I confess to back pedaling into Trump territory when I wanted to leave discussions about him in the garbage can. My thread on the read-only break room site has 9,600 replies so I thought I'd bring up a new one.
He's not going away.
Haberman's book is out based on interviews. I won't read it, but the excerpts are interesting. Especially what he says about McConnell, a description that's against the Terms of Service here, but I actually don't disagree with. LOL
Quote
“At one point, Trump made a candid admission that was as jarring as it was ultimately unsurprising. ‘The question I get asked more than any other question: “If you had it to do again, would you have done it?”’Trump said of running for president. ‘The answer is, yeah, I think so. Because here’s the way I look at it. I have so many rich friends and nobody knows who they are.’ … Reflecting on the meaning of having been president of the United States, his first impulse was not to mention public service, or what he felt he’d accomplished, only that it appeared to be a vehicle for fame, and that many experiences were only worth having if someone else envied them.”
Law Professor Joyce Vance Civil Discourse has been covering the E, Jean Carroll trial schooling those viewers regarding legal issues in case and lawyering done by Alina Habba ESq -- who graduated from Widener Law School located near my home (ranked < 150th in country); I attended MSN nursing classes in 2002.
Yesterday, based on opening statements, I suggested that Trump's lead lawyer, Alina Habba, might be in over her head. Her opening was inartful, emphasizing the established fact that Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll instead of refocusing the jury on the only issue that might help her client, whether Carroll's damages can be properly attributed to him. While it's not a very good argument—the first jury found against Trump and awarded Carroll $5 million—it's the hand Habba was dealt, and she was off the mark.
Today, her lack of courtroom experience was on full display. She failed to stand when addressing the Judge, and she failed to take her seat after he ruled—that's the stuff of trial advocacy 101. She whiffed on the basics of the Federal Rules of Evidence repeatedly. She complained again about the way the Judge spoke to her.
I don't recite this litany to criticize Habba, although an important part of being a lawyer is understanding your limits and staying in your lane. Instead, I think her capabilities help us understand that Trump, who as a former president should have access to the finest lawyering the profession has to offer, does not. He is so toxic that most of the good lawyers won't touch him. It's shocking that a former president is represented by a lawyer who doesn't seem to know her way around a courtroom and continues to antagonize the Judge by violating his pre-trial rulings, especially since the lawyer on the other side is Roberta Kaplan (no relationship to the Judge), an A++ caliber lawyer....
...Probably the worst part of Habba's day was when the Judge finally took pity on her inability to abide by the rules of evidence and schooled her on how to question the witness about a document, like a law professor teaching a first-year student.
It was long, and it was painful. Habba didn't score points with the jury.
Alina Habba's behavior at trial was disgraceful. I would not be surprised to see the Judge refer her to the Bar Association for disciplinary action. It wasn't her novice mistakes that were the issue, although they caused a lot of comments. It was her flagrant disregard of the Judge's decisions about arguments that could and could not be made to the jury. She trod on those rulings despite repeated warnings from the Judge.
If you think a judge has made an erroneous ruling at trial, you can take it up with the court of appeals. Alina Habba's repeated strategy was to fight with the Judge. Tell her she couldn't do something, and she jumped right in anyhow, repeatedly insinuating that Trump didn't assault Carroll. The Judge would be well within his rights to let the Bar sort her out. Her lack of respect for the rule of law, which mirrors her client's, is unacceptable in a lawyer.
It was only the Judge's focus and immediate rulings before too many words came out of her mouth that prevented the jury from hearing inappropriate comments from her. Again, cases like this are best handled by a judge with many years of experience, one who has seen it all and is prepared to handle it. As Robbie Kaplan interrupted Habba's comments, above, to object, the Judge told Habba to "Move onto a subject different than you are embarking upon."...
Trump's Temper Tantrum
Trump stormed out of the courtroom in the middle of closing argument by Carroll's lawyer.
Since the appellate court doesn't see how people in the courtroom behave or know who walks in or out, Judge Kaplan made a complete record for them, interrupting Robbie Kaplan's comments to say, "The record will reflect that Mr. Trump just rose and walked out of the courtroom." He ordered Trump's lawyers to remain seated.
This doesn't happen. Parties don't throw temper tantrums and stalk out of the courtroom while opposing counsel is speaking. One suspects this move may have sealed Trump's fate with the jury. But it's also a cautionary tale for judges in his future cases, who will now need to advise him that he may not do this in their cases and that they would treat this type of disruption very seriously.
Law Professor Joyce Vance Civil Discourse has been covering the E, Jean Carroll trial schooling those viewers regarding legal issues in case and lawyering done by Alina Habba ESq -- who graduated from Widener Law School located near my home (ranked < 150th in country); I attended MSN nursing classes in 2002.
Meanwhile, trump's lawyers in the civil fraud case have written to Judge Engoron, accusing Barbara Jones, the court-appointed monitor of the trump organization, of exaggeration and distortion in her report to the court on her work. They are claiming that she's angling for a permanent appointment so she can continue being paid millions in unnecessary fees.
Meanwhile, House democrats have produced a report on $7.8 million in foreign payments to trump's businesses while he was president.
As they say, accusation = confession. Always interesting to follow the money.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
It was a civil trial, so he wasn't convicted of anything. He was found liable, but as I recall it was not for sexual assault.
The judge characterized it as rape, but the actual language was "sexual abuse".
Beerman said:
I didn't mention evidence. Someone else claimed his evidence was irrelevant. I simply asked what it was.
Seems no one knows. Nor do they seem to know what Trump said that was so defamatory.
Or, maybe you all do, but for some reason don't want to discuss it?
The word "evidence" was literally in your comment that I quoted.
Trump's evidence was apparently nonexistent, merely an excuse. If he had evidence, it would have been presented in the trial determining if he was liable for his actions and words.
Don't be silly, how Trump defamed Carroll is well documented. The jury heard the evidence of the defamation, they heard Trump's defense to the defamation and then they found Trump liable. This was all discussed before.
Trump repeatedly called Ms Carroll a liar and inpugned her character to his devoted followers. Do you want to discuss that? The trials are over, the juries have heard and seen the evidence and the decisions are public.
Just like Giuliani, Trump ran his mouth until it cost him a bunch of money. This jury, because of other Trump trials underway, got to see and hear evidence that Trump had deeper pockets than Giuliani. So far, that $83 million seems to be keeping Trump mum on the subject of Ms. Carroll. That silence was part of the intended outcome.
Do you want to talk about Trump's defamatory language? Are you feeling a need to defend him?
In sum, they asked for a clarification of his language since it did not align with their understanding of the Constitution's Appointments Clause.
Scalia obliged them. And curtly.
"Dear Mr. Tillman: I meant exactly what I wrote. The manner by which the President and the Vice President hold their offices is 'provide[d] otherwise' by the Constitution. As is the manner by which the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate hold theirs,” Scalia wrote in 2014, adding nothing else but his signature.
A decade on, that letter has ultimately done little to persuade Tillman or Blackman from their position. They only recently filed an amicus brief supporting the position from Trump's lawyers that he is not an officer of the United States, despite taking an oath when he assumed office.
The legal thicket is one both professors have trudged through for years, writing extensively on it and often to some controversy. That controversy only grows as the disqualification questions come to a head in court.
Lawfare noted there is increasing "highly persuasive empirical evidence" challenging what are key positions in the recent amicus brief. Linguists, legal analysts and researchers have mutually asserted that the crux of Tillman and Blackman's arguments, and what are in their own way, Trump's argument, rely on historically unsupported semantic distinctions
"Trump's argument, rely on historically unsupported semantic distinctions"
Semantic arguments are a favorite of Trump supporters. We enjoy them here with some regularity.
"Donald Trump could potentially have his real estate empire ordered "dissolved" for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders in violation of New York's powerful anti-fraud law.
But an Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump's case stands apart: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses."
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Beerman said:
AP's analysis of the Trump "fraud" case.
"Donald Trump could potentially have his real estate empire ordered "dissolved" for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders in violation of New York's powerful anti-fraud law.
But an Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump's case stands apart: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses."
"Donald Trump could potentially have his real estate empire ordered "dissolved" for repeated misrepresentations on financial statements to lenders in violation of New York's powerful anti-fraud law.
But an Associated Press analysis of nearly 70 years of similar cases showed Trump's case stands apart: It's the only big business found that was threatened with a shutdown without a showing of obvious victims and major losses."
Why do you think large businesses and their advocates have worked so hard to gut the IRS? Literal centuries of legislative grooming have made it prohibitively expensive to hold big business accountable for their behavior. trump hasn't done anything that hasn't also been perpetrated by his betters. He's p.o.’d enough of us off that it's worth the millions it's costing to go after him.
I suspect that New York State has more than its share of such high-stakes fraud by virtue of being home to some of the richest and most powerful people (both biological and corporate) in the world. Think of it as Roy Cohn meets Social Darwinism
The citizens of New York need all the tools they can get - hence the law under which trump is being sued. If you disagree with the law, take it up with the New York legislature.
Also, I'll say it again: I don't buy the assumption that no one has been harmed. There's a reason why no US banks will lend to him. Deutsch Bank claims it got it's loan back, but they're no longer doing business with him, either. Banks and bankers lie.
The analysis presented is an interesting take on the historic nature of the case. It also hasn't convinced me that the lawsuit is unjust or that trump is the innocent victim of a left-wing holy war. John Galt he ain't.
NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN
10 Articles; 19,199 Posts
This trial was for DAMAGE AWARDS for Trump defamation post 2019 court case where the jury already convicted Trump for sexual assault of Ms. Carroll,
the irrelevant evidence? --- Alina Habba tried to introduce evidence that Trump did not assault her along with other issues
E. Jean Carroll judge bench-slaps Trump's attorney 14 times over basic lawyering in a single day of testimony
Law Professor Joyce Vance Civil Discourse has been covering the E, Jean Carroll trial schooling those viewers regarding legal issues in case and lawyering done by Alina Habba ESq -- who graduated from Widener Law School located near my home (ranked < 150th in country); I attended MSN nursing classes in 2002.
Trials Day Two
$83.3 Million