Trump

[Cjay]

He also has a separate $38 million judgment against him for defaming Ms. Carroll. Seems likely that will now stand, too.

We knew he was a rapist when we elected him. It is a national disgrace.

Poor lady, hopefully some justice for her.

Trump is living proof money and privilege can keep you out of jail.

[John in Louisiana]

Poor lady, hopefully some justice for her.

Trump is living proof money and privilege can keep you out of jail.

The ultra-wealthy are above the law and they know it. They face no real consequences for their bad acts. Even if Trump ends up paying E. Jean Carroll some forty million dollars, that's just a small fraction of his fortune. He'll sell a few pardons to pay for it, the corrupt ba***rd.

[Cjay]

The ultra-wealthy are above the law and they know it. They face no real consequences for their bad acts. Even if Trump ends up paying E. Jean Carroll some forty million dollars, that's just a small fraction of his fortune. He'll sell a few pardons to pay for it, the corrupt ba***rd.

Sadly so.

A certain Portuguese player paid his accuser off and leaked documents now basically erased from the Internet seem to prove his guilt.

Money and power unfortunately

But atleast it's in the public domain for that lady and Trump.

[CUSSIE01]

What a great businessman

[Jaydog]

The ultra-wealthy are above the law and they know it. They face no real consequences for their bad acts. Even if Trump ends up paying E. Jean Carroll some forty million dollars, that's just a small fraction of his fortune. He'll sell a few pardons to pay for it, the corrupt ba***rd.

And royalty.
Andrew should be in prison and certainly would be without his Royal blood.

[airedale]

American friends look at the uk news ,this is how you deal with extreme right wing politicians .
Count Binface's odds are slashed to 4/1 for the Clacton byelection .

[Cjay]

He's going senile

[Musicman1965]

Getting involved with Fifa decisions that go against the USA is just another example of Presidential Powder gone mad.
Keep your fecking beek out of football and start running the USA properly, its a big job with no time for distractions...

[The Subhuman]

Wanted senile old man with Dementia or Alzheimer's to run a super power

We wish to carry on the tradition to a third consecutive person

[Victor_OTT_17]

I'm more astonished at the people that support/work for him! They phkn know and yet thay take a wage???

[wynpalmer]

You guys are familiar with the details of the E Jean Carroll sexual assault (not rape) trial- right?
Just to enlighten you all.
1,Three days after Donald Trump announced he was running for president again in November of 2022, a woman named E. Jean Carroll announced she was launching a civil suit against him, alleging that he had sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago in a department store in New York.
2. She could not remember the exact date, month, or the precise year the assault took place. She initially guessed the year was 1995 or 1996, eventually narrowing it down to Spring 1996 based on a friend's article and other contextual clues
3.. She could not recall other shoppers or specific people in the Bergdorf Goodman store, though she stated she wasn't looking for anyone else because she was focused on her conversation with Trump
4. She could not remember exact details of certain emails she sent or some of her own personal diary records from that era.
etc. etc.
5.The statute of limitations for the assault had expired, so the NY legislature created legislation to open a temporary, one-year window for adult survivors of sexual abuse to file civil lawsuits—even if the traditional statute of limitations for their claims had already expired. Carroll filed her sexual battery lawsuit under this law immediately after it took effect, alongside a separate ongoing defamation claim.
6.Prior to the changes, the New York statute of limitations for civil cases involving sexual assault was generally just one year-
and for good reason, evidence even after one year is notoriously difficult to obtain, and it inevitably comes down to he said, she said.

Does this seem unquestionably reasonable? Having the law changed in such an egregious way just to target one individual where he was pretty well guaranteed not to get a fair trial and where the standards of conviction were so low stinks of Lawfare and is clearly politically motivated.
She also benefited substantially from the trial- both from the judgement (and the defamation case).
I won't get into the defamation case, other than to say that there are reasons to believe that in a less biased environment that Trumps 1st amendment rights would have prevailed.

Joe Biden has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and assault, most prominently from his former Senate staffer, Tara Reade. Reade claimed Biden assaulted her in a Capitol Hill office corridor in 1993.
Somehow this, and other allegations, were treated profoundly different by the establishment. No new laws...
I could go on and on.... One final comment.
The Equal Protection Clause is a core civil rights pillar found in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Ratified in 1868, it mandates that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Was this whole process constitutionally valid? I claim not. Just another example of the "Deep state" attacking someone who used to be one of their own, but has become an apostate.

[Cjay]

You guys are familiar with the details of the E Jean Carroll sexual assault (not rape) trial- right?
Just to enlighten you all.
1,Three days after Donald Trump announced he was running for president again in November of 2022, a woman named E. Jean Carroll announced she was launching a civil suit against him, alleging that he had sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago in a department store in New York.
2. She could not remember the exact date, month, or the precise year the assault took place. She initially guessed the year was 1995 or 1996, eventually narrowing it down to Spring 1996 based on a friend's article and other contextual clues
3.. She could not recall other shoppers or specific people in the Bergdorf Goodman store, though she stated she wasn't looking for anyone else because she was focused on her conversation with Trump
4. She could not remember exact details of certain emails she sent or some of her own personal diary records from that era.
etc. etc.
5.The statute of limitations for the assault had expired, so the NY legislature created legislation to open a temporary, one-year window for adult survivors of sexual abuse to file civil lawsuits—even if the traditional statute of limitations for their claims had already expired. Carroll filed her sexual battery lawsuit under this law immediately after it took effect, alongside a separate ongoing defamation claim.
6.Prior to the changes, the New York statute of limitations for civil cases involving sexual assault was generally just one year-
and for good reason, evidence even after one year is notoriously difficult to obtain, and it inevitably comes down to he said, she said.

Does this seem unquestionably reasonable? Having the law changed in such an egregious way just to target one individual where he was pretty well guaranteed not to get a fair trial and where the standards of conviction were so low stinks of Lawfare and is clearly politically motivated.
She also benefited substantially from the trial- both from the judgement (and the defamation case).
I won't get into the defamation case, other than to say that there are reasons to believe that in a less biased environment that Trumps 1st amendment rights would have prevailed.

Joe Biden has faced multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and assault, most prominently from his former Senate staffer, Tara Reade. Reade claimed Biden assaulted her in a Capitol Hill office corridor in 1993.
Somehow this, and other allegations, were treated profoundly different by the establishment. No new laws...
I could go on and on.... One final comment.
The Equal Protection Clause is a core civil rights pillar found in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Ratified in 1868, it mandates that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Was this whole process constitutionally valid? I claim not. Just another example of the "Deep state" attacking someone who used to be one of their own, but has become an apostate.

Very simple question.

No explanation needed.

Just a yes or no please.

Do you believe Donald Trump is innocent of all the heinous things he's been accused of over the decades? These things go back long before he was President.

Rapes, sexual assaults, Epstein things and all the depraved things that entails.

All of it.

Do you believe it's all just one big conspiracy of an innocent man?

[wynpalmer]

Very simple question.

No explanation needed.

Just a yes or no please.

Do you believe Donald Trump is innocent of all the heinous things he's been accused of over the decades? These things go back long before he was President.

Rapes, sexual assaults, Epstein things and all the depraved things that entails.

All of it.

Do you believe it's all just one big conspiracy of an innocent man?

That's kind of like asking "when did you stop beating your wife", and a yes-no answer is not applicable.
Shall we go through each SPECIFIC claim in turn?
Again, be specific, for example what about the Epstein Files?
What does AI have to say.

Donald Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were social and business acquaintances who interacted frequently from the late 1980s until the early 2000s. While their past association has drawn significant public and media scrutiny, law enforcement authorities and investigative bodies have not found evidence connecting Trump to Epstein's crimes.A timeline of their relationship reveals:Early Connections: The two men socialized regularly, often bonding over real estate and their pursuit of young women. In a 2002 interview with New York Magazine, Trump described Epstein as a "terrific guy".Social Proximity: Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, they were photographed together at various parties and charity events at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Flight logs also show Trump flew on Epstein's private jet multiple times between 1993 and 1997.The Falling Out: The friendship largely deteriorated around 2004. Trump has cited several reasons for the rupture, including a bidding war over a Palm Beach mansion, and allegations that Epstein recruited staff members away from Mar-a-Lago.Subsequent Separation: By 2007, Trump had reportedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. There are no public records of the two men interacting after the mid-2000s.

2. Newly released investigative records indicate that Donald Trump called police about Jeffrey Epstein. According to a 2019 FBI interview summary of former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter, Trump called him in July 2006 to state, "Thank goodness you're stopping him, everyone has known he's been doing this".Key details from this document include:The 2006 Call: Reiter told FBI investigators that Trump, then a private businessman, contacted him shortly after the police department's probe of Epstein became publicly known.Statements about Epstein and Maxwell: Trump reportedly advised the police chief to focus on Ghislaine Maxwell, whom he described as "evil," and noted that Epstein's predatory activities were an open secret in New York.Evicting Epstein: Trump also reiterated a claim he has made consistently over the years—that he had previously thrown Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club. The U.S. Department of Justice noted that it is not aware of any corroborating evidence beyond this FBI report that a call to law enforcement took place 20 years ago. You can read more about these details and the related unsealed court records in coverage by the Miami Herald and BBC News.
There is no evidence to suggest that Trump had any involvement in the Epstein crimes, unlike Bill Clinton, or Bill Gates, for example.

I'm not a Trump apologist. I'm aware of his history. I'm also aware of what the establishment has been doing since he began running for President prior to 2016. Lots of hoaxes. So, yes, there is substantial truth to the grand conspiracy theory, but that does not make him a "savory" character. My wife is from New York. She says he makes her skin crawl. But she says the same thing about Clinton and Biden. Even the Democratic Icon, JFK, was an extremely unsavory character in many ways, and well, you should check out his father, if you don't know that particular history.
However, if you believe that what has been happening in the West over the last decade or two is beneficial to society then you and I have very different perspectives, and I would welcome a viable alternative to the counter-revolution that Trump is at the forefront of.

Next, I guess, I have to have a go at Democracy vs. a Constitutional Republic and the value in having the Electoral College and why the US Founding Fathers set things up the way they did.

[wynpalmer]

Can't have a rapist handing over the World Cup.

In case you didn't understand. the US Supreme court does not rule on right or wrong in cases like this. In this instance the decision not to take the case simply means that they thought that the lower court was procedurally correct. The appeal from trump's lawyers was purely on a procedural matter, and the Supreme Court did not pass comment, which generally means that they did not find the procedure at fault.
Once again, Trump has never been convicted of rape.
Rape is when unwanted sexual intercourse is forced upon someone, while sexual assault is when any unwanted sexual contact happens without consent. They are substantially different in the way the law treats them, and their perceived severity.
Also, Trump was NOT CONVICTED OF A CRIME!!! The trial was a Civil one, with profoundly different evidentiary requirements.

[Cjay]

In case you didn't understand. the US Supreme court does not rule on right or wrong in cases like this. In this instance the decision not to take the case simply means that they thought that the lower court was procedurally correct. The appeal from trump's lawyers was purely on a procedural matter, and the Supreme Court did not pass comment, which generally means that they did not find the procedure at fault.
Once again, Trump has never been convicted of rape.
Rape is when unwanted sexual intercourse is forced upon someone, while sexual assault is when any unwanted sexual contact happens without consent. They are substantially different in the way the law treats them, and their perceived severity.
Also, Trump was NOT CONVICTED OF A CRIME!!! The trial was a Civil one, with profoundly different evidentiary requirements.

For someone who isn't a Trump apologist you've done a lot of defending of him.

I never got a simple answer to my question.

It isn't a complicated question.

It didn't require a long paragraph.

A simple yes or no will do.

You've made it much more complicated rather than just giving a straight answer.

Do you believe Donald Trump had knowledge of the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein long before the public?

Do you believe Trump partook in those Epstein things in any illegal way?

Do you believe he has ever sexually assaulted someone?

It's your opinion so a simple yes or no is all that's required.

No judgement, I just want your honest opinion.

[BobHirst]

But Cjay, Stalin and Hitler and Mao and Putin are very bad people.
Nothing to see here.

[John in Louisiana]

You guys are familiar with the details of the E Jean Carroll sexual assault (not rape) trial- right?
Just to enlighten you all.
1,Three days after Donald Trump announced he was running for president again in November of 2022, a woman named E. Jean Carroll announced she was launching a civil suit against him, alleging that he had sexually assaulted her more than 30 years ago in a department store in New York.

This is disingenuous, at the very least.

E Jean Carroll filed two lawsuits against Trump. The first was for the sexual assault and Trump's subsequent defamation of Carroll after she went public with her accusation. Trump was ordered to pay $5 million in damages for that case ($5.8 million now with interest). Trump appealed the decision to the United States District Court, but his appeal was denied. From the Court documents:

"In this case, after a nine-day trial, a jury found that plaintiff-appellee E. Jean Carroll was sexually abused by defendant-appellant Donald J. Trump at the Bergdorf Goodman department store in Manhattan in 1996. The jury also found that Mr. Trump defamed her in statements he made in 2022. The jury awarded Ms. Carroll a total of $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.

"Mr. Trump now appeals, contending that the district court (Lewis A. Kaplan, Judge) erred in several of its evidentiary rulings. These include its decisions to admit the testimony of two women who alleged that Mr. Trump sexually assaulted them in the past and to admit a recording of part of a 2005 conversation in which Mr. Trump described to another man how he kissed and grabbed women without first obtaining their consent. Mr. Trump contends that these and other asserted errors entitle him to a new trial. On review for abuse of discretion, we conclude that Mr. Trump has not demonstrated that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings. Further, he has not carried his burden to show that any claimed error or combination of claimed errors affected his substantial rights as required to warrant a new trial.

"AFFRIRMED."

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/ap ... 12-30.html

[John in Louisiana]

The results of that case meant Trump had been adjudicated a rapist. Granted, the burden of proof in a civil case in the US is significantly lower than in a criminal case, where an individual's liberty is at risk. In a criminal case, the prosecution must demonstrate the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case the jury must decide guilt or innocence based on a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, is the likelihood the defendant is guilty substantially greater than the likelihood he is not guilty.

Subsequent to that verdict, however, Trump continued to defame Carroll publicly. He continued to do so despite being told by a judge to cease his public utterances in reference to Ms. Carroll. His conduct was so egregious that Carroll filed a second suit against Trump. The first suit was for damages related to the sexual assault and subsequent defamation. This second suit was for the continued defamatory statements Trump made subsequent to the first verdict. Because of these statements Carroll faced abuse and threats on her safety.

So outrageous was Trump's conduct that, when the second defamation case was brought before a judge, the judge ruled that defamation was already proved beyond any doubt and that the second case would be limited to the assessment of damages. In that case, because Trump continued to defame Carroll after having been convicted in the first trial and after being to ordered by the Court to cease and desist, the damages awarded were far more significant. In this case some $43 million.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66733736

[John in Louisiana]

The worst thing is that, knowing all this about him, we still elected him president. And this incident is far from the only evidence we had of his manifest unfitness.

As a nation we should be ashamed of ourselves.

[whiteswan]

Guys....don't be drawn.