To hell with MSNBC. Brian Williams' opening quotes Trump

[BlueStreak]

saying that Hillary might have to face a trial. That's bullshit. There is nothing in process on that. But what *IS* in progress is a rape trial against Trump, yet that never is mentioned -- ever.

And then Williams went ahead to lead with 2 solid minutes of Trump and his "Lock Her Up"

[madaboutharry]

1. He was showing clips that show what a jerk Trump is.

He then showed Hillary responding.

[BlueStreak]

3. You can't let Trump make up a story about a non-existent case against Hillary without mentioning

the REAL rape case that already has a court date. That is bullshit journalism.

[duffyduff]

12. Nobody is going to report that because it is a civil suit that will likely be settled out of court.

n/t

[BlueStreak]

16. But they can take 20 minutes out of every hour reporting on Clinton's NON-existent case?

Since when is a non-case more newsworthy than a real civil suit?

[BainsBane]

48. It's a civil case

I wonder if Trump has been served in the case yet? He hadn't as of last week.

[BlueStreak]

2. For the record, Trump's rape trial starts on Dec 16

This isn't speculation about why might happen if some emails maybe contain something that may be apropos to something. This is a real trial and the court date is already set. Yet nobody even mentions this.


http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/308374/reminder-the-pretrial-date-for-donald-trumps-child-rape-case-is-december-16/

[truebluegreen]

5. For the record, that is absolutely not true.

There is no trial scheduled since no notice of the suit has even been served.

Maybe that's why no one mentions it.

[SunSeeker]

20. It is a court date in the case, just not the trial date.

But the case does exist, and the plaintiff alleges Trump raped her when she was a child.

[truebluegreen]

39. As far as Trump and his lawyers are concerned

the case does not exist, since notice of it has never been served--despite the judge ordering the plaintiff to serve notice almost a month ago. Until that happens there is no case and there is no court date, let alone, as you note, a trial date.

Trump has enough skeletons in his closet to take him down with even moderately reasonable people. There is no need to go after a dubious claim like this one.

[SunSeeker]

42. This is not a "dubious claim." Stop repeating Trump talking points.

The status conference set in the case for this December IS a "court date." The plaintiff has a case. And the case is pending.

[truebluegreen]

43. Educate yourself.

Or don't. I could care less.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028263192#post10

And as for your "trump talking points", whatever those are, sometimes you have to accept that the truth is the truth, no matter how disappointing you find it.


Bye.

[SunSeeker]

44. Right back atcha! This lawsuit is not a dubious claim.

Nothing at the link site establishes that it is a dubious claim. The only dubious claim is that this lawsuit is a dubious claim.

[truebluegreen]

45. Sure. And you know this how?

Somebody (Jane Doe) paid $350 and filed a complaint. Period. No papers have been served, no proof has been offered, no evidence has been produced, even the name of the individual is not given--after watching the last 16 months of the campaign do you not realize that Anybody can say Anything? And all this with the help of a Jerry Springer producer and a patent attorney in New Jersey (were there no adequate attorneys in New York?).

"Dubious" is being generous.

[SunSeeker]

46. She has a witness, whose declaration she attached to her complaint.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen?platform=hootsuite

An good analysis of why the allegations are credible can be found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html


Her attorney's office is in Princeton, NJ, about a one hour drive up I-95 to the SDNY courthouse in Manhattan. I don't see how that makes him or her case "dubious." I imagine there are not a lot of Manhattan attorneys who would take a rape case, any rape case. They represent corporations on Wall Street, where the money is, because they need lots of money to pay their high Manhattan office rent. Jerry Springer has nothing to do with this case. You sure can't quit those right wing talking points, can you?

[truebluegreen]

47. OK. I have a suggestion:

hold your breath until this case comes to trial, or even into court. See how that works for you.

btw: I didn't say "Jerry Springer", I said "a Jerry Springer producer." Reading comprehension is key and will help you in the future.

[SunSeeker]

49. Aaw. Did I hurt your little talking point?

[truebluegreen]

50. No, honey, despite trying your darnedest.

I have nothing for you but pity.

[SunSeeker]

51. Oooh. You mad.

[truebluegreen]

54. Now it's getting bathetic out.

[PJMcK]

4. The so-called "rape trial" isn't a thing

Please read this thread where DUer jberryhill (a lawyer) explains the legal process regarding the case you've referenced, BlueStreak. You need to scroll down to response #10:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028263192

Read through the thread and you'll understand why this case is probably just air.

The much more important cases are the lawsuits against Trump University. One of those suits is a RICO lawsuit that has jail-time as a consequence of the illegal activity.

[BlueStreak]

8. There is a pre-trial hearing set. Do you deny that. Williams comes back from each break

with more Trump video claiming the emails are bigger than Watergate. Williams knows this is not true. It is completely irresponsible for him to run that footage over and over again.

[PJMcK]

10. Please read the posts that jberryhill took the time to write

Don't misunderstand me, BlueStreak. We both hate Donald Trump!

My point is that the procedure of the judicial system is precise and articulated. DUer jberryhill is an experienced attorney and he/she articulates concisely the legal process. If you read the posts, you'll see what I mean.

Regardless, let's hope that Donald Trump is humiliated on November 8th!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. It's not a pretrial hearing; it's a status hearing. Big difference.

A complaint has been filed with the federal court but apparently never was served with a summons. That has to be done before the case can go anywhere. The court just wants to know what's going on. Will there be a for-real lawsuit? Why hasn't the defendant been served? A pretrial conference, in contrast, does not occur until the proceedings are much further along, usually after discovery has been completed. During a pretrial conference the lawyers meet with the judge and discuss witnesses, scheduling, and the possibilities of settlement. This isn't even close to that point.

[BlueStreak]

17. And you are saying that this actual legal process that is assigned to a court with a court date

is not newsworthy but the Clinton situation which will never be brought to charges deserves to be Williams' lead story for a half hour?

I am not commenting on the probability of the rape case succeeding, but it seems pretty obvious to me the probability of that thing, which is a real case with a real court must be higher than Clinton's situation which will not go to any court.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

19. It may become newsworthy but right now there's very little to go on

other than a complaint which hasn't been served. There actually have been some media reports on this (see the other thread cited above), but I suspect the major media are being circumspect at this point because Trump always sues everybody - if they did a big story on it before there was an actual lawsuit (there isn't one until the defendant has been property served) Trump would sue them for defamation. He might not win but they don't want the hassle and expense. So, until there are more facts available to the media they will probably keep clear of it.

[BlueStreak]

21. "the major media are being circumspect " Yet they give unlimited free airtime to Trump

to make any kind of ridiculous, baseless charges, most of which go completely unchallenged by the media?

That is my point. They are using two completely different standards for dealing with Clinton and Trump.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Well, yeah; what else is new?

[SunSeeker]

22. Once a complaint is filed, as this has, it is a real lawsuit.

Whether or not all of the defendants have been served does not make it any less "real." It is on file, for real, in a court.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

25. Not exactly.

A complaint that's just filed with the clerk's office doesn't cause anything to happen. You take your complaint to the clerk's office and pay a filing fee, and a file number is assigned. You also present a summons to the clerk, and if it's been properly completed the clerk signs and seals it, and gives it back to you for service on the defendant along with the complaint. Nothing can proceed until the defendant is served. If the summons and complaint aren't served and an affidavit of service filed with the court within 120 days, the whole thing has to be started over again. A complaint that's just on file in the clerk's office, sitting in a file cabinet (or on a computer) has no effect at all.

[SunSeeker]

33. It is still a real lawsuit, whether or not it goes to trial.

Sure, she needs to serve Trump before the court will set it for trial, but once she files a lawsuit, it is a real lawsuit and the court will treat it is such. It is simply not true that "nothing" will happen until the complaint is served. The court has set it for a status conference, so obvious something has happened. I imagine at that status conference the court will order the plaintiff to serve her complaint within, say, 30 days, and/or set the case for an Order to Show Cause hearing for failure to serve the defendants.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. And if that happens, THEN we're off and running.

Whether it's "pending" until service is accomplished is really just semantics. Nothing is going to happen until that status hearing unless the summons and complaint are served in the meantime. I hope the claims are legitimate and if they are, that the plaintiff and her lawyers finally get their act together.

[SunSeeker]

36. What the plaintiff needs is resources. It will be very costly litigating against Trump.

No doubt that is one of the reasons she has not served him yet. Once she serves him, he will bombard her with motions and discovery. It will get very ugly for her. That is why most rape victims don't sue.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. There is no "rape trial" pending.

There is a status hearing for a civil matter in federal court in New York, but the plaintiff has not yet served Trump with a summons and complaint. Until that occurs nothing will happen. Lots of explanation in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028263192 That's not to say that these allegations aren't true, but there are an awful lot of court procedures that have to take place before Trump himself has to appear in court.

[duffyduff]

13. That clears it up.

Furthermore, if it proceeds it will be settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

[SunSeeker]

23. Yes, but there is a rape lawsuit pending. The trial date has not been set yet.

And the plaintiff still has not served Trump yet, but that does not mean she won't or that this is not a "real lawsuit."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. It's not "pending" until the plaintiff gets around to serving a summons and complaint.

[SunSeeker]

31. Not true. Until it is dismissed or judgment entered, it is pending. nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. The action has to be dismissed if the summons and complaint

aren't served within 90 days of filing, with some exceptions (not 120 days, my mistake). Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure says:

(m) Time Limit for Service. If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

[SunSeeker]

35. It hasn’t been dismissed for failure to serve, so it is still pending.

I don’t know why you are so insistent on negating this woman's lawsuit.

[napi21]

7. I used to watch Brian when he first got the 11PM show, but in the last week or so, but

the last few weeks I've tuned out after Lawrence. Brian did a decent job when he was on NBC but after his long time off, he's lost something.

[doc03]

9. Not one word about the Russia conection so far nt

[rockfordfile]

11. Brian Williams is still employed

A hack is still employed by MSNBC. Everybody makes fun of him and are disgusted. Not surprised that that person would just show far right clips.

[Demonaut]

15. yeah, hate on the only broadcasters who show both sides of trump..good luck with that

[BlueStreak]

18. My objection is that he gave this Trump garbage 70% of his time

addressing the Trump hysteria as if it were a real thing. And only in the 29th minute of the show does Williams reluctantly admit that the Trump "Worse than Watergate" story has had no effect on the polling.

[Rex]

24. Sexual assault lawsuit.

I've been told anyone can file on of those by desperate CONs. Trump is toast, he can share a jail cell with Christie.

[lonestarnot]

28. I've always thought of him as asshatish. Never have liked him.

[Divine Discontent]

38. yes, I've always found him 'fake'-ish. my best bud always watched him with his mom, and I would

make a grimace when I'd see him on. Just something about him.

We always watched Rather, so I'd say (this was around '04-05) why not turn it to Rather, knowing they'd yell, lol. At least, at minimum I helped turn them both from GOP to Dems in 2002+! They're both still Dems! Something about Brokaw/Williams always seemed Republican to me, whereas Rather seemed Dem, and later I realized why! Cuz it's true!

[emulatorloo]

55. I always thought of him as a lightweight who loves the sound of his own voice.

Lightweight is my charitable way of saying bubble brain.

[still_one]

29. I haven't watch MSNBS for quite sometime, and this only confirms that it is just another fox wanna

be. Don't forget it was MSNBS that initially reported the "FBI has reported the Hillary email case", LIE, and they proceeded to interview every right winger they could find.

[asiliveandbreathe]

30. Williams is just andrea mitchell at night...the walking deadheads!

No offense to deadheads,,,..As soon as I heard he was given a gig - I planned alternative viewing...

[Dem2]

40. Watch Brian Williams at your own risk

I will never ever watch him or any of the other shows people complain about (Morning Joe, Tweety).

I wish more people would have hard-and-fast rules about not watching certain programs (because we all end up seeing the inevitable threads complaining about said show.)

[katmondoo]

53. I cannot stand Brian Williams

After a really good show by Lawrence O'Donnell I turned him off and went to sleep