Comments by "Common Sense Craziness" (@commonsensecraziness7595) on "Why Trump Lost In Court. Facts and Law" video.

  1. What should really make your head explode is that the reason they could even bring this lawsuit was that they passed a law, that is designed to only work from 2022-23, that allows people to bring lawsuits past what would normally be the statute of limitations, but that the law enables that suit to be fast tracked into the court to be heard immediately. Jean Carroll's own legal representation bragged that they helped pass this law. But yeah, totally normal lawsuit with a jury of his "peers", because most people are neutral when it comes to Trump.
    10
  2. ​ @lisakaz35  [You don't quite state the facts. The window for lawsuits was established as compensation for the fact that the state made the statue of limitations longer for this sort of case. Since they couldn't or didn't grandfather this, they allowed people who could have used the extended time to bring forward cases.] They created a limited term law that would be in effect from 2022-23 that allowed plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit that would normally not be allowed under the statute of limitations which also allowed them to fast track to court. The legal council for the plaintiff was directly in the formation of the legislation and even bragged about it. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Why wasn't this lawsuit brought at the height of the Me Too movement? Why is it that the plaintiff said she told a few friends and then they never spoke about it again until 2016. I'll let your imagination run wild as to what happened in 2016 that would make someone want to bring a lawsuit against Trump. [If Trump abused this woman (and his track record makes it HIGHLY PLAUSIBLE), she got justice.] The track record of people not liking him and believing lies not proven? She got a book deal maybe, that's what she gets. Did you even see the cut parts of the CNN interview where she said she thinks most people think about grape as sexy? Go ahead and watch that whole segment and tell me she doesn't come across as totally nuts. Anderson Cooper even had to cut the interview short. I'm sure in your eyes that whole thing is totally organic though, right? [The jury believed her and her supportive witnesses.] Yes, because as we all know, when it comes to Trump most people are neutral. Especially people from New York. [You argue as if it's somehow unfair as if "the coast is clear," which basically means you're okay with him being a criminal.] If he did wrong he should face punishment, but when you're literally creating temporary laws in order to litigate someone it's pretty obvious it's not about justice. You can't tell because you're either immensely biased, stupid, or both.
    6
  3. What should really make your head explode is that the reason they could even bring this lawsuit was that they passed a law, that is designed to only work from 2022-23, that allows people to bring lawsuits past what would normally be the statute of limitations, but that the law enables that suit to be fast tracked into the court to be heard immediately. Jean Carroll's own legal representation bragged that they helped pass this law. But yeah, totally normal lawsuit with a jury of his "peers", because most people are neutral when it comes to Trump.
    5
  4. What should really make your head explode is that the reason they could even bring this lawsuit was that they passed a law, that is designed to only work from 2022-23, that allows people to bring lawsuits past what would normally be the statute of limitations, but that the law enables that suit to be fast tracked into the court to be heard immediately. Jean Carroll's own legal representation bragged that they helped pass this law. But yeah, totally normal lawsuit with a jury of his "peers", because most people are neutral when it comes to Trump.
    4