@OliLondonTV 'Cuz they need to stick it in our face. They are desperate, insecure, immoral, sick people who are demanding affirmation. Anyone willing to give it to them is a coward and morally challenged.
The Carroll case rested on a sequence of legal maneuvers with no precedent in American civil litigation. Democratic legislators passed a retroactive temporary law eliminating the statute of limitations for decades-old accusations that could not be dated, located, or defended with alibis. The day the temporary law took effect, Carroll filed her pre-prepared lawsuit, the first in the state to do so.
A Democratic mega-donor secretly funded the plaintiff’s legal costs through a nonprofit. The arrangement stayed hidden until one of Trump’s lawyers discovered it. A Clinton-appointed judge then sealed all records so the jury never learned the billionaire backer had publicly committed to Trump’s political destruction. Every participant in the legislative, funding, and judicial steps operated inside the same political network, and each decision produced the same cumulative result.
The jury explicitly checked “no” on the verdict form’s specific rape question. The judge ruled rape proven anyway, claiming the jury had used a common rather than statutory definition… an impossibility, since their rejection under the common definition precludes rape by any standard. Trump’s team was barred from arguing innocence before a second jury, which awarded $83.3 million ($65 million punitive) on the rape finding the first jury had rejected.
A defendant was sued for defamation over denying an accusation, prevented from asserting that denial as a defense, tried before a judge who concealed the plaintiff’s political funding, and hit with a nine-figure verdict built on facts the jury itself refused to find.
No comparable sequence exists in recorded U.S. civil litigation history.
@KenBruc91173604@jubileemedia@RubinReport Ruben could have spoken. He wimped out. Get me in the ring with a clown like that kid and I'll make him STFU real fast. Ruben was pretending to stake the higher ground. I guess he scores a point for not being a dick. But having no argument loses points.
He sat there like a pussy. Matt Walsh or VDH would have said something perceptive. Ruben never met the question with a coherent answer. And don't tell me what I can or can't "comprehend." I've been a trial attorney for 40 years. I was a moot court champion. I taught rhetoric and debate. He failed to make the conservative argument. He didn't land a punch.