Update on Trump Legal Cases

[jarnon]

A New York jury decided Trump must pay columnist E. Jean Carroll $83 million for defamation. This is in addition to $5 million awarded to Carroll in an earlier trial for other instances of defamation. Pocket change for Trump; he has no incentive to stop lying about her.

[silverscreenselect]

A New York jury decided Trump must pay columnist E. Jean Carroll $83 million for defamation. This is in addition to $5 million awarded to Carroll in an earlier trial for other instances of defamation. Pocket change for Trump; he has no incentive to stop lying about her.

I sure hope Flock's head didn't explode when he heard the verdict.

The only consolation for Trump is that this only the second biggest civil judgment against him he's going to get this year. That fraud verdict's coming down pretty soon as well.

[silverscreenselect]

A New York jury decided Trump must pay columnist E. Jean Carroll $83 million for defamation. This is in addition to $5 million awarded to Carroll in an earlier trial for other instances of defamation. Pocket change for Trump; he has no incentive to stop lying about her.

How many license plates do you have to make in order to earn $83 million?

[flockofseagulls104]

A New York jury decided Trump must pay columnist E. Jean Carroll $83 million for defamation. This is in addition to $5 million awarded to Carroll in an earlier trial for other instances of defamation. Pocket change for Trump; he has no incentive to stop lying about her.

I sure hope Flock's head didn't explode when he heard the verdict.

The only consolation for Trump is that this only the second biggest civil judgment against him he's going to get this year. That fraud verdict's coming down pretty soon as well.

Don't injure yourself. It will be appealed.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, there will be an appeal. Maybe to a rational, ethical human being. It is disgusting what our judicial system has turned into.

[flockofseagulls104]

Willis faces impeachment

[wbtravis007]

Yes, there will be an appeal. Maybe to a rational, ethical human being. It is disgusting what our judicial system has turned into.

America.

Love it or leave it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Yes, there will be an appeal. Maybe to a rational, ethical human being. It is disgusting what our judicial system has turned into.

America.

Love it or leave it.

Then why are you still here?

[silverscreenselect]

Willis faces impeachment

That's going nowhere. The Republicans don't have a 2/3 majority in the State Senate, and if they do try to impeach Willis, this will blow up in their faces.

[silverscreenselect]

Yes, there will be an appeal. Maybe to a rational, ethical human being. It is disgusting what our judicial system has turned into.

One thing you may not realize is that although Trump has a right to appeal, he'll have to post a bond in order to do so (otherwise Carroll could levy on his assets immediately to satisfy the judgment). The amount of the bond will probably be somewhat greater than the $83 million judgment itself, since it has to cover interest and costs as well as the principal amount (it's up to the judge's discretion). Then the bonding company decides how much to charge Trump as a premium, and whatever they charge: (a) he won't get back, even if he wins the appeal, and (b) he'll have to post that amount as collateral. If he doesn't post the bond, I believe he can deposit the amount of the bond directly with the court to be held during the pendency of the appeal.

I think Bob#### is more versed on Federal appellate procedure than I am and can correct me if I'm wrong here. But the bottom line is that Trump is going to be deprived of a healthy chunk of his assets for quite a while, even if he appeals the case.

[wbtravis007]

Yes, there will be an appeal. Maybe to a rational, ethical human being. It is disgusting what our judicial system has turned into.

America.

Love it or leave it.

Then why are you still here?

That should go without saying. I was taught to love it, and I do.

How ‘bout you?

[Pastor Fireball]

It is disgusting what our judicial system has turned into.

How dare the justice system be used to make criminals pay for their crimes! I'm getting the vapors! I'll be on the fainting couch clutching my pearls!

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's some stuff for you self-proclaimed lawyers.
Maybe since it's mostly in your language, you might watch it. An important court case here in Georgia that your 'news organizations' are doing their best to ignore. And, yes, Halderman did hack the voting machine with a pen in the courtroom. And yes, Raffensperger refuses to testify in a court case named Curling v Raffensperger. Just as he dodged the Senate Ethics Committee hearing on the Dominion Machines. Another prime example of our public servant's commitment to transparency in elections.

[silverscreenselect]

Here's some stuff for you self-proclaimed lawyers.
Maybe since it's mostly in your language, you might watch it. An important court case here in Georgia that your 'news organizations' are doing their best to ignore. And, yes, Halderman did hack the voting machine with a pen in the courtroom. And yes, Raffensperger refuses to testify in a court case named Curling v Raffensperger. Just as he dodged the Senate Ethics Committee hearing on the Dominion Machines. Another prime example of our public servant's commitment to transparency in elections.

Contrary to your assertions, the Atlanta Journal has reported on this trial extensively. The case was actually brought originally by some liberal activists, but a group of right wingers have gotten involved and want to make this a referendum on the 2020 election as well. The problem with the professor's demonstration is that he showed that a person with good knowledge of computers who gets access to a voting machine could install software that might affect the results on that one machine. But that same person would not be allowed to wander around going from one machine to the next to hack the machines. Not to mention that Georgia voting machines are open. You don't go into a booth and close the curtain. So if someone starts futzing around with one of these machines, there's a good chance a poll watcher would spot them and start asking some questions.

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's some stuff for you self-proclaimed lawyers.
Maybe since it's mostly in your language, you might watch it. An important court case here in Georgia that your 'news organizations' are doing their best to ignore. And, yes, Halderman did hack the voting machine with a pen in the courtroom. And yes, Raffensperger refuses to testify in a court case named Curling v Raffensperger. Just as he dodged the Senate Ethics Committee hearing on the Dominion Machines. Another prime example of our public servant's commitment to transparency in elections.

Contrary to your assertions, the Atlanta Journal has reported on this trial extensively. The case was actually brought originally by some liberal activists, but a group of right wingers have gotten involved and want to make this a referendum on the 2020 election as well. The problem with the professor's demonstration is that he showed that a person with good knowledge of computers who gets access to a voting machine could install software that might affect the results on that one machine. But that same person would not be allowed to wander around going from one machine to the next to hack the machines. Not to mention that Georgia voting machines are open. You don't go into a booth and close the curtain. So if someone starts futzing around with one of these machines, there's a good chance a poll watcher would spot them and start asking some questions.

Oh, The AJC? Woohoo!
So, you are basing the security of elections on poll watchers? The vast majority of precincts in Fulton and DeKalb counties aren't covered by poll watchers, for one thing. And this was a demonstration of just one of the myriad vulnerabilities in this complex and totally unnecessary election system. Do you realize Taiwan just had a major election, completely on paper, had the results on the same day, and no controversy? WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT? Why are you defending a system that is completely opaque and questionable in so many ways? A system that has many documented and proven vulnerabilities? And a system where no one can indisputably verify the result? Even Raffensperger doesn't have the guts to show up and defend it himself.

[silverscreenselect]

Do you realize Taiwan just had a major election, completely on paper, had the results on the same day, and no controversy? WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT?

I looked up the Taiwanese election and it 's a matter of apples and oranges. In Taiwan, there is no early voting and no absentee voting. The polls close at 4:00 pm. They had one ballot for the presidential election, with three candidates and two separate ballots for the legislative election (candidate and party). I'm not exactly sure how it works, but some legislative candidates are chosen individually and some by voting for the party. So there were a total of three sheets of paper that each voter could cast. The ballot was a standard piece of paper with the candidates listed by number, along with pictures of them. Voters stamped each ballot with an oversized mark in the area for their candidate.

After the voting ended, the poll worker held up each ballot individually for everyone in the room to see, announced the vote, and then it was tallied on a results sheet hanging on the wall behind the poll workers. The system works because it's streamlined for a ballot with very few offices and choices. Here in Georgia in 2022, our general election ballot had choices for Governor, Lt. Governor, six cabinet positions, Senator, Representative, State Senate, State House, two constitutional amendments, two statewide referendums, county commission chairman, county commissioner, soil and water commissioner, various city council races, special elections, and bond referendums. Now how do you think that would work with people trying to read the results of all these races on a single long sheet of paper?

[Bob78164]

Here is the Special Master's report in the New York fraud case against Donny. Of particular note is footnote 6 on page 8. I'll translate it. Donny's financial statements included a $48 million loan that he has now admitted never existed.

That loan will have been used to eliminate Donny's tax liability on that $48 million. In other words, Donny has demonstrably been deliberately cheating on his taxes to the tune of millions (if not tens of millions) of dollars per year.

No wonder he wants to defund the IRS. Doing so doesn't just protect his cronies. It protects him personally. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Do you realize Taiwan just had a major election, completely on paper, had the results on the same day, and no controversy? WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT?

I looked up the Taiwanese election and it 's a matter of apples and oranges. In Taiwan, there is no early voting and no absentee voting. The polls close at 4:00 pm. They had one ballot for the presidential election, with three candidates and two separate ballots for the legislative election (candidate and party). I'm not exactly sure how it works, but some legislative candidates are chosen individually and some by voting for the party. So there were a total of three sheets of paper that each voter could cast. The ballot was a standard piece of paper with the candidates listed by number, along with pictures of them. Voters stamped each ballot with an oversized mark in the area for their candidate.

After the voting ended, the poll worker held up each ballot individually for everyone in the room to see, announced the vote, and then it was tallied on a results sheet hanging on the wall behind the poll workers. The system works because it's streamlined for a ballot with very few offices and choices. Here in Georgia in 2022, our general election ballot had choices for Governor, Lt. Governor, six cabinet positions, Senator, Representative, State Senate, State House, two constitutional amendments, two statewide referendums, county commission chairman, county commissioner, soil and water commissioner, various city council races, special elections, and bond referendums. Now how do you think that would work with people trying to read the results of all these races on a single long sheet of paper?

I'm not exactly sure how it works.
Of course, you don't, but you are going to criticize and reject it anyway, aren't you?

And then tell me you know exactly how our current system works, and that you personally certify that nothing can go wrong and nothing ever has. Just like the MSM media does. And like Brad Raffensperger does, who has no technical expertise at all.

I don't know the details of it either, but I know that if we did it that way - one day voting (OMG!), paper ballots that can actually be read and verified by the person who votes, counted and certified on the precinct level by many eyes, it would be much better than the current black box where NO ONE knows what is happening and no one can prove anything. And we have done it before. The processes still exist and can be reimplemented. And we need to do it NOW.

[silverscreenselect]

I don't know the details of it either, but I know that if we did it that way - one day voting (OMG!), paper ballots that can actually be read and verified by the person who votes, counted and certified on the precinct level by many eyes, it would be much better than the current black box where NO ONE knows what is happening and no one can prove anything. And we have done it before. The processes still exist and can be reimplemented. And we need to do it NOW.

The reason they don't have absentee voting is the risk of "absentee" voters living in mainland China casting votes under pressure or other influence. But there is a huge difference, which you choose to ignore, between a sheet of paper that contains the names of three candidates for one office on which a voter places a big stamp to indicate their choice, and the modern election-day ballot in most states, containing dozens of different individual elections. The former can be counted and verified fairly easily and accurately (much like the way we voted for class president in elementary school). The latter would be a logistical nightmare that's highly prone to errors, as studies have shown. How long do you think it takes to indicate the votes on a single ballot for 20 different elections? And then have a second or third person verify that the first person didn't make a mistake? And that's assuming these people are all fresh. What do you think is going to happen after a few hours of counting? Do you think they will be more or less accurate? Machines don't get tired; people do.

[flockofseagulls104]

I don't know the details of it either, but I know that if we did it that way - one day voting (OMG!), paper ballots that can actually be read and verified by the person who votes, counted and certified on the precinct level by many eyes, it would be much better than the current black box where NO ONE knows what is happening and no one can prove anything. And we have done it before. The processes still exist and can be reimplemented. And we need to do it NOW.

The reason they don't have absentee voting is the risk of "absentee" voters living in mainland China casting votes under pressure or other influence. But there is a huge difference, which you choose to ignore, between a sheet of paper that contains the names of three candidates for one office on which a voter places a big stamp to indicate their choice, and the modern election-day ballot in most states, containing dozens of different individual elections. The former can be counted and verified fairly easily and accurately (much like the way we voted for class president in elementary school). The latter would be a logistical nightmare that's highly prone to errors, as studies have shown. How long do you think it takes to indicate the votes on a single ballot for 20 different elections? And then have a second or third person verify that the first person didn't make a mistake? And that's assuming these people are all fresh. What do you think is going to happen after a few hours of counting? Do you think they will be more or less accurate? Machines don't get tired; people do.

It will take less time than it is taking now. And the main thing is that we will be SURE. And if we aren't, we have something physical and tangible to verify. The electronic machines are a black box, and can be manipulated in thousands of ways. We need to decentralize the elections and bring them back to the individual precinct level, where the numbers are smaller and procedures and processes can be easily and effectively monitored and verified. If we don't, every election will be fought, questioned and disputed for valid or invalid reasons, by one side or the other, simply because they CAN be. They do it in Europe, in Asia and we can go back to doing it here.

[silverscreenselect]

It will take less time than it is taking now. And the main thing is that we will be SURE.

Machines can tabulate votes in minutes. Human beings take much longer. The reason that it took a long time in some states to count votes was because of varying state laws regarding early and absentee ballots. In some states, these were verified and counted as soon as they arrived. That's why Democratic candidates traditionally do well in states like Ohio, where these early votes are the first counted. In others, election officials can't even open the envelopes until election day. Only then does the counting and verification process begin. That's what happened in states like Pennsylvania.

And you won't be "sure" of human counts because of the high error rate that occurs in such cases, as verified by scientific studies and actual experience. Not to mention there will always be claims of ballot stuffing and rigging. It was demonstrated in 2020 that Trump planned before the election to claim fraud if he lost. It's not "one side or the other" that does this. It's Republicans... every single time. That's their strategy for winning elections.

[Bob78164]

It was demonstrated in 2020 that Trump planned before the election to claim fraud if he lost. It's not "one side or the other" that does this. It's Republicans... every single time. That's their strategy for winning elections.

That's one of their strategies to seize and hold power. Another is to prevent the election from taking place at all, as they're doing in Mississippi. Or to rig the rules to elevate minority rule over the voice of the people, as they're trying to do in Missouri. --Bob

[jarnon]

Let’s play a game. I’m gonna give some examples of people on the left investigated by Biden. Give me the same number of examples of people on the right investigated. And by that, I mean an actual criminal prosecution, not just the FBI looking at someone sternly.

Eric Adams
Bob Menendez
Hunter Biden

Congresswoman Cori Bush may be added to this list.

Rep. Cori Bush under DOJ investigation over campaign spending on security, denies wrongdoing

Bush’s husband works on her Congressional security team. Even if they follow every regulation, it’s unwise for a public official to mix personal and business, as Fani Willis found out.

[flockofseagulls104]

It was demonstrated in 2020 that Trump planned before the election to claim fraud if he lost. It's not "one side or the other" that does this. It's Republicans... every single time. That's their strategy for winning elections.

Right once again.

Must not have gotten your memo.

And since trollboy is claiming evidence that Trump PLANNED to claim fraud to remain in office, regardless of the fact that he relinquished it, I will speculate in the same vein.

It is being demonstrated that the swamp powers that be PLANNED to have protesters enter the Capitol, planted people in that crowd to encourage it, refused help for more security, to label the resulting disturbance an insurrection, and put together a biased, partisan 'hearing' to cement that label. The republicans never did that. Only the Uniparty.

[flockofseagulls104]

Let’s play a game. I’m gonna give some examples of people on the left investigated by Biden. Give me the same number of examples of people on the right investigated. And by that, I mean an actual criminal prosecution, not just the FBI looking at someone sternly.

Here's one: Donald Trump. Investigated by the left for innumerable manufactured 'crimes'. Impeached twice over partisan issues and acquitted both times. Indicted and on trial for 91 counts of made-up crimes. Found guilty (on appeal) of 'crimes' that needed legislation to extend the statutes of limitations. I think that more than covers your list. Takes up pretty much all their time.