Jury finds Trump guilty in the Carroll civil suit – of course
Dog bites man. And the inevitable occurs – the NY jury finds Trump guilty:
The jury decided that Trump was not guilty of rape, but was liable for sexual abuse and defamation. The jury awarded Carroll at least $2 million.
More details on the money award are here:
The jury awarded Carroll a total of $5 million in the lawsuit. Jury members found that Trump did not rape Carroll but sexually abused her, and awarded damages of $2 million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for battery.
The jury awarded $1 million in damages, $1.7 million for reputation repair, and $280,000 in punitive damages.
Why sexual abuse but not rape? Who knows. Perhaps the jurors knew how thin the evidence was and therefore some of them couldn’t go the whole mile to rape, and so some sort of compromise verdict was reached.
John Hinderaker thinks the verdict will have some political repercussions but I’m not at all sure. Opinions about Trump are practically set in stone at this point. The only possible effect I can see is that a few more Republican voters might decide in the primaries that he’s just too toxic to vote for, but perhaps they’ll be balanced by those who might vote for him because they’re angry at what they see as unjust lawfare against him.
Carroll said that Trump had raped her some time back in the mid-90s. She had zero evidence of it other than her own word (and two witnesses who said she’d told them about it way back when) although she never wrote anything or claimed anything publicly at the time. She needed a special law to even be able to civilly sue him in court for battery on such an old charge, but New York obliged by passing a special law allowing it. It was that important to get Trump. And since the standard of proof for civil suits is much lower than for criminal prosecutions, and because this suit was in a venue very friendly to her, Carroll prevailed.
No defense is even possible against charges that have no time frame except a span of a couple of years. Unless Trump had literally not set foot in New York City for the years in question and could prove it, the only thing he could do is deny the charges.
The jury deliberated for three hours. I’m surprised it was that long; perhaps they were schmoozing for part of the time.
I would not be surprised if the floodgates opened in New York on more such suits against Trump and other prominent people on the right in New York. Trump was the best target because of the hatred against him and desire to harm him prior to the 2024 election, as well as the “grab them by the pussy” tape which was played in court (and should not have been, in my opinion, because it was mere bragging words and not action, not about Carroll herself, and occurred around a decade after the alleged rape). But a law like that combined with a civil standard of proof, eager pockets to finance such suits, and juries willing to convict merely on the women’s words, and you have a recipe for destroying people with lies.
This is true even if Carroll is telling the truth. I don’t think she is, but even if she is, a lawsuit beyond the usual statute of limitations should not be allowed, and such vague allegations in time – that cannot be defended against because of vagueness – should not support a guilty verdict. I would say that no matter who is charged, Democrat or Republican.
If you want to read some background about how this lawsuit came to be, please see this by Byron York. And note the influence of George Conway.
[NOTE: By the way, I am so consistent that I have long maintained that the Paula Jones lawsuit against Bill Clinton should not have been allowed to go forward while Clinton was in office (a different legal principle is involved there, to be sure, than in the Carroll case), and that he should not have been questioned about similar conduct with Lewinsky in his deposition for the Jones trial. That latter point is similar to my stance on the Carroll suit; I don’t think similar behavior with other women should be relevant to whether a person was guilty of a particular type of behavior towards this woman, and the evidence about other women should be inadmissible. And yes, that makes the allegations more difficult to prove. Too bad. Justice isn’t always served, but protection against false allegations is very very very important. For everyone.]
The constitution has been shredded and liberals are celebrating.
Let that sink in.
This is evil. If you don’t want to call it evil, offer up some other word that fully encompasses the extreme moral defect Democrats have embraced.
This is no surprise. Trump did himself in with the Access Hollywood mess. Either he actually did something untoward to Carroll and/or the other two women, or he gave them a veritable roadmap for making up allegations that would be believable to a jury/voters.
I also note that although neo has been consistent on this point going back to Clinton, the law has been consistent too – albeit in the other direction. Bill had to answer questions about Monica in the suit by Paula Jones. The admission of propensity evidence against Trump is not persecution or a perversion of law just to get Trump. If it is a perversion of law, it is a perversion that is applied regardless of political affiliation.
First they came for Trump…and I piled on earnestly….
Then they came for Trump…and I piled on even more fervently….
Then they came for Trump…and I was beside myself with glee….
Then they came for….
Bauxite:
Yes, Trump gave them a roadmap. But they didn’t need a roadmap and they will do this to anyone they don’t like and they will be successful. If Christine Ford had accused Kavanaugh under such a law in New York (that is, if they had both grown up there) the verdict would have been the same. Period. Every Democrat I know believes Kavanaugh is guilty.
You simply don’t get it.
And no, the law has NOT been consistent – unless I missed the part where Tara Reade sued Joe Biden and won.
What’s more, I seem to recall (don’t have time to find it now) that the law allowing testimony of similar types of behavior with other women was new when Clinton was sued by Paula Jones. That was a change.
Related (from Hans Mahncke):
“If it had been anyone but Trump this case would’ve been laughed out of court….”
https://twitter.com/HansMahncke/status/1656025124804362241?cxt=HHwWgoCw8faEsfstAAAA
how debauched language has become, much like racism, sexual assault is just a word, not related to anything else, the actual rapes and murders and strong armed robbery cry out for justice, I have nothing more to say to you Bauxite, perhaps, ‘god have mercy on your soul’
I think there is a very good issue on appeal: Trump was denied due process when NY passed a law that allowed exceptionally old tort claims to be filed. E. Jean couldn’t even know the year, day and month that this encounter allegedly happened.
I think there is a very good issue on appeal:
==
If the New York appellate judiciary has more integrity than the Minnesota appellate judiciary does.
Every Democrat I know believes Kavanaugh is guilty.
==
Considering that neither Ford, nor her handlers, nor any member of Congress, nor their allies in the media ever presented any evidence that Ford had ever met Kavanaugh or Judge (or would have been likely to given their nexus of personal associations), that’s quite pathological. You’re not describing people who are thinking this through.
In cases of sexual molestation the Federal Rules of Evidence allow for the admission of prior acts as evidence to weigh in deciding the ultimate issue. Trump did himself no favors by his failure to appear and at the very least be present at counsel table.
@Bauxite
Indeed.
True, but the key issue is that his ties to New York City made him vulnerable.
Neo dismissed this drivel more eloquently than I have, but you hate Trump so much it warps your focus and reason, as anybody who has bothered seeing what you write about this case can attest.
And Clinton got off much lighter both legally and in the public eye, I will note.
So to rephrase a victimized man: Where does one go to get one’s reputation back?
@stu
Agreed. Trump’s lawfare-fu has been shown to be lacking, both in the anti-fraud cases (or lack thereof) before, during, and after 2020 and now this.
if the facts don’t have anything to do with the law is a snap,
the twist about the access hollywood tape, is billy bush as much as agreed, see matt lauer, other players who made ron burgundy seem authentic, and of course moonves and rose, curiously none of them seem to have made it to new york criminal court why is that,
stu:
And the rules are WRONG. Sexual molestation cases are especially vulnerable to lying, and cases with vendettas against a person or political motives against the person are especially vulnerable to piling on by people with motives to harm that person. Cases of sexual molestation should be subject to much stricter standards or at least the same standards, not lesser ones.
Do you really think that if Trump had testified it would have mattered in terms of the result? It absolutely would not have, in my opinion.
I know I’ve said it before but this is just more proof to me that way too many people simply do not believe in the first 10 amendments at all.(Their attitude is little more than a child, that it’s ok to screw people over for no other reason than “Well I didn’t like him so that makes it ok.”)
or the ten commandments neither,
Robert Gouveia’s take on the details, here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uruDMPNKYNY
Trump penalised for defamation via social media. (QED, Re Trump’s criticism against defamation law.)
If the New York appellate judiciary has more integrity than the Minnesota appellate judiciary does.
A lawyer friend says this goes to the 2nd Circuit for appeal, if it goes. I don’t know if it makes a difference, but it seems like there would be a better shot at a decent judge there than in the New York State courts.
Trump did himself no favors by his failure to appear and at the very least be present at counsel table.
He knew what would happen and chose not to give the crazy left (George Conway) the photo op.
Also, Brian Banks could not be reached to comment on false accusations.
At 16, Banks was an all-star middle linebacker at Long Beach Polytechnic High School in California with dreams of playing for the National Football League and a full scholarship to the University of Southern California.
His life would soon come to a tragic halt.
Years later he was able to trick the accuser into admitting on tape that she lied. She and her mother had long since spent the $5 million she got from Long Beach CA.
Art Deco
WRT about people thinking something through:
Several years ago, a woman I know remarked that Michael Brown had had his hands up and was calling out, “Don’t shoot!”.
I noted that had been dismissed within a couple of days.
She said, “I know that but I prefer to believe differently and I don’t want to be corrected.”
Leaves me wondering how many other things she “thinks” got there the same way.
Probably two years ago, I asked the question as to whether a person with at least moderate cognitive ability has the moral obligation to use it instead of “feelings” or some other way of “knowing” in matters of public policy.
Apparently, a number of people don’t think so. They can’t be THAT STUPID, was what I used to think. But what…? Then I ran into this woman and the Brown issue. Now I know. Depressing.
“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
Bauxite on May 9, 2023 at 4:41 pm said:
This is no surprise. Trump did himself in with the Access Hollywood mess. Either he actually did something untoward to Carroll and/or the other two women, or he gave them a veritable roadmap for making up allegations that would be believable to a jury/voters.
Jean Carroll is a mentally ill woman who turned a sex fantasy into a lawsuit. A feat only possible because of the current political climate where Democrats are untethered to logic.
I also note that although neo has been consistent on this point going back to Clinton, the law has been consistent too – albeit in the other direction. Bill had to answer questions about Monica in the suit by Paula Jones. The admission of propensity evidence against Trump is not persecution or a perversion of law just to get Trump. If it is a perversion of law, it is a perversion that is applied regardless of political affiliation.
Tara Reade and Joe Biden is a better comparison. The country was a different place in the 1990s. The major change has been the insanity of the Democrats.
Maybe I don’t get it, but if you want to prove that juries are going to reach unjust verdicts because of political bias, this verdict against Trump with Trump’s history and behavior just isn’t going to move the needle to anyone who isn’t already a partisan of the right.
Would a NYC jury have found against Kavanaugh on the Kavanaugh facts in your hypothetical? I don’t know. It would have been a very different case. Kavanaugh would likely have taken the stand and wouldn’t have insulted the defendant (and the defendant’s lawyer) with the “not my type” drivel. (I understand that the jury saw that.) Kavanaugh had nothing like the Access Hollywood tape. The undergrad accusation would likely have been inadmissible as hearsay (the only witness to ID Kavanaugh wasn’t actually at the party). Mark Judge and Leland Kaiser would have testified that they had no recollection of the party, with Leland Kaiser testifying that she had never met Brett Kavanaugh. Also, Kavanaugh’s representation would have been able to probe all of the other inconsistencies in Ford’s story, such as the purported fear of flying, the reasons for the second front door in her home, and the like.
If a jury found for Blasey-Ford in spite of all that, I’d be very convinced that something foul and political had taken place.
I’m sorry, though, this verdict on this evidence strikes be as being within the things that normal juries do. Carroll’s story just didn’t have the inconsistencies of Ford’s story. Put nine people in a room, remove the political aspect (left and right), and have them try to make sense of that evidence. What they did isn’t crazy. That’s the problem for Trump.
It’s worth remembering too that the go-to argument against Kavanaugh was that he had been “credibly accused” and that “no one is entitled to a promotion.” They knew that they couldn’t acutally prove their case.
This play is going to be run again and again until women start accusing Democrat politicians of vague crimes in Red states and win. At that point, and not until then, the Left will rediscover the value of laws.
He floats so hes clearly a warlock.
Guilty until proven Orange.
So basically the same M.O. as the Salem witch trials. (Which from what I remember got shut down very fast when they accused someone important.
Richard Aubrey:
There’s another possibility with the woman you describe. Maybe she didn’t
actually know the “hands up” thing had been disproved. Maybe she wasn’t especially well-informed on the case and was embarrassed to admit it and say she hadn’t known, so maybe she pretended to have already known and just been ignoring it. Maybe that sounded smarter to her than being ignorant of the facts.
Stranger things have happened.
Yes, it was, because the law was championed by the Clinton administration, passed by the Democratic-controlled House, passed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, and signed into law by Bill Clinton himself.
Probably one of the more famous examples of being hoisted by one’s own petard.
It has been reported that Ms Carroll could not remember the day – or the year – when the battery occured. On the basis of insufficient evidence, the judge should have rendered a not guilty judgement, non obstante veredicto.
Neo, I have to disagree on one point. Bill Clinton signed the Violence Against Women Act into law in 1994. That law specifically made similar acts permissible evidence in civil sexual harassment/suits.* So it didn’t bother me one bit to see Billy Jeff hoist on his own petard. Any executive in a private corporation would have been subject to the same standard. No doubt Billy Jeff never suspected the bill he signed into law wouldn’t only apply to the “lower orders” but to him as well. I agree it’s a bad standard but if anyone should be subject to such a standard it needs to be someone who bears responsibility for creative it. As far as I was concerned it wasn’t only sweet justice, it was cosmic justice.
*I am convinced the “similar acts” provision was demanded by vindictive Democrat Congresswomen still fuming that no Navy/USMC aviators were convicted of anything after the 1991 Tailhook “scandal” (it was as much a “scandal” as J6 was an “insurrection;” as in not at all). Every single officer who demanded court martial was acquitted. To convict someone back then you needed something called evidence. The frustrated Democrats denied their scalp leaned on the JCS to scrap that standard and make the new standard that sufficient numbers of baseless allegations equalled guilty. We were told to document every baseless, unprovable allegation on the theory”where there’s smoke there’s fire.” I tried to hold my tongue. I really did. It’s not good to make yourself a target as the Navy chain of command that becomes a bunch of dancing bears to please their political masters who might threaten their O-10 retirement pay is just as vindictive as an Democrat Congresswoman. So I’d talk back. I don’t care how many zeros you string together and multiply by infinity the result is still zero. Zero doesn’t even prove smoke let alone fire.
VAWA was the Democrat party’s attempt to establish the same Lavrentiy Beria-style standard of justice on the civilian side of the legal system. When it turned around and bit Billy Jeff on the butt it put a smile on my face. It still does.
My apologies, mkent. I didn’t see your comment. But in my defense I need to point out it takes me so long to type anything out on my “smartphone” I probably started my naval epic before you commented.
“You’re not describing people who are thinking this through.”
It was right there in the words you quoted – “Every Democrat”
@Bauxite
Mother of Understatements.
I’ll believe that if Dershowitz and Turley are suckered in by this. The reasonable left-winger is rare and increasingly so in Current Year but not entirely extinct, and a few have the legal chops to recognize this for what it is.
Neo obviously believes yes. I am somewhat more uncertain, but it is thoroughly reliant on the ability to expose Ford and her ilk as the charlatans they are on the stand and to get the jury to accept that. Which due to supreme political bias is far from a certain thing.
Hell, even in the venue of the Congress (which is far from a perfect institution but at least had a certain balance of terror) it was perilously close enough and Neo is correct to note the lingering damage that STILL was done, with Kavanaugh being guilty entering as one of the Left’s great Big Lies.
You keep saying this, but you don’t provide much in the way of actual proof. In large part because you can’t; it is not merely a counterfactual, but also one with many of the places where we can evaluate being the opposite.
Likely, given his role in the trial.
Do you even REMEMBER the Kavanaugh hearings, Bauxite?
Because while Kavanaugh probably would not have pulled the “Not my type” stutff he POINTEDLY DID get angry and combative on the stand. Which – as you would know if you were more evenhanded and listened to the evidence rather than Orange Man Bad – was used to demonize him and paint him as guilty or having something to hide.
Which I think thoroughly vindicates Neo’s point. Trying to pin the results of this onto Trump’s major malfunctions is missing the point to a painful degree precisely because we have evidence (in the very cases you claim are not like this one) that the Left engaged in a political prosecution will twist just about everything it can to try and destroy its enemies, and that it REALLY DOESN’T MATTER if you are a boy scout or the accuser is a fabulist who cannot keep their own story straight. Trump’s track record and history made this somewhat easier than in Kavanaugh’s case, but Kavanaugh’s case shows that the sufficiently bloody-minded on the Left surmounted that hurdle readily.
Continuing to ignore this lesson and insist “they’re different! They’d be different cases!” underlines a profound lack of awareness.
The jury, like in so many cases, saw what it wanted to see, guided by the legal eagles on both sides. Which is why you have to be careful about showing them.
I’ll also note – like I did when I pointed out the manifest flaws in your interpretations of Trump’s deposition – that juries GENERALLY EXPECT the defendant to punch back in some fashion against those accusing them of charges and to not always take the high road, in part because doing so shows they are human. Which Trump did in a way that would’ve been recognized by my left-leaning lawyer father as relatively effective. Whether or not that would’ve been enough or if taking the stand would’ve been better or worse is ultimately unknowable, but it does undermine much of your narrative.
That did not stop them from trying, such as the attempts to define “Boofing” in the most obscene and inflammatory fashion.
Moreover, if you actually listen to the Access Hollywood tape, it becomes VERY clear that it is nowhere near as inflammatory as it is often made out to be by the media. The problem of course is that the vast majority of low information voters will never hear the tape or read an honest transcript, they’ll be told (explicitly and implicitly) what it says, while utterly omitting that Trump was not talking alone and the implications of that.
Such is the power of NARRATIVE control, and which we have seen used on people with much more upstanding sexual histories than Trump, such as Romney and Kavanaugh. It’s one reason why even now after my bitter estrangement from Pence I admit his policy re: his wife was absolutely brilliant, even if it is obviously an act of desperation.
As Neo pointed out, that isn’t the only thing that should have been inadmissible that was rendered admissible here.
Which is what is crucial here, and which STILL Wasn’t enough to convince many of the garden variety leftists as Neo pointed out, the people who often go on to make up juries. A key difference was that Kavanaugh wasn’t tried by a NYC jury but by Congress, and Congresscritters are more exposed, more public, and usually forced to adhere to a somewhat higher standard than juries.
And don’t blather about how this would be different with Trump, because this factor along with the autopsy and footage leaks are what ultimately derailed the January 6th Committee (to the extent it was derailed). Creating yet another Leftist Big Lie that has been destroyed in the details but which will persist among the echo chamber projectors, low information voters, and the politically biased.
But of course that’s not the case with Trump, in spite of the comparable factors, because Reasons (TM).
Which itself is an issue.
The entire reason why Kavanuagh, Thomas, and in the case of January 6th Trump prevailed is BECAUSE there are practical limits to how biased and corrupt a competitive Congress can be while wearing its judicial hat. That is not present in more local juries and everybody knows it. That doesn’t mean you CAN’T get justice from juries, even NYC juries, but it does point to how you should not trust it. Especially in hideously politicized localities like NYC pointed to be.
How much of her story have you seen?
Also Ford’s story’s inconsistencies largely were exposed on cross, after rigorous and public exaggeration.
What they didn’t isn’t crazy, but points to how poisonous and dangerous fundamentally ungrounded accusations are even devoid of politics, let alone with them.
You know, it’s PAINFUL sometimes to see you nudge RIGHT UP to a revelation, take one look at it, and then shoot right the opposite direction.
Correct, the central argument against Kavanaugh was that he was “credibly accused.” Nevermind how this was thoroughly devoid of credibility. And that was enough to damn Kavanaugh in the minds of the Left’s True Believers and many low information voters. It was QUITE LITERALLY all that was necessary. But you do not see that a similar dynamic could explain what we see with Trump, especially if we followed your own line of argumentation that the case was stronger than those against Kavanaugh’s with a somewhat more “credible” accuser, even with vague at best evidence either way?
But that would require acknowledging that NO, THE CASES ARE NOT TOTALLY DIFFERENT, AND THEY HAVE GREAT SIMILARITIES.
Which you do not want to admit because of the Great Orange Whale and your biases against Trump.
Which is why you have to engage in such naked hypocrisy, double standards, and tapdancing sophistry in an attempt to prevent it from being too obvious from those casually reading your comments that your stance is fundamentally held together by naught more than profoundly motivated thinking, personal biases, and double think.
And you wonder why I told you to fuck off with this?
neo
I appreciate your compassion regarding the woman who, as far as I can figure it,
“double remembered” the Michael Brown case.
However, she believes, double or not, in pretty much all the more severe interpretations of The Narrative and is actively uncomfortable and actively changes the subject when matters of relevant fact heave over the horizon.
That being said, she is well-informed about issues which are not of The Narrative and not at all irrational.
To provide an example, although I have no idea of her thinking in the matter, the Presbyterian Church USA has, as one of its groups supported by headquarters, a call to sit with the pain of indigenous people in the matter of the missing (kidnapped or murdered) indigenous women. Lot of that happening. Ordinarily, you’d want the people who are doing it to stop, but that’s not the issue. Not a mention. Not like MAGA-hatted guys doing, or almost doing or getting ready to do something awful. Those guys, you have to watch out for.
Canada went through that a couple of years ago, accusing themselves of being genocidaires or some such. The auto-flagellation was the point. But when they couldn’t find any white perps, the whole thing was dropped, indigenous women being left to fend for themselves, apparently.
The puzzlement–how can they be this stupid?– is answered by the process of “double remembering”.
Maybe there’s some other answer but this seems to fit most of the time. She/they NEED to believe and, since the actual facts actually come out and, will they or nill they, come drifting across one’s awareness, a procedure has to be in place to protect what they NEED to believe.
Might be something else, but this looks like Occam’s best bet to me at the moment.
Dr. Mcdowell of the Air Force OSI created a false rape checklist you might want to apply. Go to http://ejfi.org/PDF/McDowell-False_rape_checklist.pdf
That did not stop them from trying, such as the attempts to define “Boofing” in the most obscene and inflammatory fashion.
==
James Roche (who grew up in Connecticut, IIRC) contended ‘boofing’ and ‘devil’s triangle’ were sexual terms and everyone knew it. I was a Maryland state resident when Kavanaugh was finishing high school and entering college and around youths who had grown up in Montgomery County (where my grandmother then lived). I never heard these terms. They were inside jokes.
==
Note the pathology in Roche. Here’s a guy in the Bay Area with a wife and a business to run, and he’s nursing a grudge against someone with whom he shared a dormitory suite for four months and change 35 years earlier. Do you know anyone who thinks and behaves that way?
@Art Deco
The reason I mention it was not merely the question of whether or not Boofing was a sexual term, but that it was both a sexual term and a sexual term related to PARTICULARLY inflammatory and odious practices. Which is the key thing.
Unfortunately I do to a great degree. Sometimes I wonder if I am like that because I remember things and while I am willing to forgive, if that isn’t accepted I do hold grudges. But to lie and try to smear over this is repulsive and outlandish. To say nothing of grotesque.
But again, the smear on Kavanaugh meant interpreting EVERYTHING through the worst possible lens, and it was more successful than Bauxite cares to admit precisely because it puts lie to the idea that this was largely due to Trump being uniquely odious or susceptible to it.
there was no evidence, so this trial should not have happened, we know all the dignitaries (so called) that met with epstein after his verdict, that schlemiel barak,
the current director, botstein that weasel, the banks that looked the other way,
Turtler,
Regarding holding a grudge; it’s a trait all us humans likely have to some degree. However, I strongly recommend avoiding or overcoming the emotion, if possible.
I try to follow the adage, “Living well is the best revenge.”
I try to observe that philosophy because it works. It is true. Focusing on improving one’s lot, even when harmed by another, will yield a better future than dwelling on the injustice done to you.
However, there’s a fun, cynical component that it’s also the best way to get back at your assailant. When someone trying to do harm or hold another back sees their attempt had no affect, and their opponent is thriving, it proves the assailant ineffectual and incompetent. And, hopefully, he or she will learn it is best to change their behavior.
There are a lot of quotes and adages around this subject; about the harm holding a grudge or hating another can do to one’s soul. And no shortage of stories and films; “Ben Hur” being an example of both. Holding grudges allows the offender continued, negative influence over you and your actions; “Living rent free inside your head.”
The point is to keep up the scare and keep the base energized. The case, and the other cases, will have an effect, but the effect will be not so much to change minds as to keep things as they are and the Trump haters as convinced, angry, and militant as they have been.
I get everything third hand, but as I understand it, the Access Hollywood tape was admitted into evidence, and various comments that Carroll had made were excluded. I’d be interested in knowing exactly what was excluded, but it does seem to me that the Access Hollywood tape or transcript should also have been excluded.
Might one look upon the current “victory” in the attempt to smear (and hopefully) destroy Trump as “sweet, long-sought vengeance” on the part of the Vindictive Party—that champion of Personal, Social and National DESTRUCTION—for its “failure” (so-called) to smear and destroy Kavanaugh and further failure to successfully impeach Orange Man Bad (twice, in fact)?
Those Lovers and Defenders of Democrach(TM) sure are persistent when it comes to trashing their country, its laws, its cities and its citizens.
Any and all who agree with and firmly support the Democratic Party’s policies of destruction—its WAR of destruction on America—MUST understand that they’re all in it for the long haul. I.e., Stamina IS required…and there’s NO GUARANTEE that they will not be swept up in the whirlwind (or flushed down the toilet, depending on one’s metaphor of choice) for their questionable choices.
the access hollywood tape revealed what would only be admitted when weinstein had served his purpose, and the management at comcast and whoever owns cbs, wanted to turf out moonves and the respectable charlie rose (sarc)
there was a reference to maggie rodriguez, a particularly loathsome news drone, who has a reputation according to all concerned, an up and coming couric,
My family is worth defending.
My home is worth defending.
This tyranny is not worth defending.
Unfortunately I do to a great degree.
==
The third occupant of the suite left in mid-semester, in Kavanaugh’s telling after a blow up with Roche. He was replaced by a fourth person who says he liked Roche and disliked Kavanaugh. The thing is, in the magazine article he penned, he gives details of what irritated him and it’s nothing an ordinary person would bother about after one year, much less 35 years. Kavanaugh didn’t steal Roche’s girlfriend and the two weren’t throwing crockery at each other. They just were avoiding each other and not talking. (Note, the suite consisted of separate bedrooms for each occupant, a bathroom, and a common room that none of them used).
==
You’ll recall Ted Cruz once had a roommate named Craig Maizin. The 44 year old Maizin was in 2016 employed as a screenwriter. One of his sidelines in 2016 was attempting to trash Cruz reputation via Twitter, mostly by retailing adolescent gossip (or inventing it, recall the guy is a screenwriter). Maybe their problem is arrested development.
@ Turtler,
I have a question. You said about Mike Pence, “It’s one reason why even now after my bitter estrangement from Pence I admit his policy re: his wife was absolutely brilliant, even if it is obviously an act of desperation.”
What do you mean by desperation?
I can’t envision a time ever when I would want to drink or dine alone with a woman not my wife.
To me, such a policy is simply common sense and respect for your marriage.
The military had…well, used to have anyways, a phrase for this: Avoiding the appearance of impropriety.
America is circling the toilet bowl…What’s being done about it??
I don’t mean to ruffle anyone’s feathers with these opinions, but here are my opinion(s) on this event:
1] I’m hoping that Trump can get a retrial on this case, + be found not guilty.
If he can’t do that, then I think his chance to run for President, in this year or any year, is over.
The American public does not forgive someone who has been found guilty / liable of rape, or guilty of other sexual crimes.
The US press doesn’t either.
All we have to do is, [in my words] – look at the “he said vs. she said”-type trial of the boxer, Mike Tyson.
In the court case- it was the accuser’s word against his, and the jury sided with the accuser.
So after that, the court found him guilty.
So, after being found guilty, most of the US public, + the US press, treated him like- one of the most hideous people on earth, or one of the most hideous monsters on earth. Everyone stays away from Mike Tyson like he is a plague.
It’s now almost impossible for Mike Tyson to get work: in boxing…his field, or in TV jobs or film jobs, or in any- American job or foreign job.
Most likely, the public won’t forgive him, or think he might be innocent, because- most of the American public [does not handle, or approach]- sexual issues, or sexual crimes issues- with the needed amount of adult maturity] to handle those issues properly.
I have no example, over the past 20 years or longer, of any American: [celebrity person, government office holder, President, governor, actor or actress, sports person, or any other person], who has 1] been found guilty/liable for [a rape or molestation, or another sexual crime], and 2] if needed, having shown remorse + asked for the public’s forgiveness, [has gotten] that forgiveness, and has gotten a chance to rebuild their life and reputation, [after] that forgiveness.
That is not a tradition that the public has created, as of yet.
So- I think it is very likely that: if Trump can’t, 1] get a retrial in this case, and 2] be found not guilty in this case, [before, or during the 2024 President’s race], then he will have no chance to be voted in as the US President.
He will not get the needed votes for that race.
If he can’t clear his name, and his reputation, in a court of law- then he won’t have a chance to become the US president, because the public, and the voters will say: [I do not want to vote for that rapist].
The voters will also say to each other: [you can’t vote for that rapist. That would be a morally bad thing to do].
The public, and the press, do not have a tradition of [forgiving people for being found guilty of rape, or other sexual crimes].
From what I’ve seen: if Trump can’t clear his name, by being found not guilty…or not liable…in a retrial in this case, then most likely: he will not stand a chance in a run for President, [and people won’t give him a job in any other field], either.
The public, and the press- don’t have a tradition, of forgiving people- who have been found guilty of a rape, or have been found guilty of any another sexual crime. To proceed, he will have to clear his name in a court of law,…otherwise, the voters will not support him in a run for President.
Ray on May 10, 2023 at 8:21
reference the McDowell checklist: for item 38 — Does victim demand to be treated by a female physician or interviewed by a female police officer?
Any idea why that might be a negative flag? Seeking a potentially more understanding interlocutor seems reasonable to me. Or from McDowell’s survey, would a female doctor or officer end up being not suitably objective and too sympathetic for a rigorous investigation?
RTF: “Living well is the best revenge.”
A very good adage – I hope I can live by it as well.
Grunt on May 10, 2023 at 11:11
Reference Mike Pence: alternative thoughts
Might he be concerned his wife would not trust him not to stray?
Given the rise of women into positions of increasing responsibility from the 60’s onward, it would seem likely he would need to consult with women about professional matters, and even develop a friendly non-romantic relationship with a few of them. But keeping too great a distance from such professional equals sends the message they are not really equal nor professional enough to be trusted, etc. Not a good look??
Is he perhaps using religious ideas about women as seductresses, etc.? Further indicating lack of trust in them and/or in himself?
Given the “kiss of death” a scandal could have if seemingly valid, some cautions and reservations on his part do seem reasonable, but (not knowing how he conducted his normal daily business while governor or VP) he may be overdoing it.
TR – I suspect that the people that did vote for Trump already factored his real and alleged sexual history into their calculation, in comparison to the alternative candidates, both in 2016 and 2020, and will do the same in 2024, as applicable (primary vs. general).
NY’s electoral votes were never going to Trump in any case. I am a little surprised he seems to have treated this trial as “soft pedaled” as he has – not making even more pointed remarks [or maybe I have missed them?].
R2L- exactly.
It looks like, in my view, maybe Trump was trying a strategy like: [If I treat this court case, like it is a foolish case, + absolutely nothing, then the Jury + Judge will treat it like that, as well].
Trump’s treatment of this case seems very odd.