit them with contrary evidence, especially on placement.
Oh Get Over Yourself Bauxite. Because this is obviously a case of your bias and Trump hatred eroding your judgement.
I’m hardly a Trump cultist, and the second half of the deposition involved a fair bit of flubbing, but it was hardly “plain dumb.” Trump was calm, even-tempered (for him anyway), and explained his argument, including likely traps such as the “my first choice” remarks and the pressure on it. It was not the Greatest, Biggest Deposition Ever (TM) but it was thoroughly serviceable, as was the point Trump made that if someone was going to be insulting to him, he could be insulting back to them.
Which is important because it’s something most people can instinctively grasp (and which has been borne out by miles of testing on things like the Prisoner’s Dilemma) as important in humanizing the accused to the jury and others.
It also comes across as more authentic because of things like the spontaneous mentions about the disgusting nature of doing it on an airplane. Which fits with Trump’s germophobia and the testimony of a lot of fliers and apirplane crews who HAVE seen it and generally concur.
I am not a lawyer (though I am the son of one) and I certainly can’t claim if this particularly testimony will be very effective in swaying a NYC Jury. BUT I CAN SAY that this testimony is broadly what you’d WANT the accused to give.
So while Trump made some screwups (and in particular the lawyer scored some good points by pressing him on the appearance and on his memory issues), his testimony was on the whole far from being “just plain dumb.” And I have half a mind to challenge you to identify what he should have done differently.
But that would require you being able to have a different mode than “Hate Trump, Hate Trump, Hate Trump” to evaluate the deposition more or less evenhandedly. Which you seem incapable of doing, as you have shown here.
And I call upon any other commenter here to make Bauxite OWN this kind of illogical, immoral tripe.
Because even if they want to pretend my own comments aren’t present, they can’t ignore everyone.
So I reiterate my point that If Bauxite is going to focus more on trying to score “Ws” on other conservatives rather than dealing with the more relevant point, they should Fuck Off until they are prepared to actually put forth their arguments in a halfway rational manner that can deal with counterarguments.
I strive to avoid invective even I an conscious of said terms, specially in a whole new language I’ve discovered,
one recalls what sid blumenthal a slithy tove in his own right, who was lipsynching the soviet line since the 70s, said when there was some allegation floated on drudge, this was about 30 years ago, he summoned a dragnet of everyone who had ever looked at him crosswise, in his dark deeds, in the end the jury awarded him one dollar for his efforts, about a decade later he was the recipient of information from two american intel officers, who presented self serving and partial accounts of their dealings with curve ball, rafi alwan, who had been an german intelligence asset in the time he was offering information about the iraqi CBW program, (the twist is despite the veracity of his info, he sued and was awarded monies for his service)
@Miguel Cervantes
I do too on the whole, but that striving has a place in my priority list and it is not the top. And I do believe that invective obviously serves a purpose, or else it would not have been invented or sustained.
I engage politely and constructively with people who do the same to me, even if we disagree (as the two of us have in the past, miguel). But I struggle to suffer fools gladly, and I see no reason to suffer the gaslighter, the petty bully, and the willfully immoral gladly.
Indeed, which is also why it is important to remember. There are ethical and moral considerations to dealing with unjust legal or judicial verdicts rather than just pragmatic ones. I’ve been quite open to the idea of ditching Trump for the 2024 ticket, and have expressed as such many times over (and I am far from alone here).
But what I am not open to is this kind of nihilistic shrugging about illegitimate lawfare like that by Carroll, under the sort of assumption that “This is different” or that “Trumpers need to take an L.” And because I am not so bankrupt on principles and standards, I would say the same about DeSantis, or even Rubio.
Bauxite apparently is too busy being giddy about “Trumpers” and how they should “L” to realize that the crocodile can eat people other than “Trumpers.” Why they are so blind about this is beyond me, but it is hardly the only failure in their judgement.
I guess I missed a meme class or a meme message alert:
What does “to take an L… ” mean?
R2L–
I think it has to do with the Chicago Cubs flying an “L” flag over Wrigley Field when they lose a home game: “Flying a flag over Wrigley Field to denote wins and losses is a longstanding tradition. Currently, the Win Flag is composed of a large blue letter “W” on a white background while the Loss Flag is a large white letter “L” on a blue background. . . . While not having the popularity of the Win Flag, the Loss Flag has become increasingly popular with clubs who traditionally have rivalries with the Cubs [Cardinals, Brewers, and White Sox].”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubs_Win_Flag
There may be other explanations for “taking an L,” though.
@R2L @PA+Cat
Cat has it right, but basically it means “take a loss.”
Bauxite is, as is sadly typical, jumping on this first and foremost to badmouth Trump and those that support or even defend him, and gloat about it.
do a mccain or a romney, well it’s only the legacy of this once shining city on a hill, at stake, the end of everything that has been fought and died for, no biggie,
It’s time for Trumpers to take the L. This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh. You cannot run an adjudged rapist for president and hope to win.
You state the Democrat playbook. That is why the Kavanaugh and Thomas cases were Exactly like this one. Meanwhile Democrat House members rape teenage boys who are there as pages and one runs a gay whorehouse out of his home. Trump’s notorious comment was that women would LET YOU do something. This woman, and probably any others, are being FUNDED by Trump opponents.
The lawyer who promoted the Stormy Daniels story is in PRISON !
Meanwhile Democrat House members rape teenage boys who are there as pages and one runs a gay whorehouse out of his home.
==
The business with Garry Studds was disgusting and unseemly. IIRC, the page in question was of sufficient age (17) that what Studds did would have been deemed criminal in some states but not in others. (The youth in question was neither forced nor drugged). Before he got into politics f/t, Studds was a teacher at a boys’ boarding school. I’m wagering the lapdog media in Massachusetts asked him zero questions about that. Prior to that, he was supposedly in the Foreign Service for a time. Leaving the Foreign Service to teach school is, I’m betting, not a common career move. I doubt he was ever asked about that, either.
==
The excuse Barney Frank offered was that he knew Steven Gobie was turning tricks (that’s how Frank had met him originally), he did not know that Gobie was running a prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment. By his account, It was when Frank’s landlady complained to him that he ejected Gobie from his home. People who should have known better (Morton Kondracke) assessed Frank’s excuse dispositive.
@Mike K
Expecting Bauxite to actually address the issue or defend their argument is probably a feeble hope, but still one can try. The Orange Whale is an obsession for him, to the point where he ignores the obvious parallels between this and what happened with Kavanaugh and Thomas, and can’t explain why they are different. In particular their analysis (and I use that lightly) of Trump’s deposition was risible.
Trump did not score a home run on this by any means and he did get needled well, but on the whole he preformed well as a deposed defendant. Including pointing out the obvious human factors such as insulting those that insult you first.
This is far different from the media drive-bys against Thomas and Kavanaugh.
==
There were no ‘drive-bys’. The self-organizing Hive of politicians, congressional staff, ‘activists’, and the media went to work to destroy both men as soon as they had a straw accuser. Four years later, a pair of reporters wrote a book attempting to make the case against Thomas, even though the evidence against him began and ended with the contentions of Anita Hill and several other women that Joseph Biden did not want to use as witnesses because they had terrible employment histories which would be subject to examination should they be called to testify.
==
Liberal discourse was more variegated in that era, but I think you’d still have to scrounge to find anyone on the portside who was vociferously skeptical of Hill. The closest you got to it in my reading was a contribution to The New Republic by a reporter who said the dirt both sides were peddling was appalling but he’d discovered one thing in interviewing people who had worked with Thomas and Hill at the Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: he’d conducted twenty interviews and found only one person who professed to believe Hill. People who knew her in professional settings did not trust her, but Jill Abramson and Jane Meyer did.
==
There was enough uncertainty in the case of Thomas that Abramson and Meyer could waste their time and their readers’ and play let’s pretend. The Kavanaugh accusations were inane enough that liberals just dropped the subject (without ever admitting she wasn’t a credible accuser). For the most part. There are still elements of the media offering occasional contributions to this ‘drive-by’, just not at book length. (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/23/christine-blasey-ford-brett-kavanaugh-investigation-new-details-500652) and (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2023/04/28/serious-omissions-in-senate-probe-clearing-brett-kavanaugh-of-sexual-assault-report-says/?sh=524760d7c80a),
==
Note how The Hive takes care of its own. Hill has gone from one BS faculty job to another in spite of a demonstrated paucity of skills (her title at Brandeis is “University Professor of Social Policy, Law, and Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies”) and Ford was rewarded with a seven-digit sum via GoFundMe (who, for some curious reason, never attempted to shut down the account and direct its contents to someone more to the liking of antagonists of the beneficiary). Curiously, Ford is no longer employed by the school where she was working in 2018.