Posted on 04/26/2023 9:00:54 AM PDT by thegagline
A Manhattan federal judge blasted Donald Trump’s “entirely inappropriate” posts on Truth Social Wednesday as witness testimony began in E. Jean Carroll’s civil rape case against the former president.
Trump, 76, took to his social media platform about an hour before the second day of trial began, claiming Carroll’s case was “a made up SCAM” and accusing her lawyers of being “political operatives.”
He also called for the dress the former advice columnist wore the day of the alleged rape to be brought into the trial — something that Carroll sought to do early on in the case to compare the garment against Trump’s DNA.
Judge Lewis Kaplan — who previously ruled that nothing about Trump’s DNA would come into trial — grilled the ex-president’s lawyer about the post before the jury was brought in, warning that the message appeared to be meant for the panel.
Your client is basically endeavoring to speak to his public, but more troublesome, to the jury in this case,” Kaplan said.
Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina brought up what he claimed to be a leak to the press from Carroll’s side — but Kaplan shut the argument down saying, “What you are trying to do is get away from a statement by your client that on the face of it seems entirely inappropriate.”
Tacopina eventually agreed to speak with Trump and “ask him to refrain from any further posts regarding this case.”
Still, the judge cautioned Tacopina that Trump could be adding on even more legal troubles for himself.
“We are getting into an area, conceivably, in which your client may or may not be tampering with a new source of potential liability and I think you know what I mean,” Kaplan warned.
*** Trump has not come to court for the first two days of trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Changing a law to charge someone after the fact and bring him to trial is called an “Ex Post Facto” law which is unconstitutional.
There are two clauses in the U.S. Constitution which prohibit this outrage.
“You have the right to remain silent.”
But more importantly, you have the right to speak. That one is so important the founders made its confirmation explicit.
First Amendment denier.
Your "thegagline" name makes sense now.
“Trump had met Carroll socially on at least one other occasion, so tweeting “I don’t know her” isn’t true.”
BS. Trump is a celebrity, he’s met literally thousands of strangers at social events. Just because someone shook his hand and took a picture with him does not mean he knows them.
The only victim in all this is Melania.
It’s pretty much both, since it is making something illegal after-the-fact (ex post facto), but also the law was arguably passed solely to go after one person (bill of attainder).
“Who knows what the jury or the voters are going to think about that picture of Trump and Carroll.”
Well, everyone knows what they will think, because everyone already has a fully-formed opinion of Donald Trump. For the voters, Trump’s base will think nothing of the photo, while Trump’s enemies will see it as a nail to crucify him with.
As for the jury, it’s an NYC jury, so they’ll probably going to think the exact same thing as all the other Dems will think.
This is the actual truth of the matter.
Conviction is an afterthought. The original public smear is what they're really after.
They = Never Trumpers, DNCMedia, demonrats, jour-no-lists, black activists, The View, Disney, GOPe, RINOs, actors, rock and rap stars, and other nasty celebrities, the Deep State, Global-WEF, Climate Hysterics, etc.
Where legislation, “if applied to past conduct, would impact substantive rights and have retroactive effect, the presumption against retroactivity is triggered” (id. at 370). When the presumption is triggered, “a statute is presumed to apply only prospectively” (id.). “This ‘deeply rooted’ presumption against retroactivity is based on ‘[e]lementary considerations of fairness [that] dictate that individuals should have an opportunity to know what the law is and to conform their conduct accordingly’ ” (id.). “[C]areful consideration of retroactive statutes is warranted because ‘[t]he [l]egislature’s unmatched powers allow it to sweep away settled expectations suddenly and without individualized consideration’ and ‘[i]ts responsivity to political pressures poses a risk that it may be tempted to use retroactive legislation as a means of retribution against unpopular groups or individuals’ ” (id.).
The thing is that the statutes of limitations are laws. And it is not constitutionally legal to change them for past occurrences. Next they will just change any law and then use the new law to go after people in the past.
We know what you think.
I see you have been designated to be the forum troll to post updates on this civil suit. Your TDS and strong.
Do you? I said I thought Carroll wasn’t telling the truth. I also said Trump’s tweets get him in trouble. They do.
>That was exactly my first thought regarding this “trial.” The Constitution forbids a Bill of Attainder, but that is exactly what New York has done.
Well, it wasn’t ‘necessarily’ a bill of attainder. It was a laughable ‘Me too’ motion that allowed any sexual harassment suits that had passed statute of limitations to be refiled. But yes, clearly unconstitutional and aimed at Trump.
Freeper Sucker posts again. To paraphrase Yada, “Stupid is strong with this one.”
The law is local...legislated in NYS and signed by the Gov.. Nothing to do with the Constitution.
Carroll’s case is “a made up SCAM”
If it isn’t why wait all these years to be concerned about it OH WAIT another election year rigging.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
“Changing a law to charge someone after the fact and bring him to trial is called an “Ex Post Facto” law which is unconstitutional.”
The problem is that this is not a criminal statute, which is to what the prohibition against ex post facto laws applies, just like the prohibition against double jeopardy only applies to criminal trials. You can’t be tried for the same crime twice, but you can be sued more than once over the same incident. I’m not saying it is fair, but it is reality.
By all means, lets all jump in in defense of Manhattan courts and the likes of liar E Jean Carroll.
We all deserve another Biden term.
New York Post is also Rupert owned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.