Again, I mentioned just that for the Dominion matter.
If you ignore the E Jean Carroll case, then yes that’s the only question left. But I don’t know why we’re ignoring that.
Sounds plausible for the Dominion case, They probably did have sufficient information to prevail, already. But, for Carroll’s case, not using DNA evidence would be like not using the video of the accused stabbing the victim, at the time of the crime, in a murder trial where there’s no other evidence against the accused that could be used.
If Carroll’s lawyers decided to ignore the DNA evidence, not charge Trump’s lawyers with contempt, and told the judge to go to trial without any evidence - I wouldn’t say that Carroll seems very confident in her own story.
But I don’t want to say that if there’s no reason to think that, that’s the history of the Carroll case. I’m not sure what things need to be made public - like contempt proceedings.
You asked why judges can’t make people pay for shenanigans. In the one case, the judge took action to do that, which you keep saying you already know, so OK, you know that.
In the other case, there weren’t any major shenanigans. One side asked for something, the other side said “I don’t think I have to do that,” the first side said “then never mind.” Trump tried a little last minute trick by saying “actually I will do it,” which was a shenanigan, and the court, which is empowered to make people pay for shenanigans, said no, we aren’t doing that. If your conclusion from that is that Carroll’s team is effectively booting the case, that’s your prerogative. It seems to me more likely they just don’t think that angle is particularly important.
As best I can find, Carroll’s team said that he could delay DNA collection until they took his deposition. I’m not finding anything where they decided to waive the request or where Trump made an argument that he didn’t need to provide the DNA.
I assume you’re using hyperbole, although we can still hope it will happen that way.
But I doubt it.
Does anybody expect this case to affect Trump’s ability to win re-election?
He’s the Pussy-grabber-in-Chief!
The Stormy Daniels case has been public knowledge for years and nobody cares. This case is even less interesting, and doesn’t even give the press any opportunity to use the word “porn” as clickbait.
The judge in former President Donald Trump’s rape case ordered lawyers at the start of a civil trial on Tuesday to keep their clients and witnesses from making public statements that could lead to violence.
I think this was really directed at only one of the parties involved, who has a known history of inciting mobs to commit violent acts.
Also:
(Judge) Kaplan is keeping jurors anonymous from the public and the lawyers, to shield them from potential harassment by Trump supporters.
Carroll’s legal team is also expected to call two other women. Natasha Stoynoff, a writer for People magazine, is expected to testify that in 2005 Trump led her into an empty room and forcibly kissed her until he was interrupted. Jessica Leeds accuses Trump of assaulting her on a plane in 1979 by grabbing her breasts and trying to put his hand up her skirt.
I wonder if Carroll’s team is going to present as evidence Trump’s own words about how he likes to sexually assault women. I would think this would be highly relevant:
“I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women — I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy."
He said that he does this. He basically confessed.
I see Trump’s lawyers tried to argue that the tape is “irrelevant”, and “does not even tangentially relate to the core of [Carroll’s] claim”
I’m surprised the judge did not laugh out loud when he denied their request to exclude.
“Your honor, this recording of my client saying he loves to rob banks, has robbed banks in the past and gets away with robbing banks has no relevance to the charge that he robbed this bank.”
There is a precisely 100% chance that a lot of this is laying groundwork for an appeal to a (they hope) friendlier bench, on the grounds that he simply could not get a fair trial from a biased state system.
They also wanted, for example, to question Carroll about whether she was a Democratic operative and dive into where she’s gotten her finances over the years (billionaire LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, specifically). Most of that was denied, which they presumably expected, and the appeal is probably already being written.
They probably want a judge who will go for the “She was asking for it, just look what she was wearing” defense.
They’ve already tried the “you didn’t report this to the police, so it didn’t happen, because we know that EVERY SINGLE victim of sexual assault reports to the police” defense. That was a good one.
Also the “You travelled forward in time and watched a TV show and then went backwards in time and related the future TV show to your friends” defense.
There are very few avenues to sucessfully challenge a state court conviction in federal court. A writ for Habeas corpus isn’t really going to get very far. I don’t see any consitutional issues that would interest the US Supreme Court. He’s stuck with whatever he can get from the state court system.
While I personally am quite willing to believe he’s guilty of this, conviction on these facts is not a forgone conclusion. In other words, don’t get your hopes us yet.
I’m surprised that Caroll’s attorneys didn’t subpoena Trump to testify. Since it’s not a criminal case, he’d have to take the stand and then plead the 5th to specific questions, instead of just declining to testify.
Well, he would have denied it, and it’s probably better to argue “he didn’t even come here to tell you he didn’t do it.” Since it’s not a criminal case, such an argument is proper.