Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36169724)

This guy?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-age-questions

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169731)

Meanwhile…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1707434422

If Trump wants to appeal the verdict he has to post bond for the full amount + interest.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169731)

Meanwhile…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1707434422

If Trump wants to appeal the verdict he has to post bond for the full amount + interest.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36169733)

Wow, Trump doesn't have that type of money. I wonder what happens next?

Meanwhile from Andrew Neil.



https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1707437222

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36169766)

Start building your bunker now!

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36169769)

No need - the military know both are untrustworthy so the red button doesn't do very much.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh (Post 36169769)

No need - the military know both are untrustworthy so the red button doesn't do very much.

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36169816)

America's safer under Biden as he's forgotten where the button is. :D

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169855)

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36169858)

it isn’t?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169859)

нет, танкист

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36169861)

It means "No, tankie"…

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank...r%20historical.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 36169863)

So an English term not Russian... Would have been better to say it in English then wouldn't it. Just saying..

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36169894)

Heard on radio a guy from Texas say , GOP will select the only guy Biden could beat and the Democrats will select the only guy Trump could beat.

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36170210)

Excellent news. The sooner the orange gimp is jailed the better

Originally Posted by daveeb (Post 36170220)

:D:D if only, unfortunately he's a teflon coated orange gimp.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36170226)

Is he? The court cases against him have barely got going and he’s already had findings totalling $88 million against him. And so far these are just civil suits, the criminal ones are all coming up in the next couple of months.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36170226)

Is he? The court cases against him have barely got going and he’s already had findings totalling $88 million against him. And so far these are just civil suits, the criminal ones are all coming up in the next couple of months.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36170229)

Exactly, all he has faced so far is civil ones and so far he is losing. I look forward to the criminal ones!:D

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36170312)

Oh dear, the Trump empire is ready to crumble :D

Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36170326)

If he doesn't pay up, does he get jailed?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36170328)

Not immediately. The court will order liquidators to start seizing assets. In practice if he can’t realise the cash himself quickly enough he will have to engage a bond company who will pay it for him. He would still have to pay a non-recoverable fee for such a service though. From what I’m reading that would be 10%, so upwards of $40 million. And if his appeal fails he will still have to pay the rest at the end of it all.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170330)

I wonder if everyone would be so desperate to destroy him if he wasn’t Donald Trump?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170330)

I wonder if everyone would be so desperate to destroy him if he wasn’t Donald Trump?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170330)

I wonder if everyone would be so desperate to destroy him if he wasn’t Donald Trump?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170330)

I wonder if everyone would be so desperate to destroy him if he wasn’t Donald Trump?

Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36170347)

Of course.He's a complete charlatan.And it's time for the cult of Donald to be over.He's a vile human being and the sooner he's gone the better for democracy.

What really puzzles me is why the US seems to be so in love with senile old men for president.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36170332)

Tell someone you drank the MAGA kool-aid, without telling them you drank the MAGA-kool aid …

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170352)

MAGA means nothing to me, I’m not American and I’m not domiciled there.

I can only call it, as how I perceive it.

They (whoever they are) are so desperate to stop him from running , and most likely winning, again.

They can’t get criminally just yet, so they’re just trying bankrupt him.

I wonder if they’ll do a deep dive into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170352)

MAGA means nothing to me, I’m not American and I’m not domiciled there.

I can only call it, as how I perceive it.

They (whoever they are) are so desperate to stop him from running , and most likely winning, again.

They can’t get criminally just yet, so they’re just trying bankrupt him.

I wonder if they’ll do a deep dive into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden’s dealings in Ukraine?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36170354)

He did actually rape someone

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170355)

Did he? Rape is a level 3 felony, guaranteed 3-16 years in prison.

If he did, beyond doubt, he’d be in prison.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36170357)

He did.

There’s a statute of limitations in New York State. This was extended in 2022 to allow civil remedy, but the rape occurred too long ago for it to be dealt with now as a criminal matter.

So, yes, he did rape her, within the commonly understood definition of that term - so said the trial judge, clarifying the ruling:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ll-judge-rape/

You may of course insist on legal niceties such as the strict definition of rape vs sexual abuse, and liability rather than guilt, but then that’s exactly what Trump’s advisors and legal team has been doing in the six months since the trial concluded. Again, I suggest the problem here is less people out to get Trump, and more which bits of the internet you’ve been sucked into.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36170365)

But what if that narcissistic, misogynistic, disingenuous, fraudulent, fat old man tried to illegally put up alternate Electoral College voters in seven States, and also tried to illegally pressure the Georgia Secretary of State into finding more votes for the nmdffom after the count was completed, to illegally overturn the result in the nmdffom’s favour?

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36170365)

But what if that narcissistic, misogynistic, disingenuous, fraudulent, fat old man tried to illegally put up alternate Electoral College voters in seven States, and also tried to illegally pressure the Georgia Secretary of State into finding more votes for the nmdffom after the count was completed, to illegally overturn the result in the nmdffom’s favour?

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170363)

Convenient that the accusation wasn’t brought when the level of proof of the crime was beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a jury and the penalty was incarceration, instead of a balance of probabilities and the opinion of a judge with purely financial consequences……….apologies for my scepticism.

You accuse me of not being a free thinker, but I turn it around and accuse you of the same, you don’t come into this discussion without your own biases, that is evident and normal.

There have been many facts, that weren’t…….All those people that were killed on Jan 6th……but weren’t.

The backlash of the “very fine people on both sides” after Charlottesville, where he was misquoted but that misinformation (to use the modern term) was never corrected and was used as the very election springboard for Biden.

My overriding position on this, is that come November, the only deciding factor should be the electorate. If they want to vote for a Narcissistic, misogynistic, disingenuous, fraudulent, fat old man…..then that’s up to them. It shouldn’t be decided by anyone else.

And if the Democrats can’t, or think they can’t, beat such a candidate, then that says a hell of a lot about their proposition.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36170368)

Although it's relevant for the purposes of defamation the court filing itself does feel a bit like "if he committed the same crime in a different place, and was prosecuted to a higher evidence threshold, he would be considered a rapist."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...0045.212.0.pdf

Some may point out that I routinely call the officer in the George Floyd incident a murderer for an equivalent charge to manslaughter - but he was convicted of second degree murder in the place it actually happened.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36170378)

But I know that Chris, understands that she was raped ” within the commonly understood definition of that term “

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36170381)

He turned up at a sneaker convention trying to flog $400 sneakers.
.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36170386)

I think they were booing the sneakers, they really are awful. Even Goldfinger wouldn't be seen dead in them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...m-court-ruling

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36170390)

Or one could pay $381 dollars less…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...2&d=1708264176

Also, from your link

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36170418)

Still think that's 18 dollars too much.

Flat soles on the Trumpsters, no arch support, what was he thinking of ? He's lost the votes of the flat footed for a start, they could be the deciding factor come November.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36170924)

With Trump storming to victory I'm going to predict social unrest if the judiciary step in to prevent the Republicans getting their candidate on the ballot.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36170924)

With Trump storming to victory I'm going to predict social unrest if the judiciary step in to prevent the Republicans getting their candidate on the ballot.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36171391)

The US Supreme Court has rejected Colorado state attempts to remove Donald Trump from the ballot for president.

He can now remain on the ballot for president in the state after the court rejected claims he was accountable for the Capitol riots in 2021.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36171391)

The US Supreme Court has rejected Colorado state attempts to remove Donald Trump from the ballot for president.

He can now remain on the ballot for president in the state after the court rejected claims he was accountable for the Capitol riots in 2021.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36171391)

He can now remain on the ballot for president in the state after the court rejected claims he was accountable for the Capitol riots in 2021.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36171430)

The Democrats are corrupt to the core & tried to erode a constitutional system with their stupid games. A 9-0 unanimous verdict is rare. So this decision cannot be attributed to party lines.

The other stupid Democrat banana republic cases now needs to be gone, especially since the stupid Democrats have a history of calling for violence on Republicans. The Democrats also too, attempted to stop the electoral certification in January 2017, to stop Trump becoming president.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36171430)

The Democrats are corrupt to the core & tried to erode a constitutional system with their stupid games. A 9-0 unanimous verdict is rare. So this decision cannot be attributed to party lines.

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36171417)

Not true at all, they simply ruled that states dont have the power to bar him, only congress.

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36171450)

Guess news agencies got it wrong :shocked: what a surprise :D

Originally Posted by Itshim (Post 36171391)

The US Supreme Court has rejected Colorado state attempts to remove Donald Trump from the ballot for president.

He can now remain on the ballot for president in the state after the court rejected claims he was accountable for the Capitol riots in 2021.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36171451)

Or…

You misread it…

Link might clarify any confusion, as every story I read in diverse publications never mentioned the court rejected claims he was accountable for the Capitol riots in 2021.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36171439)

Incorrect.

The judgment was unanimous, which is by no means uncommon when the question has a clear answer. Obviously, one state cannot rule on the constitution in a way that affects the entire Federal government. However, the opinion was unsigned, meaning that while the justices agreed the substantive verdict they disagreed as to the wider ramifications and the remedy. And having decided by majority this was a matter for Congress, they did not rule on whether Trump actually is an insurrectionist at all.

In fact , the 3 liberal justices objected to SCOTUS ruling that only Congress could determine whether an individual is barred from office under 14(3). *And* one of the Conservative justices also objected to this, though she issued a brief written opinion criticising Sotomayor Kagan and Brown for speaking out about their dissent at a time when unity was required.

So there was a 6-4 split on whether Congress should determine if someone is an insurrectionist and therefore barred, or if the courts may do so. And it was not a party lines split but a genuine legal disagreement.

Mick, you’re banging on about corrupt Dems is so 2016. Face it - you hitched your wagon to a rapist and a despot. You may not have realised it back then, but you’ve no excuse now. Whether or not he’s still popular with the uneducated rednecks of Amerca’s vast interior is neither here nor there. He was, is and will/would be a disaster for America and the world.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36171485)

For a start. He’s not a convicted rapist, he has never been arrested, or criminally convicted, he was sued in a liberal New York court which was always going to be rigged against him. You of all people, know how the rule of law works & the judiciary.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36171493)

Held liable rather than convicted, because of New York’s statute of limitations. Time had run out for a criminal trial but had not run out for a civil trial. You might have noticed there are a lot of historic sexual assault and rape cases around at the moment. #MeToo is a good thing.

Held liable for sexual assault rather than rape because Trump’s victim can’t say for certain whether he penetrated her with his finger or his penis, and in NY state law that’s a specific distinction. If we’re at the point of trying to salvage Trump’s reputation based on which part of his body he violated a woman with, God help America.

Incidentally, the trial judge confirmed in a post-trial statement that in common language (i.e. not the specific legal terms required under NY law within the courtroom) it is perfectly acceptable to describe Trump as a rapist based on the established facts.

He’s a rapist. He’s a dangerous sociopath and Joe Biden ruling from beyond the grave would be preferable.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36171505)

Ouch, truth hurts eh.

Neither of those two should be in charge of the USA. Biden is the lesser of the two evils. Biden may be an old man but at least he speaks truth and doesn't spout utter drivel that has no relevance to the real world and is only real in Trump's mind.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36171504)

Utter TDS nonsense.

Worlds gone to shit under Biden & you wish that pathetic Biden, zombie walking disgrace to rule 4 more years, you are utterly crazy. More fool you.

A liberal judge rules means Jack shit to me, big bloody deal. Banana republic those NY judges. Hard left liberal State!

As for the rest of your TDS post. :zzz: Yawn Chris, tell it to some one who cares, I certainly don’t.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36171508)

You have as they say, clearly been on the Kool-Aid.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 36171505)

Ouch, truth hurts eh.

Neither of those two should be in charge of the USA. Biden is the lesser of the two evils. Biden may be an old man but at least he speaks truth and doesn't spout utter drivel that has no relevance to the real world and is only real in Trump's mind.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36171508)

Mick … seriously. You sound like you care quite a lot.

As it happens I think the Dems are absolutely nuts for putting an octogenarian with obvious mental decline up for re-election, but mostly because that says awful things about the state of that party and makes a Trump victory more likely. In the round, however, America is screwed whichever way it goes. It needs to take a good look at itself and ask why it thinks gerontocracy is such a good thing anyway (it isn’t).

As for the rest of it … I’m sorry but if you’ve been drinking at the deep state, everything’s politicised, Q-Anon conspiracy waterhole, then there’s nothing more here which we can reasonably discuss. You have, as they say, clearly been on the Kool-Aid.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36171516)

What truth?
Just “orange man bad” mantra, all over again.