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

originally posted by: spacedoubt

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: spacedoubt

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: spacedoubt
Pfft
Trumpchange.
MagaLardo in Florida is worth 40 50 Zillion.

Some paint, new carpet to remove the Tapioca stains.
Or
He can fleece his donors to foot the bill, again.

He deserves this. At least one woman was brave enough to come forward.
Despite the typical victim shaming from him and his cult followers.

Great photo of a crying baby.
Are you saying that a woman that was raped and sexually assaulted is a crybaby?

Or is this an analogy of someone who was just handed a big big bill simply because they could not keep their mouth shut about the woman he raped and assaulted?

Either way, sycophants will be on some donation website tonight, to support raping and assaulting women. It’s a given.

Nope that’s you crying over Orange Man Bad…….for the 10,000th time.

Ok. I get it. You think I’m crying that Trump was found liable, and has to pay 10s of millions to a woman he assaulted physically and verbally.

Evidence please?

a reply to: JinMI

The Appeal Awaits,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Watch this with an open mind.



I'd have her as my lawyer any day.

a reply to: matafuchs

Pretty speeches don't make a good lawyer. She was way out of her depth in this case. It was very clear that this was the first time she was lead counsel on a trial case. She had to be guided by the judge through a number of things that even law school students would know.

As I've said previously, she's apparently a good paper lawyer. But those skills don't translate to a courtroom.

originally posted by: matafuchs
Watch this with an open mind.

I'd have her as my lawyer any day.

I guess you've never had the need for a proper lawyer. She isn't it, unless you just want optics.

He’s still going to be president.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: matafuchs

Pretty speeches don't make a good lawyer. She was way out of her depth in this case. It was very clear that this was the first time she was lead counsel on a trial case. She had to be guided by the judge through a number of things that even law school students would know.

As I've said previously, she's apparently a good paper lawyer. But those skills don't translate to a courtroom.

Yea I was just reading how many times the Judge had to admonish and school her and maybe she was just following Donald's orders as to what he wanted her to push forward instead of her using her own legal expertise. If she uses the same courtroom legal tactics at the appeals court you can be assured the case will once again be lost.

I was also looking over the N.Y. appeal judges and most of them look well seasoned to me.

a reply to: quintessentone

I would suggest that having DJT as a client would be an absolute nightmare.

He doesn't strike me as someone who would listen to advice and seems to just resort to theatrical posturing to play to his supporters. Sadly, seems it works.

a reply to: RazorV66

Nope that’s you crying over Orange Man Bad…….for the 10,000th time.

Orange man is bad

Bad, bad Orange Man!

For the love of god - lets get him an orange jumpsuit to match and lock him up already

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I don't think he is actually a "bad" man. I have several words to describe him but they aren't allowed by T&Cs.

So I'd go with "Narcissistic Personality Disorder".

And then some.

a reply to: matafuchs

"I'd have her as my lawyer any day.".

Fair enough.

Good luck with that..

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

A star for you

But I'm going to stick with bad

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

OK.

Let's just say, I wouldn't call him a "good" man.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Did you sit in on the trial or just hear all this on MSNBC? It is amazing how you want to say the judge had to guide her through things but you do not want to talk about the judge and how he told her what questions she had to ask.

You all are funny. I have a great lawyer. An old ugly Jewish guy.

a reply to: matafuchs

Did you?

I did talk about that.

Judges do tend to point out the law and procedure to lawyers who clearly know nothing about either.

It's kind of what they do.

Let's see how any appeal fares?

I'm guessing you will be whining about that, too.

But, let's see?

a reply to: matafuchs

Mayo ask, why do you need a great lawyer? What are you accused of?

I have never had any need of a lawyer.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

No. Not point out. Tell a lawyer what they can and cannot say. Making them exclude things that would exonerate a client make a jury feel much different about the case.

No one is whining. It is called discussion. Why the BS jabs?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Nothing. He is an old family friend if we need him. He is a criminal attorney. I also have a civil attorney I went to high school with if I needed. I also have a probate attorney whose firms has assisted my family for over 70 years.

It is smart to have a lawyer because you never know what could happen in life and when you might need one. This should be common sense.

a reply to: matafuchs

There are rules about what can and cannot be presented as evidence.

The jury had already found him liable.

Did he appeal that? No. Why do you think that was?

What "bs jibes"?

No one is whining?

Yes they are.


I have tried to have a discussion, all I get is belligerent rhetoric.

And hate.

Let's see how any appeal fares? I'm guessing you will be whining about that, too.

This is a BS jab. No need to say anyone is whining.

You ask about the appeal? It happened. Two days after the initial verdict. This was the ruling.

On July 19, Judge Kaplan affirmed that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common meaning of the word[c] and ruled against altering the award amount

He affirmed he raped her with no evidence when the jury actually said...

the jury delivered a verdict that first stated that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her, and next stated that Carroll did prove that Trump had sexually abused her,

So, tell me how any of this is fair.

Then, when Trump went after them for defamation the same judge threw it out even though Carroll called him a rapist in a CNN interview.

particularly when she told CNN "yes he did" rape her in response to a question about the jury not finding him liable for that offense

If someone went on CNN and said you raped them...wouldn't you think you could file a suit? He was then told in the second case he could not mention any of that even though it is why the case was filed...for what he said! However...

Carroll's lawyer asked Judge Kaplan to ensure that if Trump testified, Trump first be required to tell the jury that he would keep his comments to the matter at hand and not make barred arguments, saying "his recent statements and behavior [e.g. in his New York business trial] strongly suggest that he will seek to sow chaos".[179] Carroll's lawyer also asked that Trump be required to admit he sexually abused Carroll and disparaged her with actual malice.

13 days after the initial verdict they filed again. So, Carrolls attorneys actually filed another case while Trump was appealing.

But the media has only reported his lawyer is inept, Trump pouted through the whole thing and that he sexually assaulted her. I can understand why someone believe one side.