Politics Thread

[Berzerker]

He means multiple women accusing Trump. The law was designed for Trump, thats why it isn't permanent. They would have made it for 1 day so she could file but even Democrats might have seen that as suspicious... maybe lol. The Constitution prohibits ex post facto or retroactive legislation and thats what they did in NY.

[Berzerker]

Calling someone an ugly liar is worth millions? Can Trump sue people insulting him? I think the libel/slander has to do more 'damage' than the words of a schoolyard bully. You know, like accusing Trump of being a traitor.

[Berzerker]

So? You're not answering my question - why did they create a 1 year window if this was about victims and not a legislative loophole to go after Trump? I'm not sure retroactively creating liability is constitutional so I'd challenge the law on that basis alone. I should be defending the Democrats instead? They're doing damn near everything they accused Trump of doing.

[Berzerker]

I recognize 2 names on that list, Ivana and Carroll. And how many of those names should I have known, not that I trust Wiki?

[EPW]

200+ years of legal precedent disagrees with you(Geronimo).

[-Jrabbit]

Obviously, you have chosen to "forget" everything Trump has denied. Here, let Wikipedia refresh your memory...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Ivana Trump
Jill Harth
E. Jean Carroll
Summer Zervos
Alva Johnson
Jessica Leeds
Kristen Anderson
Lisa Boyne
Cathy Heller
Temple Taggart McDowell
Amy Dorris
Karena Virginia
Karen Johnson
Mindy McGillivray
Rachel Crooks
Natasha Stoynoff
Juliet Huddy
Jessica Drake
Ninni Laaksonen
Cassandra Searles
Bridget Sullivan
Tasha Dixon
Samantha Holvey
...and the list goes on and on and on...

This doesn't even include the dressing room invasions during beauty pageants, parties with Jeffrey Epstein's trafficked young ladies, the infamous "grab 'em by the *****" admission, the documented affairs during all his marriages, and much, much more.

And it doesn't include his business practices, which are arguably even more reprehensible.

I don't care who it is, this type of self-dealing vermin should never be allowed near the levers of power.

[BeBMan]

Evil Finland was voting yesterday. They liked it so much they go into a second round. Evil, evil.

https://www.dw.com/en/finland-ex-pm-alexander-stubb-wins-first-round-of-presidential-election/a-68105177

[pchang]

No. If Trump just claims he is innocent, he will not be liable for further damages. If he says he is innocent and that Carroll is lying and that she is too ugly for him, then he will have to pay more.

[Geronimo]

There were multiple women... but you don't care about the victims... only Trump

You mean multiple cases not involving Trump that moved forward only because of the change in law that also allowed Carroll's case against Trump to proceed? You're correct. The passage of the Adult Survivors act has already allowed several cases not involving Trump to proceed.

I do not, however, understand what was special about that one particular year that made it makes sense to disregard statute of limitations during it but not to do so after it. It's almost like lawmakers were especially anxious to see cases move forward that year. Why not make it permanent?

[Geronimo]

I’m innocent!

You douchebag!!!!

Do you see the difference between those 2 statements?

It can't matter in this case or frankly in the first case either. Obviously Trump and anyone else should be free to insult a public figure like Carroll and even to essentially ruthlessly libel and slander her with the same freedom extended to do so towards any public figure. Thanks to the grossly inappropriate result of the first case and legal abominations called estoppel and defamation per se, the situation has been created where even if Trump only asserted his innocence he will incur damages even if that is all he does and refrains from otherwise saying bad things about his accuser no matter how much more painfully obvious her public figure status has become.

[Geronimo]

His instructions included a clear explanation of the meaning of preponderance of evidence. So I do not think this framing is accurate.

Did you find a link to the complete instructions?

[Ming]

There were multiple women... but you don't care about the victims... only Trump

[Berzerker]

If they cared about victims they wouldn't limit this to 1 year... Tara Reade? Thats the only other name I know.

[Ming]

Blah blah blah... you make it sound like it was for ONLY her. It was for MANY VICTIMS. But you don't care about any of the victims... just Trump. Again, your opinion is just that... not fact. But feel free to promote the maga agenda and supporting Trump.
And I notice you still haven't mentioned all the other women that testified against him.

[Berzerker]

Let's be clear... A jury found that he had sexually abused her and defamed her in the first trial.
Your comment that he couldn't get a fair trail is total opinion and BS. He lost the case based on the FACTS. The jury did their job.
The law was changed to remove the statue of limitations to help VICTIMS, NOT to prosecute Trump as you imply.
And he wasn't just claiming he was innocent.. He went totally overboard and to this day continues attacking her, even after two losses in court (talk about a total moron)
And I see you failed to mention all the other women who have claimed similar activities on his part.

But as usual, you defend him by just reposting things you've seen in internet videos as if it was all true.
For a person who "claims" he doesn't like Trump, you sure defend him all the time... even when he's acting like a total ass.

https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-survivors/

The law created a 1 year window and she filed on the 1st day. Now if the goal was helping victims of assault why a 1 year window? They would have done it for 1 day if they could get away with it.