'Access Hollywood' video played at Trump trial

Donald Trump’s lawsuit against the New York Times was tossed out by a New York Supreme Court judge on Wednesday, with the former president being ordered to pay all attorney’s fees, other legal expenses and associated costs.

Could this be…..foreshadowing???

You don’t make millions and have a successful 14 TV show, have properties all over the world if you’re nothing.

And he couldn’t even do that without engaging in compulsive fraud, tax evasion, material misrepresentation, etc., etc., etc.,

And he STILL went bankrupt 6 times.

Trump is a rube’s idea of a successful business model.

*He has no admirable traits or qualities to speak of. NOTHING at all. *Zero. 

You don’t make millions and have a successful 14 TV show, have properties all over the world if you’re nothing.

No 'maybe's about it. He's got the maturity and class of a 6th grader who brags in the gym class locker room and of course spreads gossip about other kids in the school and sasses off the mouth all the time. That should have been obvious to all a long time ago.

Seems like that is how you would describe a lot of people on the left that have been after this guy since 2016

And this woman is telling the truth. 

Now how on Earth would you know? What’s the proof? Show us.

a pushover and uncouth to the MAX.*

And yet, try as they might they shot and continue to miss. Let’s see the proof first. He deserves under our legal system.

Bass speak for “I got nothing so I will deflect”

Not me, that would be the left.

Ah, Plan B: deflection when moral equivalence fails.

you would know that the jury, by a non-unanimous majority, has to find the the Planiff’s complaint (in this case rape and defamation) proven based on a “preponderance of the evidence” which means the jury believes the plaintiff.

Ok, so translation, you guys have nothing….again.

No, sweetie. The Pkantiff has rather a lot. The jury has yet to render a verdict.

plasticmonkeyToday  06:41 am JST

What, pray tell, are the character traits of Trump that his followers admire?

I can’t think of a single one worth looking up to.

What a creep.

He has no admirable traits or qualities to speak of. NOTHING at all. Zero.

> 2020hindsightsToday  06:59 am JST

With the previous witnesses saying how they were groped by Trump and then him bragging about how he gropes women and the they let you do it. Yeah, maybe he is delusional about the last part.

It shows a clear pattern of abusive behaviour by Trump. I'm sure that the jury is likely to side with E. Jean Carroll.

No 'maybe's about it. He's got the maturity and class of a 6th grader who brags in the gym class locker room and of course spreads gossip about other kids in the school and sasses off the mouth all the time. That should have been obvious to all a long time ago. A Nero.

ulyssesToday  07:39 am JST

Accused of Rape.

Victim provides excellent testimony at trial.

No defense presented.

Hmmm…

It’s a squeaker.

Rape is about overpowering the victim with FEAR. It's a violent crime of intimidation. This woman (and the others) have great courage to stand up to this criminal scum. The effects of rape linger for life in a person, it's a violation and an invasion. And this woman is telling the truth.

'No defense presented'/ What defense or excuse IS there for this? And that infamous video detailing his boorish attitude says more than enough. Trashtrump is grossly immature, overbearing, egotistical, a pushover and uncouth to the MAX.

Bass speak for “I got nothing so I will deflect”

Not me, that would be the left.

Again, if you had the slightest clue how American jurisprudence worked,

I do.

you would know that the jury, by a non-unanimous majority, has to find the the Planiff’s complaint (in this case rape and defamation) proven based on a “preponderance of the evidence” which means the jury believes the plaintiff.

Ok, so translation, you guys have nothing….again.

This sort of behavior was why I never voted for Trump.

She said she was “flustered and shocked” but unable to speak and did not scream. “No words came out of me.”

I completely understand this. Was groped by Czech airport security. I was shocked. It didn't hit me until sitting in the airplane that I'd been sexually assaulted by the security guard. There were 2 other passengers (45 yr old Russian Rocker in spikes and leather and his 19 yr old chick of the day) behind the curtain with me. Seems they'd been searched a few times on that trip already. He wasn't happy either.

So a defense team would make a decision to not present any defense, knowing that by doing so it would greatly reduce their chance of prevailing, if in fact as you are alluding that providing no defense usually results in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff?

Not in the US.

In a civil preceding, this is exactly what can happen. Unlike a criminal trial, the jury is free to make an inference should the defendant choose not to testify or put on a defense.

If you had a clue as to the differences between criminal and civil law, you would already know this.

And?

Bass speak for “I got nothing so I will deflect”

Ok, and it proves what exactly?

Again, if you had the slightest clue how American jurisprudence worked, you would know that the jury, by a non-unanimous majority, has to find the the Planiff’s complaint (in this case rape and defamation) proven based on a “preponderance of the evidence” which means the jury believes the plaintiff.

Could, but won’t. You know this.

No, I don't.

They could indeed. And at age 52, I could become able to dunk a basketball on a 10’ rim at 5’8” (if I stand up nice and tall), but I’m judging both to be “unlikely.”

So a defense team would make a decision to not present any defense, knowing that by doing so it would greatly reduce their chance of prevailing, if in fact as you are alluding that providing no defense usually results in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff?

Not in the US.

The jury can also make the inference that the plaintiff did not succeed in reaching the threshold of the standard of proof as required by law, and that the defense determined as a result it did not need to testify.

They could indeed. And at age 52, I could become able to dunk a basketball on a 10’ rim at 5’8” (if I stand up nice and tall), but I’m judging both to be “unlikely.”

But we have the OJ exception so one should never say for certain.

Her testimony, the testimony of contemporaneous witnesses that she told at the time, the testimony of others who experienced the same pattern of behavior and the defendant’s own words.

And?

But you have the L&O theory. You should totally go with that.

Ok, and it proves what exactly?

The jury can also make the inference that the plaintiff did not succeed in reaching the threshold of the standard of proof as required by law, and that the defense determined as a result it did not need to testify.

Could, but won’t. You know this.

With what evidence?

Her testimony, the testimony of contemporaneous witnesses that she told at the time, the testimony of others who experienced the same pattern of behavior and the defendant’s own words.

But you have the L&O theory. You should totally go with that.

The burden lies with the plaintiff. But unlike a criminal proceeding, the jury is free to draw inferences from the refusal of the defendant to testify.

The jury is likely to say that the Plaintiff has cleared the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

The jury can also make the inference that the plaintiff did not succeed in reaching the threshold of the standard of proof as required by law, and that the defense determined as a result it did not need to testify.

CPTOMOToday  10:52 am JST

You have a claimant and a defendant, who both provide testimony and evidence, with the judge and jury deciding in the favor of the party that has a preponderance of that evidence...

With which side does the burden of proof lie? The plaintiff, or the defendant?

The burden lies with the plaintiff. But unlike a criminal proceeding, the jury is free to draw inferences from the refusal of the defendant to testify.

The jury is likely to say that the Plaintiff has cleared the “preponderance of the evidence” standard.

A reporter interviews Trump...

"Mr Trump, did you sexually assault E. Jean Carroll?"

"Are you crazy! I'd never assault that - she's not my type! It's a witch hunt of massive proportions! There has never been a bigger lie! I'm a victim of a huge conspiracy!

'So you must be looking forward to taking the stand and refuting all these slanderous lies."

"Nah, I'm going to Scotland to play golf"....

You have a claimant and a defendant, who both provide testimony and evidence, with the judge and jury deciding in the favor of the party that has a preponderance of that evidence...

With which side does the burden of proof lie? The plaintiff, or the defendant?

One has to wonder that like the MAGA-posters here, if Trump's lawyers don't understand that this is a civil rather than criminal case...

You have a claimant and a defendant, who both provide testimony and evidence, with the judge and jury deciding in the favor of the party that has a preponderance of that evidence...

On one side you have the claimant testifying under oath with witnesses that substantiate she discussed the alleged assault hours after it occurred, two witnesses who claim Trump sexually assaulted them, a psychologist, and a tape from the defendant bragging about "grabbing" women....

On the other side you have.....NOTHING.... Trump's lawyer put on zero defense...

You don't have to be Perry Mason to figure out how this will end up...

BlacklabelToday  10:21 am JST

The plot of an episode of the US TV show "Law and Order" that Carroll's story is based on.

I watched Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when I was a child.

17 years later I could have sworn I used to hang out with Oompa Loompas.

No, no, I explained numerous of times over the years the great things about the guy, not to mention his policies.

Being an anti-democracy, insurrectionist and a rapist to boot are not “great things.”

As for his “policies”, “Infrastructure week” anyone?

Took them to two Trump rallies years ago

Good clean family entertainment. Or was it part of their home-schooling curriculum?

He has no answer and the jury likely sees that.

he doesnt have to prove he didnt. 

so nothing to answer.

Oh "likely"?

If I had perfect clarity of future events, I’d be a meme “stock trading professional”.

But I don’t. So I say likely. It’s possible that the jury finds the groper in chief not liable. After all, OJ killed his ex and her lover and got off.

But in my opinion, the jury is looking at the testimony of those with the courage to show up, the silence of the lamb who can’t be bothered to show, and they are making inferences and judgements.

It’s “likely” this judgements won’t be good for Cheeto Jesus.

You've only said

No, no, I explained numerous of times over the years the great things about the guy, not to mention his policies.

over and over that you love Trump because he supposedly doesn't take crap from libs and that he supposedly sticks it to the establishment and RINOs.

Yup, that as well.

Neither of those are what anyone would call "character traits".

Well, not sure how many times I need to say it.

I do hope that you instill in your kids more admirable traits than what you love about Trump

Took them to two Trump rallies years ago, they know, they really do.

Real Clear is not a credible poll and there is no possibility that Less intelligent Voldemort will ever cobble together an electoral college much less a popular vote victory.

its not even a poll its the aggregate of all the other credible polls listed.

You didnt even open the link, did you?

oops.

Real Clear is not a credible poll

According to whom?

and there is no possibility that Less intelligent Voldemort will ever cobble together an electoral college much less a popular vote victory. 

What?

Turns out being a liar, an insurrectionist, a thief and obstructionist, an election denier and an incompetent moron is not such a great look with voters. 

There was no insurrection, even Garland knows he cannot use the word and said so under oath because he knows he could legally damage himself, as for the obstruction, election denier (the Dems denied he was a legitimate President) that in itself stinks of incompetency

Being a rapist doesn’t help much with women voters either.

Allegedly.

He has no answer and the jury likely sees that.

he doesnt have to prove he didnt.

so nothing to answer.

Oh "likely"?

What? Not sure what TV you watch.

The plot of an episode of the US TV show "Law and Order" that Carroll's story is based on.

the accuser is required to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence, that he did.

And that is just what they are doing. He has no answer and the jury likely sees that.

Real Clear is not a credible poll and there is no possibility that Less intelligent Voldemort will ever cobble together an electoral college much less a popular vote victory.

Turns out being a liar, an insurrectionist, a thief and obstructionist, an election denier and an incompetent moron is not such a great look with voters.

Being a rapist doesn’t help much with women voters either.

But this digression is a deflection from the fact that he has no defense: zero, nada, none.

good thing then that he doesnt need one, as he is not required to prove he didnt do it.

the accuser is required to prove, with a preponderance of the evidence, that he did.

you asked this before and I have answered that question numerous times over the years.

You've only said over and over that you love Trump because he supposedly doesn't take crap from libs and that he supposedly sticks it to the establishment and RINOs.

Neither of those are what anyone would call "character traits". I do hope that you instill in your kids more admirable traits than what you love about Trump.

But your Honor, I couldn’t have done it! She’s not my type! I prefer a woman who looks like Ivanka.

looking like a 45 and a 47 isnt it?

Yeah, being a rapist (in addition to an insurrectionist, an obstructionist, an election denier and a fraud) is such a convincing argument with women voters, eh?

L&O is famous for fictionalization of well-known behaviors.

And it’s not like nobody else knew Don was a perverted groper. He bragged about it.

And it’s no less idiotic than the defense theory that she made it up based on a tv show

But this digression is a deflection from the fact that he has no defense: zero, nada, none.

The coward can’t even bear showing his face.

Blacklabel

Yeah the lady recounts nearly word for word the plot of an episode of a TV program.

What? Not sure what TV you watch.

You would find that “credible” as a partisan.

Politics has nothing to do with this.

I bet the jury will give that alternative theory of the case consideration in accordance with its credibility (sound of the toilet flushing).

yeah that there was a TV show with the exact same plot as her story that she never told anyone. that she was asked about and mentioned that she saw.

Yet the TV plot is not her seeing it and using it to make a false accusation, its that someone wrote about exactly what happened to her specifically.....without even knowing what happened to her.

Suuuuuuure. you know she has the dress, right? wont get it tested. says its pointless because "I dont even know if the President ejaculated or not".

Yeah, super credible.

What, pray tell, are the character traits of Trump that his followers admire?

Not a supporter of 45, but he made libs' heads explode with the best of them.

“Trump forcibly kissed her against her will while showing her around his Florida home for a 2005 article about the first anniversary of his marriage to Melania Trump”

Allegedly

“Trump forcibly kissed her against her will while showing her around his Florida home for a 2005 article about the first anniversary of his marriage to Melania Trump”

Classy guy.

So that was the 3 most credible people they could find with the 3 “best” stories? 

if so, ouch.

Still supporting 45 in 2023.

Ouch.

No less stupid than the initial supposition by the grouper-in-chief’s minions. 

Who?

This is the best you can do after “She’s too ugly to rape”? 

They called Trump worse names, memes, what’s the difference? Why people can call Trump names but it’s abhorrent when he does it?

I bet the jury will give that alternative theory of the case consideration in accordance with its credibility (sound of the toilet flushing).

Hmmm

What, pray tell, are the character traits of Trump that his followers admire?

This question has occurred to millions around the world, but, fortunately, psychology has the answer: cognitive dissonance, a typical dysfunction of the brain in our species. The MAGA phenomenon has deep roots in mankind's history. The dark chapter in Germany's famously provides clinical cases galore while the present-day Republican Party has gone back to the future having become an avatar of the infamous "Know-Nothing" Party of 19th century America. Despite all the mayhem surrounding the risible figure of DJT, the most hopeful take-away is to believe that his resistible rise to political prominence and inevitable, eventual ejection from society will, in the end, serve as a salutary enema to the political constipation of America's thimblerigging duopoly.

Perhaps the TV episode was based on his by that time well-known pattern of sexual assault rather than the reverse? 

Never bothered to consider that one, eh?

No because that’s stupid.

No less stupid than the initial supposition by the grouper-in-chief’s minions.

This is the best you can do after “She’s too ugly to rape”?

Seriously?

I bet the jury will give that alternative theory of the case consideration in accordance with its credibility (sound of the toilet flushing).

From Carole we have an accusation, corroboration from contemporaneous witnesses, a pattern of behavior from other women who’ve experienced strikingly similar non consensual sexual attacks, and an unintentional confession by the defendant himself talking about his habit of “just start kissing them. I don’t even wait.”

All these women came out in 2016 during the Presidential debates

Now they’re coming out again right before the primaries….coincidence?? Naw, of course not.

Complete silence the last 2 years, why?

Crickets.

If I were Trump I would let them THINK whatever they want. Again, it’s a civil case not a criminal, it’s not like tomorrow the haters will embrace him so whatever…

Perhaps the TV episode was based on his by that time well-known pattern of sexual assault rather than the reverse? 

Never bothered to consider that one, eh?

No because that’s stupid.

Perhaps the TV episode was based on his by that time well-known pattern of sexual assault rather than the reverse?

Never bothered to consider that one, eh?

From Carole we have an accusation, corroboration from contemporaneous witnesses, a pattern of behavior from other women who’ve experienced strikingly similar non consensual sexual attacks, and an unintentional confession by the defendant himself talking about his habit of “just start kissing them. I don’t even wait.”

And from Trump?

Crickets.

Wonder what the jury will make of his absence ?

Yeah the lady recounts nearly word for word the plot of an episode of a TV program. You would find that “credible” as a partisan.

Blacklabel

So that was the 3 most credible people they could find with the 3 “best” stories?

if so, ouch.

I find them very credible, and I expect the jury does too.

Donald lost one case yesterday against his niece and need to pay NYT and Mary for expenses.

This one also will go against him too.

His poor, uneducated followers have been sending their last pennies to feed donald, but now their money is running out and donald’s expenses are growing by the day!

From Carole we have an accusation, corroboration via contemporaneous witnesses, a pattern of behavior via other women experiencing the same type of non consensual sexual assaults, and a confession via the defendant’s own recorded words.

And from Trump? Crickets. Cannot even summon the courage to show his Orange Jowels in court.

And the jury is free to make any inference it wishes from his absence.

Yeah, this is looking great for him.

Just like soon in this case, rack up another LOSS for this Loser...

A New York judge has tossed out Donald Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times, and ordered the former president to pay all attorneys fees, legal expenses, and associated costs.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-tosses-trump-lawsuit-against-211556328.html

No wonder he's forced to selling fake "mugshot" tee-shirts...he's writing check after check as he loses...

No, he will be recognized for the serial rapist he so obviously is. 

Based on what?

No amount of money is going to wash that off if him.

And yet, the juggernaut still rolls on.

Trump lawyer Joseph Tacopina said Trump's legal team decided not to put on a defense case after learning that health issues would prevent their expert witness, a psychiatrist, from testifying. Tacopina previously disclosed that Trump would not testify at the trial.

Well, isn't that convenient...both Donald and a psychiatrist supporting him decided to "skip out" rather than go under oath....so Trump's lawyer puts on no defense in this case...

The lawyer must be either totally incompetent or knows it's all a lost cause...

I'd vote incompetent, given his track record with Crazy Rudy, Sidney Powell, and John Eastman...

Cop-out.

No, because you asked this before and I have answered that question numerous times over the years.

Cop-out.

You like the man because you hate "libs" and "the left",

No, I hate their destructive policies.

and he poops over every political, social, and moral norm.

I know someone that is doing that right now

The boorishness of the man is what you love.

That as well.

And run for president as a rapist.

Based on a civil case, not a criminal, huge difference.

Trump likes his lawsuits, well, we'll see how he likes the result of this.

If he loses, he will just have to write another check

No, he will be recognized for the serial rapist he so obviously is.

No amount of money is going to wash that off if him.

If he loses, he will just have to write another check.

And run for president as a rapist.

--What, pray tell, are the character traits of Trump that his followers admire?

Too many to list.

Cop-out.

--I can’t think of a single one worth looking up to. 

And that’s the problem with the left. Maybe if they did they would understand why we like the man, but they don’t do they don’t know. Knowledge is the key to understanding.

Cop-out.

You like the man because you hate "libs" and "the left", and he poops over every political, social, and moral norm. The boorishness of the man is what you love.

Trump likes his lawsuits, well, we'll see how he likes the result of this.

If he loses, he will just have to write another check.

If I were accused of rape, and I was sure that I was not liable, I’d be in court everyday, carefully monitoring the precedings and nagging my lawyers to testify. 

Probably best to listen to your lawyer's advice, especially if you have one of the best.

But Trump has Tapioca, so who’s he listening to?

Trump likes his lawsuits, well, we'll see how he likes the result of this.

Gosh, that sounds like a pattern of behavior!

Tapioca better out Don on the stand so he can convince the jurors under oath what a horrible misunderstanding this all is!

Oh wait, he’s in Ireland not getting invited to the coronation and opening his latest money laundering scheme.

When I studied psychology many years ago, my lecturer stated that most world leaders or wannabes are psychopaths. At the time I didn’t believe him, but now I understand why politicians want power at any cost. With perks.

What, pray tell, are the character traits of Trump that his followers admire?

Too many to list.

I can’t think of a single one worth looking up to. 

And that’s the problem with the left. Maybe if they did they would understand why we like the man, but they don’t do they don’t know. Knowledge is the key to understanding.

What a creep.

I disagree.

“Billionaire Dem mega-donor bankrolling Trump accuser's rape lawsuit visited Epstein's private island

LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman has given millions to Democrats, visited White House multiple times”

but of course he did.

One of may reasons Donald decided to beat feet and run away from testifying IN HIS OWN DEFENSE...

"So Mr Trump, how many women have you "grabbed" without their consent? What were their ages? You have stated that you "walked in" on beauty pageant contestants changing clothes- how old were those women? Please explain how many "parties" you attended with your neighbor Jeffry Epstein and the ages of the other attendees?"

He knows once he's under oath all his boasts will come back to haunt him...

So that was the 3 most credible people they could find with the 3 “best” stories?

if so, ouch.

And donald has bigger worries, he will be charged and arrested for espionage. Rape in comparison will look a relatively minor crime, to him at least!

Accused of Rape.

Victim provides excellent testimony at trial.

No defense presented.

Hmmm…

It’s a squeaker.

With the previous witnesses saying how they were groped by Trump and then him bragging about how he gropes women and the they let you do it. Yeah, maybe he is delusional about the last part.

It shows a clear pattern of abusive behaviour by Trump. I'm sure that the jury is likely to side with E. Jean Carroll.

What, pray tell, are the character traits of Trump that his followers admire?

I can’t think of a single one worth looking up to.

What a creep.