Trumpite Americans, when will you finally acknowledge your leader is a joke?

If you believe the conspiracy theories, George Soros has the juice to take him out.
Wonder what's taking him so long.

https://twitter.com/grocerieswegner/status/1647781472449753090?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ

Trump takes a bite of pizza and then offers it to the crowd.

https://twitter.com/katesullivandc/status/1649584084371349505?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ

Yes, the piece he bit.

Trump wants to force the homeless to live in internment camps.

https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1648357195895939075?s=20

I bet dinner's fapping so hard to this that he's got third-degree burns on the palms of his hands.

This account is covering the E. Jean Carroll suit against Trump.

https://twitter.com/innercitypress/status/1651227811372212233?s=46&t=iYW3foyqIA6Tn8VWwn3nwQ

In other news, water is wet and Biff still has stupid hair.


A second firm hired by Trump campaign found no evidence of election fraud
The founder of the company has been interviewed by federal prosecutors investigating the former president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 results

Ooooooh, they're not getting paid now.

The joke was on them if they thought they were getting paid at all...

ETA: from the article Federal records show the Trump 2020 campaign paid Block’s firm more than $750,000 in six payments. The first, for $390,000, came three days after the election, records show, and the final payment came around Thanksgiving of that year. The payments were labeled “Recount.” I wouldn't put it past him to sue them to try to get the money back.

Guy who helped start Truth Social and later reported them to the Feds is now working for Starbucks. As a barista.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/29/truth-social-wilkerson-starbucks/

Ayup. He seems like a real stable guy you'd want to entrust the nuclear codes to.

“Get Him Out of Here”: Donald Trump Tossed NBC Reporter’s Phones During Tirade Aboard Campaign Plane

"He wears bronzer, loves gold and gossip, is obsessed with his physical appearance, whines constantly, can't control his emotions, watches daytime television, enjoys parades and interior decorating, and used to sell perfume."

Manhattan jury finds that Trump sexually abused E Jean Carrol and awards her $5 million. Developing....

Yet another witch hunt ends in a witch being found.

To be fair, I do imagine there are a lot of grounds for potential appeal. I think it is at least debatable that the Access Hollywood tape came in, for example.

To be fair, in my (not a lawyer) experience there are always grounds for appeal in any trial.

I'm sure his chumps supporters will foot the bill for the $5 mil

Meh, he had ample opportunity to dismiss it as (like his supporters claim) "just locker room talk", but he doubled down on it and stood by it.

Sure, one can basically raise anything one likes to appeal in general. But in most cases, a reasonable appellate court will say, too bad, so sad and give deference to what happened at the trial court level.

I'm saying that a reasonable appellate court might (or might not) say that it was too unfair to Trump to allow the Access Hollywood tape in and/or to allow other women who claimed Trump groped them to testify.

There is a general principle that if you have a trial on one subject, there are limits to how much/whether you can bring in evidence of alleged bad behavior that isn't directly related. The idea is you don't want a jury to jump to the conclusion "where there's so much smoke, there has to be fire"/"he did it those times, so he had to have done it this time" and because you don't want to have to have there to be effectively a second and third mini-trial about all the other incidents.

Up to now he's been able to escape accountability by delaying trials and outwaiting the people he shit on. This shifts the narrative. He can keep on calling every claim against him a "witch hunt" "hoax" "lies" whatever, but it's going to be a tougher sell now that a jury, even in a civil case, has found him liable for his conduct. There's still the Bill Carson faction that loves the way he pisses off liberals, (Yes, Bill I know that you claim you didn't vote for him...but you sure seem to come down on his side at crunch time) but that base is gradually getting smaller and this will peel off a few more. Instead of using lawyers to delay any kind of accountability, he's now going to be fighting to get the findings reversed and that's quite different. I'm quite sure the damages will be lowered, but it's still the first of what I hope will be many defeats for this piece of human scum.

I think he did use the phrase "locker room talk" in his deposition to describe it, and that part of the dep was probably played for the jury.

But it's arguably unfair to him for it to be introduced at all.

I obviously say this as no fan of Trump.

I looked up a picture of her in the 80s and she does look like Marla Maples so Trump is definitely lying about her not his type.

Sure, but getting a verdict reversed is a much higher hill to climb than beating a rap in court. In my view, the Access Hollywood tape is a sideshow and even if that were thrown out, what would still sink the good ship Trump is his deposition and I don't think there's any grounds for flushing that, especially since he didn't take advantage of the chance to testify. Also the jury found him liable of "sexual battery" and "defamation", not rape.

Let's ask him directly: BC/FF, what do you think about this verdict?

I am not sure there is grounds to lower the damages, assuming the underlying verdict stands. How do you put a value on having the president of the U.S. say repeatedly that you are a liar, that you are making up allegations against him, and that you're too much of a dog for him to want to sleep with you? And those comments basically being in every major newspaper and TV broadcast, not to mention social media. And that's not even mentioning the underlying sexual battery damages. I wasn't clear on how much of the $5 mil is supposed to be compensatory and how much is punitive from the few stories I looked at, but it seems to me that $5 million is not so large that it can be readily overturned.

Also, as the trial judge was saying, during the trial, Trump said additional things that could provide grist for a new defamation lawsuit. And with this ruling in hand, Trump hypothetically will not be able to challenge the finding that he sexually battered Carroll in any new defamation lawsuit pertaining to comments he has made on Truth Social or anywhere else about the trial.

So many cases against Trump that I forgot about this one. Guilty of battery

Harry Littman (or was it Andrew Weismann) on MSNBC noted that at least a couple of jurors are Trumpistas who get their information from Fox and the right-wing echo chamber. The conclusion is that most jurors are willing to put aside their emotions and make a ruling based on the evidence and apply it to the law as specified by the judge. I'm reminded of the Sami El-Arian case in Tampa when at the height of the post 9-11 hysteria a federal jury acquitted an Islamic professor accused of having terrorist connections. Our jury system ain't perfect by a long shot, but sometimes justice (however imperfectly and some unsatisfactorily) gets done.

Not "guilty"...liable. It bears repeating that "guilty" is finding beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court while in civil court a jury can find a defendant "liable" by a preponderence of evidence (more likely than not to have done it). It's good as far as it goes, but we're a long way from the end of the trials of Citizen Trump.

Or...and hear me out...it is a spectacularly bad idea to take a case to trial with a famous defendant who (to put it charitably) does not have the best reputation when it comes to sex, respecting women, or really anything else related to the trial, who made ample statements including the Access Hollywood one that suggest he did it, who gave from a terrible deposition (seemingly), and who couldn't be bothered to testify in person or via video at his own trial.

No offense to Carroll's counsel, but it seems to me that Lionel Hutz could have won this one under these conditions.

Andrew Weismann called the finding "bulletproof" Mary McCord former legal counsel for the Jan 6 committee agreed, noting that the judge had given Trump a very unusual opportunity to testify in his own defense by giving him extra time to get back from his Scotland/Ireland trip. As far as whether better counsel might have helped, about the only case I can see as in any way similar was Roy Black's defense of William Kennedy Smith. For all I know Trump may have reached out to him, but I suspect that unlike Trump, the Kennedy's pay their attorneys.

Maybe he has one type for the kind of woman he would marry and a different type for the kind of woman he would rape.

I mean, his response was just “not my type” not “I didn’t rape her”

With all due respect to legal commentators who are more experienced and talented and richer than I, it's hard to say any case is bulletproof (or at least, that someone won't discover legal Kryptonite). I would imagine that the NY state court system is not going to have judges who are going to bend over backwards to help Trump here like the federal judge who handled the Mar-a-Lago search case who ultimately got reversed in part. And while I think the "unfairly prejudicial" aspect could be argued both ways, I also think it would be easy to say this is "harmless error." (i.e., even if you take out the Access Hollywood statements and the other alleged victim, there was plenty of grounds for a reasonable jury to reach the finding that it did.) But only certain people wearing black robes in NY State can truly answer those questions.