Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape

Corrupt judges and prosecutors generally operate beyond the reach of the law. Which explains why scofflaw judges and prosecutors routinely violate the rights of political targets and deny them due process.

“Secretive and cozy judicial oversight systems enable judges to subvert accountability in many states.”

“Although each U.S. state has a judicial oversight agency to screen and investigate misconduct complaints, their powers are often limited. In most states, the ultimate disciplinary authority over a judge rests with other judges.”
REUTERS, PART 2 | EMBOLDENED BY IMPUNITY, With ‘judges judging judges,’ rogues on the bench have little to fear, By MICHAEL BERENS and JOHN SHIFFMAN in BARTLESVILLE, OKLAHOMA Filed July 9, 2020, 10 a.m. GMT.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-deals/

This why using the courts to rig elections and take down candidates increases public opposition to our corrupt bipartisan ruling political class.

 

The racism is the fact of the denial of equal protection under the law.

What comes after that is plans for remediation of that serious problem.

Of course, we do have white nationalists who are just fine with the racism, but the constitution doesn't make an exception for racists. In fact, racism gets called out specifically.

And, I think you missed that we're talking about Trump's civil penalties for sexual assault in this thread.

 

I see.

 

Trump refused to call a single defense witness dude. You don't win a civil case by 1) not showing up to trial and 2) not calling any ****ing witnesses.

 

A gag order on Trump!!! LOL

Besides, he had the majority of the GOP saying what he wanted them to say about his sexual assault and the various additional assaults on the victim.

 

public speaking, social media, the list goes on, heck his client owns a social media network

 

They simply label their racism as "anti-racism" when in fact, its racism.

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi

 

that was not this case

 

Here comes the airplane!!!!!!! BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Baby loves the airplane!!!

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...orrect-the-rape-case-was-a-hoax.610443/page-5
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hgXJJiEAplg

 

???"Active". They use Affirmative action as a corrective measure for perceived discrimination in the past, present and future.

"The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” Kendi

 

How does one get witnesses for a "stealth" rape?
I think we all know the truth now. Trump had access to cloaking technology

 

He could've called a character witness ffs. He could've simply appeared himself and said "She's lying, that didn't happen." .
He refused to, and suffered the entirely predicable consequences in civil court of getting his **** pushed in in public.
Then he made it worse with his little twitter rant and his continuing defamation on CNN.
He's going to get sued again ffs.

 

"Trump refused to call a single defense witness dude." That is not true. Defendants only call witnesses when they are representing themselves.
DJT's lawyer chose not to call witnesses. Which is what smart layers do when the prosecution has failed to make a case. I bet you know that.

"How Courts Work - American Bar Association
November 28, 2021 How Courts Work Steps in a Trial Presentation of Evidence by the Defense The defense lawyer may choose not to present evidence, in the belief that the plaintiff or government did not prove its case."
https://www.americanbar.org › groups › public_education › resources › law_related_education_network › how_courts_work › defense

 

is Trump now claiming he was taking about a cat when he said "grab them by the p****"

 

He definitely has a "not knowing when to shut up" problem!

 

Yes. That's helpful in understanding who he really is.

 

If you think Donald Trump couldn't find a lawyer that would do what he said if he pushed it IDK how to help you.

And how did that work out for him, exactly?

You pull that **** in criminal court when you're at the BARD standard. It is ****ing foolish in the extreme to do it in civil court under the who has more ammo standard.

 

He wasn't talking about her dude.

 

1) that's a great joke, I laughed
2) when men are having bro-talk they say stupid stuff about women. That was not intended for the public. His privacy was violated. I know someone who didn't vote for him in his first election just for that comment.
3) if your idea of locker room banter is talking about a woman's knitting talents and their wonderful views on world peace then congratulations, you are a saint

 

A large part of the public still relies on the MSM which is Fake News.

But you are right to the extent that alternative media is correcting more Fake News all the time, and CNN did expand its audience while neutralizing any damage to Trump from the kangaroo court proceeding by allowing him to speak at its national Town Hall meeting. There is still hope for CNN.

 

???? Thats because the allegation is that Trump and this lady were alone, not in sight of ANYBODY when the incident occurred. There are no witnesses. She doesnt even know exactly when it occurred. What possible defense could someone present? Trump has been in that store. So without a date he couldnt even defend himself with an alibi evidence that showed he was elsewhere. Two people, alone in a room, sometime in the mid 90s with nothing more than the word of the two people in the room. REGARDING something that happened 25 friggin years ago. Proving a negative about an incident 25 years ago witnessed by no one other than the claimant. Thats a good reason the law usually includes a more reasonable statute of limitations.

 

Whenever a plaintiff fails to make a case defense lawyers often rest - especially when they are dealing with a hostile judge.
It will make it easier for DJT to eventually win on appeal. But I am sure you know that.

 

Maybe. But, BFD.

He had NUMEROUS opportunities for correcting his views on women.

He could have used that as a point for ending his comments concerning women having NO value unless they have physical attributes he likes - a premise he's used in campaign speeches. He could have suggested that rape is not acceptable.

He could have stated that sexual assault is something that must end in America.


NOBODY can claim that was just locker room banter.

 

"Thats because the allegation is that Trump and this lady were alone, not in sight of ANYBODY when the incident occurred. There are no witnesses. She doesn't even know exactly when it occurred." Yes, the judge should have dismissed such a frivolous lawsuit early on and ordered plaintiff to pay costs.

 

In CRIMINAL COURT SURE. In civil court? Absolutely not. The most predictable result is as you see.

Based on what precise ground of appealable error exactly?