Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

a reply to: JinMI

If you watched the ABC Carroll and her lawyer interview, the lawyer said the judge was handling their disruptions in such a way as to actually keep the trial going so justice can be served. As well, other upcoming judges were studying this judge's strategy and they are now well equipped to handle or rather deal with the failed attempts at disrupting the trial.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Oh? Do explain. Proof and testimony are two different things, but I'm ready to explore this novel notion of yours.

Uh, no. The evidence and testimony I'm referring to in this scintillating case are two different things. I never mentioned proof.

The physical evidence the brilliant Alina Hobba failed to properly provide is entered into the record in a specified manner, testimony is something a witness provides.

This specified manner. Like credibility of say the accuser?

Agreed. You can differentiate all you wish, point is and continues to be is that the only evidence in this case is testimony.

We need to hear from jury members as to exactly what tipped them over to Carroll's side, there's a lot more going on than just testimony.

That's almost impossible I think you'd agree.

What else besides testimony? Even speculating, lets hear it.

Donald's behaviour specifically.

a reply to: quintessentone

Did those 2 women actually testify in the trial?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Probably because you haven't come to grips with the fact that Trump and his legal team missed the chance to contest the evidence and testimony. Maybe one day it will sink in.

Why would it need to sink in that Trump offered his DNA after the case had moved to a certain point and not before? I think you're going to have to come to grips with what you're advocating for....

Not all, just Habba, and I don't need your permission to make fun of that dolt.

Then why do you keep mentioning it to me as if I care? It sure sounds like you need my approval.

It may have never even gone to trial if Trump provided his DNA without stipulation, but he didn't, too bad, so sad.

As usual, disagree. Why does one need to be compelled to separate from their property to prove their innocence? I'd love to hear that Libertarian position.

Not at all, but it appears you take issue with people being find guilty by a jury.

This isn't a criminal trial, did you forget? Liable for damages is the correct term if we wanna play semantics still. Yet no, I don't take issue with the jury. If you've followed what I've said here, especially to you, you'd know my concern lies with what is and isn't evidence and what the judge allows....and doesn't.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: JinMI

If you watched the ABC Carroll and her lawyer interview, the lawyer said the judge was handling their disruptions in such a way as to actually keep the trial going so justice can be served. As well, other upcoming judges were studying this judge's strategy and they are now well equipped to handle or rather deal with the failed attempts at disrupting the trial.

So if Trump just does what he's told and in the manner his accusers choose, then all will be fine? DId I characterize this statement correctly?

Donald's behaviour specifically.

Sounds like I did.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: quintessentone

Did those 2 women actually testify in the trial?

The most recent case trial transcript isn't out.

This is all we have so far, so it appears they are calling her a key witness, so yeah looks like it.

Lisa Birnbach, friend of E. Jean Carroll and key witness in Carroll’s first trial, joins MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss how Carroll’s “courage and fearlessness” led to the jury’s $83M+ verdict against Donald Trump.

www.msnbc.com...

a reply to: matafuchs

Birnbach did.

Words are worth 100X more at getting a liable verdict. Read what the 11 witnesses had to say.

www.politico.com...

a reply to: quintessentone

Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?

That's for the people of the jury to decide.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?

That's for the people of the jury to decide.

I'm not asking a jury, I'm asking you.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Then who those words comes from is of merit, no?

That's for the people of the jury to decide.

I'm not asking a jury, I'm asking you.

I would assume so because aren't witnesses ok'd by both parties lawyers? I'm not a lawyer, maybe ask OldCarpy.

Anyway, Donald lost another case and has to pay another $400,000 to 3 reporters.

www.cbc.ca...

a reply to: quintessentone

Witnesses are subject to the judges whims.


It's a simple question really.

If testimony is the evidence, is the character of the person making the testimony relevant?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Witnesses are subject to the judges whims.


It's a simple question really.

If testimony is the evidence, is the character of the person making the testimony relevant?

It's not a simple question, it's a legal question which OldCarpy can best answer.

What do you think about that other court case Don lost trying to silence the press?

a reply to: quintessentone

It's not a legal question.


But that you keep choosing to call out to others to articulate and/or validate your opinion is delicious.


Do you find it just a little bit odd that you can agree that a person is guilty of something but cannot quite explain why? Do you think this is how justice works?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

It's not a legal question.


But that you keep choosing to call out to others to articulate and/or validate your opinion is delicious.


Do you find it just a little bit odd that you can agree that a person is guilty of something but cannot quite explain why? Do you think this is how justice works?

I just posted the 11 witnesses and what they had to say, I know it upset you, but hey reality and truth sometimes are hard to swallow but you can try.

I've gotta go now been on here way too long for maintaining good mental health, so ask OldCarpy how witnesses' merit and reputations are agreed upon by the defendants' side.

Good luck with that.

a reply to: quintessentone

Still she lied.😀

a reply to: quintessentone

I just posted the 11 witnesses and what they had to say, I know it upset you, but hey reality and truth sometimes are hard to swallow but you can try.

Heh, why would you or your source upset me? Do you find it also just a little odd that there are no witnesses that can point to Trump and/or Carroll at the establishment?

I've gotta go now been on here way too long for maintaining good mental health, so ask OldCarpy how witnesses' merit and reputations are agreed upon by the defendants' side.

So you're taking the Carp strategy as well then. When backed into a corner made of your own tripe....bail.

Smart move.

a reply to: JinMI

Looks like a rigged "Damned if you do Damned if you don't" set of rigged questions. 😃

The appeals will be fun.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

She could have been mistaken for a tranny back then.
I believe they called them Crossdressers in that day.

And (S)He may be. Was there any medical "verifications" in court? 😀