Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:06 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:06 am

This?

Nah, what the Judge said months after the Jury finding is not relevant. Make your own argument, Askholio.  ANd go argue with the OP starter.  Your beef is with him.
 

*Huey » 31 Dec 2024, 6:16 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 6:16 am

You butt buddy, BV, says you are wrong.

It's not about me, or HarperLee - it's about the trial record.

What did Judge Kaplan explain about the jury's verdict?

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:15 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:15 am

It's not about me, or HarperLee - it's about the trial record.

What did Judge Kaplan explain about the jury's verdict?

Get the OP starter to post it,  he disagrees with you.

*Huey » 31 Dec 2024, 8:11 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:11 am

Nah, what the Judge said months after the Jury finding is not relevant. Make your own argument, Askholio.  ANd go argue with the OP starter.  Your beef is with him.

Nah, what the Judge said months after the Jury finding is not relevant

make that case...

You're a moron.

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:16 am

make that case...

You're a moron.

Nope.  Been there done that.  Get the OP starter to do it.
 

*Huey » 31 Dec 2024, 8:16 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:16 am

Get the OP starter to post it,  he disagrees with you.

Run, Tatty..

It's what you do.

*Huey » 31 Dec 2024, 8:17 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:17 am

Nope.  Been there done that.  Get the OP starter to do it.

No, you have not, Coward.

Explain why Judge Kaplan's response to Team Grifty's petition is "irrelevant"..
 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:18 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:18 am

No, you have not, Coward.

Explain why Judge Kaplan's response to Team Grifty's petition is "irrelevant"..
 

 

Ask the OP starter.  He disagrees with you.  

Keyboard Komando, you are more than welcome to come on down, call me a coward and make me post what you want.  Short of that, as they used to say, pound sand.  

*Huey » 31 Dec 2024, 8:23 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:23 am

Ask the OP starter.  He disagrees with you.  

Keyboard Komando, you are more than welcome to come on down, call me a coward and make me post what you want.  Short of that, as they used to say, pound sand.

YOU claim Kaplan's words are "irrelevant", @*HooooeyVagina...

Stand alongside, not wayyyyy behind, your words...

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:31 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:31 am

YOU claim Kaplan's words are "irrelevant", @*HooooeyVagina...

Stand alongside, not wayyyyy behind, your words...

 

I have made this argument before. GO find it.

You are in sever meltdown mode, Mary. 

HarperLee » 30 Dec 2024, 9:10 pm » wrote: ↑

30 Dec 2024, 9:10 pm

         ​​​​​​  ​
         

was there any doubt?
         

A jury handed down the award after it found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming the writer.

         

Trump appealed. He contended the trial court judge erred in several rulings — including decisions to allow the testimony of two women who alleged that Trump sexually assaulted them in the past. He also said the judge should not have allowed the jury to hear the 2005 Access Hollywood recording where Trump described how he kissed and grabbed women without first obtaining their consent.

In a 77-page ruling, a three-judge panel said the President-elect did not demonstrate that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings. In addition, the appeals court said none of Trump's claims affected his "substantial rights" and it did not warrant a new trial

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/30/nx-s1-52 ... an-carroll


you got that, ghetto?
 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:10 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:10 am

Rail at your god, Pilgrim.

“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”

yet it changed nothing, browny...

So **** g'ddammned stupid
 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:37 am

Trump appealed. He contended the trial court judge erred in several rulings — including decisions to allow the testimony of two women who alleged that Trump sexually assaulted them in the past. He also said the judge should not have allowed the jury to hear the 2005 Access Hollywood recording where Trump described how he kissed and grabbed women without first obtaining their consent.

In a 77-page ruling, a three-judge panel said the President-elect did not demonstrate that the district court erred in any of the challenged rulings. In addition, the appeals court said none of Trump's claims affected his "substantial rights" and it did not warrant a new trial

https://www.npr.org/2024/12/30/nx-s1-52 ... an-carroll


you got that, ghetto?
 

 

Which, at the time, did not fit the legal definition of rape in the state of NY.  Nod.  Oh, remember, I posted that for you recently.

*Huey » 31 Dec 2024, 8:34 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:34 am

I have made this argument before. GO find it.

You are in sever meltdown mode, Mary.

No, little coward....you haven't....because you can't. 

You are in sever meltdown mode, Mary

:rofl:  

The @*HooooeyVaginaGallop

 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:39 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:39 am

No, little coward....you haven't....because you can't. 


 

The @*HooooeyVaginaGallop

 

 

You gotta do better, KK.  

*Huey » 31 Dec 2024, 8:38 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:38 am

Which, at the time, did not fit the legal definition of rape in the state of NY.  Nod.  Oh, remember, I posted that for you recently.

Cowardly Little Runny,

It was a CIVIL procedure. The Jury could have called it Whapadang.

The fact is that they awarded 2 million, not 300k, for a reason.

That reason was articulated in Judge Kaplan's response to Team Grifty's petition for relief.

It was just upheld by a FEDERAL appeals court. They confirmed that there were no procedural or constitutional issues with the judgment or the amount.




 

*Huey » 31 Dec 2024, 8:45 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:45 am

You gotta do better, KK.

Occam's Razor.


 

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:10 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:10 am

Rail at your god, Pilgrim.

“The jury’s finding of sexual abuse therefore necessarily implies that it found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina,” Kaplan wrote, calling it the “only remaining conclusion.”

OK.  Under NY law at the time of the incident and trial, that was NOT RAPE...it was sexual assault.  Which is why the actual jury verdict form...the ruling authority when it comes to findings of fact...shows Trump did not commit rape.  But thank you for proving my point.

Blackvegetable » 31 Dec 2024, 8:47 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:47 am

Cowardly Little Runny,

It was a CIVIL procedure. The Jury could have called it Whapadang.

The fact is that they awarded 2 million, not 300k, for a reason.

That reason was articulated in Judge Kaplan's response to Team Grifty's petition for relief.

It was just upheld by a FEDERAL appeals court. They confirmed that there were no procedural or constitutional issues with the judgment or the amount.




 

 

It was a CIVIL procedure. The Jury could have called it Whapadang.

But they didn't, Mary.  They called it sexual abuse.  Rejected the rape "charge".

The fact is that they awarded 2 million, not 300k, for a reason.

For sexual abuse.  They specifically rejected the rape accusation.

It was just upheld by a FEDERAL appeals court. They confirmed that there were no procedural or constitutional issues with the judgment or the amount.

The appeals court did not change the jury finding from sexaul abuse to rape.  Nod!




 

ROG62 » 31 Dec 2024, 8:37 am » wrote: ↑

31 Dec 2024, 8:37 am

yet it changed nothing, browny...

So **** g'ddammned stupid

of course not, assuming you had it right in the first place, JuCo 

You didn't.