ChiGoose

Section 3 is not clear on scope. That's why a good amount of the SCOTUS hearing was about its scope and whether or not the President is an officer. It doesn't seem to make sense that the drafters wanted to ban basically anyone who held an office and committed an insurrection *except* the president. Self-coups are a thing and seems like they should apply here. The applicable level of due process for this is also unclear. In this case, there was a lawsuit in a Colorado district court in which Trump had an opportunity to present his case. The case then went to the Colorado Supreme Court where again Trump presented his case. Finally, the case went to SCOTUS, where Trump was also able to present his case. While I don't think it's super clear on what the standard for due process should be here, it's not like Trump was denied opportunity to present his case. Self-executing is a pretty common thing in the legal system. It's simply that no further actions are required for something to go into effect. In this context, the debate is whether the 14th Amendment requires Congress to establish a procedure for preventing an insurrectionist from holding office or if the text of the Amendment itself is sufficient. On the whole, it seems like it's self-executing but the language being unclear in certain areas makes applying it difficult. I expect SCOTUS will rule in Trump's favor but I'm curious as to what the actual holding will be. If a state (which establishes its own rules on ballot qualification) cannot enforce 14§3, then who can? Requiring Congress to act effectively would make the provision non-existent due to the political nature of the body.

Per Special Counsel Hur: "It is not our role to assess the criminal charges pending against Mr. Trump, but several material distinctions between Mr. Trump's case and Mr. Biden's are clear. Unlike the evidence involving Mr. Biden, the allegations set forth in the indictment of Mr. Trump, if proven, would present serious aggravating facts. Most notably, after being given multiple chances to return classified documents and avoid prosecution, Mr. Trump allegedly did the opposite. According to the indictment, he not only refused to return the documents for many months, but he also obstructed justice by enlisting others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. In contrast, Mr. Biden turned in classified documents to the National Archives and the Department of Justice, consented to the search of multiple locations including his homes, sat for a voluntary interview. and in other ways cooperated with the investigation." (Page 15) Wow. If only someone here had been pointing this exact thing out for months and months...

GOP steamrolls Dems to get a border bill that the Dems hate but will vote for anyway. CBP union endorses deal. GOP realizes the bill could actually improve the situation at the border and immediately acts to defeat it. Who could have possibly predicted it?

Acting CBP chief, Border Patrol union back Senate border deal Any explanation from the MAGA crowd as to why CBP is wrong here?* *aside from the obvious fact** that they want the border to be a mess **I mean, if they can’t stop admitting it, why should we disbelieve them?

Ehh, probably not. You always want a venue that you think will be friendly, but ultimately what decides the case is what is presented at trial. The jury deliberated for three hours and sided with Carroll on every issue except the top one. If they were in the tank for her, they would have given her everything. If it was a bunch of diehard libs determined to stick it to Trump with one or two holdouts, it would have taken longer than three hours. Not to mention one of the jurors admitted he got his news from Tim Pool. People who spend their time thinking about politics tend to believe everyone thinks like they do, but they don’t. The average American doesn’t think that way.

It’s always good to keep an eye on who is representing Trump for a particular legal issue. Tacopina seems like a good lawyer but he lost a difficult case in which Trump was ordered to pay $5 million. He stopped representing Trump and his replacement not only lost the next case (costing Trump more than $80 million) but was so bad she risked being found in contempt. Aside from being an absolutely terrible client, Trump has a history of stiffing people. That’s why Chris Kise (a good lawyer) required him to pay $3 million up front before he’d represent him. It’s also why he’s currently being represented by people so bad at their jobs that they are putting their licenses on the line.

In the first Carroll trial (where the jury found he assaulted her), I would not. Joe Tacopina seems like a decent lawyer.

I think it would depend on how credible I found Birnbach’s and Martin’s testimony. There are problems with both Carroll’s testimony and Trump’s deposition that hamper each of their cases. Having credible testimony of Carroll discussing the incident at the time it happened helps alleviate some of the issues with her case. If you don’t find them credible, then I think it’d be hard to find for Carroll.

As to rape vs. sexual assault, the word rape is commonly defined in a way that includes unwanted penetration by things that aren't a penis. However, under NY law at the time, rape was specifically defined as requiring intercourse (I believe they recently updated that definition to be more in line with the common understanding of the word rape). If I recall correctly, while Carroll believed that Trump had used his penis, she did not actually see it and instead was inferring from what she was experiencing. So the jury believed she was penetrated but didn't feel that she had proved he used his penis. Unfortunately, a lot of sexual assault cases come down to "he said, she said" and the jury has to decide who they find more credible. And the cases are often very messy with no clear set of facts that everybody would agree to. Having two people with contemporaneous accounts of being told about the incident probably helped Carroll a good deal here. Trump's deposition also likely hurt him (he couldn't state when two of his marriages happened, confirmed that he said that when you're a star you can just grab women, confirmed that he considered himself a star, confused Carroll with Marla Maples, etc). I could see it going either way, but given Trump's history with women, him assaulting someone in a changing room seems fairly on brand. And while I've seen people claim that the jury was in the tank against Trump, if they were, they would have said they believed Carroll about him using his penis and also found he had raped her under NY law.

Carroll's case contained the following: Testimony from Carroll After she entered the dressing room, Trump slammed her against the wall and penetrated her first with his fingers and then with his penis She called a friend, Lisa Birnbach to tell her what happened Birnbach told her that she was raped and should report it to the police The next day, she told her friend Carol Martin Martin told her that if she publicly discussed it, Trump would send his legal team after her When shown an email exchange between her and Martin indicating a scheme to do their patriotic duty, she stated that she was not scheming to bring down Donald Trump She didn't go public in 2016 because she believed he was doing better in the polls the more women who accused him She filed the suit now because he repeatedly called her a liar and it hurt her reputation Carroll initially thought the event occurred in 1994 or 1995 until she realized that Lisa Birnbach visited Mar-a-Lago in February 1996 which she did not believe would have occurred after Birnbach knew about the incident Testimony from a former Bergdorf Goodman manager: Departments were often left unattended and dressing rooms left open Testimony from Lisa Birnbach: Met with Trump in January 1996 for a story she was writing Carroll called her short of breath and said that Trump had assaulted her Birnbach offered to take Carroll to the police but Carroll refused and told her to keep the conversation a secret They did not talk about it again until 2019 when Carroll had decided to go public Testimony from retired stockbroker Jessica Leeds: Trump had suddenly grouped her in a manner similar to Trump on an airplane after a flight attendant invited her to move to first class and sat her next to Trump She said he groped her breast and tried to kiss her but she broke away when he started reaching up her skirt Passengers behind her did not seem to react The whole incident was probably less than a minute Trump saw her later and referred to her as "that [c-word] from the airplane" Trump's video deposition: He rarely shopped at Bergdorf Goodman He did not read Carroll's written accusations in either her book or her New York Magazine article Denied the incident occurred Confirmed he stood by his statements that Carroll was making up the story for financial and political reasons When asked if he had any basis for these assertions, he said he didn't know Confirmed that he made the comments "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women - I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the p***y" in the Access Hollywood tape When asked about the statement, replied "Well, historically, that's true with stars." Confirmed that he considered himself a star When shown a photo of Carroll, Trump claimed it was his former wife, Marla Maples Said he was married to his first wife from "about '78 to the early 90's" (they married in 1977 and divorced in 1990) Was unable to state when he married Maples Would not answer when asked when he married his current wife Clinical psychologist testimony: She evaluated Carroll and found she had been harmed by the incident but found no signs of mental disorder Testimony from journalist Natasha Stoynoff: While visiting Mar-a-Largo in December 2005, Trump brought her to look at a room while his wife Melania was changing He forced her against a wall and kissed her while she tried to push him off He told her they were going to have an affair She only told a few people because she did not want it to affect her career Video was shown of Trump denying Stoynoff's claim while campaigning and implying she was unattractive Testimony from Carol Martin: Corroborated Carroll's account of their conversation following the incident She and Carroll did not scheme against Trump though Martin did not like him. She claimed their plan was to support Democratic party causes On cross-examination by Trump's attorney (Joe Tacopina): Testimony / responses from Carroll: Carroll stated that she did not scream during the incident because she was in too much of a panic and surprised by the suddenness of the assault She experienced daily regret since first suing Trump due to feeling threatened She could not recall the meaning of her 2017 email to Martin She omitted it from her diary because she did not want to think about it She was inspired by MeToo and the Harvey Weinstein cases to come forward While she wanted her book to be successful, she was not struggling financially Comments from Tacopina: Carroll stated that she had not used the Bergdorf fitting rooms since the incident before saying she had actually used them after Audio clip of Carroll stating that she did not blame Trump for the cessation of her romantic life but that "maybe in that dressing room my desire for desire was just killed" Carroll stated that she was a big fan of Trump's The Apprentice show Carroll asked on social media if people would have sex with Donald Trump for $17,000 Asked Carroll if she had seen a 2012 episode of Law & Order SVU about a rape in a Bergdorf fitting room; which she said she had not seen Referenced an incident where Carroll called the police to report vandalism to a mailbox, to which she explained that she didn't want anyone to know that she suffered. Until now, she was ashamed to let people know what was going on The defense did not present a case.

Under NYS law as applicable at the trial, rape required intercourse (penis in *****). The jury found that Trump had penetrated Carroll with his fingers but was not convinced he had done so with his penis. Therefore, they could not find he had committed rape as defined by NYS law. However, the word “rape” in other contexts (including dictionaries) also includes forms of sexual assault such as penetration with fingers. So while the actions the jury found Trump did would constitute rape as it is commonly understood, it did not meet the definition in NYS law at that time.

Yes. 100% without equivocation. Anyone who tries to intimidate or cause harm to someone else by swatting them is a garbage person who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

It would be hard to pin down. Almost everyone who works for him ends up hating him or otherwise believing he is an idiot.

This seems to explain the drive behind the backlash: Why Trumpers are losing it over Taylor Swift "There’s a good argument that the GOP has for some time been out of gourds, in no small part because right-wing media ate them. Republican politicians today often seem more focused on media hits, and the consequent fundraising bonanza, than they are on passing conservative policies. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz may be AWOL when his state suffers a national disaster, but he never misses an opportunity to promote his podcast. Florida Republican congressman Matt Gaetz — a key figure in this session’s rolling leadership fiasco — has introduced virtually no bills of significance. But he’s on Newsmax constantly, and a CNN analysis found 160,000 articles about him, in comparison to 347 about a congressman in Gaetz’s neighboring district. Blowing up the party is good for business—and the business is, not politics, but right-wing media."

What @The Frankish Reich posted is absolutely true: "Trump was found by a jury to have digitally penetrated Carroll" They had to reach that conclusion to find him liable.

Why are you so focused on the fact that it's a civil trial?

In a civil case, the jury finds by a preponderance of the evidence. In a criminal case, the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt. Those are two different standards of finding facts / guilt. Digital penetration means fingers penetrating. Not making stuff up. Just explaining facts and reality.

Under the NY code in effect at the time of the trial, first degree rape is defined as: "A person is guilty of rape in the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person: 1. By forcible compulsion; or 2. Who is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless; or 3. Who is less than eleven years old; or 4. Who is less than thirteen years old and the actor is eighteen years old or more." Therefore, as the judge correctly stated, the jury could only find that Trump had raped Carroll if they believed he had penetrated here with his penis. As they only found that he used his fingers, they did not find he had raped her under the definition in NY law. However, that is not how people understand the word "rape" to work and not how it is commonly defined. As you pointed out, NY even moved to update its definition to better fit the common understanding of the word. Had the trial occurred with the updated definition in effect, it is likely that the jury would have found he had raped her. The idea that the judge should be impeached for explaining reality seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the facts.

In the documents quoted in the tweet, it literally says that there is a difference between NYS law and how the word “rape” is used colloquially. Different states define crimes differently and people use words differently. Per the dictionary: “unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against a person's will or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception” So what you have is that the word “rape” can and often does include sexual assault but does not require intercourse. However, NYS law requires intercourse for the charge of rape. That gap is what is causing the confusion here. The judge merely pointed out that while the actions did not constitute rape under the specific NYS law, it did amount to rape as it is commonly understood.

You just have to enjoy the “oh, you suddenly have opinions about the current thing (i.e. news)” crowd failing to understand how law or even basic sentence structure works and then being upset that their misinformed take isn’t taken seriously.

Ah. It appears to be dumber than I originally thought. If it was simply that they were worried she would use her tremendous influence to help the Dems, that would make sense. But as with most things MAGA, it's just dumb as hell. Taylor Swift, Travis Kelce and a MAGA Meltdown "The conspiracy theories coming out of the Make America Great Again contingent were already legion: that Ms. Swift is a secret agent of the Pentagon; that she is bolstering her fan base in preparation for her endorsement of President Biden’s re-election; or that she and Mr. Kelce are a contrived couple, assembled to boost the N.F.L. or Covid vaccines or Democrats or whatever." *** "The pro-Trump broadcaster Mike Crispi led off on Sunday by claiming that the National Football League is “rigged” in order to spread “Democrat propaganda”: “Calling it now: KC wins, goes to Super Bowl, Swift comes out at the halftime show and ‘endorses’ Joe Biden with Kelce at midfield.” *** "Some of the Monday morning quarterbacking has been downright silly, including speculation that Ms. Swift is after Mr. Kelce for his money. (Her net worth exceeds $1 billion, a different universe than the athlete’s merely wealthy status." "Other accusations appear to be driven by fear and grounded in some truth, or at least in her command of her 279 million Instagram followers: that she has enormous influence, and has supported Democrats in the past. For much of her extensive music career, Ms. Swift avoided politics, but in 2018, she endorsed two Democrats in Tennessee, where she owns two homes: former Gov. Phil Bredesen, who was running for the Senate against then-Representative Marsha Blackburn, and Jim Cooper, a House member who has since retired." *** "Then Swift-bashing reached Fox News in mid-January. The host Jesse Watters suggested the superstar was a Defense Department asset engaging in psychological warfare. He tied Ms. Swift’s political voice with her boyfriend’s Pfizer endorsement to the remarkable success of her Eras tour, which bolstered local economies and landed her on the cover of Time." “Have you ever wondered why or how she blew up like this?” Mr. Watters wondered on air. “Well, around four years ago, the Pentagon psychological operations unit floated turning Taylor Swift into an asset during a NATO meeting.”

I don’t understand why this is a political issue or why people care so much. The culture war is dumb.

Are there actually any Dems out there who would oppose disclosures for the Biden admin?

He is the classic archetype of narcissistic personality disorder. He does what feels good in the moment with no thought, strategy, or ability to think for the long term.

He’s deeply unwell and apparently doesn’t have anyone close to him to help. Best to just ignore. Feel bad for the guy.