Fogbow

Edward @EdwardEvilap wrote: No one is more guilty. He was bigly guilty. So guilty.

Kaylan_TX Kaylan_TX wrote: “They came to me with tears in their eyes and said Sir, you’re so guilty sir”

https://twitter.com/Kaylan_TX/status/16 ... 93728?s=20

Jim wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:50 pm I thought in a town hall that the audience got to ask questions? You think the audience will ignore it?

Likely curated pre-screened questions.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:34 pm tfg responds, in all caps.

I agree that you have no idea who this woman is WHO JUST KICKED YOUR ASS, but I think this is more of a bitch hunt than a witch hunt, and Donald?

You da bitch.

neonzx wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:52 pm

Jim wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:50 pm I thought in a town hall that the audience got to ask questions? You think the audience will ignore it?

Likely curated pre-screened questions.

I WON!!!. What do I win???????

I lost, but I wanted to lose. What do I win?

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:59 pm I lost, but I wanted to lose. What do I win?

We BOTH win a civil verdict against tfg on sexual assault and defamation!!!!!

HOOORAYY!!

Humm, I picked choice #1 so I will assume that is a win. I figured if the jury found that he likely raped or sexually assaulted her they would easily jump to well over a million. I don't think we knew the verdict sheet would be constructed the way it was.

I am happy with the outcome and I am still going to add rapist to twice impeached, criminally indicted, one term ex president.

SuzieC wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:26 pm

chancery wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:21 pm So, at the margin I would have preferred "yes" on the first question, but the fact that it was "no" makes it harder to argue credibly that this was a politicized, knee-jerk jury.

Edit: I too strongly suspect that this was a compromise verdict.

Agree, but Ms. Carroll testified that she was not certain that Trump penetrated her with his penis, in part because she could not see it. She was certain about other details of the assault, though.

Ah, I had missed (or forgotten) that significant detail.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:34 pm tfg responds, in all caps.

I mean, if he's as far gone in the dementia as some have said (and some of the best people have said it, beautifully, if one might use that phrasing), then it's possible he has "absolutely no idea who this woman is" but still assaulted her. So, yeah. It's not a defense, Mister ex-President. It's just an admission that you're also losing your mind.

Foggy wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:47 pm

Foggy wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:11 pm Okay, now I owe a huge apology to Maybenaut for not improving the poll.

I'm sorry, Maybenaut.

To further explain, she suggested that I add "not liable for rape, but liable for sexual assault/battery" as options in the poll, with the various monetary amounts. But I was being lazy, and I wanted the jury to find him liable for rape, and it only would have taken a minute or two to get the poll done correctly.

It shoulda been:

1. Liable for rape, award > $1 million
2. Liable for rape, award < $1 million
3. Liable for sexual battery, award > $1 million
4. Liable for sexual battery, award < $1 million
5. Defense verdict

... maybe some others, you can have 10 options in a poll.

I repeat, sorry, Maybenaut.

Apology accepted. Not to put too fine a pint on it, but the poll also didn’t address defamation, which was a separate potential (and as it turns out, actual) basis for damages.

I voted liable for rape, award less than $1M. If some lesser offense had been an option, I would have picked that. But I could not imagine any jury finding that Trump had assaulted her in some way, and then only awarding nominal damages. So I knew there’d be damages if they found he’d battered her in some way, I just low-balled the estimate.

I could imagine a jury awarding nominal damages for the defamation claim given the issues she was having with Elle.

But I don’t mind being wrong. It won’t be the last time, and if I’m going to be wrong about something, I’m so glad it’s this.

Side question, though, for all the lawyers in the house:

A court of competent jurisdiction has now gone on record as finding Trump liable for defamation. This means a court has entered into the record that Trump has uttered publicly and 'loudly' a comment about someone that is, by legal definition, untrue. That means that a court has found Trump has lied.

Does this open any doors to be used elsewere in matters where Trump's probity or mendacity is at issue?

I’m so happy to have been wrong!

Let this be the first of many guilty verdicts!

“ Let justice roll down like waters. And righteousness like an everlasting stream.”

Official response:

He’s such a LOSER!

patgund wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:42 pm Alas, his cultists won't believe it, and he'll never pay up.

I'd like to see her place a lien on his assets though

Enough women will believe it, though. There was a lot of “Boys will be boys, silly. He didn’t mean nuthin’ by it ” about the p**** tape from MAGA women at the time. After 5 years they no longer believe that. Doesn’t mean they won’t vote for him.

The asshole admits to assaulting women, brags about it in fact, then pisses and moans about the consequences.

F your face Diaper Don.

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 4:25 pmDoes this open any doors to be used elsewere in matters where Trump's probity or mendacity is at issue?

As always, "it depends."

But unlikely.

That this jury found he made a false statement (with actual malice!) likely wouldn't be relevant in any other proceeding, especially if he doesn't testify.

Not a nice thing to say about Neanderthals.

Has he blamed Tacopina yet? I give it two days.

Media Matters has a round up of RWNJs calling the verdict a victory for tfg.
https://www.mediamatters.org/donald-tru ... defamation
Ex:

Jason S. Campbell @JasonSCampbell wrote: Minutes after Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation, a Newsmax guest calls it a "major win" for Trump: "Don't worry about the money. Whether it's $4 or 5 million, that means nothing to Trump. He did not want to be labelled a rapist"

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 4:10 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:34 pm tfg responds, in all caps.

I mean, if he's as far gone in the dementia as some have said (and some of the best people have said it, beautifully, if one might use that phrasing), then it's possible he has "absolutely no idea who this woman is" but still assaulted her. So, yeah. It's not a defense, Mister ex-President. It's just an admission that you're also losing your mind.

Or he's done it to so many women that he really literally has no idea who she is because she's just another woman he's assaulted.

Does he have to register as a sex offender, now?