this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024

416 points (97.7% liked)

News

23261 readers

3494 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

416

Donald Trump testifies for less than 3 minutes in defamation trial and is rebuked by judge (apnews.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave to c/news

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

He testified for under three minutes. But former President Donald Trump still broke a judge’s rules on what he could tell a jury about writer E. Jean Carroll’s sexual assault and defamation allegations, and he left the courtroom Thursday bristling to the spectators: “This is not America.”

Testifying in his own defense in the defamation trial, Trump didn’t look at the jury during his short, heavily negotiated stint on the witness stand. Because of the complex legal context of the case, the judge limited his lawyers to asking a handful of short questions, each of which could be answered yes or no — such as whether he’d made his negative statements in response to an accusation and didn’t intend anyone to harm Carroll.

But Trump nudged past those limits.

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 302 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

“She said something that I considered to be a false accusation,” he said, later adding: “I just wanted to defend myself, my family and, frankly, the presidency.”

You sexually assaulted her in 1996 you dumb sack of shit. It was two full decades before you fell ass backwards into the Oval office. This has nothing to do with the presidency. It's about you and your crimes.

Edit: The defamation claim is absolutely about the sexual assault taking place. That’s what he was referring to when he said “something I consider to be a false accusation”. Anyone trying to tell you this trial has nothing to do with the sexual assault is an idiot.

[–] [email protected] 75 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

You're missing it.

He's claiming the presidency he experienced changes/colors/empowers his current and past actions.

To him, a president or former president should never be on trial for this. To him a president had ascended from crimes of the flesh.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I am all for this as a policy as long as Obama promises to murder him.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I also wouldn't mind Biden shooting him. Maybe the Republicans then change their minds about gun controll.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago

Enough Malarkey

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Really, it should be Hilary, but life’s not always fair.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago

Does that mean we can charge him with crimes of the spirit? Heresy or purity charges, anyone?

[–] [email protected] 39 points 9 months ago

Please have my upvote. Excellently stated. Thank you.

[–] elbucho 37 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

This trial isn't about the sexual assault. That was already established in a previous case, where he was ordered to pay $5M in damages.

This trial is about him repeatedly calling her a liar, and other worse things when the memoir she had published in 2019 described the sexual assault. He's unsuccessfully attempting to argue that since he was president at the time, his actions as president should be immune from civil and criminal litigation.

I think that even if he and his attorneys weren't some of the dumbest people in the world, it would still be a very difficult position to prove. As it turns out, though, they are some of the dumbest people in the world, so there's no shot that that defense will work. And he doesn't exactly help his case by repeatedly claiming that Carroll was lying about the sexual assault, since that has already been established as fact by the court.

Edit: Very confused about the downvotes here. What am I missing?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 9 months ago

What am I missing? I figure it's because people don't know the intricacies of the two trials. He's already been found liable for the sexual assault in the first completed case. This current case has the same basic facts so the judge ruled that there is no re-litigation to be done on liability, only on damages.

I presume your downvotes are most likely related to the first sentence in your post. They get that far and likely assume that you're denying the first case's conclusions without catching the subtle nature of the two cases.

[–] ryantown 103 points 9 months ago (1 children)

... he left the courtroom Thursday bristling to the spectators: “This is not America.”

Sir, this is consequences.

[–] HollandJim 8 points 9 months ago

I'm going to use this...everywhere.

[+] doctorcrimson 39 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Riccosuave 103 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That would have led to a mistrial, and further served to delay justice. What Judge Kaplan did was absolutely the right thing, and in the best interest of all parties involved.

[–] andrewta 26 points 9 months ago (4 children)

stupid question here : why would it have led to a mistrial? if he is the one on trial and he starts running his mouth, its words directly from him. so they can absolutely be used against him (since he said them in court). if he sits there and makes claims (for example) "i was in hawaii at the time" and there are plenty of records to prove he wasn't in hawaii.. that can be used against him .. he knows he is under oath and he freely gave the testimony .. so it can't be argued that he was coerced into giving the information..

again.. i say stupid question because i'm sure there is a way that it could lead to a mistrial , i just don't know what it is.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 9 months ago

With respect to witness testimony, it could be something like this:

A motion for mistrial may arise after a witness gives testimony involving a forbidden area and the testimony would have otherwise been inadmissible.

It's complicated.

[–] Riccosuave 23 points 9 months ago

That's not a stupid question, it is a good question and a valid one. First, I am not a lawyer. However, my layman understanding is this:

In a jury trial there are strict rules regarding testimony specifically so that information is not introduced into direct evidence or via testimonial evidence that could serve to unduly prejudice a jury. Obviously ALL testimony is prejudicial in some capacity in the sense that it is intended by its very nature to change the opinion of the fact finders in a legal procession, in this case a jury and a civil trial.

These rules for what can or cannot be introduced into evidence via testimony are litigated before trial, and even during trial because there are often disagreements between the parties about what constitutes unduly prejudicial testimony. The judge rules on that, which determines what can and cannot be introduced.

If Donald Trump was allowed to bloviate about anything he damn well pleased on the stand, especially regarding information that had already been ruled inadmissible, his own lawyers could then turn around and call for a mistrial on the grounds that the judge had already ruled that information to be inadmissible. Granted that is unlikely to happen, but it would not be unprecedented nor does the judge want to leave that as an ambiguous issue on appeal.

So, in order to maintain fairness in the legal process the judge preordaines what information a jury can hear in order to avoid that situation in the first place.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate 20 points 9 months ago

Pretty sure the deal is that the judge's main job is to ensure that the conduct of the trial follows the file of law. If it can be shown that he didn't do that, anyone can call for a mistrial. But I'm a software engineer, not anyone who has any training in this stuff.

[–] dohpaz42 5 points 9 months ago

I came here to ask the same. If you ask someone a yes or no question, and they go off on some deranged tangent that further incriminates themselves, how would that cause a mistrial?

[–] themeatbridge 26 points 9 months ago (1 children)

He's not allowed to lie to the jury.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Love how the artist makes him look like Steve Ditko's version of Hammerhead from the old Spider-Man comics lol.

[–] Brunbrun6766 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I think he looks like the cat meme

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

the cat meme

This is so vague I don't even know where to begin.

[–] Brunbrun6766 5 points 9 months ago

Yeah realized that later

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Grumpy cat or broccoli cat? I expect the latter but I can't see it with his mouth closed. Come to think of it, he doesn't look like Trump with his mouth shut.

[–] Brunbrun6766 5 points 9 months ago

The broccoli cat

[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago

Except Hammerhead had amazingly shiny and strong hair, this drawing shows Donny's thin and weak hair in the style of Hammerhead but too weak to hold up against a weak wind without hair gel.

[–] Son_of_dad 1 points 9 months ago

Why do news articles continue to say he "allegedly" assaulted her? This is just irresponsible journalism, designed to soften the fact that Trump sexually assaulted her, and a court has proven that fact