१७ जानेवारी, २०२४
"Politics seeped into the courtroom as the judge asked whether potential jurors had voted in recent presidential elections.... Had they attended Mr. Trump’s rallies?"
"Had they contributed to the campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Joseph R. Biden Jr.? Or of Mr. Trump?
Jurors were asked if they belonged to fringe groups like QAnon, Antifa, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. None answered yes. When Judge Kaplan asked if anyone thought that Mr. Trump was being treated unfairly by the court system, at least a couple of jurors said yes and for an instant, Mr. Trump half-raised his hand, seemingly more a reflex than an act of defiance...."
Note the scope of this trial: "The judge has said that Mr. Trump may not dispute in court Ms. Carroll’s version of the events that occurred at Bergdorf’s — as he frequently does in posts on his Truth Social website, on the campaign trail and recently, in a news conference in Manhattan."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
६३ टिप्पण्या:
Was Carroll's version affirmed in every detail by the trial court? Or did the court merely agree that she was raped? Not being able to dispute any part of her story seems like a violation of Trump's rights.
Will we get to see how the jurors answered these questions? Didn’t think so…
Politics didn’t ‘seep’ into the courtroom it was blasted in with a fire hose…
"The judge has said that Mr. Trump may not dispute in court Ms. Carroll’s version of the events that occurred at Bergdorf’s..."
Collateral estoppel ("issue preclusion") is essentially a face-saving doctrine for the legal system.
"The judge has said that Mr. Trump may not dispute in court Ms. Carroll’s version of the events"
Equal justice under law.
If Trump can't dispute the Carroll Narrative, what issue of fact remains to be tried? Whether or not Trump said what he said about what she said? And BTW the jury in her case only gave her a win on the "sexual assault" claim, not on the "rape" claim. So if Trump is going around saying "I didn't rape her, the jury agrees," and "Carroll lies when she said I raped her," what exactly is actionable?
I know, I know: this is lawfare, not law, so it is OK to be caught in a hall of mirrors.
>Note the scope of this trial: "The judge has said that Mr. Trump may not dispute in court Ms. Carroll’s version of the events that occurred at Bergdorf’s<
Because, you know, allowing Trump to defend himself is so out of vogue in these Democrat/Trump kangaroo courts.
The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established” ~ Judge Lewis Kaplan
This quote should be on billboards and TV ads in every battleground state.
Again- I read about 'QAnon' from a news source coming out of New York. I have never- not once- heard anyone in any circles I am with, anywhere in the country, mention 'QAnon'. I read about it only from left-authored articles or from leftists on TV. Or from others reading those leftist comments on the air.
I'm beginning to believe there is no tooth fairy.
The legal system may never recover from this misuse in politics.
Equal justice under law.
Political congruence ("=") under principals, not principles, in the fashion of witch hunts, albinophobia, human rites, etc.
Can he dispute when they happened?
So the democrat party media declares him guilty and the democrat party judge declares that he cannot defend himself... Democrat/Communist Party USA at work "saving our democracy".
It does strike me as grossly unfair that Carroll can accuse Trump of being a rapist, but it's actionable for Trump to call her a liar. It also seems grossly unfair that some media accounts I've read now state that Trump is a proven rapist....In order to work the justice system has to be considered fair by most people. These cases against Trump are flagrantly unfair and are themselves far more subversive of the justice system than Trump's railing against them.
This whole business is an embarrassment to New York and it's legal system.
It is defamatory to deny an unreported allegation of rape 20 years ago? The trial jury, as I recall did not even conclude she was raped.
No wonder Trump is mean. The lawfare is shocking.
After Kavanaugh, the campus travesties, and this, it is foolish to believe that Democrat women have any scruples. (Yes, I am making assumptions about coeds.)
From the article...
"Jurors were asked if they belonged to fringe groups like QAnon, Antifa, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers."
How fringe-y are these groups exactly? Hard data is difficult to come by. Once source claims about 6,000 Proud Boy members. Another said there were 3,300 Oath Keepers in Texas alone. The New York Times had an article saying QAnon was as popular as "some major religions". And Antifa is probably closer to the QAnon numbers than the others.
The National Conference of State Trial Judges (NCSTJ) has about 4,000 members. Maybe they should be included on the list of fringe groups to be asked about.
Disclaimer: I am not a fan of any of these groups.
What if Trump is under oath, and asked a question, the true answer to which would contradict something he is not permitted to dispute? (Is everyone in the court forbidden to ask such questions?)
People like this judge self identify as legitimate targets of retribution.
Libs are fascist terrorists in word, deed, and belief. Treat them accordingly.
So he may not defend himself. Well, this appears to be a travesty of any semblance or resemblance to justice.
He would be better off getting a fair trial in russia I expect.
The court didn’t even find for rape. That’s the most awesome part of this horrific collection of traitors.
" Jurors were asked if they belonged to fringe groups like QAnon, Antifa, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
Or believed the NYT?
So, they all answered "no" to the question of whether or not they voted in recent elections?
E. Jean Carrol testified Trump "shattered her reputation".
This is a woman who went on Anderson Cooper and claimed rape is "sexy", and named her cat "vagina". She's a lying nutcase.
What horseshit indeed.
Her account of events is 100% unbelievable and full of holes.
The judge never asked the jurors if they had extreme maga relatives in Iowa?
That judge sounds like a Trump supporter, no doubt in my mind.
Ahh brings back an old man's memories:
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party"
How can this be? There has been no appeal decision on the original verdict!!
If I was on the appellate court, I'd reverse and dismiss. Trump was denied due process with a special law that eliminated the statute of limitations.
What a joke.
So-called elite lawyers and judges (NY and CO) have exposed themselves for the partisan hacks they are. No rule of law for conservatives. No cruel neutrality.
And how did this case get moved right up for another jury trial? Mighty quick.
"The judge has said that Mr. Trump may not dispute in court Ms. Carroll’s version of the events that occurred at Bergdorf’s ...".
Which events is he talking about? When did they occur?
'Jurors were asked if they belonged to fringe groups like QAnon, Antifa, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.'
What about BLM?
Btw, QAnon is not a group to be joined...
Ah, yes, the utterly ridiculous tale of events with no evidence other than her own word is the "facts." The fact that she is a weirdo with strange sexual fetishes that waited 20 years to make her accusation would seem to preclude the idea that she had any reputation to defend, but oh well.
I think the lesson here is the court system in New York is irrevocably broken. Just another nail in the coffin of our trust in institutions.
'The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established” ~ Judge Lewis Kaplan'
Now do Joe 'Fingers' Biden and Bill 'Maybe you should put some ice on that' Clinton.
You really are a moron.
It would seem that whether you defamed someone by saying that he lied would depend upon whether he was, in fact, lying. Not on what some man in a black dress said.
In many ways, this is why people like Trump have a Michael Cohen to intercept these cases and give them a 6 figure check to go away rather than face a 7 to 9 figure court case that is a crap shoot with a judge and or jury. For the small price paid, the reputation damage from Stormy Daniel’s and her lawyer became their own reputation. On the other hand, E. Jean Carroll, who I consider scum of the earth simply reading what she has written or said in public, stands to get a big pay day and become a darling in her social circles that already despises Trump.
I don’t like it, but what Trump is doing in this case, even if I accept his righteous anger and innocence (and I do), will just hurt him personally, financially, and politically. In the meantime, no new facts will be developed that will go Trump’s way. Instead, Carroll’s tale of some event that happened decades ago during a season she can’t even recall will be treated as a legally proven fact.
Maybe Trump isn't doing a pivot he's doing a Euro step. He keeps the base happy with his crazy stuff while he moves to the left and becomes a globalist to rope in the independence in the middle
So you are required to "admit" to committing a crime if you are found guilty of that crime? How can that be true?
Blogger Bitch wrote:
The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established” ~ Judge Lewis Kaplan
This quote should be on billboards and TV ads in every battleground state.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Despite a lack of evidence and obvious TDS-based lawfare: FUCK. THESE. “PEOPLE”.
Blogger ga6 said...
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party"
Yup, as asked by the Democrat House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. Which was itself, an unAmerican Activity for 30+ years.
Well, you brush your hair and you dress real pretty
You've got a date with the Un-American Committee;
You take the stand and they swear you in,
Old Man Wood [D-Georgia-JRH] is wearing a grin --
He thinks he's got you- He's got a short memory
Can't recall what happened in Detroit.
"Are you now or have you ever been,
Were you ever sympathetic or interested in?
When did you start, how long did it last,
Tell us all about your interesting past --
Answer yes or no!"
Talking Unamerican Blues by Pete Seeger and the Hooteneers
https://youtu.be/uhAAIgWt-CY?si=i6ZgLxLNm4K_duj_
John Henry
Can you defame someone truthfully? For example, if PEDJT points out some of her wierdnesses "Rape is sexy" or a dog named Vagina is that legally defamation?
If he says truthfully "I was found innocent of rape" is that defamation?
If she goes around saying that he raped her is she defaming him? Given the finding of innocence rape by the court
I understand that since his name is Trump it changes the answers but I am wondering normally.
And never forget, if they can do it to him, they can do it to you, me or anyone.
Fight the fucking fascists.
John Henry
On the other hand... Hunter's gun...
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.82797/gov.uscourts.ded.82797.68.0.pdf
Had white powder on it! Drop the charges!
"The judge has said that Mr. Trump may not dispute in court Ms. Carroll’s version of the events that occurred at Bergdorf’s..."
For centuries, at least since the Popish Plot case, the applicable principle against charges of defamation or libel is truth. If I'm demonstrably a liar, I unlikely to successfully prosecute you for calling me a liar. But here we have a situation created by a corrupt jury abetted by an incompetent judge of the vague fantasy of a delusional woman has been elevated to the status of unassailable fact. In effect, the Rape of the Bergdorf Woman is now sacred dogma. To deny or to doubt it is heresy punishable by whatever penalty is required to destroy the heretic.
If Trump can be legally punished for a rape never reported to the police, never witnessed by anyone yet committed in a department store during regular business hours on a day, month, and year never specified, how can anyone mount a defense against any charge?
Clinton appointed judge threatened to throw Trump out of the courtroom. Trump responded, "I would love that".
Judge said "I know you would".
It's nice to see someone fight back. There are already politics polluting and corrupting the American justice system...and it's the judges and the prosecutors. This is a politically motivated set up; funded by wealthy Trump haters.
Hypocritical and ironic this judge is interested if the jury has political opinions of affiliations.
The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established” ~ Judge Lewis Kaplan
This quote should be on billboards and TV ads in every battleground state.
Might as well put up some billboards next to those that state Rich raped Ms. Carroll since there's just as much evidence for that claim.
She doesn't want him talking about her so she files another case.
This is the case where she couldn't remember the year or month that "horrible trauma" occured, there was no evidence nor witnesses, but her testimony was considered absolutely reliable and considered mentally sound by a completely prejudiced and politically motivated jury.
This could be the straw that completely destroys any lingering respect for our justice system.
Might as well narrow down the jury pool by asking who here wants to see Trump lose this case.
I still find it odd that someone can accuse you of a "he said/she said" crime and if you claim that you're innocent that you're guilty of defamation.
Even if you're found guilty of that crime, that doesn't mean that there is no possibility that you're still innocent.
"I still find it odd that someone can accuse you of a "he said/she said" crime and if you claim that you're innocent that you're guilty of defamation."
If you claim you're innocent, you're accusing them of defamation. It goes both ways.
Rich said...
The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established” ~ Judge Lewis Kaplan
This quote should be on billboards and TV ads in every battleground state.
*************
Now do O.J. Simpson
Ann Althouse said...
"I still find it odd that someone can accuse you of a "he said/she said" crime and if you claim that you're innocent that you're guilty of defamation."
If you claim you're innocent, you're accusing them of defamation. It goes both ways.
************
If "it goes both ways", we all should be familiar with hundreds, nay thousqnds of defamation cases where a perp gets off on a technicality and then sues his accuser for defamation.
So....is the case here typical?
I'm surprised that a law prof wouldn't also see that claiming "I didn't do it" could ALSO infer that "you are mistaken to claim I did."
Is a statement that "you are wrong" per se defamatory????
Only the naive believe the justice system provides the truth or justice. It only provides the official answer.
The Democrats have somehow inserted all of us into the movie "Brazil". No popcorn. No Milk Duds. It's real.
The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established” ~ Judge Lewis Kaplan
This quote should be on billboards and TV ads in every battleground state.
That would pretty much guarantee he would win every one of them. Hell, put it on billboards in every state and we'd be looking at a 1980s-style blowout for the GOP.
It seems to me that if you accuse someone of saying something about you that is entirely untrue, you are not in fact calling him or her (her, in this case) a liar. You're saying that she is either a liar, a fool, mentally ill, or some combination of those three things.
In this case, the most charitable interpretation is that the woman is half-crazy (vividly imagining that something happened to her long ago that in fact never happened) and half-stupid (thinking a 30-year-old 'memory' can be relied on). Have I just defamed E. Jean Carroll? I am not a lawyer, but I don't think so. I certainly haven't called her a liar.
(Note: I could have written "IANAL" for "I am not a lawyer", but I can't see those letters in that order without thinking of a bumper sticker with one non-letter symbol in it: "I♥ANAL".)
I'm still at a loss here. How can anything be "conclusively proven" if they can't even PROVE THE YEAR that this thing occurred?
Show me a single other case prior to Trump vs Lunatic Lady where a man was sued for libel or slander for denying a rape accusation- just a single case.
If you claim you're innocent, you're accusing them of defamation. It goes both ways.
I see the one way in ‘both ways’, the one where Trump bad…what’s the other way in ‘both ways’ that makes this situation egalitarian?
Verdict first, trial second.
At least there is a "Carroll" in the case.
The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established” ~ Judge Lewis Kaplan
"Conclusively" is doing a lot of work there. Countless courts have established that countless defendants have murdered people. Some of those defendants have been conclusively exonerated.
Just to pile on, does a civil defendant expose himself to defamation charges by his accuser if during his trial (in and out of court) he claims he's innocent, and that his accuser has the wrong guy?
Or, what if the defendant claims "she's wrong, I didn't do it" while his case is on appeal, she sues, and then the Appeals Court reverses?
Does HE get to sue HER in such a situation? It's one thing for O.J. having been found not guilty of murder in a criminal case, and then successfully sued civilly for wrongful death by Nicole Simpson's parents, since the standard of proof is lower in the latter situation.
But we're only talking about only a civil action here, so there's no antecedent criminal case.
Ms. Althouse, I think you're "full of it" here. You have inserted yourself into this topic by making a blanket assertion you will not back up.
As Yancey Ward asks: Where is the case law to support your position?
"The judge has said that Mr. Trump may not dispute in court Ms. Carroll’s version of the events that occurred at Bergdorf’s
The judge can go fuck himself.
And Trump should violate that order repeatedly on the stand. Perhaps by saying "the judge has ordered that I'm not allowed to tell the jury that she's a fraud and a liar, and I'm not allowed to point out that someone who was actually raped wouldn't go on teh stand and say she can't at all remember when it actually happened. A lie she told because since if she provided dates, I could prove she was lying"
Rich said...
The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused — indeed, raped — Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established” ~ Judge Lewis Kaplan
This quote should be on billboards and TV ads in every battleground state.
No it hasn't. So what we have here is a "judge" who's an obvious partisan liar.
Ann Althouse said...
"I still find it odd that someone can accuse you of a "he said/she said" crime and if you claim that you're innocent that you're guilty of defamation."
If you claim you're innocent, you're accusing them of defamation. It goes both ways.
1: Not true. I can claim that you honestly believe your claim, but you're wrong.
2: If Trump had sued her for her obvious defamation ("Trump raping me is seared, seared into my memory!" "When did it happen? "Oh, I can't tell you teh day, week, or month when it happened, and neither can anyone who I talked to about it" "That's because you're a lying sack of shit"), then a counter-suit might have been reasonable.
but suing him for saying he's innocent? GFY
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा