Judge rules Trump has to stay quiet and not defend himself in court - Carroll Case

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: WeMustCare

Read this from today. The judge...

Link< br />

the GOP’s own leading presidential primary candidate was in a Manhattan courtroom Thursday where a federal judge said the following before allowing former President Donald Trump to testify:

“Mr. Trump in fact sexually abused Ms. Carroll by forcibly and without her consent inserting his fingers into her vagina. Mr. Trump cannot offer any evidence or make any argument before the jury disputing or undermining those determinations.”

This is insane. It is also crazy how the judge keeps intervening not allowing Trump or his lawyers to respond or ask questions. A judge should not be making objections for the Prosecution either.

If this case was a TV show it would be a comedy.

Don't worry. Judge Kaplan is on the master retribution list.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: WeMustCare

"If These clowns, including Carol, could see what's coming for them next year, they would at least pretend to have some common sense today."

What's that supposed to mean?

They are on the master "retribution" list. Can't make it any plainer, LOL.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

By "prosecutors" you mean the Claimants lawyers. It's not a criminal trial.

The judge is just doing his job.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Also, if the jury threw out the rape why is the judge telling Trump he cannot say ' I didn't do it'

The judge announced him as 'The person who put his fingers in Ms Carrol'.....WTF?

Obviously, judge Kaplan is a sick pervert. When the time comes, we'll learn of his crimes against women (and possibly children). Remember, Democrats ALWAYS accuse you of what they have done, or are doing. It's how stupid operates.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Well, if that's how you roll.......

a reply to: WeMustCare

"Obviously, judge Kaplan is a sick pervert. When the time comes, we'll learn of his crimes against women (and possibly children). Remember, Democrats ALWAYS accuse you of what they have done, or are doing. It's how stupid operates."

At this point I will leave you to your twisted fantasies. Obviously.

a reply to: Threadbarer

A judge has a duty to keep order in his court. If that requires them to narrow what a testimony covers, then so be it. -

Correct. But he cannot 'object' to something lawyer does that is normal. Can you name a trial where the 'depositions' cannot be used? That is nuts. He can sustain an objection from the prosecution or the defense. A judge is like an umpire. He calls balls, strikes and outs. He does not favor one team.


Trump has made it very clear he plans to use this trial to campaign.

He should. Carroll is a lying POS who won't see a dime. You said you wanted Rudy to die broke this person should to except in her life she has done nothing to help anyone. She is living out her fantasy paid for by the Democrats. You know all the people involved do not act stupid to it. How can someone be sued for something that was not proven


The judge made sure to shut him down before he got the opportunity to make a mockery of the court.

A mockery of the court? The judge in this case and others have walked all over the 6th Amendment. A fundamental principle behind the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty

This corrupted judge is showcasing what a politically weaponized justice system really looks like. Same as Adolf Hitler did to the justice system in Germany at the time.

Anyone who supports judges and prosecutors that are doing what the DC judges and prosecutors are doing to Trump, deserve to live in a society that is modelled after WW2 Nazi Germany, because that is identical to what's happening here.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Godwin's law strikes again! LOL!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Godwin's law strikes again! LOL!

Can't have the respondent defending themself, not a chance in a kangaroo court like this one.
Your very good at proving your own ignorance., and self defamation...

a reply to: matafuchs

"Correct. But he cannot 'object' to something lawyer does that is normal. "

But, it wasn't normal?


Innocent until proven guilty?

How many times do you have to be told this is a civil trial?

And the jury has already decided that he is liable, not "guilty".

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Have you not been following what I posted?

I'm done with trying to deny ignorance,.

Have a nice weekend.

p

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: matafuchs

"Correct. But he cannot 'object' to something lawyer does that is normal. "

But, it wasn't normal?


Innocent until proven guilty?

How many times do you have to be told this is a civil trial?

And the jury has already decided that he is liable, not "guilty".

Liable equals guilty and civil or criminal makes no difference, those nomenclatures are irrelevant. Once again, you did it again and came out looking proudly ignorant with an attempt at legaleze word salads.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Wrong. There is a wholly different standard of proof in civil cases from that in criminal cases.

What "legaleze word salads"?

I used plain English with no big words.

Have a great weekend and try not to cry.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I know it is a civil trial. Usually, in the real world, if someone is convicted criminally there is then a civil trial. Not always but if it was rape or a DUI or something violent that is usually the path. Damages.

Here, they chose not to have a criminal trial because they knew they would never get a conviction. For some reason you think we are all ignorant and cannot use basic critical thinking to see this is wrong what is happening.

If they were doing this to your son, or yourself, you would be ok with it?

Try not denying the truth..have a nice weekend.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

There is a wholly different standard of proof in civil cases from that in criminal cases.

Which is why there was no criminal case.

a reply to: matafuchs

One last time.

Defamation is a separate legal remedy and is not dependent on any criminal conviction.

If I had sexually assaulted a woman and then defamed her, I would expect no less.

But I would never do that.

I'm not denying any truth.

I have made some simple observations about the law in response to some ill informed comments.

But I have better things to do this weekend.

Like watching Spurs play Man City.

COYS!

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

If you were CONVICTED of sexual assault. No one was convicted of that. You tried telling us the difference between civil and criminal. How can you be sued for damages for something you were not convicted of? How can you be told you cannot talk about something you were not convicted of.

If they had proof they would have convicted Trump and he would be a registered sex offender.

Enjoy your game...

a reply to: matafuchs

One last time.

There have been countless defamation cases without any criminal convictions.

There are major differences between civil and criminal cases.

In this case, the jury found him liable. In defamation. A civil claim.

If you can't understand this I can't be bothered to try to educate you.

You obviously know better than actual lawyers.

I hope to enjoy the game.

But we will miss Harry Kane and Son is away so could be tricky, but, COYS!

(Come On You Spurs!)

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I state that here.

I know it is a civil trial. Usually, in the real world, if someone is convicted criminally there is then a civil trial. Not always but if it was rape or a DUI or something violent that is usually the path. Damages.

I understand that. A civil case does not need a criminal conviction. However, you do have to prove what caused the damages...right? In a civil case you still need evidence. It is not like someone can just say 'He was mean to me' and then they are awarded money. This is why you have trials.

I do not know better than lawyers however when people talk things out civilly and remove emotion sometimes one or both parties are enlightened.