Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

16636646666686691189

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,019 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    How many of those previous accusations have been credible enough to make it to trial? They're not all the same as the current one



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    "what a jury decides cannot be considered 'proven' in any literal sense"

    That is EXACTLY what it means.

    If a jury finds him guilty then he's guilty , that's how courts work.

    But now you are saying that if a jury find him guilty it's not proof of guilt????

    FFS



  • Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Proven in a legal sense, not any literal sense.

    So legally, Trump will be guilty - and, of course, we must accept their conclusion. That's how the legal system operates.

    But let's not pretend, at the same time, that what a jury decides is the supreme and ultimate arbitration of truth.

    You could, for example, have 9 sets of jury teams - and half could balance in favour of innocent, and half could balance in favour of guilt.

    That's the nature of cases. It doesn't necessarily follow that what any individual jury decides is the literal truth.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,483 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    FFS



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,973 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    A civil trial not a criminal one. There is no "guilt". there is only liable or not liable.

    Proven in a legal sense, not any literal sense.

    About the dumbest thing I have read in a long time.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    I admire the level of moral gymnastics you seem to be willing to subject yourself to in defence of someone you claim not to be a particular fan of.

    And by "admire" I mean , "find it incredibly sad and deflating that someone could prostrate themselves to such an extent in defence of someone who wouldn't pi$$ on them if they were on fire"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,483 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Untitled Image

    And just like that, any remaining credibility is gone.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭Hoop66


    One of the worst posts I have seen on this website.

    The foundational framework of western canon law is pointless because we can't know if he's really guilty or not? The law that our civillisation, that you seem so determined to protect from the "woke", was built on is pointless?

    If that's not what you're saying, then what is the point of your post? It would seem that is simply to aggravate other posters.



  • Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I accept your point re: liable versus guilty; that's a nuance I should have included in my post.

    But with respect to my wider point about the jury system; that's undeniable.

    A new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal cases are reaching incorrect verdicts. The study, which looked at 271 cases in four areas of Illinois, found that as many as one in eight juries is making the wrong decision – by convicting an innocent person or acquitting a guilty one.

    In each case, while the jury deliberated, the judge filled out a questionnaire detailing what his or her verdict would have been had it been a bench trial. The verdicts only matched in 77 percent of cases. The study assumed that judges are at least as likely as a jury to make a correct verdict, leading to the conclusion that juries are only correct 87 percent of the time or less.

    Added to that is the existence of various types of bias. And this is particularly acute when dealing with a politically controversial figure like Donald Trump.

    So yes, it's entirely possible for a jury to legally make the correct decision, by arriving at a decision, but that doesn't necessarily always establish the truth of the case in question.

    Often yes, but not always. Let's not kid ourselves.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub



    So, the defence here is that humans are fallible - And????


    Untitled Image




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,973 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    This is a terrible development for trump.

    Last time I saw a defendant change their mind about taking the stand it was Alex Murdaugh and it did NOT go well for him. Not much choice though either- the prosecution had caught him in a well evidenced lie, if he had just left the case on his deposition he’d be toast anyway, he had to take the stand to attempt ‘okay I lied in that instance but I was truthful about all this other stuff’ routine.

    For Trump’s legal defense to suddenly shift gears midway/backend of trial? They miscalculated somewhere and this is one of their few recourses left to try and mitigate the opinions of the jury. I’d say he’s not above trying to say things on the stand that were inadmissible, trying to get his own case (once again) thrown out for mistrial.



  • Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't think the people falsely convicted of various crimes would appreciate your blithe, sarcastic dismissal of what is a serious and legitimate point.

    I would go as far as saying that, given how divisive Donald Trump has been over the past number of years, the prospect of a false conviction is probably even higher than the average of 1 in 8.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,967 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    I generally agree with the overall point you're making. A verdict of guilty doesn't always mean the defendant is. Likewise a verdict of not guilty doesn't always mean the defendant is, as there just may not have been enough evidence, or evidence poorly presented, which didn't convince the jury to the right standard.

    But it's f*cking rich to be throwing out "He's innocent until proven guilty" and then instantly follow with "Even if he's found guilty, he might still be innocent...."

    Basically what you're inferring straight off the bat is that you're still going to put forth what your opinion is regardless of the outcome of the trial.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,973 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    trump is not accused of a crime. well not in this case anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,570 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    He said he may attend the trial. Which I doubt.

    He will not testify, the court was notified Tuesday that no witnesses will be called.

    Can you imagine putting that lunatic on the stand? he would admit it and deny it 19 times over in some incoherent rant. Then blame Hilary.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    His own lawyer has said it's not happening , it's just more spur of the moment reflexive lying from Trump

    No one is dismissing the reality that juries some times get things wrong , of course they do - To err is human as they say.

    Everyone knows and understands that, and those errors are to an extent built in to the baseline levels of trust in the overall process.

    But what you are doing is trying to deflect from Trumps potential liability here by stating the bloody obvious as if it's some kind of great revelation.



  • Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    You're wrong, Trump isn't testifying.

    1 in 8 is quite high.

    And, as I say, I suspect the potential for bias against Trump makes the risk higher to be held falsely liable.

    Now look, he may well be liable. But it would be wrong not to at least consider these factors given that he is politically controversial, and that Trump wants to run for president in 2024.

    Democrats will consider this case very conveniently timed.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,916 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    I know it's a civil case but there are 2 elements.

    He is accused of defamation but he is also accused of battery under the new "survivors law" in NY.

    Would that be somewhat analogous to the "wrongful death" suit that OJ lost after he had been acquitted of Murder?

    So found "liable" for sexual battery but not guilty of the "crime" of rape?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,973 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    any criminal trial will be entirely separate. the burden of proof in a civil trial is also lower than in a criminal trial so being found liable in a civil trial is no guarantee of being found guilty in a criminal trial.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,967 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    There was a jury selection process, and the fact that Trump is politically controversial and wants to run for President again does not negate the fact that E. Jean Carroll brought a legally viable case forward and has a right to have that case heard in court. The timing is irrelevant. She couldn't bring the case while he was President, and given how long cases take to make it court, the fact he's announced he's running again is also irrelevant.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


     The timing is irrelevant. She couldn't bring the case while he was President, and given how long cases take to make it court, the fact he's announced he's running again is also irrelevant.

    Nevermind Trump's efforts to delay.

    June 2019 - Carroll publishes an excerpt from her memoir, "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal," that includes the accusation Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

    June 2019 - Trump denies Carroll's accusations, telling a reporter at the White House with reference to Carroll: "I'll say it with great respect: Number one, she's not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?"

    November 2019 - Carroll sues Trump for defamation in a New York state court in Manhattan.

    September 2020 - The U.S. Department of Justice moves the case to federal court, saying Trump spoke about Carroll in his official capacity as president, and the government should be substituted for Trump as the defendant.

    October 2020 - U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan refuses to substitute the government as a defendant, saying Trump was not a government employee and his statements were not made within the scope of his job as president.

    2021-September 2022 - Carroll's lawsuit is largely on hold while Trump appeals Kaplan's decision. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan hears the appeal in December 2021.

    Sept. 20, 2022 - Carroll says she plans to sue Trump a second time for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, citing New York state's new Adult Survivors Act. The law gives adults a one-year window starting on Nov. 24 to sue their alleged attackers, even if statutes of limitations have long since expired.

    Sept. 27, 2022 - The 2nd Circuit agrees with Trump that he was a government employee when he first spoke about Carroll, but says it is unsure whether, under local laws of Washington, D.C., Trump had spoken in his capacity as president. It asks the District of Columbia Court of Appeals for guidance. That court schedules oral arguments for Jan. 10, 2023.

    Oct. 12, 2022 - Trump repeats his denials of Carroll's claims. On his Truth Social website, he calls the "Ms. Bergdorf Goodman case" a "complete con job," a "hoax," a "lie" and a "complete Scam," and says he had not known Carroll and that she was "not my type!"

    Oct. 19, 2022 - Trump is deposed in Carroll's first lawsuit. He denies Carroll's claims and calls her mentally ill.

    Nov. 24, 2022 - Carroll files her second lawsuit, accusing Trump of defaming her in his Oct. 12 Truth Social post and accusing him of battery.

    Feb. 15, 2023 - Kaplan rejects Trump's offer to provide a DNA sample to compare against a dress Carroll said she wore on the day he raped her.

    March 10, 2023 - Kaplan rejects Trump's effort to exclude from trial a 2005 "Access Hollywood" tape of him making graphic, vulgar comments about women, and testimony from two other women who allege he sexually assaulted them.

    March 23, 2023 - Kaplan says jurors will be kept anonymous at the trial, citing the threat that Trump supporters and others may harass them.

    March 28, 2023 - Kaplan rejects Trump's request to throw out the defamation claim in Carroll's second lawsuit. Trump had argued that he had been merely commenting about Carroll's first lawsuit, making his comments protected speech.

    April 13, 2023 - The D.C. Court of Appeals declines to decide whether Trump acted as president when discussing Carroll in June 2019, saying it did not have enough facts. It provides the 2nd Circuit appeals court with guidance on the applicable law - guidance that could help Carroll in her first lawsuit.

    April 17, 2023 - Kaplan rejects Trump's bid to delay the April 25 trial, saying the alleged "prejudicial media coverage" was largely provoked by the former president.

    April 20, 2023 - Kaplan says Trump need not attend the trial but rejects his effort to have jurors view his absence in a positive light by instructing them that it was meant to avoid logistical burdens. Trump had cited traffic and security concerns.

    April 25, 2023 - Jury selection scheduled to begin.

    (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Howard Goller)

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/timeline-main-events-e-jean-135213759.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJ3Z3Gq7tKsK_QS37-71dP2kiZY6IVfCi_cX93T73XY1eAzA-642I7dM-mIeuCb0AF-j67pHe4YBjDX3_LvGT1f43SeYUoP2ct-VSp0lAFRmNuKRwfdB2gOwUMrwD0AdDCblYFqIknx8ZivDcg0hZm793SMUQWxOticOQyCLCE10



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    None - they'll claim it was a set-up in the same way they claim the election was stolen. The moderates will probably sway towards DeSantis or someone else and the undecided voters won't touch him with a bargepole. And those were the ones he needed to win.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Four Proud Boys have just been found guilty of Seditious Conspiracy, the top charge, in a partial verdict related to the January 6th sedition:


    Details:

     

    On Count 1 which is "Seditious Conspiracy"

    - Enrique Tarrio - Found Guilty

    - Ethan Nordean - Found Guilty

    - Joseph Biggs - Found Guilty 

    - Zachary Rehl - Found Guilty



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,777 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Possible 20 year sentences. Also some found guilty on additional charges.


    Don't let the cell doors hit you in the back, laddos.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,615 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    Imagine destroying your life for trump.

    Fools.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,777 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Probably didn't have much lives in the first place. Hopefully out of the gene pool.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭I.R.Y.E.D


    I think this tweet and the fact that some major donors for the GOP are withholding donations because of the whole Woke rants the likes of desantis comes out with are how people see them except for the base and special cases.




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,777 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Been posting that tweet here for years now. Plagiarist! j/k



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement