Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Endus]

By the way, at time of writing, the CNN town hall is still on.

The only way I'll have any respect for CNN for pulling this shit is if all the questions are vetted ahead of time and are of the "why do you keep raping women?" or "why are you so desperately insecure and fragile about everything all the time?" or "Your answer to that last question was a lie. Try again, and stop lying, fuckhead" variety.

If they just let him ramble without pinning him to the goddamned wall and flaying his metaphorical skin to the bone, then it's just a propaganda tool in support of Trump. Not journalism.

[Breccia]

The only way I'll have any respect for CNN for pulling this shit is if all the questions are vetted ahead of time and are of the "why do you keep raping women?" or "why are you so desperately insecure and fragile about everything all the time?" or "Your answer to that last question was a lie. Try again, and stop lying, fuckhead"

So, CNN is in a tough spot.

That's not a defense. They put themselves in a bad spot on purpose. No question there.

But, basically, they have five choices.

1) Cancel.

2) Do what you suggested immediately.

3) Do what you suggested eventually.

4) Lob softballs all evening.

Viewers will stop watching the second there's no Trump. I think we're all agreed on that. From a business perspective, options 1 and 2 are bad ones.

Option 3, reserving a tough series of questions till the end, keeps viewers and therefore ratings up while still pretending to have the moral high ground. It's along the lines of "we got the school shooter eventually, after half his victims bled out", a la Uvalde police.

Option 4 would be sickening. It should cost CNN more long-term viewers if that happens. Like you said, that would be CNN encouraging Trump's propaganda.

Now let's also factor in the fact that this is a town hall. There's a live audience, and they're the one asking the questions. So, if the format is basically random, it will not be possible to separate options 2, 3, and 4 since the order can't be controlled.

But this is also Trump. He has probably already demanded to see the questions ahead of time. If that's true, options 2 and 3 merge into 1. Trump will not attend if he knows for a fact there's a question he won't answer.

CNN must know this. And town halls don't have to be random.

So this is where we get to the bolded above, and the final option:

5) Throw Trump softball questions, call him out immediately when he lies, and end the town hall/throw Trump out when he is caught lying and refuses to admit it.

This is CNN's best way out of a bad situation they created (with option 1 being possible contender). If they actually moderate, if they actually try to preserve sanity, logic, facts and decorum, Trump is dead in the water. If CNN retains control by them ending the segment, not Trump ending the segment, so much the better.

Trump gives rallies, Trump give speeches, Trump posts on social media -- Trump does not debate. Trump lost all six Presidential debates, including the one that nearly killed him. He was beaten by Biden and crushed by Clinton. He did okay in GOP only ones, where the order of the day was random name calling and insults and everyone was lying. But Trump works best in an environment where he and only he is allowed to talk, and everyone either must agree or can't dissent. See also: protestors at Trump rallies vs. protestors at Biden rallies.

If Trump is called out on his lies, either by the moderator or the question-asking guest, then this thing is salvageable. Other than that, they either cancel, or let Trump lie for three hours unin...hold on.

(checks news)

CNN has the town hall at 8 and Anderson Cooper at 9:15. That suggests 45 minutes of Trump and 30 minutes of post mortem. Wow, this gets worse and worse the more I look into it. This was a stupid idea.

Okay, if they were only going to have him on for under an hour anyhow, the decision to bait him into a lie and throw him out might be easier.

Now some of you might be thinking

6) Let Trump continue, but put banners fact-checking his lies while he's lying

and I say "that's just option 3 with extra work and worse results". There is little to be gained there. Trump supporters, if any can even spell CNN in the first place, will turn if off as soon as that happens. Reasonable people like you will ask why they're not challenging Trump if it's so objectively false they had a banner ready to go. And of course, Trump's staff will warn him and he'll storm out. So no, I don't see that happening.

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/former-dona...-house-1799333

Staffers who worked in Donald Trump's White House have accused him of sexual harassment after a jury on Tuesday found the former president liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll.

The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in a judgment that could haunt Trump as he campaigns for a second term.

Jurors rejected Carroll's claim that she was raped in the dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman store in 1996, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse. They also found Trump liable for defaming Carroll over her allegations. Trump's lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, said the former president planned to appeal.

Trump lashed out at the verdict on his social media platform, Truth Social. In a post, he said he has "ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA" who Carroll is and that the verdict is "A DISGRACE" and "CONTINUATION OF THE GREATEST WITCH HUNT OF ALL TIME!"

Discussing the verdict on CNN, Alyssa Farah Griffin, who quit as White House communications director in December 2020, said Trump had a pattern of behaving inappropriately with women while in the White House.

Newsweek has contacted Trump's office for comment via email.

"I have countless cases of what I considered impropriety in the White House that I brought to the chief of staff because I thought the way he engaged with women was dangerous," Farah Griffin said.

She noted that she wasn't the only one to report Trump's behavior to his chiefs of staff, including Mark Meadows. "Nothing that rises to this level but things that I would consider improper and that I had a duty to report," she said.

Farah Griffin also urged voters to "pay attention" and for Republicans to "stop making apologies" for Trump.

"When Donald Trump tells you who he is, believe him," she said.

"We wanted to chalk it up to locker room talk in 2016. It was not locker room talk," she added, referring to the infamous 2005 Access Hollywood hot-mic recording of Trump talking about kissing and grabbing women without asking.

Stephanie Grisham, former Trump White House press secretary, said she had reported Trump's behavior towards a woman on her team to Meadows and other chiefs of staff.

Newsweek reached out to Mark Meadows via the website of the Conservative Partnership Institute, where he is senior partner.

Trump would often comment on women's looks, Grisham told CNN's Erin Burnett, but "with this one staffer, it was it was really bad to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable."

Trump would request the staffer in question to be on foreign trips "when it wasn't her turn," Grisham said. "He one time had one of my other deputies bring her back so that they could look at her ass is what he said to him."

Grisham said: "I did everything I could to keep her off of trips actually and to stay with her if she was with him alone, because I was really nervous about what could happen and this was before I knew kind of any of the the E. Jean Carroll allegations. I stupidly did know about the Access Hollywood video but maybe that was what made me you know, keep with her all the time."

Grisham said every senior staff member was aware of Trump's behavior, but there was little they could do.

"I think at the end of the day, what could they do other than go in there and say, 'This isn't good, sir?'" she said. "And you know, Donald Trump will do what Donald Trump wants to do."

Man found liable for sexual assault in civil trial is also accused of far more inappropriate behavior around women including sexual harassment. It appears he may have at least learned to keep his hands to himself, but that's about it.

[Breccia]

Well, today is not a good day to be Donald Trump.

Former WH Press Sec Grisham, one of Trump's....thirty? Forty? in the role, recalls the harassment she witnessed in the White House.

"Ah, yes, those librul media harassing her."

No...Trump harassing women.

Former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said that she witnessed first-hand Trump’s alleged sexual harassment, describing it as “really bad, to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable.”

During an appearance on CNN earlier this week, Grisham detailed the harassment she observed while working under the then-president. She added that she wanted to protect a specific staffer, who she said Trump would frequently take on trips with him.

Grisham also detailed an incident in which Trump called a staffer to come back to “look at her ass.”

“He one time had one of my other deputies bring her back so that they could look at her ass, is what he said to him,” Grisham said. “I sat down and talked to her at one point, asked her if she was uncomfortable.”

“I tried everything I could to ensure she was never alone with him,” she added.

While she noted that Trump would frequently comment on people’s looks and speculate about cosmetic surgery, Grisham said the harassment against the specific staffer was particularly alarming.

“But with this one staffer, it was really bad, to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable,” Grisham said. “I did everything I could to keep her off of trips actually, and to stay with her if she was with him alone because I was really nervous about what could happen.”

That sounds like admission she was concerned her boss would not only commit adultery on purpose, but also, to sexually assault someone to do it.

"I can't help but notice she did literally nothing about it."

You again! And to be fair, she told other staffers, including Meadows.

"And they did what, exactly?"

Touche. She even admitted they shrugged if off as "Trump will be Trump". In other words, she admits the people there showed no principle, and she herself didn't either.

When even people with such demonstrably low ethics/morals are speaking out, as a reminder Trump hired her and she accepted, you know it's bad.

And you know it's bad when other GOP members refuse to discuss it.

Nikki Haley was asked about the verdict in an interview.

I’m not going to get into that. That’s something for Trump to respond to.

Fucking spineless. He's the leader of her party, and her former boss. Her opinion on the subject is warranted.

Let's also add Ronna McDaniel. I think it's fair to call her a former Trump employee, don't you?

“We invited you to talk about the 2024 race and a number of aspects of what’s going on right now,” Martha MacCallum told McDaniel on Tuesday’s episode of The Story. “But, your reaction to this decision by this jury here in New York City with regard to the current lead[er] in the Republican Party for the nomination?”

Emphasis mine.

“Well, we haven’t heard from Trump yet, so I don’t want to get ahead of him,” McDaniel responded. “We have heard him – prior to the verdict – saying this is untrue. I imagine he’ll say the same thing.”

She went on to say Americans will be more focused on issues such as immigration and inflation.

How bad is it, when you have to call Trump and ask for your opinion?

How bad is it, when you have to call Trump and ask for your opinion about him raping someone?

MacCallum tried to steer the conversation back toward Trump’s legal issues, specifically its potential impact on women voters. She cited the fact that Trump is under criminal indictment for allegedly falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to cover up affairs he had with two women.

“One of the areas that is very important obviously to electing the next president is going to the women’s vote and a lot of suburban areas in Philadelphia, in Michigan, in Wisconsin,” MacCallum said. “And some people have suggested that this trial coming on top of the hush money trial may be a difficult hurdle for Donald Trump to get over – electorally with those voters, with suburban women voters. What do you think about that, Ronna?”

“I think we’ve got a long way until the primary process begins,” she replied. “We’ve got debates in August. As a suburban woman myself, I think a lot of women right now are looking at the Biden administration and saying, ‘Our kids are still struggling in school. Our kids are being used as pawns on TikTok as China is gathering their data.”

Yep. The leader of her party is, effectively, a convicted sexual assaulter. But let's talk about TikTok! That's really burning up the headlines!

Kevin McCarthy dodges questions about disgraced Republicans George Santos and Donald Trump

See you in the Santos thread, McCarthy, you coward fuck.

Kari Lake dodges...oh, that's about being Trump's VP. Nevermind.

I don't think Trump needs a vice president. He is that powerful as a leader, he doesn't really need anyone

Oh, un-nevermind. That's a giant Constitutional no-no. Yes, he does need a Vice President. What a fuckwit.

Some GOP members were at least willing to say something honest.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters that he does not believe Trump stands a chance in a November setting but added he didn’t think the verdict would move voters.

“I don’t think it changes anybody’s minds, one way or the other. … I think people who support Trump, support Trump. People who don’t support Trump, don’t support him, and I don’t think this will have any impact,” Cornyn said.

But not enough.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said that he still believes Trump will be the GOP presidential nominee and added that Trump being found liable for sexual abuse will make the general election “interesting.” He said voters will have to weigh that against the “continuing pileup of scandals from the Biden White House.”

“That’s a choice that the voters make. … I’d be very surprised if he wasn’t [the nominee]” Hawley said.

Cornyn could basically be correct. This is, of course, why there are two responses to the question.
1) I oppose Trump, and I think Trump sexually assaulting women is bad.
2) I support Trump, and I refuse to admit the case exists.

With that in mind, I think any Trump supporter, from here on out, every single post on every single topic should be answered only with this verdict. If they've fled from Politics forever, crying in their bunker into their single scoop of ice cream, leave them be. That's admission they lost. If they show their virtual faces in here ever again, reply, but ignore their post and ask only about the verdict.

Their opinions on Rep/Senate races are now irrelevant.

Their opinions on taxes or SS are now irrelevant.

Their opinions on Ukraine or Biden are now irrelevant.

Until they address the fact that their chosen leader just got found liable for the sexual assault he committed on purpose, nothing else they say has any value at all.

Take these cowards to task.

- - - Updated - - -

E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer: Trump has ‘no legitimate arguments’ for appeal

This article basically says what you think it says. Obviously, the lawyer would say that. But in a technical, non-biased sense, what option is there? What errors were there that could be overturned on appeal? Trump provided no testimony, no witnesses, no evidence DNA or otherwise.

Carroll told CNN on Wednesday morning that she shook Tacopina’s hand after the trial and told the lawyer, “he did it and you know it.” Tacopina smiled but didn’t verbally respond, she said.

Kaplan said she expects Trump’s legal team to draw out the process but predicted the case will be settled within a year.

“The courts are already familiar with his strategy of delay, delay, delay, so I don’t think he’s going to be able to delay very much here,” Kaplan said on MSNBC Wednesday. “I’d expect tops six months to a year, maybe even sooner if we can get them to expedite.”

Of course, Trump might end up back in court anyhow.

What's the dumbest thing you can do after being found in court to have defamed someone? Defame them again.

After Defamation Finding, Trump Again Says Carroll Lied

That is an accusation of perjury. Now that the case is over, things like gag orders are gone, but Trump accused Carroll of a felony for which the only evidence is Trump's non-under-oath word. Honestly, I think Carroll should sue him again.

- - - Updated - - -

(literally any post)

Your opinion on Trump being found liable for sexual assault is now required.

[DarkTZeratul]

Disregarding the 25 years ago point, it's a little disconcerting that the standard of evidence is that low - one person's testimony and other people corroborating what she said leading to a verdict in the millions?

Replace it with another crime - let's say a store owner goes to the police and says that his store was robbed and that he saw some guy named Bob robbing it. There's no other evidence other than he told his friends that he saw Bob robbing it, and he has a picture of Bob in the store 6 years before the alleged robbery. Is he allowed to sue Bob for damages, and win as long as his testimony is convincing enough?

First of all, Trump was not convicted of a crime. The statute of limitations had long since run out (as you said, it's been 25 years), so this wasn't a criminal trial. This was purely a civil trial to determine if he was liable for financial damages, which is why the standard dropped from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of evidence."

Second of all, it wasn't just her testimony plus corroborating witnesses. It was also the enormous amount of evidence that Trump is absolutely the kind of person who would do this, combined with Trump's lawyer giving what was essentially a non-defense of his client.

[Shadowferal]

What's the dumbest thing you can do after being found in court to have defamed someone? Defame them again.
After Defamation Finding, Trump Again Says Carroll Lied
That is an accusation of perjury. Now that the case is over, things like gag orders are gone, but Trump accused Carroll of a felony for which the only evidence is Trump's non-under-oath word. Honestly, I think Carroll should sue him again.

Ditto.
Definitely good enough for a couple more million. And keep hitting that big mouth until he learns to keep it shut. And since that's impossible...

[Breccia]

it's a little disconcerting that the standard of evidence is--

Trump refused to testify, refused to take a DNA test that would confirm his innocence if he was, offered no witnesses and offered no evidence.

If you have a problem with the standard of evidence when one side presented plenty and one side presented none, your problem is with Trump, not the justice system. Take it up with him. Everyone who was taking this case even partly seriously knows there's a reason the jury was out in less time than 3 episodes of the Mandalorian.

[Gorsameth]

This is the Trumpiest issue ever. Democrats will view it as "we finally got him" and Republicans will view it as "they convicted him of a 20 plus year old crime with no evidence other than one person's testimony".

My opinion - he's a jerk. Would not surprise me at all if he did this. But we've all known that's who Trump has been for 25 years, so there's no news here. I don't feel bad for him for having to pay 3 million - he's a terrible person who has certainly swindled others out of far far more - but this verdict is a bit sus.

Disregarding the 25 years ago point, it's a little disconcerting that the standard of evidence is that low - one person's testimony and other people corroborating what she said leading to a verdict in the millions?

Replace it with another crime - let's say a store owner goes to the police and says that his store was robbed and that he saw some guy named Bob robbing it. There's no other evidence other than he told his friends that he saw Bob robbing it, and he has a picture of Bob in the store 6 years before the alleged robbery. Is he allowed to sue Bob for damages, and win as long as his testimony is convincing enough?

The defamation case, on the other hand, might hold more weight - I'm not an expert in that.

Ok everyone, now you can tear me to pieces! Go nuts.

Trumps disposition video is him practically admitting he likes to sexually assault women and that society has been ok with that for thousands of years.

Its not just one person's testimony and corroboration, its the defended offering absolutely nothing besides additional incriminating information.

[Shadowferal]

In reading about it, my problem is with the standard of evidence - 51% is too low in my opinion. Based on the 51% standard this verdict makes sense, but I think that's too low a standard.

If you don't show up for court, you lose by default.

[DarkTZeratul]

In reading about it, my problem is with the standard of evidence - 51% is too low in my opinion. Based on the 51% standard this verdict makes sense, but I think that's too low a standard.

Again, it's a civil trial, not a criminal one. The standard for criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

If it helps, think of the case ultimately boiling down to, "I'm suing him because he hurt me" and the jury saying "yeah, he probably did."

[Edge-]

This is the Trumpiest issue ever. Democrats will view it as "we finally got him"

They will? Who's doing that? There's plenty of mockery and snark and shit but I've seen none of that.

Disregarding the 25 years ago point, it's a little disconcerting that the standard of evidence is that low - one person's testimony and other people corroborating what she said leading to a verdict in the millions?

Civil trial is not criminal trial. Note the verdict: Liable for sexual assault.

Replace it with another crime - let's say a store owner goes to the police and says that his store was robbed and that he saw some guy named Bob robbing it. There's no other evidence other than he told his friends that he saw Bob robbing it, and he has a picture of Bob in the store 6 years before the alleged robbery. Is he allowed to sue Bob for damages, and win as long as his testimony is convincing enough?

Civil vs. criminal.

Ok everyone, now you can tear me to pieces! Go nuts.

The victim act is really boring. You're just incorrect on some of the facts here for the most part.

[DarkTZeratul]

If it's an argument between two people that just means you believe whoever is more convincing and you can win money in court by being convincing in your accusation.

Yes, that is exactly how lawsuits work.

[Breccia]

Here's a great--

The jury was out for a couple hours. This was not a 51% case. Your problem seems to be less the 51% and more that you're sore Trump lost a court case in which he made no argument and offered no defense.

If your argument is genuine, this thread and this case is the worst place to discuss it. This case does not reflect a 50/50 coin toss. This case represents someone who offered no defense in any way.

Pick another battle. You won't win this one.

[Edge-]

Agreed on the civil versus criminal point - that should have been clear from my earlier post where I said "sue" and "verdict in the millions" not "convicted of a crime".

I'm confused though, your complaint is that the burden of evidence in a civil case is lower?

I mean, surely it Trump were indeed completely innocent and all he'd have voluntarily submitted to the DNA test to prove as much, no? Otherwise I'm very confused by what you're trying to argue in this thread in relation to this case, which had a pretty strong body of evidence supporting Carol's claim and basically no exculpatory evidence provided by Trump's team. Quite the contrary his testimony seemed to hurt his own defense and his lawyer at more than one point basically complained about how difficult of a client Trump is.

[Shadowferal]

Agreed on the civil versus criminal point - that should have been clear from my earlier post where I said "sue" and "verdict in the millions" not "convicted of a crime". - - - Updated - - - What other evidence is there than the woman's testimony and the testimony of other people she spoke to? I'm not aware of any. And actually it's the best case to discuss it - are you arguing that because Trump is a dirtbag that it's ok to apply lower standards of evidence? Cause I don't agree with that at all - even though I do agree he's a dirtbag.

Do you imagine a lawsuit being won over by not showing up?

[DarkTZeratul]

Overall to me the evidence doesn't seem super strong - no physical evidence whatsoever, only a victim's testimony. I googled "preponderance of evidence" and found a lot of places claiming it's a 51% standard, and that set off alarm bells for me because 51% seems really low. But the more I read this article (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/e.../#MatProStaPro) the more it seems no one knows what the hell it is.

You keep saying "51% standard" as if this is a mathematical formula where they punch in the numbers and get an objective value back for the outcome. It's not. This isn't "75% of rapists are Donald Trump." It's "here's all of our evidence, Trump offered fuck all in his defense, now does the jury believe it's more likely than not that he did it?"

[Breccia]

Overall to me the evidence doesn't seem super strong - no physical evidence whatsoever,

Trump refused to provide any. She brought the dress, dude.

Your opinion seems entirely unrelated to the case. It sounds more and more that your issue isn't with the justice system, but that Trump lost, and you're desperate for something to make it somehow not his fault.

It was.

Please read the posts about the case before posting anything even more embarrasing.

[Edge-]

Overall to me the evidence doesn't seem super strong - no physical evidence whatsoever, only a victim's testimony. I googled "preponderance of evidence" and found a lot of places claiming it's a 51% standard, and that set off alarm bells for me because 51% seems really low. But the more I read this article (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/e.../#MatProStaPro) the more it seems no one knows what the hell it is.

Victims testimony, plus the testimony (all under oath I believe) from friends whom were told about the events at the time that provide additional evidence. Plus Trump's deposition which went over many of the statements Trump has made about the case over the years and did not help him, including that time he mistook a picture of Carroll for his ex-wife Marla?



Doesn't exactly help his case.

I'm not sure what you searched up that gave you that result or why you are focused on the numerical value used as an example. It just means "more likely than not", as in the evidence may not be conclusive but is more believable than not. Which is a fairly squishy and subjective issue that's left up to the jury to decide. Which they did, and found Trump liable of sexual assault but did not find that the preponderance of evidence supported Trump being liable for rape.

[DarkTZeratul]

"More likely than not" is 51%, right? What do you think I'm missing here?

51% of what, though? This case isn't a matter of statistics. I'm also gonna point out that the "great criticism of the 51% standard" that you shared was titled "Objections to Using Mathematical Probability to Interpret Standards of Proof," which is both not what this case was about at all and precisely what you're trying to do here.

[Breccia]

What do you think I'm missing here?

Literally any form of context.

Nothing about this case said 51%.

If you are genuine about your concern about 51%, feel free to start a thread about it.

"Millions awarded within hours in case where one side offered no defense" has nothing to do with 51%. This case has nothing to do with your stated issue.

It sure sounds like you're sore that Trump lost while refusing to deal with the reason why Trump lost. Incidentally, the reason is "he's a rapist".