Current events discussion

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I'm not a source, any more than I'm a source that says Trump was convicted on 34 counts in the hush money trial, or any more than I'm a source that says gravity exists.
The court decision is the source in the felony conviction, the same as the court decision is the source that says he ***** E Jean Carroll.

Unlike other people here, I don't make claims and simply demand they be accepted as true. I back it up.

if you choose not to believe a court decision that is on record actually exists, that's on you.
But tell me: Why hasn't he sued the judge for saying it? Don't you think something like that is damaging? Moreso than a TV talking head saying he was found liable for it?

The judge has qualified immunity, ABC doesn't. This why no major outlet will say "Trump was found liable for ****." As a matter fact the major outlets, fact checkers, etc have come and specifically said that Trump was not found liable for ****. Why, would the say that? Because they know the jury decides guilt/liability not the judge; this is HS freshman civics.

You're welcome to deny the jury's role in the case, but it this just a different flavor of "in isn't in."

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

I bet it freaked him out. I had never seen a stealth fighter in the air before, until a few years ago when two flew over my house in staggered formation.
I looked at them and completely froze for a few seconds as my brain tried to make sense of what I was seeing. I don't even recall them making a sound, though I know for a fact they were.

I wonder if the people who see the "silent" UAPs fly over are just too stunned to know or remember they heard it. Like combat vets who were so hyperfocused on self-preservation, they didn't even hear their own weapon firing.

Or being in a major metro where there is slways background noise.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Maybe...I honestly think it's in response to drone use in Ukraine. It's been battle proven a handful of drones can kill a tank now. So I'd think it's more likely developing tactics for an urban battlefield. That's the simplest explanation with the whole ocean's razor thing.

I could be 100% wrong though so don't take me as no expert

Besides there's so many facial recognition capable cameras in the US using drones doesn't make a lot of sense on a mass scale.

Urban combat or urban policing. IIRC, China was using drones to enforce the lockdown.

 

[Old_Slapper]

A judge cannot override a jury's decision unless the jury dismissed unquestionable evidence, such a video of the actual crime. In Trump's **** case, there were no unquestionable evidence. Therefore, the judge cannot overrule the jury's verdict. In history, there has only been one case where the judge overruled the jury, and they later found that the judge was bribed.

Can a Judge Overrule a Jury: Exploring Judicial Authority

Explore the legal proceedings of a judge and jury. Learn when and how a judge can overrule a jury’s verdict based on evidence, representation, and more.

legalscoops.com

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

You do realize it was the jury's duty to "judge" that case....not the judge's...

I suspect NYC really wanted find Daniel Penny guilty. I wonder if they could use the "Rob Loophole" and just have the judge declare that while the jury found Penny "not guilty" in the legal sense, but Penny is guilty in the "common useage" of the word. Toss in a couple pages of legalise word salad and use the word "guilty" 70 times and miraculously Penny is guilty.

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

A judge cannot override a jury's decision unless the jury dismissed unquestionable evidence, such a video of the actual crime. In Trump's **** case, there were no unquestionable evidence. Therefore, the judge cannot overrule the jury's verdict. In history, there has only been one case where the judge overruled the jury, and they later found that the judge was bribed.

Can a Judge Overrule a Jury: Exploring Judicial Authority

Explore the legal proceedings of a judge and jury. Learn when and how a judge can overrule a jury’s verdict based on evidence, representation, and more.

legalscoops.com

The thing is the judge never overruled the jury to my knowledge. It looks like he just proffered that Trump was a ****** because of "common use" of the word.

It's sad to see judges putting politics above the law whether it's the Supreme Court or this A-hole or the Colorado Courts attempting to keep Trump off the ballot.

What's worse is you have the lefties running around declaring Trump is a ****** based on 9 people said it's more likely than not he sexually abused EJCand some judge word saladed that into ****.

Notice how they never cite the actual evidence from the case.

 

[Old_Slapper]

The thing is the judge never overruled the jury to my knowledge. It looks like he just proffered that Trump was a ****** because of "common use" of the word.

It's sad to see judges putting politics above the law whether it's the Supreme Court or this A-hole or the Colorado Courts attempting to keep Trump off the ballot.

What's worse is you have the lefties running around declaring Trump is a ****** based on 9 people said it's more likely than not he sexually abused EJCand some judge word saladed that into ****.

Notice how they never cite the actual evidence from the case.

Yes, that is accurate. He was convicted of ****** assault and not ****.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Yes, that is accurate. He was convicted of ****** assault and not ****.

He wasn't even convicted...just found liable

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Once seattle started talking about banning plastic straws to save the turtles but giving out plastic syringes to the junkies...I knew it was time to get gone

Turtles lives matter

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Yes, that is accurate. He was convicted of ****** assault and not ****.

Not even assault. It was abuse.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

The judge has qualified immunity, ABC doesn't. This why no major outlet will say "Trump was found liable for ****." As a matter fact the major outlets, fact checkers, etc have come and specifically said that Trump was not found liable for ****. Why, would the say that? Because they know the jury decides guilt/liability not the judge; this is HS freshman civics.

You're welcome to deny the jury's role in the case, but it this just a different flavor of "in isn't in."

I think you are referring to the first case, where the jury made the decision.
This was not that.

No major outlet SHOULD say he was found liable for ****, because he wasn't under NY state law, which says you need to stick your penis in her ****** to **** her. Trump jammed his fingers into her, which is not considered **** under New York law.
Under Federal law however, it IS ****. So if it had gone to federal court instead of NY state court, the same act would have been defined as outright ****.

I guess it is coming down to semantics, then. If it makes people feel good to excuse his actions and say he is not a ****** because he got tried in a court where they don't define his act as ****, then I guess pat yourself on the back. You're defending a man who grabbed her by the ***** and stuck his fingers in her without her consent.
Congrats.

If some scumbag did that to a family member of mine, I'd be happy to lay them to waste, and do the jail for for it. I would absolutely consider it **** based on the definition in federal law, and the definition that any decent human would ascribe to the act he committed.
And I will continue to call him a ****** based on the court decision that says he is one.
I will continue to call him a felon based on the 34 guilty decisions in his hush money case.
I will continue to call him a pathological liar based on the innumerable lies he has told, and his congoing penchant for lying..
I will continue to call him a failure for willfully dividing the country even further during COVID, instead of uniting it.
I will call him a failure for keeping so few campaign promises, and breaking so many during his presidency.
I will call him a failure for making the US a bad joke on the world stage.
I will call him a failure for already backpedaling on a promise that was damn near the basis of his campaign.
And so on.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Trump jammed his fingers into her

She's not even sure what penetrated her...but you know for sure?

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

She's not even sure what penetrated her...but you know for sure?

Well, the hearing decision indicates she knew, she told multiple people about it right after it happened, and her 3 days of testimony plus addition time for cross-examination was far more convincing than his complete lack of testimony.
If it was such a bullshit story, Trump's attorneys should have shredded her on cross.

And if you think a deposition where you claim to never have met the woman, identify her in a picture as your wife, and then say she's "not my type" despite claiming to not know her at all, is a good defense, then you probably would **** as his attorney.

BTW - Preponderance of evidence doesn't just mean "more likely than not". It's the standard for civil trials. Even if the jury had actually witnessed him doing it, they STILL would be passing judgement based on preponderance of evidence.
They don't change the standard of evidence based on how convinced the jury is.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

she told multiple people about it right after it happened

And what year did she say it happened?

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]