• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump Bat Sh!t crazy thread

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
pcgeek11 said:
That isn't what they said. They are attempting to demand what he says in his testimony. What she said was "President Trump cannot and should not be made to testify under oath in any particular affirmative manner."



From the Article:

Carroll's legal team requested Trump be required to state on the record and under oath, "that he understands that it is established for purposes of the trial that he sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll and he spoke falsely with actual malice and lied when accusing her of fabricating her account and impugning her motives and that Mr. Trump further understands and accepts all of the limits that the Court has imposed on his testimony in this action and will conduct himself in the courtroom in accordance with those limitations."

Alina Habba responded like this:

On Sunday, in a letter to Kaplan, Habba responded to Carroll's legal team and addressed the request, as she outlined several issues she has with the proposals, and wrote that, "President Trump cannot and should not be made to testify under oath in any particular affirmative manner."
Click to expand...

Asking him to affirm under oath that he understands the legal situation he's in isn't forcing testimony that is of consequence in the current case. It's similar to a "do you understand your situation" question.
 
Dave_5k said:
In other words, Trump wants to do a campaign rally speech in the courtroom (yet again), and he will most certainly never never agree to limitations on his "first amendment" rights to spew defamatory lies and to sic his cult against his perceived "enemies".
Click to expand...

I was only pointing out the incorrect posting in post 172 where they said "Next, he shouldn't have to testify under oath." when that was not what was said by Alina Habba. She said "President Trump cannot and should not be made to testify under oath in any particular affirmative manner."

The Prosecution should not be allowed to dictate how and what he says.
 
Pens1566 said:
Asking him to affirm under oath that he understands the legal situation he's in isn't forcing testimony that is of consequence in the current case. It's similar to a "do you understand your situation" question.
Click to expand...

Only # 3 below says what you stated.

No, what the article says is they requested:

Trump be required to state on the record and under oath:

1.) That he understands that it is established for purposes of the trial that he sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll.

2.) He spoke falsely with actual malice and lied when accusing her of fabricating her account and impugning her motives.

3.) Mr. Trump further understands and accepts all of the limits that the Court has imposed on his testimony in this action and will conduct himself in the courtroom in accordance with those limitations.
 
pcgeek11 said:
Only # 3 below says what you stated.

No, what the article says is they requested:

Trump be required to state on the record and under oath:

1.) That he understands that it is established for purposes of the trial that he sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll.

2.) He spoke falsely with actual malice and lied when accusing her of fabricating her account and impugning her motives.

3.) Mr. Trump further understands and accepts all of the limits that the Court has imposed on his testimony in this action and will conduct himself in the courtroom in accordance with those limitations.
Click to expand...

No. All 3 of those are things that have already been legally decided by courts. They're officially established as facts.
 
He's denied the firmly established outcome of the last election, why would we expect him to admit he lost the previous court case for this, and is back in court for defamation over it?
 
pcgeek11 said:
Only # 3 below says what you stated.

No, what the article says is they requested:

Trump be required to state on the record and under oath:

1.) That he understands that it is established for purposes of the trial that he sexually assaulted Ms. Carroll.

2.) He spoke falsely with actual malice and lied when accusing her of fabricating her account and impugning her motives.

3.) Mr. Trump further understands and accepts all of the limits that the Court has imposed on his testimony in this action and will conduct himself in the courtroom in accordance with those limitations.
Click to expand...
Your points 1 & 2 had already be found per the prior trial's jury verdict determination and the judge has already ruled so. Your point 3 is pretty standard. Absolutely nothing wrong with requiring Trump to state under oath that he understands all three and will conform. Otherwise there is a real risk (probably likelihood) that Trump will cause a mistrial if he starts blurting his I am a victim BS campaign speech to the jury.

This is a civil trial. Trump does not have a right to testify. In fact he did not attend even once during the first trail. Outside of making a campaign stunt what is the importance to his presence there now? The trial should be run by the judge pursuant to the Federal Rules of Procedure, and should not be run by the whims of a litigant.

Once delaying tactics fail, Trump is apparently going to fall back on his version of the Chicago 7 tactics, at least so far.
 
Tsinni Dave said:
^^Trump hasn't accepted that he has lost this case legally and now it is about damages. The rules are to try to get him to swear under oath that he fucking understands this and to just stop lying about it already.
Click to expand...
How on earth is he going to get the last word and clear his name? /s
 
Thump553 said:
Your points 1 & 2 had already be found per the prior trial's jury verdict determination and the judge has already ruled so. Your point 3 is pretty standard. Absolutely nothing wrong with requiring Trump to state under oath that he understands all three and will conform. Otherwise there is a real risk (probably likelihood) that Trump will cause a mistrial if he starts blurting his I am a victim BS campaign speech to the jury.

This is a civil trial. Trump does not have a right to testify. In fact he did not attend even once during the first trail. Outside of making a campaign stunt what is the importance to his presence there now? The trial should be run by the judge pursuant to the Federal Rules of Procedure, and should not be run by the whims of a litigant.

Once delaying tactics fail, Trump is apparently going to fall back on his version of the Chicago 7 tactics, at least so far.
Click to expand...
I find it cute that some folks still think pcgeek is reachable with facts and reality on most of these topics.
 
nakedfrog said:
And to think, if he had the capacity to keep his idiot mouth shut, there wouldn't even be a second case.
Click to expand...

Loser Donald had someone post 22 new defamatory tweets about Carroll while he was sitting in the courtroom.

www.rawstory.com

Trump smears E. Jean Carroll on social media while sitting in courtroom

Donald Trump dared a federal judge to hold him in contempt of court by having screenshots of his sex abuse victim E. Jean Carroll's smutty jokes on Twitter posted to his social media account as he sat in the courtroom.The former president was last year found liable for sexually abusing Carroll...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com

Trump understands why he’s in court and is perfectly aware that continuing to make statements regarding Carroll is going to hurt his case. If you or I were driving down the highway at 70 miles-per-hour and saw a wall up ahead we’d slow down. Trump hits the gas. I think he knows that the more he plays the victim, the more his cult supporters love him. He’s the Messiah who is being hurt by the evil minions of darkness.
 
Guy just can't stop never stopping

www.rawstory.com

'Make him stop': Jury told Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll with '22 posts just today'

Shawn Crowley, an attorney for E. Jean Carroll, urged a jury to fine Donald Trump enough money so that he would never defame her client again. During opening remarks in Trump's second defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll, Crowley explained how Trump sexually assaulted the writer in...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
 
brycejones said:
Trump should be allowed to defame a woman he sexually assaulted without consequences is certainly an interesting take.
Click to expand...

What would you expect from a guy that complained how women ruined his enjoyment of semen?

I see he still likes making sure I know he reads my posts. I also don't think he understands what laughing at my comment entails, he's basically admitting its true.
 
Last edited:
ch33zw1z said:
Guy just can't stop never stopping

www.rawstory.com

'Make him stop': Jury told Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll with '22 posts just today'

Shawn Crowley, an attorney for E. Jean Carroll, urged a jury to fine Donald Trump enough money so that he would never defame her client again. During opening remarks in Trump's second defamation trial brought by E. Jean Carroll, Crowley explained how Trump sexually assaulted the writer in...
www.rawstory.com www.rawstory.com
Click to expand...
Sounds like a real good prospect to be president. NO IMPULSE CONTROL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top