Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

Cairn Horn88

By Cairn Horn88
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Imagine your basis of hating Trump is because of mean tweets, January 6 and “hush money” trial all because liberal media is crooked. Fuck right off. This is my last post in this forum  dumb fucki

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

When you're a court, you just grab their asset, and they let you do it!

HillCountryBevo
HillCountryBevo

Bye bitch. Enjoy living in literal hell if your man Biden is re elected

Posted Images

TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31632

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

What's your reasoning here? I don't know New York's law on this, but certainly in Texas I can't think of any reason why a sufficiency of evidence argument requires presenting a case in chief. Now, if you're challenging factual sufficiency, you better have made a motion for new trial and/or directed verdict, but that is a different issue than presenting a case in chief. 

Well, you'd like to have some controverting evidence and not just impeachment, I'd think, on either sufficiency point.

It's a strange case though, in terms of it's pretty much he said/she said, which isn't going to make for good sufficiency appeal points regardless, I don't think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17706

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you'd like to have some controverting evidence and not just impeachment, I'd think, on either sufficiency point.

It's a strange case though, in terms of it's pretty much he said/she said, which isn't going to make for good sufficiency appeal points regardless, I don't think.

There is no reason controverting evidence couldn't be admitted on cross examination. It has happened in every trial I've ever been a part of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31632

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Could you lawdogs translate your sufficiency chief yada yada yada language for the rest of us?

  

 

How fucking broadly do things have to be interpreted when the alleged acts occured decades prior to taking office?

 

Well, the case was originally just defamation for denying that he assaulted her.  The assault got added in later when NY relaxed its statute of limitations temporarily.  The Westfall Act thing would substitute the government as a defendant and kill the defamation parts.

As to the appeal on "sufficiency" grounds.  We know that this is a civil case that employs a preponderance of the evidence, or 51% or more likely than not.  By not putting on a case in chief, Trump/the defense gambled that the jury would not find that Carroll had proved her claims to be more likely than not.

It is always a long shot, but you can attempt to appeal something by saying the jury did not have evidence that sufficiently supported their verdict as more likely than not.  Without getting into too much detail, that's what we call "sufficiency of the evidence."  You can do that just by attacking the plaintiffs case--Carroll wasn't credible, she wasn't corroborated by anyone, etc.--but it can be helpful to point to your own controverting evidence, if you have any, and claim that it was credible, corroborated, etc.  Trump ain't got any.

The fruitful grounds of appeal would be that the judge fucked up by excluding evidence or instructing the jury incorrectly, basically errors of law in "calling balls and strikes."  It's my impression that this judge ran this case pretty straight and narrow, and firmly, so those seem fairly unlikely.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30326

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, the case was originally just defamation for denying that he assaulted her.  The assault got added in later when NY relaxed its statute of limitations temporarily.  The Westfall Act thing would substitute the government as a defendant and kill the defamation parts.

As to the appeal on "sufficiency" grounds.  We know that this is a civil case that employs a preponderance of the evidence, or 51% or more likely than not.  By not putting on a case in chief, Trump/the defense gambled that the jury would not find that Carroll had proved her claims to be more likely than not.

It is always a long shot, but you can attempt to appeal something by saying the jury did not have evidence that sufficiently supported their verdict as more likely than not.  Without getting into too much detail, that's what we call "sufficiency of the evidence."  You can do that just by attacking the plaintiffs case--Carroll wasn't credible, she wasn't corroborated by anyone, etc.--but it can be helpful to point to your own controverting evidence, if you have any, and claim that it was credible, corroborated, etc.  Trump ain't got any.

The fruitful grounds of appeal would be that the judge fucked up by excluding evidence or instructing the jury incorrectly, basically errors of law in "calling balls and strikes."  It's my impression that this judge ran this case pretty straight and narrow, and firmly, so those seem fairly unlikely.

All true.  And then there is the defendant’s self admission that stars like him can sexually assault women at their whim, and that is not a problem.

Hint: it is a problem. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31632

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

There is no reason controverting evidence couldn't be admitted on cross examination. It has happened in every trial I've ever been a part of. 

Of course, but this isn't a document case, it's pretty much all witnesses, so about all that could be done was attack their credibility/impeach.  Trump had no controverting witnesses on any issue, even damages.  Some of that is the nature of the case, but some of it is self-inflicted.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105471

Posted
Posted
Of course, but this isn't a document case, it's pretty much all witnesses, so about all that could be done was attack their credibility/impeach.  Trump had no controverting witnesses on any issue, even damages.

Yeah. There’s no “insufficient evidence” appellate grounds when the evidence is all testimony, which turns on credibility, which is the exclusive province of the jury. The evidence, if true, established the elements of the claims. And the jury is the sole arbiter of the truth. So, nada for him.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31632

Posted
Posted

And, it does go to show you that a jury will "convict" Trump.   Even though Manhattan is about as anti-Trump as you can get (DC I'd think is worse for him), the royal we constantly worry about a magat slipping in ans spiking the thing.  Didn't happen here on what could be regarded as a pretty flimsy case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31632

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Yeah. There’s no “insufficient evidence” appellate grounds when the evidence is all testimony, which turns on credibility, which is the exclusive province of the jury. The evidence, if true, established the elements of the claims. And the jury is the sole arbiter of the truth. So, nada for him.

It's probably more the nature of the case rather than Trump's failure to put on a case in chief that renders this virtually bulletproof on appeal.  But Lordy mercy you'd sure like to have your own evidence for appeal purposes, even and especially if some of it was excluded.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31632

Posted
Posted (edited)

Also, in related/unrelated news, Cohen filed a motion to dismiss on Trump's retaliatory case against him in Florida recently filed and claiming $500M. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23808137-cohen-response-trump-ny-suit

At first blush, that suit looked to be a little more credible than some of the shit Trump has slung against the wall recently.  Although overall, it was obviously just retaliatory bullshit, it looked like there might be a nugget on which Trump could go to trial and maybe even get a verdict.

But it looks like a whole lot of it is going to go out the window as barred by limitations.  

Cohen looks to have pretty sharp lawyers.  Also rude. 

Danya+Perry+%28Rectangle%29.jpg?format=750w

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Drool 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31632

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Are you insinuating that Tacopenis may not have been the most bestest lawyer in the whole wide world?

Actually, he seems to be pretty ok if a bit of a loudmouth.  He's got a few legit skins on the wall.  Then again, so did Sidney Powell, in a time long ago and a galaxy far away.

However, as is the case much of the time, a mouthpiece type criminal lawyer is not the one you want in a civil courtroom.  Or you want him heavily backstopped by civil practitioners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Dog

The Dog 44174

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And, it does go to show you that a jury will "convict" Trump.   Even though Manhattan is about as anti-Trump as you can get (DC I'd think is worse for him), the royal we constantly worry about a magat slipping in ans spiking the thing.  Didn't happen here on what could be regarded as a pretty flimsy case.

What till you see that Fulton County jury.

oh hai more legal trouble:

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17706

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's probably more the nature of the case rather than Trump's failure to put on a case in chief that renders this virtually bulletproof on appeal.  But Lordy mercy you'd sure like to have your own evidence for appeal purposes, even and especially if some of it was excluded.

Yeah, that makes more sense to me. To be fair, I'm mainly thinking of how every possible personal injury claim requires expert testimony on every issue under the sun. Not getting the exact right words from your expert(s) will most certainly make you vulnerable to both legal and factual sufficiency challenges, even if not a shred of contravening evidence was introduced. And even when you have the words, the Texas Supreme Court has no compunction about taking away a verdict based on entirely new requirements. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grade of D as in David

Grade of D as in David 13253

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, in related/unrelated news, Cohen filed a motion to dismiss on Trump's retaliatory case against him in Florida recently filed and claiming $500M. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23808137-cohen-response-trump-ny-suit

At first blush, that suit looked to be a little more credible than some of the shit Trump has slung against the wall recently.  Although overall, it was obviously just retaliatory bullshit, it looked like there might be a nugget on which Trump could go to trial and maybe even get a verdict.

But it looks like a whole lot of it is going to go out the window as barred by limitations.  

Cohen looks to have pretty sharp lawyers.  Also rude. 

Danya+Perry+%28Rectangle%29.jpg?format=750w

Yes and 

Quote

Ms. Perry is a graduate of Harvard College and Yale Law School. She is a sub 3-hour marathoner and the proud mother of three young children.

jerk off jonah hill GIF

  • Haha 4
  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30326

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, in related/unrelated news, Cohen filed a motion to dismiss on Trump's retaliatory case against him in Florida recently filed and claiming $500M. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23808137-cohen-response-trump-ny-suit

At first blush, that suit looked to be a little more credible than some of the shit Trump has slung against the wall recently.  Although overall, it was obviously just retaliatory bullshit, it looked like there might be a nugget on which Trump could go to trial and maybe even get a verdict.

But it looks like a whole lot of it is going to go out the window as barred by limitations.  

Cohen looks to have pretty sharp lawyers.

The choice of law and associated borrowing statute/sol rulings are obviously gonna decide much of this. 

I see where Trump is suing for the breach of an alleged confidentiality agreement that his lawyers saw fit not to include with the complaint.  Like a fuckin’ 12(b)(6) magnet. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17706

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also found the verdict form.  2.7M for the defamation plus $280k punitive; and 2M for the assault, 20k for punitive.  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/read-the-full-trump-e-jean-carroll-verdict-text-here/

So even if the Westfall Act stuff works, he'll still be on the hook for a couple mil.

 

Post judgment interest rate has to be sky high now too, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6569

Posted
Posted
I hope he blathers so much shit that someone else sues him again.

And I hope CNN is a co-defendant.

Fuck them for giving him a platform.
No fucking shit. It's one thing for me to be infinitely curious about the antichrist hijacking our country via a insane cult. Sure I check social media to see what TFG said. It's quite a bit different than "serious" outlets that keep pumping oxygen on this dumpster fire.

I suppose encouraging him to self-encriminate might be a noble strategy if they have the hubris to do it, And avoid the mealy-mouth norm following shit NPR does- "what do you suppose President Trump meant by grabbing them in the pussy". Ugh he was bragging about being a serial sexual rapist, that is just tossed aside and no longer important. Dude brags about sexually assaulting women, two dozen come forward, recieves a 5 million dollar settlement and 40% of the country is swapping memes that Joe Vanilla Ice Cream basic ass Biden is the real Pedo.

Kinda frustrating Jack.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Born to Run

Born to Run 6569

Posted
Posted
And, it does go to show you that a jury will "convict" Trump.   Even though Manhattan is about as anti-Trump as you can get (DC I'd think is worse for him), the royal we constantly worry about a magat slipping in ans spiking the thing.  Didn't happen here on what could be regarded as a pretty flimsy case.
That is my victory for today, Pretty hard case to win, and it went well. Hoping the football isn't yanked by a Maga Juror on the others. Fortunately they tend to self identify and can't shut the fuck up. Cults do follow leaders, hoping they All find out.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gatorubet

Gatorubet 30326

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

I hope he blathers so much shit that someone else sues him again.

And I hope CNN is a co-defendant.

Fuck them for giving him a platform.

I kinda like the template here though.

You say something true, but uncomplimentary, so that it makes the man baby so angry he spews shit at you, then you sue him for defamation b/c of his inappropriate attack. Titty baby Trump will then not take the stand, resulting in a Mack Brown pay me! moment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 1086

Posted
Posted

cringy as fuck to hear on surly the de-platforming and no outlet for shit head trumpers. too close to censorship and anti-american ideals for my liking. assholes shitheads are allowed to live and pursue their america. its our job to educate the masses that these assholes are not to be followed, given consideration, or given any serious thought. Shitty things exist in life, censoring them is never the answer in pursuing a better republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45751

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, achooloco said:

cringy as fuck to hear on surly the de-platforming and no outlet for shit head trumpers. too close to censorship and anti-american ideals for my liking. assholes shitheads are allowed to live and pursue their america. its our job to educate the masses that these assholes are not to be followed, given consideration, or given any serious thought. Shitty things exist in life, censoring them is never the answer in pursuing a better republic.

Also CNN is apparently hemorrhaging viewers and ratings. They are a business and, while not horrifyingly against the republic as Fox, still need something to stay relevant. This is that something. It’s like an adrenaline shot to the heart, a la Pulp Fiction for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 1086

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Also CNN is apparently hemorrhaging viewers and ratings. They are a business and, while not horrifyingly against the republic as Fox, still need something to stay relevant. This is that something. It’s like an adrenaline shot to the heart, a la Pulp Fiction for them. 

Then Stay relevant and educate the masses on how trump is a shit head wannabe failed fascist. (Edit: hammer him repeatedly in the interview as the fuck head traitor he is and stop with the nice bs. Do your fucking job and the viewers will follow)

The answer in America cannot and should not ever be “don’t let them hear that idea”. We should demand better of the 4th estate and have a better political (educational?) system to not be so easily deluded. 
 

Although to be fair, even the founding fathers knew there were a shit load of dumb dumbs back then, Hello the need for the electoral college!  

Edited by achooloco
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27867

Posted
Posted (edited)

Story popped up overnight....

https://www.newsweek.com/former-donald-trump-staffers-accuse-sexual-harassment-white-house-1799333

Quote

Discussing the verdict on CNN, Alyssa Farah Griffin, who quit as White House communications director in December 2020, said Trump had a pattern of behaving inappropriately with women while in the White House.

Newsweek has contacted Trump's office for comment via email.

"I have countless cases of what I considered impropriety in the White House that I brought to the chief of staff because I thought the way he engaged with women was dangerous," Farah Griffin said.

SIGN UP FOR NEWSWEEK’S DAILY HEADLINES >

She noted that she wasn't the only one to report Trump's behavior to his chiefs of staff, including Mark Meadows. "Nothing that rises to this level but things that I would consider improper and that I had a duty to report," she said.

Farah Griffin also urged voters to "pay attention" and for Republicans to "stop making apologies" for Trump.

"When Donald Trump tells you who he is, believe him," she said.

"We wanted to chalk it up to locker room talk in 2016. It was not locker room talk," she added, referring to the infamous 2005 Access Hollywood hot-mic recording of Trump talking about kissing and grabbing women without asking.

Stephanie Grisham, former Trump White House press secretary, said she had reported Trump's behavior towards a woman on her team to Meadows and other chiefs of staff.

Newsweek reached out to Mark Meadows via the website of the Conservative Partnership Institute, where he is senior partner.

Trump would often comment on women's looks, Grisham told CNN's Erin Burnett, but "with this one staffer, it was it was really bad to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable."

Trump would request the staffer in question to be on foreign trips "when it wasn't her turn," Grisham said. "He one time had one of my other deputies bring her back so that they could look at her ass is what he said to him."

Grisham said: "I did everything I could to keep her off of trips actually and to stay with her if she was with him alone, because I was really nervous about what could happen and this was before I knew kind of any of the the E. Jean Carroll allegations. I stupidly did know about the Access Hollywood video but maybe that was what made me you know, keep with her all the time."

Grisham said every senior staff member was aware of Trump's behavior, but there was little they could do.

"I think at the end of the day, what could they do other than go in there and say, 'This isn't good, sir?'" she said. "And you know, Donald Trump will do what Donald Trump wants to do."

Wow sure would be crazy if trump was as much of a scumbag as we all thought he was! I wonder if he's going to try and claim that abusing women was part of his official duties (considering GOP dogma and all that)

Edited by Captainant
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21473

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

Story popped up overnight....

https://www.newsweek.com/former-donald-trump-staffers-accuse-sexual-harassment-white-house-1799333

Wow sure would be crazy if trump was as much of a scumbag as we all thought he was! I wonder if he's going to try and claim that abusing women was part of his official duties (considering GOP dogma and all that)

She could have just said it was Hope Hicks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45751

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Hope Hicks wouldn’t get protected by some random staffer, and she definitely suffered worse than just sexual comments 

“Suffered”. Anyone who signed up willingly to work with this criminal deserves what they got. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17706

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, achooloco said:

cringy as fuck to hear on surly the de-platforming and no outlet for shit head trumpers. too close to censorship and anti-american ideals for my liking. assholes shitheads are allowed to live and pursue their america. its our job to educate the masses that these assholes are not to be followed, given consideration, or given any serious thought. Shitty things exist in life, censoring them is never the answer in pursuing a better republic.

Private parties de-platforming and criticizing crazy ideas is exactly how our system is supposed to work. The government shouldn't do. But the First Amendment doesn't 1) protect you from the consequences of your stupid ideas, or 2) guarantee that anyone else has to share them or provide a platform for them. Government censorship is bad. Private censorship is itself a form of a freedom of speech, and, I'd argue, part of our civic duty. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 21
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
wildcat09

wildcat09 29446

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 hours ago, achooloco said:

cringy as fuck to hear on surly the de-platforming and no outlet for shit head trumpers. too close to censorship and anti-american ideals for my liking. assholes shitheads are allowed to live and pursue their america. its our job to educate the masses that these assholes are not to be followed, given consideration, or given any serious thought. Shitty things exist in life, censoring them is never the answer in pursuing a better republic.

While we're at it, should be publicly debate with people who promote snuff films?

Fuck that shit. Deplatform and punch the shit out of nazis. That's what these people are. You don't beat nazis with discourse. You're not going to persuade them to not be nazis. And you don't help convince others that their ideas are bad by treating their ideas as worthy of serious debate. The way you make nazis go away is by making it so socially devastating to publicly be a nazi that it's not something even an incel wants to turn to for belonging.

  • Hook 'Em 15
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19453

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Russia:  Hold my vodka.

Cornyn can say that.  He's not up for reelection until 2026.  And that will be his last term.  After Trump lost and he left leadership and he was done making himself look stupid over Covid, he's outta fucks to give.  I think he sucks but he's like the 37th worst Senator in the Senate, not worth wringing hands over at this point.  

Cruz however has lots and lots of dicks left to suck (Not as many as Heidi ;) )   He has some legit 2024 issues for himself.  Gotta keep himself in a position for a Cabinet post or SCOTUS if trump/GOP wins White House.  Can't look too batshit right in Texas in case moderates come outta the woodwork with no major statewide races up for grabs.  

He's living the Frost poem.  

"For Trump's balls are lonely, orange, and deep.  And I've many promises that I must keep.  Miles to go before I sleep." 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...