438
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
438 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19132 readers
4111 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She's being this incompetent on purpose, so that when actual lawyers start to point out all the obvious flaws in her work, she and her client can continue to complain about how the "Deep State" is biased against them. The more incompetent she is, and the more negative attention she gets, the more Trump's political supporters get behind him.
It doesn't even matter if she gets disbarred after this, all she has to do is bleach her hair and she has a guaranteed gig as a legal correspondent any of the Conservative Media outlets. They probably pay more, anyway.
I don't think it's on purpose, though I agree she'll go on to do grape [sic] things as a blonde muppet in the Conservative griftosphere. I read the transcripts yesterday, and based on her performance, she was using the questions to lead to:
...both of which she attempted in this same fucking trial, like she thought she was Phoenix Wright. The best part, though, is when she objected to evidence presented. A paraphrase:
She literally tried the "because it's damaging to my case" defense! ROFL
Right, you are evaluating her actions from the perspective of a lawyer who is trying to get the best outcome for their client within the legal framework of a trial. But that is not her goal.
Her goal is to make her client look like he's being persecuted. She doesn't care if her arguments are accepted by the judge. In fact, she would prefer the judge to go nuclear and lose his temper, because her client can use that to his advantage.
Trump is operating the same way. He practically begged the judge to throw him out of the courtroom. He got away with it because the judge understands exactly what Trump is doing. Trump would have used that expulsion to fundraise off of. He wants the courts mad at him, because he believes he can get votes out of it.
The judge and Trump literally had an exchange in court the other day confirming what you are saying.
Can judges not order people to be gagged? I thought that was a thing?
Trump wants to play victim.
This judge is literally about to cancel Trump Co, down to the last overpriced building.
The problem is that Trump has successfully turned any form of accountability into a campaigning and fundraising opportunity. Everybody insisted that his trials would sink his campaign, and they've done nothing but bolster it. His court appearances now are little more than glorified campaign rallies. And once Trump realized that not even court proceedings are enough to rattle his base, he has been exploiting that ever since.
He doesn't care about the outcome of this or any other trial any more, except for the SC case that would effectively remove him from the ballot. All he cares about is turning the court cases into circuses he can fundraise off of, and stalling for as long as possible until he wins a 2nd term in office and just makes all of it go away (Yes, even the state stuff, because he'd be in a position to say "you've made your decision, now let's see you enforce it.)
And the thing is, there's a non-zero chance he very well may get his wish
Not white people. Duh.
Wealthy people. Broke White people get fucked by the courts too.
I think it can be both. She's trying to throw the case out (because that eats into "valuable" campaigning time) and she's also trying to make a circus so they can claim persecution, both of which she is failing spectacularly at.
Ultimately, he'll lose no votes, but I'm not interested in that for this particular case. I want to see Trump get the book thrown at him for being a whiny little baby who pathologically can't stop defaming the person he raped.
The judge is going to stay cool & keep handing Ms. Carroll cash, although I'd love to see Trump sitting in a jail cell till the end of this trial.
Are we talking about the same assclown here?
E. Jean Carroll is the victim who is suing Trump for defamation. She already won once, then he immediately jumped in front of a news camera and defamed her again. Since he’s physically incapable of keeping his mouth shut, she’ll keep getting money from him.
Fair, though the phrasing is what I questioned: he's not handing over anything. It's being taken from him and awarded this specific victim. Let's not, by any stretch of our language, give him one iota of benefit to any doubt. 🤌🏼
E. Jean Carroll is the victim that is currently using Trump like an ATM with no limit on withdrawals.
Points A and B are not my concern, but the implication that the fetid fuckpuppet is somehow "handing" over his money at any point is. It's being taken from him, against his will, and deservedly so.
Why must we slur the muppets this way? Miss piggy would never!
Let's be real, Ms. Piggy would judo chop the shit out of Habba.
"There's only enough room on this show for ONE hot blond worried about gay frogs! HIIII-YAH!"
I heard that in her voice.
This is a pretty good indicator of the quality of her legal guidance, in that she's halfway to a valid form of objection, but seems to have forgotten the other half of it. You are allowed to object to evidence or testimony that is more prejudicial (i.e. "the defendant was seen kicking puppies at the dog park on a weekly basis") than it is probative, meaning that ts useful in proving or disproving the allegations (the case was actually about a bank robbery not involving puppies at all). You can't just cry "prejudiced!" and expect the judge to go along with you.
Trump's team also did themselves no favors by objecting out of turn, especially after he explicitly ordered "one witness, one lawyer" during a recess.
Certainly more than the $0.00 Trump will cough up.
I can guarantee she’s working on retainer. No lawyers will work for him without being paid up front.