Why is Trump continuing to defame E Jean Carroll?

[tnt]

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

The jury is selected from a pool. When the pool is different shades of blue, the result is a blue jury regardless of the lawyer preemptions.

Using your logic, if they moved teh trial to a red state, a fair trail is equally impossible…

That is correct. See what happens when you think instead of just react?

So then our system of justice is worthless…and fair trials impossible.

So, now what?

[Samm]

@PurpnGold

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

Wrong. I don’t believe either of them. (One gets the feeling that you don’t actually read what I post.) They both have a strong motive to lie and almost certainly did.

Here comes the ‘I’m his biggest critic’ hedge…

At least you (unlike @PurpnGold ) have apparently been reading my posts.

But I do find it interesting that, in spite of that, you still keep asserting that I am a Trump supporter, which is a passive aggressive way to say I’m lying. Not very honest of you, is it.

Your posts in aggregate, say You are a Trump supporter

The aggregate of my posts regarding anything to do with Trump cannot be construed as support for Trump … by anyone who actually read them. Support for the truth and justice has nothing to do with the individuals involved.

[tnt]

@Samm

@tnt

My primary interest here is to understand why people would rather trash our justice system, and american jurors tasked with a job, and judges with absolutely no proof that our system wasn’t fair to the man.

It’s baffling.

■■■■■■■■■ Your purpose is to trash Trump. It always has been.

See, this is what I think really drives you to the absolutely bat ■■■■ crazy position that maintains our justice system is worthless…

You can’t stand to agree with liberals. Even a little. Even on something as innocuous as ‘our system is good, and a verdict was rendered in a fair trial.’

Because you can’t stand to side with a ‘liberal’ even on something like that.

[PurpnGold]

@Samm

@PurpnGold

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

Wrong. I don’t believe either of them. (One gets the feeling that you don’t actually read what I post.) They both have a strong motive to lie and almost certainly did.

Here comes the ‘I’m his biggest critic’ hedge…

At least you (unlike @PurpnGold ) have apparently been reading my posts.

But I do find it interesting that, in spite of that, you still keep asserting that I am a Trump supporter, which is a passive aggressive way to say I’m lying. Not very honest of you, is it.

Your posts in aggregate, say You are a Trump supporter

The aggregate of my posts regarding anything to do with Trump cannot be construed as support for Trump … had you actually read them. Support for the truth and justice has nothing to do with the individuals involved.

Something you haven’t advocated in any other thread involving a politician/public figure and a court case.

Also I’m not just referring to your posts in this thread…

[tnt]

@Samm

The aggregate of my posts regarding anything to do with Trump cannot be construed as support for Trump … had you actually read them. Support for the truth and justice has nothing to do with the individuals involved.

■■■■■■■■■

Claiming no trail can be fair rather than allowing trump has a fair trial indicates you are a committed to trump.

I mean, come on…were the opposite true, how would you respond?

If biden were sued and people here claimed it was impossible to have a fair trail in america - as you have - what would you conclude about them?

[Whocares]

@Samm

nor were any of the circumstances the same.

They are wealthy men who were accused of sexual assault/abuse, years after the victims said the assaults happened. How is it any different? Or does only Trump deserve to have any evidence/accusations brought forward in a timely fashion?

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

The Media has become a joke. Their idea of checking a story is to see if someone else reported it. “According to a reliable source” can mean “we saw it in a blog.” And then once a mainstream outlet reports it, they use each other as backup.

So then how can you reach a founded conclusion on the fairness of the trail if all you have to go on are reports from the media you call a joke?

Because the basics are not in dispute. There was no physical evidence. Nothing but his word against hers.

[SixFoot]

@Samm

The aggregate of my posts regarding anything to do with Trump cannot be construed as support for Trump … by anyone who actually read them.

By anyone without a carnal mental obsession with Trump.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

Were you in the courtroom? Was it televised?

Were you?

Nope.

I respect our system.

I respect the jurors given an important task. I respect judges who have served in good standing.

So your respect for the doings of this trial is based on faith, not fact. That’s what I figured.

[Samm]

@SpacemanSpiff

So the whole Jennifer Flowers and Bill Clinton thing could be total BS?

Yep. IMO, she waited far too long and only showed up at a convenient time.

Bill, however, was not sued and fined $83 million, so it worked out for him.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

Were you in teh courtroom?

You reckon you are better positioned and more neutral than vetted and selected jurors, given instructions on their task, and who were, you know, actually there, hearing all the evidence and arguments?

Again … Were you?

Nope.

I respect our system.

I respect the jurors given an important task. I respect judges who have served in good standing.

I never claimed all these people were partisan hacks corrputing our justice system.

You did.

Blind faith.

And you have the gall to accuse me of being cultish.

[tnt]

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

The Media has become a joke. Their idea of checking a story is to see if someone else reported it. “According to a reliable source” can mean “we saw it in a blog.” And then once a mainstream outlet reports it, they use each other as backup.

So then how can you reach a founded conclusion on the fairness of the trail if all you have to go on are reports from the media you call a joke?

Because the basics are not in dispute. There was no physical evidence. Nothing but his word against hers.

You know only wha the media - that you claim to be a joke - told you.

You weren’t there.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

@Samm

And what cult would that be? The cult of logic? Guilty as charged.

The cult of throwing a bunch of american jurors and our entire justice system overboard rather than accepting trump had a fair trial and did something bad.

Your imagination is getting the better if you. You should go back to reading what I actually post.

We’re all reading it Samm.

You would rather believe the jurors and the system are bunk than to admit trump did something wrong.

So the minute you allow any other case to be fairly decided, you declare yourself a hypocrite.

Every trial is unique. Most trials, however, have some tangible evidence for the Jury to consider. This trial had none … flip the coin.

[tnt]

@Samm

nor were any of the circumstances the same.

You called Carrol a gold digger because trump is rich.

Why aren’t all these other women gold diggers?

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

@tnt

Whatever you are, you would rather throw our criminal justice system overboard - the same system that reaches verdicts you don’t protest - than to admit Trump lost a fair trail and did something wrong.

It’s bizarre.

There you go again.

And it seems you don’t even realize you’re doing it…

I know exactly what I am doing. Too bad you aren’t getting it. You could learn a thing or two.

[tnt]

@Samm

Every trial is unique. Most trials, however, have some tangible evidence for the Jury to consider. This trial had none … flip the coin.

You don’t know what the jury saw. You weren’t there.

You have only reports from the media, that you call a joke.

[tnt]

@Samm

So your respect for the doings of this trial is based on faith, not fact. That’s what I figured.

You don’t know the facts of this, or any other case. Nor do I. We weren’t there.

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

nor were any of the circumstances the same.

You called Carrol a gold digger because trump is rich.

Why aren’t all these other women gold diggers?

Perhaps they were. I can’t think of another reason why pretty young women would “date” ugly old men, can you?

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

Trump testified at the trial itself and at the penalty phase hearing. He walked out during closing arguments of the latter.

He didn’t show up for the sexual assault trial. You know, the one where he could have testified in his defense on the merits, but chose not to?

He did not testify, but as I recall (I can’t find anything either way) he was present at least for some of it. It is not uncommon for the accused to let their lawyer speak for them. After all, the onus to prove the charges is on the accuser. And with a client like Trump, who has almost no control over what comes out of his mouth, an attorney would be a fool to put him on the stand.

[Whocares]

@Samm

Perhaps they were. I can’t think of another reason why pretty young women would “date” ugly old men, can you

Now is that anyway to speak about former First Lady Melania?