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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

16766776796816821189

Comments

  • Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The problem with these cases is that nobody was there. It's effectively one person's word against another. That's just the nature of it. I don't think anybody will ever establish the absolute truth of the case, as is the very nature of these cases. Throw in the fact that 1 in 8 jury's make the wrong decision, and you have a massive problem with respect to establishing the truth.

    It seems in cases like this, it's more about discrediting the character of the persons involved as a means to dismiss or establish the claim.

    Look, that said, I'm not saying Trump is innocent or guilty of that which he was accused. I'm simply saying that many of these cases are almost impossible to prove. And I still find her reaction questionable.

    At the same time, we have to accept the verdict of the court, and that we all should.



  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 43,586 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Trump needs absolutely no additional help to "discredit his character". He does that all fine on his own by openly admitting to sexual "grab them by the pussy" assault, plus the every growing numbers of women out there coming forward about his sexual assaults and abuse



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,151 ✭✭✭✭Snake Plisken




  • Posts: 2,263 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I completely get that Trump was wrong to make such a lewd comment behind the scenes. I've heard far worse from straight friends of mine. It doesn't make what they say right, but unfortunately men have a habit of saying the wrong thing about women in each other's company when nobody is looking.

    But that should never be used as evidence against a person in a rape trial. The only evidence that matters is evidence that directly related to the charge itself. If Trump's words in some private conversation are weaponised like that, literally anybody could come forward and claim rape or sexual assault because Trump made a lewd comment when nobody was looking.

    If anything, this proves my point. It's about discrediting character more than establishing anything close to solid, irrefutable evidence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,812 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    FFS they still address New Gingrich as "Speaker Gingrich". Newtie was censured by Congress for an ethics violation while Speaker. Didn't lose the gig because of it though.



  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 43,586 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    You weren't in the court room so you have no idea of the evidence or witness statements provided.

    Do you honestly think it was simply one accusation made without any evidence?



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,969 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Trump did all the discrediting of his character all on his own.

    His "Famous people can grab women by the pussy and get way with it...Unfortunately or Fortunately" line was probably the killer blow to be honest, moreso than the credible evidence given by the three women who testified.

    He is scum, plain and simple and has repeatedly shown that he has zero respect for women and views them exclusively through the lens of whether or not he'd like the have sex with them , hence the "not my type" defence.

    He truly believes that if he finds a woman attractive that means he is allowed to do what he wants to them because he is famous and they will "let him".

    Defending him is a bit like trying to defend Jimmy Saville by saying "He raised lots of money for charity" , don't you think?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,954 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    Its insane to think that even with all of these accusations and proven acts, Trump still has the possibility of winning the next election, simply because Biden has grown so old and unpredictable and nearly unintelligible at this point, coupled with a certain % of republicans with absolutely no moral compass whatsoever.

    I personally would prefer if neither candidate won the next election but considering their age, the focus might be turned towards who is their running mate and who might we ultimately have as President if one of these guys snuffs it in office or becomes incapable of continuing as president .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,812 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    There is NO problem with this case. Zero. Zip. Nada. It was tried, a verdict reached.

    Now, counselor, if you've got a legal opinion to back that up, please provide it. Because I think you're just trolling.

    If there's an appeal, problems in the case may come out



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,038 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Firstly, a big part of her evidence was the fact she told several people about it after it happened, and her story, corroborated by what she told them, has been consistent throughout.

    As for Trump's own comments and his general "locker room talk", go watch his deposition. The things he said aren't just things he has said joking around with mates in private, he fully stood by his comments, and made similar comments, during his own deposition. Trump's own words in his deposition discredited his own character.

    The courts determined there was enough evidence to allow the case to be heard in court. The evidence the jury were shown (also important to note that first hand testimony of the account is evidence, and Trump refused to testify in his own defence and give his own evidence despite being given ample opportunity to do so), was enough that the jury were able to determine that, based on the evidence, Trump was liable for the sexual assault of E.Jean Carroll.

    Putting words in bold to give them more emphasis doesn't change their meaning. The evidence was presented in the court, and the evidence was enough for Trump to be found liable for sexual assault.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,574 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    The evidence of someone admitting to several sexual assaults, effectively being a prolific sexual predator, should not be admitted in a trial of one of their victims of sexual assault?

    Jesus Matlock we have all being thinking it for a while, but maybe it's time to retire, eh? 😕



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,812 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    The Mark Twain quote about opening your mouth and removing all doubt comes to mind.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,383 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,383 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Lol.

    "I'm no fan of trump but..."

    You're not the first one to try that BS line..

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 962 ✭✭✭Burty330


    There's no such thing as first hand testimony. Testimonial evidence has to be given by a witness. There was no witness and no evidence presented. The sad excuse for witnesses were her own friends who she told years later. That's not how the justice system works

    When it was pointed out that Trump wanted a dna test on the dress , there should only have been one response - yeah of course dna test that dress. Instead excuse after excuse flooded in as to why the judge didn't order a dna test on the dress, Tells you all you need to know , which is people believe what they want to believe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,574 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    simply because Biden has grown so old and unpredictable and nearly unintelligible at this point

    No he hasn't. You think that because you have watched slips of the tongue from a long speech magnified and shared around the Magaverse. The idea that he is unpredictable and nearly unintelligible is nonsense.

    He is far more coherent than Trump who has completely untethered himself from reality.

    Anyway I imagine Meatball Ron will do most of the heavy lifting for Biden.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 30,049 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    I know you know this, but, there was no point doing a dna test on the dress without a dna test from Trump. He refused to give this until it was too late for it to be admitted in evidence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 42,574 ✭✭✭✭Boggles


    The sad excuse for witnesses were her own friends who she told years later

    That's not true, so are you just lying or ignorant?

    A friend of E. Jean Carroll testified Tuesday that the former magazine columnist called her within minutes after being allegedly raped by Donald Trump in a New York department store in 1996, as the rape and defamation trial against the former president continues.

    Lisa Birnbach recounted how Carroll called her minutes after leaving the department store and told her about the incident in detail. Carroll, she said, sounded “breathless, hyperventilating, emotional. Her voice was all kinds of things” when she called.

    “He pulled down my tights, he pulled down my tights,” Carroll repeated on the phone, according to Birnbach. “Like she couldn’t believe it. She was still processing what happened to her. It had just happened to her.”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,764 ✭✭✭✭odyssey06


    It's not an excuse. It is legal process. Legal process Trump's lawyers were aware of.

    "That's not how the justice system works".

    Yeah, and also how the justice system doesn't work - ignoring rules and procedures of evidence and discovery.

    People believe what they want to believe indeed -> For someone to talk about how the justice system works and then repeat this absolute nonsense being a caee in point.

    "To follow knowledge like a sinking star..." (Tennyson's Ulysses)



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,969 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    The DNA on the dress WAS tested , immediately and the DNA of an "Unknown Male" was identified.

    What was not provided by Trump was a sample of his DNA to compare.

    He refused to provide it over and over and over again and then just as the trial was due to start, long after all the deadlines for evidence submission were closed , Trump suggested that he'd like to give his DNA sample purely as an attempt to delay the trial AGAIN.

    It doesn't not take a genius to know what would have happened had the Judge agreed to delay the case yet again .

    Trump would have found a multitude of reasons why he couldn't arrange for the DNA test to be done and would delay and delay and delay - All in the hopes of pushing out the case until after an election he hopes he'll win (he won't) when he could then sack the current DA and have the case dismissed.

    "Tells you all you need to know"

    Indeed , It tells me people don't bother to check any actual facts before jumping to the defence of a scum-bag who sexually assaults women.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,959 ✭✭✭Tippex


    That's standard protocol. once you have been president they use the title for life.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,781 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I really am shocked that there are people here that are still defending him after being found liable in a court.

    I guess he was right, he could shoot someone in Times Square and get away with it.

    What a mad world we live in.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,383 ✭✭✭✭everlast75




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,038 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Pure nonsense. A person's testimony about events they directly witnessed or which occured to them is evidence. E.Jean Carroll's testimony about what happened to her is evidence. Her friends testimony about what E.Jean Carroll told them happened (ie. not what happened, but what E.Jean Carroll told them happened), is evidence. It is up to the opposing lawyers to question and challenge that testimony through cross-examination, providing rebuttal evidence etc. That is exactly how the justice system works.

    As for the DNA, that has already been addressed numerous times before. Trump's side refused the DNA for a long time, and then it was only after the time for it expired that they tried to open it back up, and it was refused because it was clear it was nothing more than a delay tactic, one of several Trump's team had already done.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,383 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    I'd actually like to debate the case with someone who actually understood what happened and is honest about discussing it.

    Regrettably, I haven't seen one post like that so far.

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,038 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Amazing how quickly the definition of "evidence" changes when it comes to claims about Democrats stuffing ballot boxes with millions of extra votes from dead people, and Chinese satellites changing all the voting machines, all funded by George Soros.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,106 ✭✭✭Christy42


    Stop repeating lies that have already been debunked. Trump intentionally waited until it was too late to offer dna evidence. He did not want to give dna evidence and he tried to pull the same trick for giving testimony only saying he wanted to at the 11th hour and then still refusing when given an extra opportunity.

    We have been through it. Either add something new or stop repeating the same tired arguments.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,954 ✭✭✭Oscar_Madison
    #MEGA MAKE EUROPE GREAT AGAIN


    youre assuming I’m advocating trump because I disagree that Biden is a fit leader- in fact I’ve said the opposite- I don’t believe either are capable leaders- but have your rant and disregard what others are saying why don’t you



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 42,666 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    And there's both sides.

    If you were genuinely concerned about the alleged loss of faculties, you wouldn't have tried your whataboutery here.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,383 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    "Where did I say “I’m no fan of trump but..”????"

    here.

    "I personally would prefer if neither candidate won the next election but"

    Elect a clown... Expect a circus



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement