25 Reason Trump won't pay a dime to E Carrol...

[StoneCold]

Tara Reade....going after Biden now.

Really? She's suing the FBI, not Biden.
Another loss for your ego!

 

[StoneCold]

Pete7469

Why should he need to address her perjury? Only a jabbering imbecile believes that hag.

Once the case is in the hands of a real judge rather than a bed wetting fascist hack, the case will be thrown out.



.

A jury decided the defamation case. Not the judge.
Another fact you won't believe because your brain won't accept it.

 

[StoneCold]

.

Wow! I'm impressed by how clever you thought you sounded saying that.





.

You should be impressed!

 

[justoffal]

You should be impressed!

943 posts....sock much?

 

[rightwinger]

I can sleep soundly at night knowing any women can say you raped them 30 years ago and NOW they want to sue you. Gee why did she wait so long?

Because Trump defamed her today

 

[Faun]

So if I say your raped me then you are a rapist, right?

If I'm a known rapist, there's a good chance a jury would believe you.

 

[StoneCold]

943 posts....sock much?

20,000 posts. Wrong much?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Because Trump defamed her today

.

Defamed a slut who made it very public that she thought rape was sexy.








.

 

[MagicMike]

So you are saying he put his penis in her vagina, right?

No, just his fingers.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

No, just his fingers.

.

This was probably the very moment when she started talking about how sexy she thought rape was.






.

 

[MagicMike]

.

This was probably the very moment when she started talking about how sexy she thought rape was.






.

Blaming the victim huh?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Blaming the victim huh?

.

She said it, not me.






.

 

[j-mac]

Dude, that happens all the time. The defense attorney in the Fani Willis hearings was basically seeking yes/no answers when Willis and Wade were on the stand. Some answers may require some nuance - that's what lawyers are there to fight for. But the first amendment is on the outside of the courthouse, not the inside.

Oh, it does? I think you have that backwards, much like you applaud turning the justice system on its head when it’s used to go after people that you hate…See, in most cases a good defense attorney will instruct the defendant to not take the stand, or if he/she does to answer in yes or no terms so as not to be tripped up…I listened to DA Willis’ testimony. Seems to me she couldn’t keep her mouth shut, from making idiotic, not believable to any rational person, statements. So, in short you don’t know what you’re talking about, and your over your head with your mal-education.

I'm not even sure you have a right to a 'fair' trial. You have a right to due process. If you're poor as shit and can't afford anything other than an overworked public defender and you're going against the system, I'm not sure that's fair, but that's probably due process until or unless you can prove otherwise. Sucks, but that's the way it is. But Trump is supposedly a billionaire, so it's not like he can't afford quality legal counsel; he just doesn't listen to it, which is why he ends up with bozo defense lawyers like Alina Habba.

Habba has forgotten more about the law than you’ll ever know.

He doesn't have the right to speak on his own behalf however he pleases. He has to do that within the framework of the court rules. He has the right to select counsel. He has the right to testify - or not. He has the right to appeal. But your understanding of his rights is mistaken.

Fascist.

 

[j-mac]

Blaming the victim huh?

She’s no victim…

 

[j-mac]

That's not what the Judge said or did.

What was actually done was a requirement that the answer had to pertain to the question asked and during the damages phase that FPOTUS#45 could not attempt to relitigate the Trial of Fact.

In any trial the answer has to be responsive to the question asked.

WW

Maybe reread the quote of mine you posted…I didn’t say what you think I did.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Maybe reread the quote of mine you posted…I didn’t say what you think I did.

.

None of them have reading skills.

CommonCore "education".

.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are correct, however, consider a judge telling you that the only answers you can give are “yes, or no” regardless of what the question is….

It‘s at that point, not to mention violations of his fair right to a fair trial, that the judge took away the most important aspect of a fair trial, by taking away for him to defend, or speak on his own behalf…

That's not what the Judge said or did.

What was actually done was a requirement that the answer had to pertain to the question asked and during the damages phase that FPOTUS#45 could not attempt to relitigate the Trial of Fact.

In any trial the answer has to be responsive to the question asked.

WW

Maybe reread the quote of mine you posted…I didn’t say what you think I did.

OK, post above and my response.

The Judge didn't limit him to "yes, or no" answers regardless of the question.

What the Judge do was limit responses to the subject of the trial (which was damages) and that the responses had to be germane to the question asked.

There were two trails, the first was the Trial of Fact, FPOSTUS#45 was fully allowed to present a defense and testify in the trail that determined he was liable. ** HE ** chose not to testify and not to present a defense at all. During the Trail of Fact no defense was presented, once the claimant rested their case, the defense passed on presenting a rebuttal case. The Judge even provide 3-Days for FPOTUS#45 to appear in court to testify, FPOSTUS#45 blew off the case. Then they wend to closing arguments and the trail was closed.

Once he lost on the liability in the Trial of Fact, he doesn't get to relitigate it during the second trail for damages. The second jury cannot reverse the decision of the first jury.

His right to defend himself was not taken away by the court, FPOTUS#45 choose not to present one.

WW

 

[multivita-man]

See, in most cases a good defense attorney will instruct the defendant to not take the stand, or if he/she does to answer in yes or no terms so as not to be tripped up…I listened to DA Willis’ testimony. Seems to me she couldn’t keep her mouth shut, from making idiotic, not believable to any rational person, statements. So, in short you don’t know what you’re talking about, and your over your head with your mal-education.

Willis wasn't being sued, moron. This was a special hearing to determine whether or not she should be allowed to continue leading the prosecution. If Willis was allowed to ramble on, then the judge permitted it for whatever reasons he deemed fit. But if the judge had cut her off, then she'd had have a cup of STFU, just like every other person taking the stand would. Courtrooms are not public debate forums.

Habba has forgotten more about the law than you’ll ever know.

That may be, but she didn't serve her client very well, did she?

Fascist.

At least you spelled it right, lol

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

Because Trump defamed her today

I'm talking about YOU now. If I say you raped me, then you are a rapist? I use YOU as an example. Please respond. Don't dodge the question this time.

 

[Freedomisneverfree]

No, just his fingers.

Rape is defined as forced sexual intercourse with the penis and the vagina.