Liberal Forum

*Huey » Today, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:33 pm

Not my job.  Your case, you do the work.  I have enough times MYSELF.  Remeber, I told you I don’t repeats because you can’t remember and your lazy.
 

Not my job.  Your case, you do the work.

*Huey » Today, 8:44 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 8:44 am

Google AI

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan presided over the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial against Donald Trump where a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, awarding Carroll $5 million in damages
. 
Judge Kaplan did not overturn the jury's verdict in that case. In fact, he later upheld the verdict and denied Trump's motion for a new trial. 
It's important to note that a judge can overturn a jury's verdict in certain specific circumstances, such as if there wasn't enough evidence to support the verdict or if there were errors during the trial that prejudiced the outcome. However, this is relatively rare. 
In this particular case, Judge Kaplan not only upheld the jury's verdict but also, in a later, separate trial determining damages for a different defamatory statement, ruled that Trump was precluded from arguing that he did not sexually assault Ms. Carroll, leaving only the issue of damages to be decided by the jury. 

And that is all there is to say about that.

Blackvegetable » 09 Aug 2025, 2:17 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 2:17 pm

I just reposted the link you demanded, Coward.

Now post the verdict to which you refer in the OP.

Blackvegetable » 09 Aug 2025, 2:15 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 2:15 pm

*Huey » 09 Aug 2025, 10:51 am » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 10:51 am

1.  I have posted it numerous times.  Not doing it again.  If you are smart you can use the search function and find it or google it like a man would.  Like many of us have on numerous occasions.  Damn, you are one spoiled little princess.

2. You do not have question privileges because you refuse to agree to conditions that are fair to both parties.

Let me know when you do.  Any further repeat questions will go to PG.

 

*Huey » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

I am gonna leave this one just so every one knows what a spoiled, demanding, princess who is in meltdown mode looks like.  So far that is THREE posts demanding I repost a the verdict because you are too lazy to make your own argument.

*Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Damn BV, five posts all saying the same thing. What a loser!

*Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

BOOM!  Meltdown Mary is in the house!  And Mary is lying because she thinks I will repost the verdict form for the umpteenth time.

*Huey » 22 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

22 minutes ago

The fact of the matter is that Trump was found liable for sexual assault, not rape, IAW NY State Law, in a civil trial where the burden of proof Is MUCH LOWER. No, he is NOT a rapist felon. Some people are just plain dumb.

Blackvegetable » Today, 2:17 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:17 pm

*Huey » Today, 12:33 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:33 pm

Not my job.  Your case, you do the work.  I have enough times MYSELF.  Remeber, I told you I don’t repeats because you can’t remember and your lazy.

I just reposted the link you demanded, Coward.

Now post the verdict to which you refer in the OP.

 

*Huey » 53 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

53 minutes ago

The fact of the matter is that Trump was found liable for sexual assault, not rape, IAW NY State Law, in a civil trial where the burden of proof Is MUCH LOWER. No, he is NOT a rapist felon. Some people are just plain dumb.

The fact of the matter 

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

*Huey » Today, 2:40 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:40 pm

Damn BV, five posts all saying the same thing. What a loser!

Facts you felt compelled to censor.

 

*Huey » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

Mr. Vegetable, two things.  YOU Post YHOUR stand and supporting argument and YOU post whatever supporting citations you feel you need to support said argument.

Second, as my buddy and myself are sitting by the pit boss grill making a London Broil, we are both curious in a humorous way, who the **** do you think you are to make demands of me to make your argument?

LMMFAO!  You Sir, are a **** hoot.  Post your own ****, Princes.

Blackvegetable » 09 Aug 2025, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 4:00 pm

*Huey » 09 Aug 2025, 3:40 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 3:40 pm

Mr. Vegetable, two things.  YOU Post YHOUR stand and supporting argument and YOU post whatever supporting citations you feel you need to support said argument.

Second, as my buddy and myself are sitting by the pit boss grill making a London Broil, we are both curious in a humorous way, who the **** do you think you are to make demands of me to make your argument?

LMMFAO!  You Sir, are a **** hoot.  Post your own ****, Princes.

You won't even post the verdict to which your title refers, or the party seeking to have it overturned.

Because if you did, you'd understand where all this went so terribly wrong..

and it isn't as if I didn't make every effort to clear it up....

 

*Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

Apparently, @Blackvegetable  is not capable of doing what he expects all other posters on the forum to do.  That is take a stand, present an argument and back it with proper attribution, or links, and citations.

Not sure why he can't do that.  He was allegedly a legal admission to a little known Ivy League school that was founded by slave traders.
 

is not capable of doing what he expects all other posters on the forum to do.  That is take a stand

*Huey » 09 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm » wrote: ↑

09 Aug 2025, 4:12 pm

Apparently, @Blackvegetable  is not capable of doing what he expects all other posters on the forum to do.  That is take a stand, present an argument and back it with proper attribution, or links, and citations.

Not sure why he can't do that.  He was allegedly a legal admission to a little known Ivy League school that was founded by slave traders.