*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10880 on: November 07, 2023, 11:45:48 PM »
Tom, are you familiar with subtext?  Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump.  However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.

One can also reasonably infer from her continuous attacks on the prosecutor that she did not flip.
Her attacks on the prosecutor are just for keeping up appearances for her adoring fans and have no effect on court proceedings.  Remember that she agreed in her plea that the evidence was strong enough to convict her had she gone to trial. 

The prosecutors don't really care about her attacks.  They primarily care about what she knows about Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 2775
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10881 on: November 08, 2023, 01:27:53 PM »
« Last Edit: November 08, 2023, 01:29:40 PM by Action80 »
To be honest I am getting pretty bored of this place.

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10163
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10882 on: November 08, 2023, 05:09:55 PM »

*

Online honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3332
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10883 on: November 09, 2023, 05:00:49 PM »
If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify

I've explained repeatedly why this is a pedantic quibble. We're never going to get anywhere if you keep returning to arguments that have already been addressed as soon as we're on a new subject.

Quote
which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

That's possible, sure. It doesn't seem very likely to me, as even if we assume that the prosecution is politically motivated, launching a massive, high-profile case and indicting a former president with a weak hand would be a very strange move. They could just as easily have not indicted Trump.

Quote
This was a ridiculous claim of rape in a dressing room which the victim admits to not have screamed during the event, did not contact police afterwards, continued to shop at the store, and who then admits to becoming a 'massive' Apprentice fan in the proceeding years. A victim who says that she would have considered dropping the claim if Trump had admitted it was consensual. Honk believes that this is totally normal for a rape claim and that we should overlook obvious contradictions.

None of these details are "contradictions," they're just things that you're arbitrarily declaring to be abnormal and presumably therefore indications of dishonesty. Who says that rape victims can't or don't behave like this?

Quote
Oddly, we saw from the jury conviction questionnaire that the conviction was heavily focused on defamation comments against the victim in recent years, and not focused on the actual rape allegation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The jury found Trump liable for both the incident and the defamation and awarded Carroll millions for both. How was their ruling "heavily focused" one way or the other?

Quote
There was one box which the jury checked which asks if the victim 'sexually abused', which could mean sexual comments about her looks in recent years like the other questions about recent events and not the rape, or maybe the jury believes that something else occurred.

No, it couldn't. This is the silliest argument you've made yet. Trump was being sued for a specific alleged incident, not for calling Carroll ugly. Courts are very clear with juries about what exactly it is that they're sitting in judgment of, and if they weren't in this case, Trump's lawyers would have gotten a mistrial in a heartbeat.

Quote
The jury specifically voted not to convict that the rape occurred, and voted no on that. They also left a box untouched which said "Did Mr. Trump forcibly touch Ms. Carroll". Somehow the position given is that the victim was sexually abused but there is not a position that the victim was forcibly touched, as if it was possible to be sexually abused without being forcibly touched, providing insight to their idea of 'sexual abuse'.

The document very clearly says to skip the question about forcible touching if they answered yes to sexual abuse, because it's redundant. These are meant as degrees of severity for what Trump allegedly could have done, with forcible touching being the least severe and rape being the most. Selecting a more severe option doesn't automatically exonerate him of the elements involved in the less severe options. Obviously you can't sexually abuse someone without forcibly touching them.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10627
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10884 on: November 12, 2023, 09:36:03 PM »
If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify

I've explained repeatedly why this is a pedantic quibble. We're never going to get anywhere if you keep returning to arguments that have already been addressed as soon as we're on a new subject.

Quote from: honk
which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

That's possible, sure. It doesn't seem very likely to me, as even if we assume that the prosecution is politically motivated, launching a massive, high-profile case and indicting a former president with a weak hand would be a very strange move. They could just as easily have not indicted Trump.

It's not a strange move. Next year is an election year. It helps them to have Trump under indictments and tied up in these cases. Your entire logic here is to assume a series of things based on numerous personal assumptions of what you believe they would or wouldn't do.

As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.

Quote from: honk
Quote
This was a ridiculous claim of rape in a dressing room which the victim admits to not have screamed during the event, did not contact police afterwards, continued to shop at the store, and who then admits to becoming a 'massive' Apprentice fan in the proceeding years. A victim who says that she would have considered dropping the claim if Trump had admitted it was consensual. Honk believes that this is totally normal for a rape claim and that we should overlook obvious contradictions.

None of these details are "contradictions," they're just things that you're arbitrarily declaring to be abnormal and presumably therefore indications of dishonesty. Who says that rape victims can't or don't behave like this?

Rape victims do not say that they will consider dropping charges if their rapist agrees that the sex was consensual. There are a series of red flags here, of which you say it was 'possible' she was still raped. The fact is that the jury rejected her claim of rape and said that she was not raped.

Quote from: honk
Quote
Oddly, we saw from the jury conviction questionnaire that the conviction was heavily focused on defamation comments against the victim in recent years, and not focused on the actual rape allegation.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The jury found Trump liable for both the incident and the defamation and awarded Carroll millions for both. How was their ruling "heavily focused" one way or the other?

Actually the jury consensus in that link is that she wasn't raped, but she was 'sexually abused' in some manner. No money was awarded for that. The money that was awarded was for the other items in the sheet dealing with defamation. Read that document.

Quote from: honk
Quote
There was one box which the jury checked which asks if the victim 'sexually abused', which could mean sexual comments about her looks in recent years like the other questions about recent events and not the rape, or maybe the jury believes that something else occurred.

No, it couldn't. This is the silliest argument you've made yet. Trump was being sued for a specific alleged incident, not for calling Carroll ugly. Courts are very clear with juries about what exactly it is that they're sitting in judgment of, and if they weren't in this case, Trump's lawyers would have gotten a mistrial in a heartbeat.

The case is still in appeal. Your claim that they would have gotten a mistrial is premature.

Quote from: honk
Quote
The jury specifically voted not to convict that the rape occurred, and voted no on that. They also left a box untouched which said "Did Mr. Trump forcibly touch Ms. Carroll". Somehow the position given is that the victim was sexually abused but there is not a position that the victim was forcibly touched, as if it was possible to be sexually abused without being forcibly touched, providing insight to their idea of 'sexual abuse'.

The document very clearly says to skip the question about forcible touching if they answered yes to sexual abuse, because it's redundant. These are meant as degrees of severity for what Trump allegedly could have done, with forcible touching being the least severe and rape being the most. Selecting a more severe option doesn't automatically exonerate him of the elements involved in the less severe options. Obviously you can't sexually abuse someone without forcibly touching them.

Sexual abuse in law does not mean forced touching:

https://www.justia.com/injury/sexual-abuse/

Quote
Sexual Abuse Law

Sexual abuse refers to any type of illegal or coerced sexual conduct against another individual. A variety of different offenses fall into this category, which is not limited to physical contact alone. Instead, sexual abuse includes acts of sexual harassment, rape, indecent exposure, forcing another individual to view or participate in pornography, and contributing in any way to the commercial sexual exploitation of children.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2023, 01:19:32 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10885 on: November 12, 2023, 10:39:22 PM »
As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.
Tom, you keep focusing on the "what" of the deal (the truthful testimony).  Aren't you the least bit interested in the "why" of the deal?  As in, if she agreed that there was enough evidence to convict her for the original charges, then why would the prosecutors give here such a sweetheart deal instead of going to trial and conviction?

BTW, a plea deal still counts as a conviction.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10627
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10886 on: November 13, 2023, 01:43:10 PM »
As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.
Tom, you keep focusing on the "what" of the deal (the truthful testimony).  Aren't you the least bit interested in the "why" of the deal?  As in, if she agreed that there was enough evidence to convict her for the original charges, then why would the prosecutors give here such a sweetheart deal instead of going to trial and conviction?

BTW, a plea deal still counts as a conviction.

There are plenty of alternative theories to the one you propose - https://technofog.substack.com/p/prediction-sidney-powell-wont-be

You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2023, 01:52:19 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10887 on: November 13, 2023, 10:33:07 PM »
You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.
No.  I'm asking you what you think, given what we all (or at least most of us)  know about how plea deals generally work.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1234
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10888 on: November 14, 2023, 01:07:00 AM »
There are plenty of alternative theories to the one you propose - https://technofog.substack.com/p/prediction-sidney-powell-wont-be

You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.

That article and its comments section is absolutely hideous. It's utter Trump spin, albeit an order of magnitude in quality above his idiot lawyers. Heavily armed rednecks posting life and death support to Kraken lady, whose manifesto centers around Hugo Chavez and software from Argentina, needs to be a wake up call to every American. Anyone who understands that professional wrestling is not a competitive sport and will never be in the Olympics needs to get together and outvote this stupidity for the good of humanity.


EDIT: Oh, but to credit Tom's post, we really have no idea what these freaks are thinking.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7640
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10889 on: November 14, 2023, 12:30:52 PM »
Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Dr Van Nostrand

  • *
  • Posts: 1234
  • There may be something to this 'Matrix' stuff...
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10890 on: November 14, 2023, 12:48:41 PM »
Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.

Actually, what Tom and the Maganoids don't understand is that Kraken Lady ALREADY testified on video. If she changes her testimony on the stand at this point, the video of her proffer will still be shown in evidence and she will be facing all the original felonies.

https://abc7chicago.com/jenna-ellis-sydney-powell-donald-trump-2020-election/14054154/

As traitors go, Ellis is very different than Kraken Lady in that she seems genuinely remorseful and understands what a dumbass she was for believing anything from the Trump people.
Round Earther patiently looking for a better deal...

If the world is flat, it means that I have been deceived by a global, multi-generational conspiracy spending trillions of dollars over hundreds of years.
If the world is round, it means that you’re just an idiot who believes stupid crap on the internet.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7640
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10891 on: November 14, 2023, 01:21:42 PM »
Look guys.
Tom is gonna say 'i told you so' if Powell has nothing.
If Powell has damning testemony, he'll dismiss it as fake or lies or whatever.

Actually, what Tom and the Maganoids don't understand is that Kraken Lady ALREADY testified on video. If she changes her testimony on the stand at this point, the video of her proffer will still be shown in evidence and she will be facing all the original felonies.

https://abc7chicago.com/jenna-ellis-sydney-powell-donald-trump-2020-election/14054154/

As traitors go, Ellis is very different than Kraken Lady in that she seems genuinely remorseful and understands what a dumbass she was for believing anything from the Trump people.

Yes but we haven't seen that video so its irrelevant.
I'm also not talking about changing the story.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10627
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10892 on: November 14, 2023, 05:28:04 PM »
There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.

Either Trump is one of the most prolific criminals ever and always evades justice for his many crimes, or this is an ongoing witch hunt with no real substance.

Spoiler: No one has flipped on Trump. No one will say anything directly accusatory or anything wildly surprising against Trump.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2023, 05:55:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6480
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10893 on: November 14, 2023, 05:59:54 PM »
There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated.
But the evidence against Clinton and her numerous crimes was really solid, which is why she's currently rotting in pris...oh.

Quote
Either Trump is one of the most prolific criminals ever and always evades justice for his many crimes, or this is an ongoing witch hunt with no real substance.
Those aren't the only two possibilities.  Most likely he has committed crimes but just about been smart enough to not actually get put in prison for them.

Quote
Spoiler: No one has flipped on Trump. No one will say anything directly accusatory or anything wildly surprising against Trump.
After you spent months in the wake of the election confidently predicting that everything was going Trump's way, forgive us if we don't take your predictions too seriously. Although my gut feeling is while he probably does belong in jail, he probably won't end up there.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7640
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10894 on: November 14, 2023, 07:07:29 PM »
Trump *was* Very rich.
And he got away with it because they were bluecollar crimes that could be paid away.  But then he went into politics and too many eyes are on him now.

But hey, we have Tom's prediction.  I look forward to seeing how it pans out but I suspect he won't go to jail.  It would be too easy for him to make it politically motivated and cause a riot or three.  Maybe.  Depends on how his supporters feel about missing work.


Anyway, now we know that if you wanna do crime, run for office first.  Then its a witch hunt if you're caught!
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10895 on: November 14, 2023, 10:50:52 PM »
There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.

How many times has Trump been indited?  Are you forgetting that he has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial?  The judge even said that there was enough evidence to fill the courtroom.
Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked.

Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7640
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10896 on: November 14, 2023, 10:59:24 PM »
Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.
You know damn well he does.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10627
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10897 on: November 15, 2023, 01:33:11 AM »
There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.

How many times has Trump been indited?  Are you forgetting that he has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial?  The judge even said that there was enough evidence to fill the courtroom.
Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked.

Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.

Engoron is one of the leftist loonies, and the case will go nowhere and any result will survive no appeal. Look at the full paragraph of what you quoted for a demonstration of the type of evidence you are talking about:

Quote
Later, Trump turned on the histrionics again, storming out of the courtroom after the judge refused to dismiss the case based on seemingly inconsistent testimony by Cohen over whether his former boss asked him to inflate financial statements. “I’m leaving,” Trump exclaimed and headed out the large doors of the courtroom. Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked. (As CNN’s Jeremy Herb and Lauren del Valle noted in a dispatch from the courtroom, Cohen later clarified that Trump didn’t ask him directly but he implied it by speaking like a “mob boss.”)

Essentially "Trump didn't ask anyone to inflate financial statements directly, but he implied it by speaking like a mob boss!"

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that this type of evidence is going to go anywhere?

I can only roll my eyes when you guys continually fall for this media hype.  ::)
« Last Edit: November 15, 2023, 01:38:26 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10898 on: November 15, 2023, 02:31:44 AM »
Essentially "Trump didn't ask anyone to inflate financial statements directly, but he implied it by speaking like a mob boss!"

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that this type of evidence is going to go anywhere?

I can only roll my eyes when you guys continually fall for this media hype.  ::)
Do you sincerely and honestly believe that Cohen's testimony is the prosecution's only, or even strongest, evidence against Trump?

I can only roll my eyes when you continually refuse to see the bigger picture.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10627
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #10899 on: November 15, 2023, 04:32:58 AM »
Why distance yourself from Cohen's testimony?

He's apparently the best you have in that case. If over the past weeks we had been discussing Cohen's upcoming testimony honk would have doubled and trippled and quadrupled down in his assertions that the prosecution wouldn't bring someone to the stand unless it was devastating for Trump.

The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -

https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-fixer-now-star-witness-michael-cohen-face/story?id=104221023



https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-trial-net-worth-new-york-067501b1d742d4dccba2521ac3262fdb



https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/05/nyregion/trump-michael-cohen-lawsuit-dropped.html



https://fortune.com/2023/10/18/trump-returns-new-york-civil-fraud-trial-star-witness-michael-cohen/



https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-fraud-lawsuit_n_652e5469e4b0da897ab53696

« Last Edit: November 16, 2023, 04:05:49 AM by Tom Bishop »