Lex et Scientia

@ChevinDaniels @hkyshawn @AFpost Because you’re moron, and he never wanted to lock her up. What the fuck?

@hkyshawn @AFpost If there was documented evidence why wasn’t she arrested and charged? Either there wasn’t evidence or Trump lied about wanting to charge her. Meanwhile he started a shitcoin and rugged it his first week of his second term lol.

Democratic Illinois Governor JB Pritzker speaks about a Democratic "Project 2029" in which members of the current Trump administration, along with federal agents, will be criminally and civilly prosecuted. "Whatever it is that we can do. It may be that you cannot criminally prosecute somebody, but you can go after them civilly." Follow: @AFpost

@KaceeRAllen @AFpost Stupid take.

@AFpost The Trump administration didn’t help themselves by covering up the Epstein files and their illegal wars with Iran.

@PrinzOPrinciple @cturnbull1968 Idiot.

@cturnbull1968 + it disproportionately affects poor people. Voter fraud isnt even a real thing in the US. It has been proven in only a few cases according to THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION of all groups.

If every American voter, without a passport, decided to get a passport, as their primary form of ID, it would take 5 years to fill the requests. But Republicans want this to be in effect before the midterms. They know this, of course, so it’s obvious voter suppression.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 The only way we can help Rupert Lowe is get him trending, so we all need to be following each other, reposting, everything he posts God bless him⚠️ Follow each other and get this movement going this is our last chance, dont waste it⚠️ 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

@DeezNutsIYKYK @Trauma_Sessions @America1stLegal Blinken, Garland, et al.?

@Trauma_Sessions @America1stLegal Homosexuals and nigs

/1🚨EXPOSED — Biden CIA’s War on Motherhood: Newly released CIA documents reveal the Biden Administration identified “motherhood” and “homemaking” as indicators of “white racially and ethnically motivated violent extremism” (REMVE).

@Jules31415 @America1stLegal ?

@America1stLegal Another conspiracy theory bites the dust.

🚨SMOKING GUN🚨 AFL has obtained new documents CONCLUSIVELY PROVING that AG Merrick Garland’s infamous Oct. 4 memo labeling concerned parents at school board meetings “domestic terrorists” was POLITICALLY ORCHESTRATED and DRIVEN by the Biden White House. “WH has been in touch.”

@argentcorvus @timburchett @SecWar Or at least someone with one wife and five children who delivered babies for a living.

@timburchett @SecWar Rename it the USNS Ron Paul. Name it for someone that did something of actual value.

I am preparing a letter asking @SecWar to remove the name of Cesar Chavez from the USNS CESAR CHAVEZ.

@suzost @timburchett @seanmdav @SecWar What the fuck?

@timburchett @seanmdav @SecWar Good we shouldn't celebrate Communist Dictators.

@JoeDienstag @timburchett @JackPosobiec @SecWar Who’s the communist?

@timburchett @JackPosobiec @SecWar Why in the hell do we have a US Navy vessel named after a Communist in the first place?

@ArxangelMixael @timburchett @SecWar Use numbers.

@timburchett @SecWar So It'll Just Be United States Navy Ship? That'll get redundant

@FJHalle @timburchett @SecWar ????

@timburchett @SecWar Thank you very much. Communist pedophile murderers should not be celebrated by the United States.

@ArmyCastle1 @timburchett @SecWar Not unconstitutional, but perhaps unfair.

@timburchett @SecWar So we’re convicting a guy who was accused and isn’t alive to defend himself. That’s very unconstitutional of you.

@startraveler82 @sleepin_volk @timburchett @SecWar Thoughts aren’t feelings.

@sleepin_volk @timburchett @SecWar Like you say in your motto in your profile: “Fuck your feelings”

@jenfeb @timburchett @SecWar Retard. The accusations are extremely different. Wtf?

@timburchett @SecWar Why the outrage over Chavez and not Trump? Exact same accusations.

@AyeAyeAsk @timburchett @SecWar The judge excluded evidence of her false rape claims against other men. Sorry, that’s cheating like a motherfucker when the judge allowed identical evidence in the other direction. And the judge’s insane defamatory lies after the trial tell you he was a biased motherfucker.

@timburchett @SecWar Kind of pointless since we still have kwanza and celebrate MLK. If you want to do something useful, think about replacing The New Colossus with Liberty Enlightening the World. 1) more patriotic 2) more accurate to original purpose of statue of liberty 3) it'd piss of Mamdani

@realChrisRice @RobertBeeley8 @Mrinemomforever @timburchett @SecWar @grok Stupid. Her testimony was the only evidence, but it was incredible as a matter of law. You and Grok can go fuck each other. No appellate court anywhere would uphold this verdict.

From Grok Hey Grok do a fact check on this. There was no credible evidence at all. If it were a civil trial he would have met the summary judgment standard. If the burden of proof had required Trump to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, he would have won. this claim is incorrect on multiple levels — both legally and factually. The jury’s verdict finding Donald Trump liable for sexual abuse (and defamation) in the E. Jean Carroll case was not based on “no credible evidence at all,” and the case would not have survived summary judgment if the evidence had been as weak as claimed. Multiple courts (including appeals) have reviewed the record and found the evidence sufficient under the applicable standards. Here’s a clear fact-check: 1. There was credible evidence — and the jury found it sufficient under the civil standard The civil trial used the preponderance of the evidence standard (“more likely than not” — just over 50% probability). The jury heard: • Carroll’s detailed testimony about the 1995/1996 incident (forcible digital penetration in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room). • Two prompt “outcry” witnesses: Lisa Birnbach (called minutes later, described Carroll as hyperventilating and recounting the assault) and Carol Martin (told 1–2 days later, Carroll was upset and scared). • Pattern evidence from two other women (Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff) who testified to similar sudden, non-consensual assaults by Trump — admissible under federal rules for sexual assault cases. • The Access Hollywood tape (“grab them by the pussy”) as context for Trump’s own words. • Supporting details like a 1987 photo of Carroll with Trump and testimony from former Bergdorf employees confirming the store’s layout made her account plausible (no cameras on that floor, quiet Thursdays possible). The jury unanimously found sexual abuse proven (but not “rape” under New York’s narrow penal law definition requiring penile penetration). Appeals courts (2nd Circuit in Dec 2024, full court denial of rehearing in 2025) upheld this, calling the evidence probative and the verdict fair. No court has said there was “no credible evidence.” 2. Summary judgment standard — the case would not have met it for dismissal Summary judgment is granted only if there’s no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant (here, Trump seeking dismissal) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court views evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant (Carroll). Judge Kaplan denied Trump’s motions for summary judgment (and partial ones). He found genuine disputes of fact — Carroll’s testimony created triable issues on whether the abuse occurred, and corroboration (outcry witnesses, pattern evidence) made it improper to decide on papers without a trial. If evidence were truly “no credible evidence at all,” the case would have been dismissed pre-trial. It wasn’t — it went to a jury because credible, disputed facts existed. (Trump’s team also lost post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or new trial; those were denied too.) 3. “If the burden had required Trump to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, he would have won” This flips the burden incorrectly and misunderstands both standards: • In civil cases (this one), the plaintiff (Carroll) bears the burden to prove her claims by preponderance. Trump doesn’t prove “innocence” — he defends by rebutting or denying. • In criminal cases, the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the defendant has no burden to prove innocence (though they can present defenses). • Switching to “beyond a reasonable doubt” would make it harder for Carroll to win, not easier for Trump to “prove innocence.” The claim seems to suggest Trump would prevail under a higher standard because the evidence wasn’t overwhelming — but that’s why civil cases exist for old claims where criminal prosecution is time-barred (NY’s statute expired long ago; the Adult Survivors Act allowed only

@TruthPrevails35 @Edmond37311703 @russ62960450 @BreitbartNews @BULLSFCMN @peterschweizer PO Boxes don’t work.

@Edmond37311703 @lexetscientia @russ62960450 @BreitbartNews @BULLSFCMN @peterschweizer Exactly!

.@PeterSchweizer: "In China alone, we have identified more than 1,000 birth tourism companies that are almost exclusively focused on the United States." "You are looking at roughly 1 million 'U.S. citizens' who are being raised in the People's Republic of China today."

@TruthPrevails35 @Edmond37311703 @russ62960450 @BreitbartNews @BULLSFCMN @peterschweizer That’s an unrelated problem.

@lexetscientia @Edmond37311703 @russ62960450 @BreitbartNews @BULLSFCMN @peterschweizer Well, then look at Nick Shirley's report how many voters are registered at a particular Private Mail Box provider in, I believe in CA!

@TruthPrevails35 @FocusedJustice @Edmond37311703 @russ62960450 @BreitbartNews @BULLSFCMN @peterschweizer I stated a fact. You’re stating unrelated (and extremely troubling) facts.

Boy, this is a joke, right? It is happening already. Laws are circumvented and nobody checks on it. Why do you think that Democrats implemented Motor Voter Registrstions, I believe, during the Clinton Administration? How about the same day voter registrations in predominantely Blue States? Wake-up, even though it maybe too late!

@realChrisRice @Mrinemomforever @timburchett @SecWar Dumb. The judge cheated like a motherfucker.

From Grok… Hey Grok, how would you reply to this? Because the judge cheated like a motherfucker. I’d reply calmly but firmly, sticking to verifiable facts from the court record — no emotion, no insults back. Something like this: “Because the judge cheated like a motherfucker? That’s a heavy claim, but the record doesn’t support it. Judge Lewis Kaplan (a Reagan appointee, by the way) presided over a federal civil trial where both sides presented evidence, cross-examined witnesses, and argued rulings. Trump’s team challenged several of Kaplan’s evidentiary decisions (like admitting the Access Hollywood tape and testimony from two other women alleging similar misconduct), calling them unfair or biased. Those exact arguments went up on appeal — twice. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit upheld the $5 million verdict in December 2024, explicitly finding no abuse of discretion in Kaplan’s rulings. The full 2nd Circuit denied rehearing in June 2025. No appellate judge — not even any dissents — accused Kaplan of ‘cheating,’ misconduct, or rigging the trial. There was one brief post-trial letter from Trump’s lawyer in early 2024 alleging a vague ‘conflict’ because Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan (no relation) once worked at the same big firm decades earlier in different roles. Roberta Kaplan called it baseless and mischaracterized; the judge didn’t recuse, and appeals courts never treated it as grounds to reverse. No evidence of actual bias or improper conduct emerged. Trump’s Supreme Court petition (filed November 2025) repeats the same evidentiary complaints about Kaplan — it’s scheduled for the justices’ conference tomorrow (March 20, 2026), after multiple reschedulings. If there were real proof of a judge ‘cheating,’ that would be raised there with evidence, not just assertions. So far, every reviewing court has found the trial fair under the rules. Calling it ‘cheating’ without specifics or proof is just venting frustration with the outcome. The system reviewed it multiple times and kept the verdict standing. If new facts come out, great — but right now, the courts say otherwise.” That keeps it factual, addresses the accusation head-on, and invites evidence if they have any, without escalating.