Trump's trial in E. Jean Carroll defamation case begins

He could have just not defamed her

 

Yah yah every judge is biased and so are all jurors. Don’t you get tired of making excuses for him?

 

Expecting the judicial system to be fair, impartial, and unbiased is not making excuses for him. Anyone can make any bullshit claim that something happens 20 years ago. The idea that this standard is fair in any way, shape, or form, is absolutely insane. That's not supposed to be the standard, in this country and the fact that anyone thinks that it's OK that the standards get thrown out because of who is accused just shows a complete lack of principles.

 

The claim isn’t based on 20 years ago, it’s based on his recent attempts to defame her.

 

How does ANY of that show he assaulted her in any way?

 

If it was pointless and hollow why was the judge requesting it? And then turned around and refused it due to expediency.

 

Yes and no. If you give me your name and face and an approximation of where you live I can find you online in under a minute if you have any presence whatsoever.

Moreover if I have your name and info I can uncover info about you such as you went door-knocking for democrats or you participated in a I hate Donald Trump fan club. Or any number of a thousand things that would disqualify you from jury duty for this case.

 

Show me a link establishing that the Judge requested it.

 

.........and you could also stalk, harass and seek to intimidate me as a Juror.

 

So, because it was 20 years ago, and because there were no eye witnesses, it never happened and the woman must be a liar.

 

I was incorrect it was E Jean Carroll's lawyers not the judge.

 

And how many times has that happened in trumps cases?

 

Show me the link to that so I can make sense of what you are posting.

 

I don't know, but I can show you where, in Humpty's cases, Judges have been harassed etc. Why would his snake oil digesting followers do that? Why would they go down the very street he nominated and storm the Capitol after he urged them to take their Country back?

 

So, if someone was sexually assaulted years ago, it's no big deal?

 

The jury believed her. And who wouldn't believe almost anyone over the biggest liar ever? You don't need to be politically biased to know that about Trump.

 

Sure he does, but there are limits. Libel is a serious offense. He did not need to lie in order to defend himself. He should have simply said that he was not guilty. There was no need for all the vicious, nasty verbal attacks. Don't you think his nastiness towards accusers and detractors over the years has an overall negative impact on opinions of him? The only reason Trump opens that cake hole in his face, when he isn't stuffing it with Big Macs, if to change feet.

He has done this to himself.

 

Rut roh. Flip flop alert:

So if someone was sexually assaulted years ago, no biggy right?

 

And due to that, he faces no criminal penalties ... no probation, no jail time. Just money.

 

Sure... and the earth can start orbiting around the moon....

 

It's dependable full time work, although I don't know what the pay scale is...

 

Sure.... just say "I didn't do what she is accusing me of".... and leave it at that... Short, simple, and defamation free....

He can't and won't and that character deficiency will cost him a few more pennies next week...

 

Reade was not believable. She kept changing her story, and was debunked on a lot of the details. No one who was raped or sexually assaulted ever gets confused about any moment of it, ever. That's how trauma works. E. Jean has been very consistent.

I stand by my post. There is good reason why, in most states (including New York), there is no statute of limitations on rape.

 

Yes, some online research could be done which, although fast, would have to be done in the courtroom, during voir dire.

They have instead had to do so via voir dire alone.

Any disadvantages of this are far outweighed by the impact on a jury - and potential impact on their verdict - of the pressures, undue influences and so forth inherent in participating in an extremely high-profile trial of this kind. All of which would be enormously heightened by revealing their identities and knowing that not just lawyers, but anyone, could find them online.

Even the most avid Trump supporter may not want the publicity and impact on their private lives.

What's more any disadvantage applies to both sides equally. Sure, New Yorkers may be more likely Democrat but a Republican is not necessarily a Trump supporter. Most of all, political leanings do not preclude a juror's ability to be impartial in court.

You should also note that neither side objected to an anonymous jury.

 

Not what I said.

But you do you….