Trump Indicted!

[Takhisis]

Tucker Carlson was just an actor who was reading from the Fox News ‘opinion’ script and as such he was more or less replaceable. He might land a new job, but what Fox's viewers want to watch is Fox itself.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Agreed that Tucker Carlson is easily replaced... his appeal was more about what he was saying, rather than any personal charisma or charms.

Beck and O'Reilly certainly do establish a compelling precedent for what happens to FOX News darlings when they lose favor with the network.

 

[Arakhor]

On $20m a year for however long, I doubt he's in need of a new job any time soon.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Hard to say. People at those income levels burn through money as fast as they earn it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

People, at those regardless of income levels burn through money as fast as they earn it.

FTFY

 

[IglooDame]

No.

In related news... since he got the boot from FOX News, I'm starting to see articles calling for, or predicting that Tucker Carlson will run for the 2024 Republican Presidential nomination.

My hot take on this is twofold... 1) Tucker Carlson would not be interested in taking such a large pay-cut; and 2) Trump would make light work of him, especially with multiple other Republican politicians-proper in the race... although I suspect he could eclipse DeSantis.

I'd actually love to see him run. That way he could join Trump and DeSantis in tearing each other down, rather than propping both of them up.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There are some reports that Jack Smith is wrapping up his case regarding Trump's obstruction relative to the classified documents he took.

Before the Manhattan indictment Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC had an "Indictment Watch" chyron.

Now, he's running an "Indictment Watch Part 2" chyron.

Ha ha.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

trying to add trump's post-trial arguments to the defamation suit is a dangerous game. he said he didn't do it and that she made it up, basically. that's standard defense language for literally anybody defending themselves.

if the "rationale" is that the jury found against him in the civil case, she's going to have an interesting time when trumps' attorneys counter-sue her for defamation. after all, she alleged rape, and the jury found against that. it's a pretty defamatory statement! it's obviously stupid to apply defamation law this way, which like means it's not going to stick...

 

[Kaitzilla]

trying to add trump's post-trial arguments to the defamation suit is a dangerous game. he said he didn't do it and that she made it up, basically. that's standard defense language for literally anybody defending themselves.

if the "rationale" is that the jury found against him in the civil case, she's going to have an interesting time when trumps' attorneys counter-sue her for defamation. after all, she alleged rape, and the jury found against that. it's a pretty defamatory statement! it's obviously stupid to apply defamation law this way, which like means it's not going to stick...

I tried looking into the civil case.

Jean Carroll did not recall the year in which the assault took place?

In closing argument, attorney for E. Jean Carroll says she was 'exactly' Trump's type

E. Jean Carroll "was exactly" Donald Trump's type, an attorney for Carroll said Monday during closing statements in the former president's defamation and battery trial.

abcnews.go.com

The defense attorney seized on the fact that Carroll has not been able to recall the date of the alleged rape. Noting that Carroll's attorney had reminded jury members that Trump declined to testify in his own defense, Tacopina asked jury members, "What could I have asked him? Where were you on some unknown date 27 or 28 years ago?"

"And why is there no date to an event as significant as this in someone's life?" the attorney said. "It's not a coincidence. With no date, no month, no year, you can't present an alibi."

Calling Carroll's claim "an unbelievable work of fiction," Tacopina said that if the alleged attacker was anyone but Donald Trump, "we're not here. Not on this story."

"What they want is for you to hate him enough to ignore the facts," the attorneys said.

"There is no objective evidence to corroborate her claim, including a police report," Tacopina told the jury. "She never went to the police, because it didn't happen."

It was still enough to get the jury to rule against Trump and award $5 million.

Very fortunate New York passed a law that disabled the statute of limitations for 1 year, or this lawsuit would never have happened.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I tried looking into the civil case.

Jean Carroll did not recall the year in which the assault took place?

In closing argument, attorney for E. Jean Carroll says she was 'exactly' Trump's type

E. Jean Carroll "was exactly" Donald Trump's type, an attorney for Carroll said Monday during closing statements in the former president's defamation and battery trial.

abcnews.go.com

It was still enough to get the jury to rule against Trump and award $5 million.

Very fortunate New York passed a law that disabled the statute of limitations for 1 year, or this lawsuit would never have happened.

importantly, the jury concluded rape didn't happen. somehow, they also concluded sexual assault did happen, at the same burden of evidence (???), and somehow also concluded "defamation", despite that saying "accuser is lying" is standard to every defense position ever.

the problem for carroll is that now that she's trying to tack on his post-trial denials on the basis of the the trial ruling, she has the unfortunate fact that this same jury ruled rape didn't happen. saying someone committed rape when they didn't is inherently defamatory. using her own legal reasoning to tack on defamation statements, she can and absolutely should be sued for defamation under the (jury-concluded! derp!) false accusation of rape.

note that the entire thing is bogus. there's a reason statute of limitations exists for criminal cases. that reason does not disappear when the same crime is considered in civil cases, yet despite that for some reason civil cases don't have the same statute of limitations. that's a loophole, best i can tell. this woman doesn't remember the time the alleged event happened. her "witnesses" are people she called up after the fact, not people who were actually in the store to see/corroborate the alleged event happening. "yes she told me it happened on the phone 25+ years ago" is somehow valid testimony now?

who was actually there? did anybody see them go into a private location together? is there anything whatsoever, beyond her claim that this happened? if not, how the heck can the jury be < 50% sure that rape happened, but > 50% sure sexual assault happened? what part of trump's statements constitute defamation, if even the jury isn't > 50% confident rape happened and he's refuting accusation of such a nasty crime?

there's no way "i didn't do it, my accuser is lying" can possibly be "defamation" in the usa to anybody with a brain cell. that literally makes it defamation to deny accusations...and in its absurdity, it also opens the door for counter-suits on defamation. it's a defamation bonanza of absurdity, even before you touch 1st amendment considerations. it's non-functional, mechanically.

 

[choxorn]

A couple things to keep in mind here:

1. The definitions of "Rape" and "Sexual Assault" have very specific meanings in the legal system, but they're a bit less specific outside of it, and there's things that the legal system would call "Sexual Assault" that might colloquially be described as rape (indeed, some jurisdictions don't even have a specific crime called "Rape" and just have varying degrees of Sexual Assault to cover everything)
2. The standard for defamation is high- you have to show that the defamer knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously lied, and you have to show that it caused material harm to the defamed person, and considering how little Trump's legal troubles have ever actually affected him, it's kinda hard to show that last part. For that matter, his reputation for being a general sex pest is so well-known you might have a reasonable case that he fits under the "legally can't be defamed because his reputation is already that bad anyway" exception.

 

[Takhisis]

importantly, the jury concluded rape didn't happen. somehow, they also concluded sexual assault did happen,

(…)

note that the entire thing is bogus. there's a reason statute of limitations exists for criminal cases.

OK, so first a crime didn't happen, then you're admitting yourself that Donald Trump is a convicted sex offender, then it's all fake anyway, then it doesn't matter because it happened too long ago. Mmkay?

 

[Gori the Grey]

importantly, the jury concluded rape didn't happen.

No they didn't; they didn't conclude that rape happened.

She herself testified that she wasn't sure he penetrated her with his penis (which is needed for rape), but was sure that he did so with his fingers (which is what is needed for sexual assault).

Donald Trump has so small a penis that a victim of sexual assault couldn't be certain whether or not it had entered her.

That's the funniest thing about this otherwise grim case: that the justice system has officially determined that Donald Trump has a small penis.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. The definitions of "Rape" and "Sexual Assault" have very specific meanings in the legal system, but they're a bit less specific outside of it, and there's things that the legal system would call "Sexual Assault" that might colloquially be described as rape (indeed, some jurisdictions don't even have a specific crime called "Rape" and just have varying degrees of Sexual Assault to cover everything)

this is 100% a he said she said scenario, where it's not even clear they were both there because it's been so long. it is absolutely bonkers to say "we are > 50% confident he was there and assaulted her that day that nobody actually remembers, but < 50% confident that assault involved rape".

2. The standard for defamation is high- you have to show that the defamer knowingly, intentionally, and maliciously lied, and you have to show that it caused material harm to the defamed person, and considering how little Trump's legal troubles have ever actually affected him, it's kinda hard to show that last part. For that matter, his reputation for being a general sex pest is so well-known you might have a reasonable case that he fits under the "legally can't be defamed because his reputation is already that bad anyway" exception.

false accusation of rape is defamation. damages? he was subjected to a civil trial that seems to have resulted in monetary award, haha!

OK, so first a crime didn't happen, then you're admitting yourself that Donald Trump is a convicted sex offender, then it's all fake anyway, then it doesn't matter because it happened too long ago. Mmkay?

ok so derp? so wag naggle darg norf?

where do you get this non-sequitur? at least address what you quoted if you're quoting it. when you write stuff like this it looks like you're talking to someone else.

No they didn't; they didn't conclude that rape happened.

She herself testified that she wasn't sure he penetrated her with his penis (which is needed for rape)

i see, so the uncertainty here is somehow decisive, while she can't even recall the *year* this supposedly happened is not decisive uncertainty. at least this explains how the jury managed this wonky conclusion.

but this is still a problem for her, since she alleged rape then testified she wasn't sure if it happened. easily as defamatory as anything he said about her.

 

[Birdjaguar]

but this is still a problem for her, since she alleged rape then testified she wasn't sure if it happened. easily as defamatory as anything he said about her.

It is not a problem for her at all. She alleged rape and only got a conviction of sexual assault. that is what's courts do. Trump won't sue her for anything, because if he does he would have to testify and won't do that because he would be cross examined under oath. If he did not testify, he would lose the case, just like the one that just ended. He said/she said and similar cases happen all the time. The jury chooses who is more likely to be telling the truth. In Jean Carroll's case it was she said/he was silent so the jury choose her version based on the testimony and the evidence that was presented. Trump presented nothing. He is a loser.

 

[choxorn]

false accusation of rape is defamation. damages? he was subjected to a civil trial that seems to have resulted in monetary award, haha!

"What you said caused me damages because a jury ruled I need to pay you money" is certainly a take.

i see, so the uncertainty here is somehow decisive, while she can't even recall the *year* this supposedly happened is not decisive uncertainty. at least this explains how the jury managed this wonky conclusion.

Honestly that happens sometimes with memories. I definitely have events in my life (both positive and negative) where I could very clearly describe the memory of what happened, how it happened, who was there, where it happened, and not have any idea exactly when- I might remember some things about the time if I have some contextual things about the memory telling me, but sometimes I can't even remember what exact year it happened in.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It looks like not only is obstruction on the table, but espionage too. "Lock him up!"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/05/25/trump-classified-documents-mar-a-lago/

Two of Donald Trump’s employees moved boxes of papers the day before an early June visit by FBI agents and a prosecutor to the former president’s Florida home to retrieve classified documents in response to a subpoena — timing that investigators have come to view as suspicious and an indication of possible obstruction, according to people familiar with the matter.

Trump and his aides also allegedly carried out a “dress rehearsal” for moving sensitive papers even before his office received the May 2022 subpoena, according to the people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive ongoing investigation. Prosecutors in addition have gathered evidence indicating that Trump at times kept classified documents in his office in a place where they were visible and sometimes showed them to others, these people said.

Taken together, the new details of the classified-documents investigation suggest a greater breadth and specificity to the instances of possible obstruction found by the FBI and Justice Department than have been previously reported. It also broadens the timeline of possible obstruction episodes that investigators are examining — a period stretching from events at Mar-a-Lago before the subpoena to the period after the FBI raid there on Aug. 8.

On the evening of June 2, the same day the two employees moved the boxes, a lawyer for Trump contacted the Justice Department and said officials there were welcome to visit Mar-a-Lago and pick up classified documents related to the subpoena. Bratt and the FBI agents arrived the following day. Trump’s lawyers gave the officials a sealed envelope containing 38 classified documents and a signed attestation that a “diligent search” had been conducted for the documents sought by the subpoena and that all relevant documents had been turned over.

John Irving, a lawyer representing one of the two employees who moved the boxes, said the worker did not know what was in them and was only trying to help Trump valet Walt Nauta, who was using a dolly or hand truck to move a number of boxes.
“He was seen on Mar-a-Lago security video helping Walt Nauta move boxes into a storage area on June 2, 2022. My client saw Mr. Nauta moving the boxes and volunteered to help him,” Irving said. The next day, he added, the employee helped Nauta pack an SUV “when former president Trump left for Bedminster for the summer.” The lawyer said his client, a longtime Mar-a-Lago employee whom he declined to identify, has cooperated with the government and did not have “any reason to think that helping to move boxes was at all significant.” Other people familiar with the investigation confirmed the employee’s role and said he has been questioned multiple times by authorities.

As part of that visit, Bratt and the agents were invited to visit the storage room where Trump aides said boxes of documents from his time as president were kept. Court papers filed by the Justice Department said the visitors were told by Trump’s lawyers that they could not open any of the boxes in the storage room or look at their contents. When FBI agents secured a court order to search Mar-a-Lago two months later, they found more than 100 additional classified documents, some in Trump’s office and some in the storage area. In a court filing in August explaining the search, prosecutors wrote that they had developed evidence that “obstructive conduct” took place in connection with the response to the subpoena, including that documents “were likely concealed and removed from the Storage Room.”

The former president, the people familiar with the situation said, told aides he wanted to make sure he could keep papers that he considered his property. Trump and the Mar-a-Lago documents: A timeline That dress rehearsal episode is one of several instances in which investigators see possible ulterior motives in the actions of Trump and those around him. Lawyers for Trump and some of those witnesses, however, have argued in recent months that prosecutors are viewing the sequence of events in too suspicious a light. They say Smith’s team has unfairly dismissed claims that people were not trying to hide anything from the government but simply were carrying out what they considered to be routine and innocent tasks of serving their boss.

Prosecutors separately have been told by more than one witness that Trump at times kept classified documents out in the open in his Florida office, where others could see them, people familiar with the matter said, and sometimes showed them to people, including aides and visitors. Depending on the strength of that evidence, such accounts could severely undercut claims by Trump or his lawyers that he did not know he possessed classified material. The people familiar with the situation said Smith’s team has concluded the bulk of its investigative work in the documents case and believes it has uncovered a handful of distinct episodes of obstructionist conduct. One of those suspected instances of obstruction, the people said, occurred after the FBI search on Aug. 8. They did not provide further details, but the Guardian has previously reported that in December, Trump’s lawyers found a box of White House schedules, including some that were marked classified, at Mar-a-Lago. In that instance, a junior aide apparently moved the box from a government-leased office in nearby West Palm Beach.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"What you said caused me damages because a jury ruled I need to pay you money" is certainly a take.

her own idiot precedent set it up. she made an allegation that a jury biased in her favor decided at >50% probability didn't happen. a serious allegation, publicly. it's a clear example of defamation.

It is not a problem for her at all. She alleged rape and only got a conviction of sexual assault. that is what's courts do.

she didn't get a conviction of anything. she got a judgment from an incoherent jury. she alleged rape at an unknown time then backpedaled when under oath. this is far more obviously "defamation" than a defendant claiming "plaintiff is lying".

The jury chooses who is more likely to be telling the truth. In Jean Carroll's case it was she said/he was silent so the jury choose her version based on the testimony and the evidence that was presented.

"evidence", lol. there's as much actual evidence that trump raped caroll as there is that you raped jolly roger 20 years ago (basically none). could easily make up a story how it happened.

Honestly that happens sometimes with memories. I definitely have events in my life (both positive and negative) where I could very clearly describe the memory of what happened, how it happened, who was there, where it happened, and not have any idea exactly when- I might remember some things about the time if I have some contextual things about the memory telling me, but sometimes I can't even remember what exact year it happened in.

you forget a lot more than exact moment in 20 years. it's why there's a statute of limitations in criminal cases, and it's bonkers that there isn't for civil cases. if she alleged this in the 1990s, there would be more people for testimony to place/time, not just some friends who accuser called up on the phone treated as if they're in any way credible for the case. it's impossible for defense to gather material witnesses that could testify as to what happened on a day at an undetermined day/time/year > 20 years ago. it's a complete joke.

 

[Arakhor]

A jury biased in her favour? Given that every effort is made to select and maintain an unbiased jury, that's a very serious charge. If you made it in public, it might even be approaching the threshold for contempt of court.

 

[Remorseless1]

A jury biased in her favour? Given that every effort is made to select and maintain an unbiased jury, that's a very serious charge. If you made it in public, it might even be approaching the threshold for contempt of court.

Any jury that comes out with a verdict Mein doesn't agree with is biased