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.”
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
I don't need to believe Trump. I can see it with my own eyes. It's plain as day in the New York cases we've discussed here.
Curious, what evidence in the E Jean Carroll cases compelled you to believe her story? For another poster, it was good enough that Trump wasn't able to prove it didn't happen. Is that your thought, as well?
You can see it with your own eyes, yet most of the time you claim to not have much of a clue as to what the legal cases involve.
Honestly, I tend to give women the benefit of the doubt. I have females that I am close to who have been sexually abused by men in their lives. In this case, she compelled the jury and that's what is important. They found it compelling that she told her closest friends right away after the incident, for instance. It didn't help Trump's defense that his deposition was so unpleasant and unflattering for him or that he said she wasn't his type and then mistook a photo of her for his wife at the time.
I understand though, that in order to continue to support Trump many of these ugly realities about Trump must be minimized and normalized as just witch hunts and politicization of the legal system. It's hard to want to be associated with or supportive of someone who might be a sexual predator, or serial liar and cheat. It's really hard to associate wth and supportive of someone who wants to just suspend portions of the constitution that are inconvenient for them or limit their ambitions. It's easier though, if you just believe that the whole system is just out to get him.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
It is a bad law.
Took awhile to get there, but sounds to me like you're acknowledging and are OK with them going after Trump out of spite and for political reasons.
I applaud your honesty. What else can I say...
Just curious, that is a"biological" powerful person?
I'll accept that you need to characterize my remarks that way. But trying to project Trump's desire for spiteful retribution onto others just isn't going to fly. He operates that way, not most people.
A biological person versus a corporate person. This is a distinction necessary thanks to the Roberts' court.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Wow. And, don't forget this serial attention-seeker won this case without any shred of evidence other than her word.
"During another stop on her media tour Monday night, Carroll was asked by Maddow about previous remarks she made suggesting that any money she would receive from Trump would go directly to "help shore up women's rights."Do you know what that might be, what that might look like?" Maddow asked.
"Yes, Rachel! Yes!" Carroll enthusiastically responded. "I had such, such great ideas for all the good I'm gonna do with this money."
"First thing Rachel, you and I are gonna go shopping!" she then exclaimed. "We're gonna get complete new wardrobes, new shoes, motorcycle for [Carroll's attorney Shawn] Crowley, a new fishing rod for Robbie [Carroll's attorney Roberta Kaplan]- Rachel, what do you want? A penthouse? It's yours, Rachel! Penthouse and France? You want France? You want to go fishing in France? No?"
All of a sudden you sound like you know lots about her trial, saying she had no evidence and calling her an attention seeker. How odd. You seem upset with this woman who won so convincingly in a court of law. It's probably because Trump is winning in your court of right wing media opinions
It seems like Trump's supporters have a problem with anyone besides Trump talking about that legal case, casting those who dare in the most negative light.
He sort of made himself center of all attention and made some pretty inflammatory and questionable claims for someone whose finances, apparently, looked so shady. Are prosecutors supposed to ignore public claims that, when fact checked, reveal creative bookkeeping practices?
There is no prosecutor. He's not being charged criminally.
The plaintiff is an AG who literally ran for office on a "I'll get Trump" campaign.
toomuchbaloney said:
Itseems like you are an advocate for ignoring irregularities or evidence of crime if the suspected criminal is a political figure. Or, maybe only if the political figure is Trump. It's not clear.
Deflection. And too bad you can't help but to take discussions into a personal nature. It adds nothing to our conversation.
toomuchbaloney said:
Trump makes it a media spectacle, every courtroom is a campaign media opportunity with him in the spotlight as the victim of a conspiracy to take him down because Biden is scared, or something similar. Trump needs his voting base to question the process, the judges, the prosecutors, the grand juries and the juries. Trump needs that because he loses his court cases about election interference or election fraud, or total immunity, or sexual abuse and defamation. He needs his fans to believe that ALL OF IT is politically motivated nonsense, unfair and unfounded in fact. He needs that from his voting base because Trump brought his shady and unethical habits and business practices to DC and ran them out of the White House. He invited the scrutiny. Now he needs blind devotion from his voting base while the legal system looks for accountability.
He's gonna get that devotion from his most committed voters
Deflection. All that doesn't mean he deserves to be unfairly treated by NY's legal system, which he clearly is in this case.
In this case, she compelled the jury and that's what is important. They found it compelling that she told her closest friends right away after the incident, for instance. It didn't help Trump's defense that his deposition was so unpleasant and unflattering for him or that he said she wasn't his type and then mistook a photo of her for his wife at the time.
I asked you what you thought. I know what the jury said.
For one, it seems rediculous that calling someone a liar when they've accused you of such a thing is defamation.
Bill Clinton, from the WH, told the world that Lewinski was a liar. And he was the one lying. I wonder if she ever tried to or now will try to sue him?
Anyway, here's what I learned:
It seems the plaintiff said publicly she was having financial trouble and needed to sell more books.
Wow...her next book included the accusation about Trump and a handful of others, and implied there may be almost two dozen men that abused her.
She, nor her friends, don't remember the year she was assaulted by one of the most famous men in America who later would become president. Interestingly, she's to be believed on that, but Trump is a liar for denying he met her briefly in the 80's.
Her interview with Anderson Cooper was an enchanting listen. She is a captivating storyteller. There was a moment when she said most people think rape is sexy. Don't look for that statement though on CNN's video. They cut it out.
She supposedly kept the dress in her closet uncleaned and unworn for decades. Her attorney wanted Trump's DNA to compare it to DNA on the dress. That is, until Trump wanted to give it to them.
She's a self-proclaimed "Law and Order" fan. Coincidentally, there is a episode of that show about a rape in the dressing room of the exact same store.
She has continued to shop at that store to this day.
She has stated in the past that she was a fan of "The Apprentice ".
She once asked her followers on social media if they'd sleep with Trump if they were going to receive thousands of dollars.
In a deposition, she "forgot" that her attorney was being paid by the nonprofit of a heavy campaign donor to Nikki Haley.
And, then her gloating on Maddow the other night and the answer she gave to Maddow's question.
Unlike others, the defendant to me is irrelevant. Her story vs her questionable behavior, strangely coincidental facts, and lack of any evidence tips the scales heavily against her, imo.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
There is no prosecutor. He's not being charged criminally.
The plaintiff is an AG who literally ran for office on a "I'll get Trump" campaign.
Deflection. And too bad you can't help but to take discussions into a personal nature. It adds nothing to our conversation.
Deflection. All that doesn't mean he deserves to be unfairly treated by NY's legal system, which he clearly is in this case.
Oops. You're right. It's so easy to get the very many Trump legal cases straight. Thanks for the correction.
Yes, candidates for those kind of offices often campaign on bringing justice to those committing crimes.
No deflection but I definitely wonder why evidence of Trump's corruption is ignored by his voters. That is personal for you.
Again, no deflection, just further discussion. The evidence that Trump is being treated unfairly should be very compelling if it is so clear. You should make that case if you can.
Next, when Trump is in court on DC, or in Georgia, or in Florida, will Trump also claim that its all unfair and politically motivated? Will that apply when evidence is presented that he violated the espionage act? Will it all just be political when we learn the details of his conspiracy and attempt to defraud the people of the US or obstruct Congress?
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
I asked you what you thought. I know what the jury said.
For one, it seems rediculous that calling someone a liar when they've accused you of such a thing is defamation.
Bill Clinton, from the WH, told the world that Lewinski was a liar. And he was the one lying. I wonder if she ever tried to or now will try to sue him?
Anyway, here's what I learned:
It seems the plaintiff said publicly she was having financial trouble and needed to sell more books.
Wow...her next book included the accusation about Trump and a handful of others, and implied there may be almost two dozen men that abused her.
She, nor her friends, don't remember the year she was assaulted by one of the most famous men in America who later would become president. Interestingly, she's to be believed on that, but Trump is a liar for denying he met her briefly in the 80's.
Her interview with Anderson Cooper was an enchanting listen. She is a captivating storyteller. There was a moment when she said most people think rape is sexy. Don't look for that statement though on CNN's video. They cut it out.
She supposedly kept the dress in her closet uncleaned and unworn for decades. Her attorney wanted Trump's DNA to compare it to DNA on the dress. That is, until Trump wanted to give it to them.
She's a self-proclaimed "Law and Order" fan. Coincidentally, there is a episode of that show about a rape in the dressing room of the exact same store.
She has continued to shop at that store to this day.
She has stated in the past that she was a fan of "The Apprentice ".
She once asked her followers on social media if they'd sleep with Trump if they were going to receive thousands of dollars.
In a deposition, she "forgot" that her attorney was being paid by the nonprofit of a heavy campaign donor to Nikki Haley.
And, then her gloating on Maddow the other night and the answer she gave to Maddow's question.
Unlike others, the defendant to me is irrelevant. Her story vs her questionable behavior, strangely coincidental facts, and lack of any evidence tips the scales heavily against her, imo.
I told you what I thought.
What's important is what the jury thought, although it appears that you disagree.
Sure, if Lewinsky feels that Bill Clinton defamed her she should sue him, the Trump precedent now exists.
Isn't it unfortunate that Trump's attorneys weren't able to impugn Carroll's character, like you just did, in court in his defense? Do you think he could have won if he could have done that? It cost Trump $83 million to drag her character in public, in part because his supporters are so predisposed to believe and repeat all of the attacks.
Frankly, it's hard to imagine a Trump voter having a issue with gloating. Didn't you see Trump gloat in NH the other night?
When I hear someone talk about unbelievable stories and questionable behavior, coincidental facts and lack of any evidence I immediately think about Trump and his stories of election fraud or his shenanigans with our national security documents.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Wow. You're always wanting evidence. But, you'll give her the benefit of the doubt and $85 million with it 30 years after this allegedly happened.
LOL
Here's the rub; E Jean Carroll isn't the only woman to credibly accuse Trump. Trump implicated himself as a sexual predator with his own words. Trump had a reputation as a serial philanderer before the presidency. Trump famously walked into the dressing rooms of the beauty pageants that he owned. That's all evidence. I'll give the woman making the claim against that guy benefit of the doubt every day of the week. You'll give that guy benefit of the doubt even knowing that he lied to you about all major of things idiotic and important every year that he was president and every year since.
The $85 million isn't punishment for the sexual abuse 30 years ago, it's for the defamation that Trump has dished out since 2019.
Beerman said:
Yes, I can read.
And now I realize I'm the only one here who knows anything past what the left-wing headline writers want anyone to know.
Oh yeah. You tend to give women the benefit of the doubt. Except Tara Reade, I'm sure.
toomuchbaloney said:
Isn't it unfortunate that Trump's attorneys weren't able to impugn Carroll's character, like you just did, in court in his defense?
Yes. Especially when the only evidence presented was her word.
"Impeach" is the term you are looking for.
"Impeachment of a witness refers to the process of discrediting or undermining the credibility of a witness during a trial, by presenting evidence or asking questions that contradict their testimony or reveal a bias, inconsistency, or falsehood in their statements. It is a common strategy used by attorneys to challenge the veracity of a witness and to cast doubt on the reliability of their testimony. In federal court, Federal Rules of Evidence 607 provides that any party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence that reflects on the witness's character for truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements, bias, interest, or other reasons."
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
Oh yeah. You tend to give women the benefit of the doubt. Except Tara Reade, I'm sure.
Yes. Especially when the only evidence presented was her word.
"Impeach" is the term you are looking for.
"Impeachment of a witness refers to the process of discrediting or undermining the credibility of a witness during a trial, by presenting evidence or asking questions that contradict their testimony or reveal a bias, inconsistency, or falsehood in their statements. It is a common strategy used by attorneys to challenge the veracity of a witness and to cast doubt on the reliability of their testimony. In federal court, Federal Rules of Evidence 607 provides that any party may attack the credibility of a witness by introducing evidence that reflects on the witness's character for truthfulness, prior inconsistent statements, bias, interest, or other reasons."
Yes, I tend to give women the benefit of the doubt while considering all of the available and related information. I had to refresh my memory about who Tara Reade is. It's interesting that she defected to Russia last year. That's probably why she didn't pursue her claim in the legal system.
In your view the word of E Jean Carroll is questionable while you wonder about whether Reade should get the same benefit of the doubt. And her words weren't the only evidence that convinced the jury that Trump sexually abused her, as you know since you read up on the case.
It's impeachment if you are actually pointing out real inconsistencies or issues with credibility. Calling her an "attention seeker" is simply impugning her character. It cost Trump lots of money before he learned that distinction. Speaking of impeachment, during the trials, it was Trump's character that was impeached by testimony, his own deposition and his public conduct. Interesting, eh?
toomuchbaloney
16,095 Posts
You can see it with your own eyes, yet most of the time you claim to not have much of a clue as to what the legal cases involve.
Honestly, I tend to give women the benefit of the doubt. I have females that I am close to who have been sexually abused by men in their lives. In this case, she compelled the jury and that's what is important. They found it compelling that she told her closest friends right away after the incident, for instance. It didn't help Trump's defense that his deposition was so unpleasant and unflattering for him or that he said she wasn't his type and then mistook a photo of her for his wife at the time.
I understand though, that in order to continue to support Trump many of these ugly realities about Trump must be minimized and normalized as just witch hunts and politicization of the legal system. It's hard to want to be associated with or supportive of someone who might be a sexual predator, or serial liar and cheat. It's really hard to associate wth and supportive of someone who wants to just suspend portions of the constitution that are inconvenient for them or limit their ambitions. It's easier though, if you just believe that the whole system is just out to get him.