I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Trump seems like a sore winner as well as being a bad loser. He seems really worried that Haley is not dropping out the way he wants. First he tried threatening her with legal woes, claiming that he had some secret dirt on her that she wouldn't want to be public (was that during his NH victory speech?) and now he's threatening any who might dare to support her with donations.
What a banana republic attitude from the republican front runner. It is kind of cool that he knows that he can say crazy stuff like that and his devoted voters won't abandon him.
"Mr. Trump is precluded from offering any testimony, evidence or argument suggesting or implying that he did not sexually assault Ms. Carroll, that she fabricated her account of the assault, or that she had any motive to do so," Kaplan wrote in a ruling Jan. 9.
Trump has given no indication he plans to stick to Kaplan's guidelines. Asked about his testimony before the trial started, he told reporters, "I'm going to explain I don't know who the hell she is.”
I think that Trump must not understand what the terms DEFAME or DEFAMATION mean.
Anyway, it was an interesting coincidence that Trump's attorney reported that she might also have covid and that share convinced the judge to postpone the trial rather than dismissing the sick juror and progressing on schedule. I mean, just asking to have the trial postpone for the NH primary didn't work, but a sick attorney did the trick.
PS: the attorney didn't have covid and attended NH campaign events rather than go to trial on Tuesday.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Quote
Normally, states hold either government-run primary elections or party-run caucuses, but not both.
Under a 2021 state law, Nevada is required to hold presidential primary elections as long as there are at least two candidates for a party's nomination.
But Republican Party officials ‒ many of whom participated in a 2020 effort to subvert the presidential election results in Trump's favor ‒ decided last year to hold a binding caucus. They also tried unsuccessfully to stop the state from holding the primary.
"Why is there a caucus? Because the state Republican Party thinks that will help Trump," said Dan Lee, an associate professor of political science at the University of Nevada Las Vegas
Why do confusion and chaos follow Trump around? Because they are side effects of corrupt and dishonest intentions. There are so many Republicans emulating Trump's corruption right now. It's a very dangerous time for our country.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
nursej22 said:
After only 3 hours of deliberation, the former guy verdict in the E. Jean Carroll trial:
$83.3 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
Wow.
It seems to have worked to keep her name out of his mouth. Who would have guessed that he had enough self control to not defame her again after that verdict?
It seems to have worked to keep her name out of his mouth. Who would have guessed that he had enough self control to not defame her again after that verdict?
To do so would likely have bought him a restraining order which, if violated, could then land him in jail.
Judge Kaplan continues to have jurisdiction over this case for a certain period of time (a month or so, I think). After that, any requests for a restraining order could go to any judge - perhaps one more sympathetic to or frightened of trump. It'll be interesting to see if he's truly going to leave Carroll alone or is just waiting out Kaplan's period of jurisdiction.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
heron said:
To do so would likely have bought him a restraining order which, if violated, could then land him in jail.
Judge Kaplan continues to have jurisdiction over this case for a certain period of time (a month or so, I think). After that, any requests for a restraining order could go to any judge - perhaps one more sympathetic to or frightened of trump. It'll be interesting to see if he's truly going to leave Carroll alone or is just waiting out Kaplan's period of jurisdiction.
I'll put my money on the probability that Trump will resume his attacks when he feels that he has judicial cover. The fellow couldn't be more dishonorable.
To do so would likely have bought him a restraining order which, if violated, could then land him in jail.
Judge Kaplan continues to have jurisdiction over this case for a certain period of time (a month or so, I think). After that, any requests for a restraining order could go to any judge - perhaps one more sympathetic to or frightened of trump. It'll be interesting to see if he's truly going to leave Carroll alone or is just waiting out Kaplan's period of jurisdiction.
I haven't been following closely. Sounds like you have.
What I have heard is that pretty much her word is all the evidence that was presented on her side, and that evidence Trump's lawyer wanted to present wasn't allowed.
I haven't been following closely. Sounds like you have.
What I have heard is that pretty much her word is all the evidence that was presented on her side, and that evidence Trump's lawyer wanted to present wasn't allowed.
What evidence and why wasn't it allowed?
The most recent trial concerned defamatory statements made by trump following being found guilty of sexual abuse and the initial award for damages. In other words, that first case already decided the question of whether trump sexually abused Carroll and subsequently defamed her when she went public.
The evidence Habba is complaining about is regarding the original sexual assault, not his subsequent behavior once the first trial was over. There's also the fact that Habba had no clue how to get evidence entered to begin with and had to be schooled by the judge.
At the first trial, trump didn't bother to appear and never presented convincing evidence that the sexual activity was consensual, or didn't take place, or that his subsequent statements about Carroll were justified or true. The time for revisiting that trial and presenting new evidence is AFTER that original guilty verdict is overturned on appeal.
Until that happens, then the original guilty verdict stands as established fact and any evidence focussed on that guilty verdict is irrelevant.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
I haven't been following closely. Sounds like you have.
What I have heard is that pretty much her word is all the evidence that was presented on her side, and that evidence Trump's lawyer wanted to present wasn't allowed.
What evidence and why wasn't it allowed?
LOL
Sounds like you might have looked in some unusual places for factual or responsible reporting on that Trump court case. Those voices causing you to question (once again) if Trump isn't just a victim and being treated so unfairly, depend upon their audience to maintain a strict ignorance of the actual facts and details of Trump's many issues.
What evidence is exactly the right question. This trial wasn't determining Trump's culpability, this trial was determining how much in damages Trump was going to pay for continuing to defame Carroll. Trump gave this jury lots of evidence that he wasn't remorseful and hadn't personalized the earlier jury finding him accountable for sexual abuse and defamation.
Conservatives are getting yanked around and fed BS by their preferred media. It's so much easier to believe the BS if the target audience chooses to remain ignorant of the details and realities of Trump's abhorrent behavior and legal troubles.
The most recent trial concerned defamatory statements made by trump following being found guilty of sexual abuse and the initial award for damages. In other words, that first case already decided the question of whether trump sexually abused Carroll and subsequently defamed her when she went public.
The evidence Habba is complaining about is regarding the original sexual assault, not his subsequent behavior once the first trial was over. There's also the fact that Habba had no clue how to get evidence entered to begin with and had to be schooled by the judge.
At the first trial, trump didn't bother to appear and never presented convincing evidence that the sexual activity was consensual, or didn't take place, or that his subsequent statements about Carroll were justified or true. The time for revisiting that trial and presenting new evidence is AFTER that original guilty verdict is overturned on appeal.
Until that happens, then the original guilty verdict stands as established fact and any evidence focussed on that guilty verdict is irrelevant.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
What were the defamatory statements? And, the irrelevant evidence?
The defamatory statements were expensive, that's what they were. Irrelevant means that the evidence you mention doesn't matter.
It's a shame that Trump didn't attend the trial where his imagined evidence might have been useful to his defense. He could have testified at that trial too, but he opted not to. Nope. Instead, Trump will just convince his fan club that he's a victim of a rigged process and they'll believe him because 1) they've chosen to remain ignorant of the actual details or facts and, 2) they have so many questions inspired by their favorite right wing voices.
toomuchbaloney
16,101 Posts
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/25/trump-warns-he-will-blacklist-nikki-haley-campaign-donors.html
Trump seems like a sore winner as well as being a bad loser. He seems really worried that Haley is not dropping out the way he wants. First he tried threatening her with legal woes, claiming that he had some secret dirt on her that she wouldn't want to be public (was that during his NH victory speech?) and now he's threatening any who might dare to support her with donations.
What a banana republic attitude from the republican front runner. It is kind of cool that he knows that he can say crazy stuff like that and his devoted voters won't abandon him.