Trumps rape case given court date

[FuzzyLumpkins]

same question

So no court date has been set. Again what substantive difference does that make?

[TheSanityAnnex]

/thread

[spurraider21]

So no court date has been set. Again what substantive difference does that make?

you're running in circles. you tried to correct me in a manner that made no substantive difference, and at the same time are complaining that the correction i made makes no substantive difference. just shut up and move on

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you're running in circles. you tried to correct me in a manner that made no substantive difference, and at the same time are complaining that the correction i made makes no substantive difference. just shut up and move on

You sure are intent on your meaningless point of fact.

So we have nothing from you. You need to get over me and get over yourself, chachi. The distinction between trial date and court date has no significance in this discussion.

[FromWayDowntown]

The distinction between trial date and court date has no significance in this discussion.

To be objective, that distinction is pretty significant. A "court date" can mean just a preliminary proceeding in which deadlines are set, and sometimes those deadlines are for papers that attack the substance of the action (i.e., motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment).

A trial date arises only after all of the preliminaries have passed and the court has concluded that the allegations are sufficiently stated and supported to justify putting the case to a trial because there is some fact that is in doubt and hasn't yet been conclusively proven.

So, unless there's already been an evaluation of the merits of the action, the setting of a court date doesn't, by itself, say much about whether the action is or is not meritorious.

[spurraider21]

You sure are intent on your meaningless point of fact.

So we have nothing from you. You need to get over me and get over yourself, chachi. The distinction between trial date and court date has no significance in this discussion.

of course its relevant

"allegedly" given a trial date, with, it is assumed, testimony given under oath.

Guess we will get to find out, won't we?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

of course its relevant

He said that he was going to wait and see.

At least now you are trying to show some substance though. Does a pretrial hearing preclude testimony?

The bottom line is that the case is moving forward and Trump's attempts at dismissal have failed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To be objective, that distinction is pretty significant. A "court date" can mean just a preliminary proceeding in which deadlines are set, and sometimes those deadlines are for papers that attack the substance of the action (i.e., motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment).

A trial date arises only after all of the preliminaries have passed and the court has concluded that the allegations are sufficiently stated and supported to justify putting the case to a trial because there is some fact that is in doubt and hasn't yet been conclusively proven.

So, unless there's already been an evaluation of the merits of the action, the setting of a court date doesn't, by itself, say much about whether the action is or is not meritorious.

No one was claiming certainty of merit. The announcement of a trial doesn't do that either.

[tlongII]

We wouldn't know about Trump, since he can't be bothered to reveal what has been expected of any other candidate for the White House. And the idea that there might be something like that in Trump's past isn't that far-fetched, since recent reporting (which hasn't been refuted, but simply denounced as biased) has certainly brought the legalities of the ways in which Trump has used his foundation into some question.

Somehow, even though you'd be screaming and yelling if Hillary had taken that approach, Trump supporters see that evasion as charming.

I'm sure if Hillary were questioned she would just say "I don't recall".

[CosmicCowboy]

He said that he was going to wait and see.

At least now you are trying to show some substance though. Does a pretrial hearing preclude testimony?

The bottom line is that the case is moving forward and Trump's attempts at dismissal have failed.

Fuzzy Fuzzy on his facts AGAIN.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy Fuzzy on his facts AGAIN.

CC resorting to innuendo in place of analysis as is his wont.

You have to be one of the more vapid posters I have ever seen.

[FromWayDowntown]

No one was claiming certainty of merit. The announcement of a trial doesn't do that either.

Oh, I'd dispute that. Few are the cases that get to trial that lack merit because there are too many ways to short circuit unmeritorious cases before trial. So, if a trial date is set after dispositive motions have been filed, it generally means that there has been a finding that the case has some factual merit.

The claimant may not always win at trial, but that doesn't mean that the claim itself lacked merit; it just means that the jury had conflicting facts and elected to resolve those facts against the accuser.

[CosmicCowboy]

CC resorting to innuendo in place of analysis as is his wont.

You have to be one of the more vapid posters I have ever seen.

FWD just owned your stupid ass.

Is that clear enough for you?

[TheSanityAnnex]

No, let's talk about false rape accusations. Let's talk about the investigation the Guardian did into these specific allegations against Trump, it was only linked in your own article.

"A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag."


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...its-norm-lubow

Lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of sexually assaulting a child in the 1990s appear to have been orchestrated by an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities.

Norm Lubow, a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show, has previously been involved with disputed allegations that OJ Simpson bought illegal drugs on the day Simpson’s wife was murdered, and that Kurt Cobain’s widow had the Nirvana frontman killed.


Statements made by Lubow over the past two decades on a variety of topics have been called into question.
In 2014, using his comic pro-marijuana pseudonym Reverend Bud Green, Lubow claimed to have arranged the replacement of US flags on the Brooklyn Bridge with white flags. The following month, however, German artists came forward with video evidence that they in fact were behind the stunt.


In 1998, guests on Springer’s notoriously wild talkshow alleged that Lubow had encouraged them behind the scenes to stage fights and invent outrageous stories during recordings of the program. The allegation was denied by Lubow and other show staff.
Also in 1998, Lubow appeared wearing a disguisein the controversial do entary film Kurt and Courtney under the name “Jack Briggs” alongside Bowman, the minor Hollywood promoter whose photograph was later used by “Al Taylor” for television interviews. Bowman said “Briggs” was Lubow.


In the film, director Nick Broomfield said Lubow and Bowman had introduced him to Eldon “El Duce” Hoke, a Seattle-based musician who claimed Courtney Love offered him $50,000 to kill her husband Kurt Cobain, the singer and guitarist in the rock band Nirvana. The allegation about Hoke, which became lore among some Nirvana fans following Cobain’s suicide in 1994, was denied by Love.




According to the New York Post, in 1995 Lubow, using the name “Ron X”, also claimed to tabloids that he had sold drugs to OJ Simpson on the day Simpson’s estranged wife Nicole Brown was murdered. Lubow denied the Post’s report.
An attorney brought in to file Katie Johnson’s lawsuit against Trump in New York said any issues around the credibility of “Al Taylor” should not cast doubt on Johnson’s allegations

[FromWayDowntown]

Questions about the source are reasonable and valid, but that doesn't prove that the allegations are false.

Even sketchy people tell the truth sometimes. For instance, I don't think Trump *always* lies.

[tlongII]

Questions about the source are reasonable and valid, but that doesn't prove that the allegations are false.

Even sketchy people tell the truth sometimes. For instance, I don't think Trump *always* lies.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Questions about the source are reasonable and valid, but that doesn't prove that the allegations are false.

Even sketchy people tell the truth sometimes. For instance, I don't think Trump *always* lies.

Wasn't getting an ounce of discussion amidst the purse swinging.

[pgardn]

Trump has been involved in more lawsuits than anyone I have heard of (does not mean anything) as defendant and filing. Has he ever had any type of assault brought against him? For some reason I get the feeling he is kind of a wimp. I can see him grabbing and such, but actually hurting anyone physically as in rape, it does not seem to fit him IMO. These old guys taking this leap ... I don't know. And yes I know rape does not necessarily have to hurt physically.

So, any assaults of this nature before, settled?

[pgardn]

Wasn't getting an ounce of discussion amidst the purse swinging.

Because of the you have put out before, ya think?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because of the you have put out before, ya think?

You may want to check back in on the I posted, it's all unfolding right before our eyes. Truly fascinating.

[DarrinS]

Meanwhile

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...nto-rehab.html

[spurraider21]

He said that he was going to wait and see.

At least now you are trying to show some substance though. Does a pretrial hearing preclude testimony?

The bottom line is that the case is moving forward and Trump's attempts at dismissal have failed.

An initial status conference won't elicit testimony. The lawyers discuss logistics of the case. Iirc the parties aren't even required to appear

[DarrinS]

A Guardian investigation this summer found that the lawsuit appeared to have been coordinated by a former producer on the Jerry Springer TV show who has been associated in the past with a range of disputed claims involving celebrities including OJ Simpson and Kurt Cobain. A publicist acting for “Jane Doe” also attempted to sell a video in which the woman describes her allegations against Trump to media outlets at a $1m price tag.

Sounds legit.

[FromWayDowntown]

Meanwhile

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...nto-rehab.html

shows are gonna show.

[hater]

75 replies and zero evidence on this charge

this case will go far

keep trying lernazis....