Said Donald Trump, quoted in "Donald Trump departs Ireland to ‘confront’ accuser in New York case/Mr Trump said he would 'probably attend' the hearing as he spoke to reporters while golfing at his resort outside the village of Doonbeg, Co Clare" (Irish Examiner).
Is he planning to testify? I think his lawyers have already informed the court that he will not testify. The way he's phrased it, it seems perhaps the idea is to sit at the table during closing argument, which might have an impact on the jury.
Ah! Here's this at Yahoo:
Lawyers for the prosecution and defense both rested their case Thursday in the rape and defamation lawsuit brought against former President Donald Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll, but testimony in the case may not yet be over.
Ahem! That's badly written! "[T]he prosecution and defense"?!! It's a civil case. Should say "plaintiff and defendant." I can't believe I need to rely on this for information, but I will assume this fact is correct:
Judge Lewis Kaplan said late Thursday that he would give Trump until 5 p.m. Sunday evening to change his mind about taking the witness stand.... If Trump decides to testify, his lawyers must file a motion to reopen the case “for the sole purpose of testifying,” the judge said. Kaplan clarified that he will not necessarily grant the motion, simply that he would consider it.
In response to questions from the judge, Trump attorney Joe Tacopina said that he had communicated to his client that he had the right to appear in court and testify in the civil case, and that Trump had voluntarily waived that right....
Posts
48 comments:
Althouse: "Ahem! That's badly written! "[T]he prosecution and defense"?!! It's a civil case. Should say "plaintiff and defendant."
Do you really think that was a mistake?
Really?
"Ahem! That's badly written!"
Using "prosecution" is intentional. It's just like their use of "homicide" in reference to the death of the Jackson impersonator, it makes the whole affair look criminal.
Badly written is a feature, not bug.
Most quotable president ever.
And you can't help but read it in Trump's voice...
If the GOP nominates Vivek or Ron, we don't get this drama.
Judge Kaplan seemed to have called Trump’s bluff. Now let’s see if Trump was just shooting off his big mouth again or will testify, or will he just go to the trial and present himself as if that would be significant. So if Trump doesn’t testify he thinks his mere presence at the table of his lawyers will sway the jury? That’s how he will “confront this”? What a narcissist.
“I have to go back for a woman that made a false accusation about me, and I have a judge who is extremely hostile,” Trump continued. “And I’m going to go back, and I’m going to confront this.”
30 years ago? With a novel rhyme and without evidence, a verifiable witch hunt in these progressive liberal... interesting times. That said, I was somewhere, doing something, of which many will allege, and fewer will leverage in special interest.
Ahem! That's badly written! "[T]he prosecution and defense"?!! It's a civil case. Should say "plaintiff and defendant."
Badly written? Oh they want their readers to believe this is a criminal trial.
Then they can begin with the witchcraft that Trump's loss makes him a "felon".
""[T]he prosecution and defense"?!! It's a civil case."
Anther example of Althouse making the obviously correct good-faith point in a bad-faith situation, where a "civil" case serves as yet another step in the ongoing persecution of Trump, perceived and applauded as such by his opponents.
"I have to leave Scotland where I have great properties."
Ever the glosser. Listening to him is as comfortable as watching old Law & Orders.
This is a fine, well-crafted blog post. Your questions about the Yahoo reporting are the right ones, Althouse.
But, uh, I've got a question of my own...
"I have no idea who she is..."
Okay just what the fuck is that all about? Trump infamously claimed he never met E. Jean Carroll. That was a lie. Trump now says he has "no idea who she is." Huh?
I had frankly never heard of E. Jean Carroll before this case (or at least, "Carroll I") was filed. But I sure do know now who she is. Yeah, I have an idea who she is. And if Trump was actually confused about "who she is," someone who looks after Donald Trump's personal needs might say to him, "Sir [it's always 'Sir'], she is the woman whom you met in the 1980's, who claims that you sexually assaulted her in the 1990's, and who is now suing you. Does that help you remember who she is?"
This is an old gripe of mine. Althouse, doing a thoughtful and interesting job of dissecting the language and usage errors of media outlets, sort of systematically overlooks the grossly outrageous language abuses of Trump. Of course it isn't just syntactical problems with Trump. The problem with Trump are his utterly outlandish lies, fabrications and defamatory utterances.
What a relief it will be, when this New York federal court jury finds Trump liable for these causes of action, and we can then refer, forever after, to Trump -- "they're sending rapists" -- as a rapist.
Is he planning to testify? I think his lawyers have already informed the court that he will not testify.
Exactly what is Trump supposed to testify to?
It is impossible to testify to claims that are non specific in nature. She claims rape. Trump says he was never in that room with that woman. Now what?
Please fashion a question from the plantiff directed at Trump, that he could possible "testify" to.
It is difficult to imagine that Trump can get a fair trial with a Democrat judge and a New York jury. If we have reached a point where a decades old, uncorroborated, unreported, factually bizarre claim of rape carries the day, even in a civil case, our legal system is in a lot of trouble.
Trump should not testify. Carroll is lying. This is a Lincoln Project attack.
Just right the check, say fuck you...and walk away. He is right. This is ridiculous.
Trump and MAGA supporters should not expect justice in the new totalitarian America.
There is a bright spot in the scenario that the blog post posits.
The picture is this; Trump sitting silently in a federal courtroom, barred from speaking (after declining to testify) and listening to an absolute blowtorch closing argument by Robbie Kaplan or someone on her team. Everyone on Earth will be able to read accounts (and soon, a transcript) of that argument. And for months and years to come, reporters and political rivals will be able to ask Trump about the contents and the scorching details of that argument. Because Trump will have sat there in court and heard it. Trump's being there and having witnessed the argument will make it an even bigger story than it otherwise might have been.
I sometimes think that Trump's adult life is like a cheapened, dumbed-down facsimile of The Godfather movies. If Trump is thinking that his showing up in the courtroom will be like Frankie Pentangeli's Sicilian brother coming to Frankie's appearance at a Senate hearing (where Frankie then flipped), I think Trump's own movie will be coming to a very different ending.
He's right, of course. This is a put up job by New York leftists. And probably not the last.
Her lawyers could have called him to the stand, since it's a civil case. If they thought he would take the Fifth, they presumably would have done so, since that would make him look bad. This suggests that her lawyers figured that he would testify, and that his testimony would be damaging to her, so they opted not to call him.
If Trump decides to testify, his lawyers must file a motion to reopen the case “for the sole purpose of testifying,” the judge said. Kaplan clarified that he will not necessarily grant the motion, simply that he would consider it.
That makes the judge sound like an asshole. Perhaps that's just the way it's normally done and that's the way courts handle it. But, the trope you would find in a movie where one character said to another (not necessarily in a courtroom situation), "I'll give you a couple of days to change your mind, and if you do, then I'll think about allowing you to do __." You would know that character is the bad one. The bully and they would be saying it to the protagonist that you are meant to cheer for.
This is Trump's life now. They'll be suing him; criminally charging him; making up false accusations he then has to prove are untrue ... for the rest of his life.
It was all so much easier when they could just murder a President, like JFK.
The author of the article has only been out of college for 13 years and "is a reporter at Yahoo, covering domestic extremism, immigration, and breaking news. Before joining Yahoo News, Caitlin covered national news and politics at The Daily Beast. Her work has appeared in Newsweek, The New Republic, and The Atlantic Wire. She’s been featured on CNN, MSNBC, Fusion and SiriusXM Radio."
You can't expect a "journalist" with such limited experience to know the difference between a civil case and a criminal case!
In the deposition, Trump tells a female attorney he wouldn’t be interested in her.
OMG, what a dumbass, besides being incredibly inappropriate and wierd.
Even if your defense is that the plaintiff lacks credibility, if you present no rebutting evidence, particularly a denial, then the jury could quite possibly find against you.
I expect a verdict for the plaintiff.
Wasn't his initial rebuttal something like, "No, she's too ugly"?
: )
I watched a TV report on the outcome of the Ed Sheeran copyright infringement trial, and the TV reporter said Sheeran had been found 'not guilty.' I yelled at the TV that he'd been found 'not liable.'
I'm an old guy, and I find myself having to yell at the TV a lot these days.
OMG, what a dumbass, besides being incredibly inappropriate and wierd.
That is rich coming from the Resident Dullard and weird anti-Trump endless conspiracy theorist.
Some day, they will find something that sticks to Trump. Maybe it will be that he defiled religion by farting in Church. Maybe our own Evil Eddie Haskell (you know who) will come up with the coup de grace.
As Bill Zhang noted, it was much easier (and simpler) just assassinating JFK.
Trump was deposed. Plaintiff was apparently satisfied with his answers, including denials, and used excerpts at trial. Video likely to be released after verdict following media motion this week. P could not force him to testify at trial since no longer NY resident. He not free to use own deposition except to complete incomplete plaintiff designations, and assume no friendly questions by own counsel anyway.
It was a constant topic between judge and defense counsel. Is he coming? Judge will probably repeat rejection of defense proposed charge: he stayed away to avoid crowd problems for the court and public. Probably won't allow claim in closing. Judge set multiple deadlines to decide. Passed. But looks like Judge took happenstance of 3 day break after plaintiff rested to offer defense 1 last chance to bring Trump, subject to plaintiff objection (preparing close), and assume deferred defense resting until Monday. Defense did not ask for another chance. Consistently said he's not testifying.
Can't see him showing up silently for closings/jury charge.
“OMG, what a dumbass, besides being incredibly inappropriate and wierd. [sic]”
You’re transparently obsessed with him Inga. It’s clear you are attracted to him - you hate it, but you are attracted to him.
- Rafe
verdict for the plaintiff pay up...this fella would never testify ,did you see his deposition? Kaplan called him out, slick move .
If the GOP nominates Vivek or Ron, we don't get this drama.
There is no path to 270 for a Republican, no matter who.
"I had frankly never heard of E. Jean Carroll before this case "
Really? Wasn't she the advice columnist for Cosmopolitan Magazine? She gave romance tips and how to maneuver the treacherous dating world. She wasn't able to apply it to her own life, but that's not surprising. Still, Cosmopolitan was THE preeminent authority on such matters, and besides Helen Gurley Brown, E.Jean was the go-to. Single gals, living alone in the big bad city, depended on her timeless wisdom.
I'm looking for her video "How to Shag a Chap" on Youtube right now. That was a classic.
"Ahem! That's badly written! "[T]he prosecution and defense"?!! It's a civil case. Should say "plaintiff and defendant."
Well, bless your heart again, Althouse. Every single story on the left media I have seen has been headlined "Trump Rape Trial" this or that for the last month- just every single one. It has been so pervasive, people in these threads, both pro and con, have described it as a "rape trial" and describing "reasonable doubt" as the standard.
"Most quotable president ever."
Sure, because his oral ejaculations are moronic and self-pitying/serving enough to be comprehensible and appealing to the (effectively) illiterates and non-thinkers who actually think he was a good president or is a good or truthful or honest person.
"Listening to him is as comfortable as watching old Law & Orders."
Nope. The old Law & Orders were good. Listening to him is as tedious as watching the new Law & Orders.
For this particular case, I'ld think that Trump would prefer a Clinton-appointed judge.
There was zero point to Trump testifying. The case was lost the moment it was brought- there is literally no amount of evidence that would ever convince this jury to find for Trump- not even a video of Carroll admitting she was lying do it- this judge would find a reason to exclude it, and even if he didn't, the jury would just ignore it. That is how unfair this process is.
"If the GOP nominates Vivek or Ron, we don't get this drama."
No you don't. You get more Biden.
Judgr Kaplan, now senior, and no relation to P attorney, was appointed by Clinton.
'Sure, because his oral ejaculations are moronic and self-pitying/serving enough to be comprehensible and appealing to the (effectively) illiterates and non-thinkers who actually think he was a good president or is a good or truthful or honest person.'
At least he can string more than three words together in comprehensible sentences, whether you agree with him or not.
You're very high and mighty these days, relegating millions of voters to the 'illiterate' and 'non-thinker' category.
Just because I disagree with people's politics doesn't mean I automatically believe they are stupid.
That would be intolerant and prejudicial...
Blogger DINKY DAU 45 said...
verdict for the plaintiff pay up...this fella would never testify ,did you see his deposition? Kaplan called him out, slick move
DD, you are slobbering, like that New York jury, to finally "get one" on Trump. None of this is related to whatever happened 30 years ago, if anything. This is all about leftist politics in 2023.
This is an old gripe of mine. Althouse, doing a thoughtful and interesting job of dissecting the language and usage errors of media outlets, sort of systematically overlooks the grossly outrageous language abuses of Trump.
Another case of a loud sucking sound coming from "Chuck."
"I'm goin' back to New York City. I do believe I've had enough."
Conspiracy Lunatic Inga: "OMG, what a dumbass, besides being incredibly inappropriate and wierd."
Maynard: "That is rich coming from the Resident Dullard and weird anti-Trump endless conspiracy theorist."
It took Inga a full 2 YEARS to FINALLY say something negative about Joe Biden showering with his own daughter even though Inga NOW claims to have believed the daughter!
And Inga has never criticized Biden for his astonishingly creepy behavior with children, girls, young women and even wives while on camera.
Interestingly, Inga also in the past declared how proud she was of the Hollywood "elites" for calling out Trump during the same award ceremonies in which the Hollywood "elites" gave standing ovations to convicted child drugger and sodomizer Roman Polanski AND Harvey Weinstein.
Its almost like there is a pattern of some sort.....
LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck: "This is an old gripe of mine. Althouse, doing a thoughtful and interesting job of dissecting the language and usage errors of media outlets, sort of systematically overlooks the grossly outrageous language abuses of Trump."
Oh my goodness!
Don't look now but the Althouse Eddie-Haskell-ish Blog Karen would ONCE AFAIN like to have a word with the Blog Manager!
Its once again becoming a daily occurrence without so much as the bizarre over-the-top creepy and greasy suckup routine first.
Yancey Ward said...
"That is how unfair this process is."
Boo friggin hoo. Its so unfair.
“Interestingly, Inga also in the past declared how proud she was of the Hollywood "elites" for calling out Trump during the same award ceremonies in which the Hollywood "elites" gave standing ovations to convicted child drugger and sodomizer Roman Polanski AND Harvey Weinstein.”
The Moscow Trained Propagandist just cannot stop lying, but that IS what a Moscow Trained Propagandist would do.
Dave Begley said "If the GOP nominates Vivek or Ron, we don't get this drama."
Fuck that. That's what they said about John McCain. That's what they said about Mitt Romney. They don't get to tell me who my candidate should be any more.
We're at the end of the card game. We either win it all or lose it all on the next deal. The chips on both sides are all in.
Either the Dems take the Trump dildo for 4 years, or they fight a civil war. Those are the only two possible outcomes.
"You're very high and mighty these days, relegating millions of voters to the 'illiterate' and 'non-thinker' category.
"Just because I disagree with people's politics doesn't mean I automatically believe they are stupid."
I normally wouldn't either...but when the object of adoration is Donald Trump, I can think of no other explanation.
Russia Collusion Truther: "The Moscow Trained Propagandist just cannot stop lying, but that IS what a Moscow Trained Propagandist would do."
You can't wish away all your idiotic and embarrassing conspiracies over the last 7 years by attempting to transfer your lunatic Trump Russia Collusion and Hoax Dossier into a new and hilariously bizarre Moscow-based hoax.
But as with LLR-democratical and Violent Homosexual Rage Rape Fantasist Chuck, you just gotta be you.
Post a Comment