- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: USSC Sides With E Jean Carroll
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:13 pm to Obtuse1
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:13 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
The quality of the evidence means very little if your attorney is too incompetent to enter evidence into the record correctly. That is first trial advocacy class level work. Anyone who has the means to hire anyone he wants but hires an attorney who has never tried a civil case has very poor judgment. Add to that, he is a hugely litigious person, so he should have a Rolodex full of competant council. Hire a U12 team to play a D1 team and the outcome is cemented before the game starts.
Ok. So he got what he deserved even though all the evidence ENTERED IN THE RECORD says otherwise. Duly noted, TDS cum stain.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 5:14 pm
1
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:14 pm to soonerinlOUisiana
Who he hired as attorney has nothing to do with his this case ended up. That guy is an idiot.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:17 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Who he hired as attorney has nothing to do with his this case ended up. That guy is an idiot.
Yep. NY democrats delivered to Trump the same brand of justice that Mississippi democrats delivered to Emmit Till.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:18 pm to blueboy
We’re in big trouble folks
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:18 pm to NC_Tigah
An important thing to consider is that the Supreme Court does not simply look for “bad” case results and seek to fix them. Instead, they primarily look for cases of major national significance, unresolved questions of federal law, or disputes where different lower courts have reached conflicting decisions on the same issue. I have a hard time seeing how a she said/he said case decided under a ridiculously long but state statute of limitations period would meet any of these criteria. I do recall reading that there was very questionable evidentiary rulings but again, that’s not the kind of thing the Supreme Court typically deals with, especially out of a state court.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:18 pm to Obtuse1
You are pure evil
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:20 pm to Madking
Our justice system is a complete farce in so many ways.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:27 pm to RohanGonzales
The law of the land is meant for moral people. Allowing nihilists to control our law is like giving your enemy your greatest weapon.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:37 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:Like ... hypothetically ... as a random example ... a case where the state legislature in hatred of a political opponent, decided to screw blind justice, decided to screw judicial fairness, in order to screw the political opponent?
Instead, they primarily look for cases of major national significance, unresolved questions of federal law
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:43 pm to Madking
quote:
You are pure evil
For pointing out the huge strategic error of hiring an attorney who had never tried a case before? She failed to get evidence in, looked like an idiot in front of the jury, and failed to preserve a good record for appeal. I blame him for being dazzled by tit and blonde hair, and I blame her for taking a case she had no business trying. If as many feel here that the outcome was foregone, it should have been settled. That is a major strategic error if true.
I don't understand why people take up for incompetence.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 5:55 pm to TBoy
quote:
Pay the lady and get this behind you.
She couldn't even tell you the year this occurred, much less the month/day.
GFY
Posted on 6/29/26 at 6:35 pm to VoxDawg
quote:
She couldn't even tell you the year this occurred, much less the month/day.
Y’all can be emotionally engaged in the Trump propaganda if you want to be. The evidence was examined by a jury, that was unanimous. The trial judge was asked to take it away from the jury and declined. A panel of the court of appeal affirmed. The state Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take it up. The record has been studied by a dozen citizens and more than a dozen judges, with at least fifty law clerks.
Give it up. Trump lost.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 6:49 pm to TBoy
You really do hate America…don’t you.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 6:58 pm to blueboy
Nothing scotus could really do. They can't change the weird universal thought that large groups of people have in certain areas that led to a jury to find trump guilty of anything.
They could accuse trump of genociding the planet mercury, and an nyc jury would find him guilty.
They could accuse trump of genociding the planet mercury, and an nyc jury would find him guilty.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 7:00 pm to Tigerdew
quote:
There's literally no evidence against Trump in this case.
There is certainly evidence; it’s just very thin and not very believable.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 7:02 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
They declined to even look at it, which is even more of a travesty considering how NY manipulated law to specifically invite the case. Roberts is a coward.
Reminder that the jury was hand selected by the judge with the TDS wife. Trump’s team got no chance to eliminate biased jurors, and there is plenty of reason to believe that the judge chose biased jurors.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 7:03 pm to WhiteMandingo
quote:
If someone accused you of rape the burden should be a bit higher the he said she said especially when is 30 years later and she didnt remember the day time month or even year but it definitely happened.
Also we are expected to believe that a 54 year old sex writer in New York City did not have the composure to simply say “No.”
Posted on 6/29/26 at 7:40 pm to blueboy
quote:Is not siding with Carroll
Supreme Court’s decision not to review the verdict
Posted on 6/29/26 at 7:45 pm to NC_Tigah
“Like ... hypothetically ... as a random example ... a case where the state legislature in hatred of a political opponent, decided to screw blind justice, decided to screw judicial fairness, in order to screw the political opponent?”
Like, no, not at all. A New York State held a civil trial in which a defendant who didn’t even show for trial got tagged with a jury verdict in a very unfavorable jurisdiction. I remember thinking he had decent appellate points but nothing that would interest the federal Supreme Court. “I got a really bad jury verdict”—and I agree with you that it was—is not a basis for the court to grant cert. it only takes four justices to grant cert and he didn’t even get that.
Like, no, not at all. A New York State held a civil trial in which a defendant who didn’t even show for trial got tagged with a jury verdict in a very unfavorable jurisdiction. I remember thinking he had decent appellate points but nothing that would interest the federal Supreme Court. “I got a really bad jury verdict”—and I agree with you that it was—is not a basis for the court to grant cert. it only takes four justices to grant cert and he didn’t even get that.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 7:48 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Hire a U12 team to play a D1 team and the outcome is cemented before the game starts.
Especially if the refs are all on the take for the D1 team.
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News