If you defame someone, lose in court, then defame them in exactly the same way afterword, does the plaintiff have to re-litigate the whole case, or can they argue for some sort of summary judgment based on the argument that the facts of the case have already been decided?
And Senator Graham has weighed in, saying it’s the fault of “the New York legal system,” saying it was “off the rails when it comes to Donald Trump.”
Umm Lindsey, you might want to check the style of cause for the court system…
Maybe the Democrats could do this commercial in the light of yesterday’s judgement. They could use the scene from Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure where Genghis Khan is sexually battering someone and gets kidnapped by Bill and Ted. The narrator could say something like “You wouldn’t vote this guy, would you? Bleep no!!!”
I predict that, no matter what they ask him, he’ll brush it aside to concentrate on his grievances. I’ll just let the MeidasTouch guys sum it up for me.
How soon before the Trump ads proclaiming, “They tried to frame me, but the jury confirmed that Carroll is a liar, she accused me of a rape that never happened, oh, but in a completely unrelated incident, I am asking for $5 million in additional donations - better make it $6 million; that corrupt Biden and his Senate henchmen probably want anything I received taxed - to help get America back on track”?
Superb!
I find that if I mute the sound and turn on closed captioning I can watch for short stretches before the bile starts to rise
Will people be allowed to just stand up and ask questions, or will they have to write them down for a moderator to read (or not read, as the case may be)?
I almost forgot about his New Hampshire “town hall” tonight - which is more likely:
- He no-shows;
- He walks out the minute somebody brings up the lawsuit;
- If somebody does bring it up, he really does say that she lied when she accused him of rape?
If it’s on early enough for me, and if Trump actually does it, I’ll listen on CNN’s Sirius XM channel. God, I’ll be drunk.
I bet you’re right.
There are actually good as well as bad reasons for doing it that way – prevents anybody from letting off a stream of obscenities (if that matters any longer) or making a lengthly entirely off-topic rant about someone neither present nor supposed to be a subject of the questioning.
But it can also be used, of course, to prevent any awkward questions from coming up; thereby defeating the entire supposed intent of the town-hall format.
In the few that I have seen where the audience asks questions, they are reading it off of a card and were pre-selected based on the questions they supplied. There are probably more in the queue than actually get to ask so only a certain number of people know that they have a chance. The moderator can choose from the list on the fly based on how things are flowing. Someone could still be a troll and do something different than they promised but I don’t recall that happening.
There’s a couple gems in that interview.
“Even in mob cases when the jurors are anonymous the lawyers get to know who they are so we can do background checks and make sure they’re not secret trump haters.”
They are astonished at the fact he got the defamation when he was exonerated from the rape and the defamation was based on him saying she lied about raping her.
The Access Hollywood tape should not have been shown because it has nothing to do with this case.
Sure. “Background checks” meaning “many anonymous threatening phone calls late at night.”
You’re stronger than I am. I can’t even bear to look at him. It’s painful enough just to skim through transcripts.
Under the common definition of “rape”, he did rape her.
Under the legal definition of “rape” in place in New York at the time, he might or might not have.
If she’s speaking in a common context and says that he raped her, she’s telling the truth.
Of course a man saying that he likes to sexually assault women, and routinely does so, is relevant in a case where the key question is whether he sexually assaulted a woman. How could it not be?
But Tacopina thinks that’s Prejudicial… “Causing or tending to cause harm” Yea no shit!
As a general rule, proof of prior bad acts or predisposition to commit bad acts is not admissible. A person is being sued for the alleged actions specified in the statement of claim, not their past history or predispositions.
However, I understand that the federal Rules of Evidence do allow evidence of prior bad acts / predisposition in sexual assault trials, if the court concludes that the probative value exceeds its prejudicial effect.
I’ll see if I can dig up a cite.