Along with the issue presented in the article, excessive monetary rulings in civil disputes needs to be addressed by the high court.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
There was a punitive component in the jury's decision. The question they probably discussed is how much money is punitive for a billionaire who is a repeat offender? How much money should we take from him to punish him for what he did and keep him from doing it again? Now, with Trump out there defaming Carroll yet again, it is evident the jury's $83.3 million judgement was not enough. The appeals court judges will likely take that into consideration.
Last edited:
Actually, innocent people do it all the time, especially when they have reason to believe they were wrongly convicted by a a disingenuous accuser in a biased court. His lawyers can claim his 8th and 14th Amendment rights were violated with excessive fines, and exculpatory evidence that would have exonerated him was denied for his defense.
Carroll's claims against him are simply not credible, and she appears to be more demented than Biden. For instance, she can't remember what year it supposedly happened, leaving Trump unable to prove his whereabouts at the time. Considering all the lascivious adventures she admits having with untold numbers of men, she might have done the messaround with someone else in a department store and now she's conveniently remembered it was Trump.
If this case had been attempted anywhere other than NY or CA against anyone other than Trump it would've been laughed out of court.
Actually, Carroll's claims against Trump are highly credible. They were closely scrutinized in a court of law and the court ruled in her favor. People may disagree, and they may continue to claim that Carroll's claims are not credible, and now claim that the court itself is not credible, but the ruling stands. And the two cases will be upheld on appeal, I believe.
It was a Clinton appointed judge who put his thumb on the scale by ALLOWING highly prejudicial “evidence” like the Access Hollywood locker room banter and disallowing other info like her tweets and Law And Order episode that is identical to her story.
"Highly credible"..."closely scrutinized"... - Seriously?
She sat silent all those years after supposedly being "raped" in a large, busy department store by one of the richest and most famous people in the country. Think of the story that would've made for her magazine. Does anyone think an egomaniac like her would keep something like this from the public and let the statute of limitations expire considering the upside of going public? The Democrats in NY likely promised her they would change the SOL law for her and support her if she went forward with this tale.
There were no witnesses - salespeople or customers, and no security video showing either her or Trump being in the store at the same time - ever.
She apparently didn't resist at all; no fighting back, screaming, nothing to attract attention or help while all this was going on in a fitting room at a busy department store. Also, they were wearing winter clothing. Trump was wearing a topcoat over a suit. She was wearing a coat dress with tights. Think about what all that involves for a minute.
She can't remember the year it happened. How could anyone forget something like that?
The dress she was supposedly wearing hadn't been created during the time frame she estimates the incident occurred. This wasn't allowed into defense evidence.
Her stories about rape fantasies weren't allowed into evidence; nothing to indicate her state of mind or her well-publicized sexual fantasies.
Of course none of this matters to the Trump haters. A fair trial, justice, equal treatment under the law, even simple facts - all of that is obscured by blind Trump hate. The "Get Trump" game plan is all that matters, and the end is justified by any means. That's been made pretty clear by the Democrat party and especially Democrats in NY. Get convictions, wipe out his assets, make it impossible for him to campaign (election interference?), defeat him in the courts. That's the Prime Directive.
Judge Dismisses 6 Counts of the GA RICO Case
apnews.com
1. Bad news for and bad look for Willis. A better prosecutor would write better indictments. "It's a screw-up by prosecutors when you bring a charge and then a judge throws it out before it even goes to trial," (Source) Big win for criminal defendants Trump et al. Their defense task has been simplified a bit.
2. The judge says Willis can refile the charges (in other words, go home and bring back better work).
3. This shows the court system is working. Six of the prosecutor's counts have been struck down, and the rights of the accused are upheld by the judge.
4. The indictment originally included 41 counts. With 6 now dismissed, 35 remain in place.
5. Willis has the option to appeal this ruling. I doubt she will exercise that option. She also has the option to bring the evidence she has before another grand jury to have the defendants re-charged in a more specific way. She may do that, but that would take a lot of time. I'm thinking she will absorb the blow and proceed with what she has.
6. The top charge, the RICO charge, was not struck down. It remains in place.
"Though he threw out the solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer charge, McAfee said that the alleged conduct that was the foundation of that charge could still be relied upon by prosecutors as part of the larger racketeering charge that is the heart of the Georgia case.
“'This does not mean the entire indictment is dismissed,' he wrote." (Source)
Judge dismisses some charges against Trump in the Georgia 2020 election interference case
A judge in the Georgia election 2020 interference case dismisses some counts against Donald Trump, but other charges remain.
apnews.com
1. Bad news for and bad look for Willis. A better prosecutor would write better indictments. "It's a screw-up by prosecutors when you bring a charge and then a judge throws it out before it even goes to trial," (Source) Big win for criminal defendants Trump et al. Their defense task has been simplified a bit.
2. The judge says Willis can refile the charges (in other words, go home and bring back better work).
3. This shows the court system is working. Six of the prosecutor's counts have been struck down, and the rights of the accused are upheld by the judge.
4. The indictment originally included 41 counts. With 6 now dismissed, 35 remain in place.
5. Willis has the option to appeal this ruling. I doubt she will exercise that option. She also has the option to bring the evidence she has before another grand jury to have the defendants re-charged in a more specific way. She may do that, but that would take a lot of time. I'm thinking she will absorb the blow and proceed with what she has.
6. The top charge, the RICO charge, was not struck down. It remains in place.
"Though he threw out the solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer charge, McAfee said that the alleged conduct that was the foundation of that charge could still be relied upon by prosecutors as part of the larger racketeering charge that is the heart of the Georgia case.
“'This does not mean the entire indictment is dismissed,' he wrote." (Source)
Last edited:
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
A Hint?
This idea is floating around online now that Judge McAfee dismissed six of the 41 counts of the GA RICO indictment.
"... if McAfee had been planning to remove Willis from the case, he wouldn't have taken the time to write such a detailed order because her disqualification would have effectively halted the prosecution." (Source)
This idea is floating around online now that Judge McAfee dismissed six of the 41 counts of the GA RICO indictment.
"... if McAfee had been planning to remove Willis from the case, he wouldn't have taken the time to write such a detailed order because her disqualification would have effectively halted the prosecution." (Source)
McAfee may be tossing this bone and waiting for the state of GA to bring charges. Decision not yet made on DQ.
"This does not disable the case, but it adds yet another set back for the prosecution as it awaits the disqualification"
"This does not disable the case, but it adds yet another set back for the prosecution as it awaits the disqualification"
He’ll likely kick the can to them. But keeping Wade and Willis on the prosecution longer is merely enabling bad behavior and dishonesty. These dropped counts today clearly illustrates the additional pattern of dishonesty from them.
Judge McAfee ended the third sentence of his latest ruling with a period. In fact, he ended every other sentence in that ruling with a period too. His propensity to end sentences clearly illustrates the additional pattern of letting Willis off the hook. Only someone with TDS would not see something that is clearly illustrated like this.
It’s like enabling an alcoholic to continue to drink shots.
