Even Republicans are beginning to notice Trump's dementia.

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yes, you should expect factual and rational responses from me. You seem to be opposed to them for some strange reason.

I gave you the same type of misspeaks that Biden makes but you just hand waved them away. In your mind they are somehow different. I have called my children by another one of my children's names. Am I somehow mentally ill?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave you the same type of misspeaks that Biden makes but you just hand waved them away. In your mind they are somehow different. I have called my children by another one of my children's names. Am I somehow mentally ill?

They were not even close. In either degree of being wrong, and especially not in length.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It appears that the word guilty isn't used with civil trials and verdicts. I don't believe any jury foreman reads the words guilty or not guilty. From https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...ed_education_network/how_courts_work/verdict/ :

"Possible verdicts in criminal cases are guilty or not guilty. In a civil suit, the jury will find for the plaintiff or the defendant. If the jury finds for the plaintiff, it will also usually set out the amount the defendant should pay the plaintiff for damages, often after a separate hearing concerning damages."

I don't see much difference there and don't know why the word guilty seems to be reserved only for criminal trials. What shall we say instead - that a judge has found the plaintiff's claims credible and adjudicated against Trump? OK.

Also, the wrongdoing in civil cases is not called a crime, but rather, a tort. "A tort is an act or omission that gives rise to injury or harm to another and amounts to a civil wrong for which courts impose liability." The word guilty doesn't appear there. And I believe that indictment is a word used only in criminal trials. And convicted. And probably the word damages only applies to civil trials. But maybe an attorney on RF could affirm or correct this.

All of this, if correct, allows people like you to say that he wasn't technically found guilty even though in the lay usage of the word, that's what the verdict equates to the way that a child is deemed guilty of breaking a cookie jar even without a criminal trial based in evaluating evidence and arriving at conclusions derived from its interpretation.

Nevertheless, the judge in the first Carroll civil trial decided that the charge that Trump raped her was credible and adjudicated accordingly and on her behalf awarding her damages. That makes him a rapist, which fact will underlie the second award of damages without having to be litigated again. Unlike the first trial, this one began with the penalty phase. The rape had already been formally and legally established with the first trial.

No. It doesn't make him a rapist for the fact the crime of rape is a criminal felony which Trump is not convicted of nor sentenced for.

Obviously anyway, the OJ Simpson trial and others similar civil verdicts do not / should not make you an officially rapist or murderer, particularly when it precedes a criminal felony trial where that determination is made properly.

I do agree something like that needs to be addressed as far as conviction goes and penalties associated with convictions as it relates to civil trials over criminal offenses.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Already found liable in a court of law. And currently in the middle of Round 2 in court because he can't keep his mouth shut.

The dude is a rapist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M

A jury has found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Jurors awarded her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House. The verdict was announced in a federal courtroom in New York City on...

apnews.com

No. That has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a proper jury and proper due process.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Already found liable in a court of law. And currently in the middle of Round 2 in court because he can't keep his mouth shut.

The dude is a rapist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M

A jury has found Donald Trump liable for sexually abusing advice columnist E. Jean Carroll in 1996. Jurors awarded her $5 million in a judgment that could haunt the former president as he campaigns to regain the White House. The verdict was announced in a federal courtroom in New York City on...

apnews.com

No. That has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a proper jury and proper due process in a criminal court.

 

[McBell]

No. That has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a proper jury and proper due process in a criminal court.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. It doesn't make him a rapist for the fact the crime of rape is a criminal felony which Trump is not convicted of nor sentenced for.

Obviously anyway, the OJ Simpson trial and others similar civil verdicts do not / should not make you an officially rapist or murderer, particularly when it precedes a criminal felony trial where that determination is made properly.

I do agree something like that needs to be addressed as far as conviction goes and penalties associated with convictions as it relates to civil trials over criminal offenses.

Not true. Being a rapist is a statement of fact. And the crime often has a statute of limitations. If one can avoid prosecution until usually seven years after the event one cannot be prosecuted. Do you really think that means that a person is not a rapist if they can avoid prosecution?

And yes, he was found to be a rapist in a civil court. That means if someone calls him a rapist that Trump cannot sue that person for making that statement. The limitation was not the same for a civil court.

Even though it is not complete justice a person can still sue at times if the legal system fails them. Remember OJ Simpson.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I

View attachment 87294

 

[Sargonski]

Today it was Nikki Haley. Trump conflated her with Nancy Pelosi and accused Haley of turning down Trump's offer of 10,000 national guardsmen (something that never happened anyway) for January 6. He tried to blame Haley for it and she was not even in office at the time:

Nikki Haley questions whether Trump is ‘mentally fit’ after he confuses her with Nancy Pelosi

Nikki Haley questioned whether Donald Trump is mentally able to serve as president after he mixed her up with Nancy Pelosi at a rally in New Hampshire.

news.yahoo.com

Right .. name calling by condender in primary race should be taken as fact .. Check

 

[McBell]

I

An accurate autobiography.
I give it two thumbs up!

 

[Twilight Hue]

An accurate autobiography.
I give it two thumbs up!

It reflects the world you live in to a T!

Glad you approve.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. It doesn't make him a rapist for the fact the crime of rape is a criminal felony which Trump is not convicted of nor sentenced for.

It makes him a rapist.

He was found liable for sexual abuse (and for defaming E. Jean Carroll about said sexual abuse).

"In New York, someone can only be convicted of rape if they can prove vaginal penetration by a penis. In Carroll’s testimony, which mirrored what she had described privately for decades and publicly for the first time in 2019, she said Trump used both his fingers and his penis in the assault. But during the trial, the jury had only concluded that Trump had “deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain and long lasting emotional and psychological harm,” Kaplan’s decision from last year reads.

That the jurors did not find that Carroll had proven rape, Kaplan explained, “does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’” “Indeed,” he continued, “as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

Federally, rape is defined as “penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” This broader explanation, while still dependent on penetration, would include assaults using fingers. "

A federal judge has gone to great lengths to make clear Trump really did rape E. Jean Carroll

Why state-level legal minutiae impacts what words are used to describe the former president's criminal conduct.

www.motherjones.com

Obviously anyway, the OJ Simpson trial and others similar civil verdicts do not / should not make you an officially rapist or murderer, particularly when it precedes a criminal felony trial where that determination is made properly.

I do agree something like that needs to be addressed as far as conviction goes and penalties associated with convictions as it relates to civil trials over criminal offenses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No. That has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a proper jury and proper due process in a criminal court.

Ohhh, so he didn't attack and penetrate E. Jean Carroll with his fingers.


Oh wait, he totally did. It's not criminal though, right? Just civilly liable. But he did the thing he was said to do, regardless.

Good grief the lengths you people will go to defend this disgusting behaviour is unbelievable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Right .. name calling by condender in primary race should be taken as fact .. Check

What "name calling"?

 

[stvdv]

No, he really did that. I am sure that I can get video of the speech if you like.

I believe you, if you say this.

What do you need evidence of? I will gladly provide it.

Evidence is not even needed

It is well known that Trump has been lying a lot. People who lie that much, usually can't keep up with their own lies, esp. at such age

All those lies should be reason enough to not want him to become the next president

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It doesn't make him a rapist for the fact the crime of rape is a criminal felony which Trump is not convicted of nor sentenced for.

What makes him a rapist is raping somebody. What officially establishes that fact is a courtroom trial, which Trump had.

That has not yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a proper jury and proper due process.

Nor need it be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a civil trial. Preponderance of evidence is the standard.

And Trump chose a bench trial (no jury), wherein the judge found the allegation of rape credible by that standard. That's all the due process that was necessary to grant a judgment on the plaintiff's behalf.

Would it matter to you to know for a fact that he raped somebody if he did? I don't think so. If not, why fight the allegation? Trump is clearly morally unfit for everything, but apparently not everybody cares about that. In fact, it seems like about half of Americans don't. And if that's the case, why pretend to care about such things?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe you, if you say this.

Evidence is not even needed

It is well known that Trump has been lying a lot. People who lie that much, usually can't keep up with their own lies, esp. at such age

All those lies should be reason enough to not want him to become the next president

Here is where Trump combines confusion about who he lied about and of course the lie itself. He conflated Nikki Haley for Nancy Pelosi and did so using his refuted lie about offering Pelosi 10,000 National Guard troops for January 6. It comes from Twitter and I have never used that here:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749131121114091648

EDIT: Darn, I was hoping to get the video to play here, but the link doe3s work It is just a minute long and worth it.

Second Edit: Now it does work. I guess I was not patient enough.

 

[stvdv]

Here is where Trump combines confusion about who he lied about and of course the lie itself. He conflated Nikki Haley for Nancy Pelosi and did so using his refuted lie about offering Pelosi 10,000 National Guard troops for January 6. It comes from Twitter and I have never used that here:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1749131121114091648

EDIT: Darn, I was hoping to get the video to play here, but the link doe3s work It is just a minute long and worth it.

Second Edit: Now it does work. I guess I was not patient enough.

When I see this 1min clip it feels not right. Especially Biden's remark at the end.

But I have seen Trump bashing Biden also, so Trump had it coming (karma biting back)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Good grief the lengths you people will go to defend this disgusting behaviour is unbelievable.

And THAT is precisely what never fails to absolutely blow me away. Let anyone else do to Trump excusers what Trump did to Carroll, they'd scream blue murder and never stop until he was hanging from a tree or lamp post. But poor widdle Twumpie-Wumpie, he's so cute and innocent.

Totally amazing.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And THAT is precisely what never fails to absolutely blow me away. Let anyone else do to Trump excusers what Trump did to Carroll, they'd scream blue murder and never stop until he was hanging from a tree or lamp post. But poor widdle Twumpie-Wumpie, he's so cute and innocent.

Totally amazing.

Right! It's disturbing, to say the least. Somehow Trump is supposed to be the victim here? Don't make me puke.
He got his due process. This is the result. The man is a rapist. A person who does what he did to another person is a rapist.