Posted on 01/31/2024 7:59:06 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Agreed. Consider all the former DAs or public defenders who preside over criminal trials.
As an aside, running to the press prior to filing a motion to recuse/disqualify is considered bad form.
Savage rider is wrong...look up “with prejudice”...
Trump’s comments about grabbing were allowed.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html
Note “forceably touched” is left blank in the VERDICT FORM:
https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1752411416328364446/photo/4
“with prejudice” = no longer adjudicable = matter can no longer be argued in a court of law
by the party that made the claim
What does the fact Carroll is most likely lying (to be generous) have to do with whether or not there was a conflict of interest and/or whether or not his attorney bungled his defense?
Yep. With prejudice generally means she waived it and can’t bring it up again.
I feel as if her goal with this case is less “defend Trump” and more “set herself for a gig as a Fox News Legal Analyst.”
Wonder if something bigger and more important on the judge popped up?.
Cases like this has a lot of tentacles involved?.
I posted the same at Post #8...I usually go directly to Black’s (which is on my shelf) but did in my own words.
Whoops see my post at #29...must be nap time
She's in over her head. When she wins some notable cases she can showboat.
https://newrepublic.com/post/178219/judge-carroll-case-orders-trump-lawyer-habba-stop-reading-tweets
Sometimes what one says is not what is intended to be inferred.
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones;
So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answer’d it.
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest–
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men–
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.Marc Antony's speech at Caesar's funeral
Half of Hollywood got their start...oh never mind...
I feel as if her goal with this case is less “defend Trump” and more “set herself for a gig as a Fox News Legal Analyst.”
Well, as a confirmed NT, I’ll take your (any other NTs) Trump/Trump associates *concerns* with a YUGE grain of salt. 🙃
🤣
It looks that way now. But I didn't hear anyone come up with distinctively better directions before the rulings, other than silly blasts. They relied on President Trump's presidential immunity and, when that fell through, they went with he said/she said, believing that would be a 50/50 deal, so not a preponderance. President Trump didn't testify except to say the whole story was a big, fat lie. And Carroll's lawyers argued that no testimony by him suggested he was afraid of the questions.
Then Carroll testified to tons of details and produced two buddies to back her up and two other women who told similar tales. They figured this constituted a pattern and easily a preponderance of evidence presented. They bought it, hook, line and sinker.
I pray that an appeal exonerates him fully.
But I don't even want to guess the odds.
Well, “NT” or not, it appears that Trump has replaced her: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4214159/posts
I guess you can hold the salt. It might be bad for your blood pressure.
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.