There's A Verdict in the E. Jean Carroll/Trump Case

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LordAhriman
Start a thread
Ironic

Nope.

What does Donald Trump being a compulsive liar have anything to do with me being a satanist?

a reply to: andy06shake

" Just that it's wrong and completely unacceptable under any circumstances."



I Agree , with the Honest Stipulation that Justice Under The LAW be Upheld . To Prove Ones Guilt of a " Thing " , there Must be Convincing Proof of Ones Crime . Otherwise , Injustice Destroys the Matrix of Any Free Society .

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LordAhriman
Start a thread
Ironic

Nope.

What does Donald Trump being a compulsive liar have anything to do with me being a satanist?

Proof of compulsive lying.
Pretty sure you are not capable of defending that position…..are you are a psychologist?

originally posted by: wdkirk

Did you watch it?

originally posted by: wdkirk

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LordAhriman
Start a thread
Ironic

Nope.

What does Donald Trump being a compulsive liar have anything to do with me being a satanist?

Proof of compulsive lying.
Pretty sure you are not capable of defending that position…..are you are a psychologist?

No he works at wal-mart . In America you’re innocent until proven guilty . 33 pages of this and there’s still not one iota of evidence he did anything. Seems like a huge pile of bs , just like the rest of the times . This witch hunt makes Salem look like nothing

“It happens to be true. I said it’s been true for a million years, approximately a million years, perhaps a little bit longer,” Trump said.

How long trump thinks “stars” have been grabbing women by the privates.

Jesus h Christ..

originally posted by: Tough2fool

Yep. I work at Walmart. For cheap health insurance. I don't have to work, but American healthcare is broken.

If you would actually watch the trial, evidence was presented by the plaintiff.

Trump didn't show up to defend himself. I wonder why?

originally posted by: knoxie
“It happens to be true. I said it’s been true for a million years, approximately a million years, perhaps a little bit longer,” Trump said.

How long trump thinks “stars” have been grabbing women by the privates.

Jesus h Christ..

The truth hurts you eh?
No surprise really.

originally posted by: RazorV66
The truth hurts you eh?
No surprise really.

Look in the mirror.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Tough2fool

Yep. I work at Walmart. For cheap health insurance. I don't have to work, but American healthcare is broken.

If you would actually watch the trial, evidence was presented by the plaintiff.

Trump didn't show up to defend himself. I wonder why?

This makes no sense. You’re independently wealthy, don’t need to work, but can’t simply buy health insurance. Must. Have. Walmart. Healthcare.

Hey, to each their own, God bless, all the best. We’ve all been on every rung on the ladder.

It’s just funny to see such a contradiction in people’s realities, and their second job as brilliant social commentators who know it all.

originally posted by: knoxie
“It happens to be true. I said it’s been true for a million years, approximately a million years, perhaps a little bit longer,” Trump said.

How long trump thinks “stars” have been grabbing women by the privates.

Jesus h Christ..

Ummm, it is true without question. What’s the hand wringing for ?
Did Mean Trumpy Bear forget to have a good cry and express his sadz with you ?
Yeah, of course, if he was the perfect metrosexual safespacer, he’d lament the horrors of it all.
And yeah, even I agree that the basic premise is wrong and moronic.
Buuuut, can we still remain alive knowing it’s human nature and probably will exist for a while until we perfect humanity ?
No, eh ? Must cry and hurl ourselves to our deaths, eh ?
And hey, thanks to our headlong dive into equity equality and equanimity…… women can do this to dudes, or other women, as much as the bad old male-female abuse.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LordAhriman
Start a thread
Ironic

Nope.

What does Donald Trump being a compulsive liar have anything to do with me being a satanist?

Wow, you have some crazy bonafides.
Keep lecturing us and serving as our social guide, and Trump analyst.

originally posted by: JohnTitorSociety
a reply to: CoyoteAngels

The states do not control eligibility for being a Presidential candidate.

States control their own ballots. They can control who they allow on their ballot, but only their ballot.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: litterbaux

Talk about trying to polish a turd.

To be honest i would not let him anywhere near kids nether.
.

Yet we’ve never heard a single word of complaint from you regarding Biden’s grabbing, groping, sniffing, weird quotes like “aren’t you beautiful”.
Or his leering photo with his daughter. Or his daughter’s memories of way-too-old showers with daddy. Don’t you care that we know this ?

This was a civil suit, not a criminal case. It's not a criminal case, it's a civil case.

I'm seeing a lot of people posting "Trump is a criminal convicted of rape!" on places like Twitter.

Stick to the facts, sexual assault was the "conviction" which could mean a kiss on the cheeks. Although from the start Trump claimed to not even know this person.

This person even said on CNN she associated rape with being sexy. The conviction isn't so "simple."

State legislatures can unilaterally select electors without a popular vote under the Constitution.

They cannot, however, change the qualifications of a Federal office, nor exclude any existing party’s nominees.

They can also change party ballot access rules for the parties for the state general election, but those rules have to be consistent with a wide variety of requirements under the US Constitution, including the Article 1 prohibition against bills of attainder.

State legislatures also cannot exclude an individual person from a ballot, who is not otherwise disqualified, in general all laws enacted by legislatures that target a specific individual are unconstitutional as bills of attainder, grants of title or emoluments (the prohibition of bills of attainder are closely linked to the prohibition of the grant of a title of nobility and emoluments).

Basically, you get what the primaries & general election produce — and there’s nearly zero state legislative room beyond that regarding Federal national elections, until and unless a state decides to assert Article 3 authority to designate electors without a popular vote.



a reply to: CoyoteAngels

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

A group of states were moving to require 5 years of tax returns by any candidate, In order to be placed on their ballot. I'm not a lawyer, nor even pretend to be one. But I do feel my concern is warranted in light of these tax return requirements some states were working on. I'm sure they may try this. I have no idea if it will be successful.

Federal candidates don’t report to state election bodies, they report to the FEC (and Congress if a Congressional candidate).

For example, a candidate for Congress will receive a financial disclosure packet shortly after initially filing, even as an exploratory committee, but they are only required to file the PFS with the House (or Senate, if a candidate for US Senate), once they raise or spend $5,000 (which triggers FEC campaign finance reporting requirements).

Presidential candidates file both campaign finance and financial disclosures with the FEC.

Election law is pretty boring and also very consistent for about 70 years. States occasionally talk about doing unconstitutional things — the talk usually peters out and when it doesn’t, the Judiciary has consistently reinforced the primacy of the US Constitution in Federal election questions.

States could probably require five years of tax returns for a state / local candidate (maybe) — but from the Federal judiciary’s POV a state attempting to require this from a Federal candidate would be running afoul of a wide swath of case law covering these matters and would be nonsensical since the Federal government already has these documents, and the ability to conduct investigations and pursue convictions based on them.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

a reply to: JohnTitorSociety

I once believed signatures were verified on mailed in ballots, until 2020 and millions werent. Then I learned that state governors and secretaries of state could make laws instead of the legislature. I learned that emergencies provide lots of room for wiggle in the law. I once believed many things I found out weren't so.

I worked in politics at a senior level for half a decade.
a reply to: CoyoteAngels