Trump Criminal & Civil Cases | GA Supremes DQ Willis

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 623
  • Views: 27K
  • Politics 
lawtig02 said:
Question for Ramrouser, with your decades of legal experience. How does a random woman from New York, by filing a civil lawsuit against Citizen Trump, cause the entire justice system to be politically "weaponized"? At what point do we as lawyers stop trusting the integrity of the judicial system? I don't think such a point exists, so I'm hoping you can help us understand when you concluded the judicial system was hopelessly biased against Trump. TIA!


A federal appeals court upheld the jury’s verdict finding Donald Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll and denied his request for a new trial.

Trump challenged the $5 million civil verdict alleging the trial judge made numerous errors, including allowing testimony of two other women who claimed Trump sexually assaulted them.

The appeals court concluded the trial judge didn’t abuse his discretion in ruling on evidence. Even if he made any errors, they said, given the strength of Carroll’s case, they are not persuaded Trump’s rights were affected to warrant a new trial.

* * *

Steven Cheung – Trump’s top spokesman and incoming White House communications director – said more appeals are coming.

“The American People have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed. We look forward to uniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again,” Cheung said.
Click to expand...
So he can break the law because he won the election?
 
lawtig02 said:
Question for Ramrouser, with your decades of legal experience. How does a random woman from New York, by filing a civil lawsuit against Citizen Trump, cause the entire justice system to be politically "weaponized"? At what point do we as lawyers stop trusting the integrity of the judicial system? I don't think such a point exists, so I'm hoping you can help us understand when you concluded the judicial system was hopelessly biased against Trump. TIA!


A federal appeals court upheld the jury’s verdict finding Donald Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll and denied his request for a new trial.

Trump challenged the $5 million civil verdict alleging the trial judge made numerous errors, including allowing testimony of two other women who claimed Trump sexually assaulted them.

The appeals court concluded the trial judge didn’t abuse his discretion in ruling on evidence. Even if he made any errors, they said, given the strength of Carroll’s case, they are not persuaded Trump’s rights were affected to warrant a new trial.

* * *

Steven Cheung – Trump’s top spokesman and incoming White House communications director – said more appeals are coming.

“The American People have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed. We look forward to uniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again,” Cheung said.
Click to expand...
lawtig02 said:
Question for Ramrouser, with your decades of legal experience. How does a random woman from New York, by filing a civil lawsuit against Citizen Trump, cause the entire justice system to be politically "weaponized"? At what point do we as lawyers stop trusting the integrity of the judicial system? I don't think such a point exists, so I'm hoping you can help us understandable when you concluded the judicial system was hopelessly biased against Trump. TIA


A federal appeals court upheld the jury’s verdict finding Donald’s Trump sexually abused write he civil E. Jean Carroll and denied his request for a new trial.
Trump challenged the $5 million civil verdict alleging the trial judge made numerous errors, including allowing testimony of two other women who claimed Trump sexually assaulted the

The appeals court concluded the trial judge didn’t abuse his ingdiscretion in ruling on evidence. Even if he made any errors, they said, given the strength of Carroll’s case, they are not persuaded Trump’s rights were affect to warrant a new trial.
Si
* * *
Steven Cheung – Trump’s top spokesman and incoming WhiteHouse communications director – said more appeals are coming.

“The American People have re-elected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate, and they demand an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a swift dismissal of all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded Carroll Hoax, which will continue to be appealed. We look forward to 7luniting our country in the new administration as President Trump makes America great again,” Cheung said.
Click to expand...
Ok, she prevailed with a jury pool of 97% Dems. This civil case is not the heart of lawfare. Trump can use the 16M he’s receiving from ABC/George to pay Carroll.
 
Ramrouser said:
Ok, she prevailed with a jury pool of 97% Dems. This civil case is not the heart of lawfare. Trump can use the 16M he’s receiving from ABC/George to pay Carroll.
Click to expand...
There You Go Good Job GIF by Demic

Love it! The Pub president-to-be can use the money he extorted from ABC because they called him a rapist to pay Carroll for . . . uh . . . defaming her by denying he raped her! I'm so glad Pubs are on the side of integrity and morality these days! You must be so proud!
 
Last edited:
superrific said:
1. you made that 97% number up.
2. i guess we can add voir dire to the long list of shit you don't understand, right up there with jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, New York County was 82-17 for Kamala in this last election. It also happens to be Trump's home county, if "jury of his peers" is to mean anything. I'm of the view this site doesn't have a ton of trolls relatively speaking, but Ramrouser is a boil on its butt.
 
superrific said:
1. you made that 97% number up.
2. i guess we can add voir dire to the long list of shit you don't understand, right up there with jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
I understand voir dire. Manhattan is not going to yield many Trump voters in its panel. Then, not much you can do when plaintiff’s counsel uses his six strikes to strike the maybe 2 Trump sympathetic jurors on the panel. And yes you can strike the most obvious Trump hating jurors from the panel but you’re still left with Trump lite hating jurors.

Have you actually tried a jury trial as lead counsel or is this something you’ve read in a book? I’m actually curious about this.
 
Ramrouser said:
I understand voir dire. Manhattan is not going to yield many Trump voters in its panel. Then, not much you can do when plaintiff’s counsel uses his six strikes to strike the maybe 2 Trump sympathetic jurors on the panel. And yes you can strike the most obvious Trump hating jurors from the panel but you’re still left with Trump lite hating jurors.

Have you actually tried a jury trial as lead counsel or is this something you’ve read in a book? I’m actually curious about this.
Click to expand...
I’ve tried dozens of cases. If you believe in our justice system, there’s not a reason in the world Trump could not get a fair trial in his home neighborhood of Manhattan. And I’ve heard nothing that would suggest anyone had issues with the impartiality of the jury.

Now if you’re a partisan who doesn’t believe in the rule of law, you’d defend not just Trump, but your boss Ray as well.
 
Ramrouser said:
I understand voir dire. Manhattan is not going to yield many Trump voters in its panel. Then, not much you can do when plaintiff’s counsel uses his six strikes to strike the maybe 2 Trump sympathetic jurors on the panel. And yes you can strike the most obvious Trump hating jurors from the panel but you’re still left with Trump lite hating jurors.

Have you actually tried a jury trial as lead counsel or is this something you’ve read in a book? I’m actually curious about this.
Click to expand...
i have not been a licensed attorney in many years. i taught law for a decade. at least i understand voir dire, even though my field was corporate law and finance. i worked at jones day and wachtell lipton before teaching.

there are lawyers on this board who have trial experience and, unlike you, post knowledgeably here so i know i can rely on their representations. they do not share your assessment of the jury pool, or of juries.

i will go with the word of a person who understands concurrent jurisdiction over you any day. the problem with writing things like, "it was a federal election so it should have been a federal probe" is that you expose yourself as someone who can't be taken seriously. generally speaking, attorneys should try to sound more knowledgeable than 1Ls. you are failing at that, so that's probably where you should start.
 
I assumed you had I was asking Super since he’s the one who said I didn’t understand voir dire

I’ve not attacked this civil jury verdict. I’ve simply pointed out that Trump faced an uphill battle with a jury trial in Manhattan. Imagine a jury trial against Adam Schiff in Idaho. It would be “fair” but still difficult.
 
superrific said:
i have not been a licensed attorney in many years. i taught law for a decade. at least i understand voir dire, even though my field was corporate law and finance. i worked at jones day and wachtell lipton before teaching.

there are lawyers on this board who have trial experience and, unlike you, post knowledgeably here so i know i can rely on their representations. they do not share your assessment of the jury pool, or of juries.

i will go with the word of a person who understands concurrent jurisdiction over you any day. the problem with writing things like, "it was a federal election so it should have been a federal probe" is that you expose yourself as someone who can't be taken seriously. generally speaking, attorneys should try to sound more knowledgeable than 1Ls. you are failing at that, so that's probably where you should start.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response. It’s impressive that you taught law.

I understand concurrent jurisdiction. What you know I meant by my statement is that the County DA should defer to the feds since it was a federal election. I realize that a phone call to Fulton County, where allegedly illegal conduct occurs, will confer jurisdiction but that doesn’t mean it should have been exercised by the DA.
 
Ramrouser said:
Ok, she prevailed with a jury pool of 97% Dems. This civil case is not the heart of lawfare. Trump can use the 16M he’s receiving from ABC/George to pay Carroll.
Click to expand...
Lets take your 97% at face value. It's sort of telling that 97% of anyone in someone's hometown loathes and doesnt trust them, is it not?

If you were evaluating an applicant, called "back home" to find out about them, and heard 97 out of 100 people say "yeah he's a shitbag", would you hire them?
 
The 97% was obviously a bit of an exaggeration to make a larger point.
Hard core liberals in Manhattan are not going to like the Republican nominee for President whether it’s Romney or Trump.
Finally, Trump improved his numbers in NYC, NY and especially NJ from 2106 and 2020.
 
Ramrouser said:
Thanks for the response. It’s impressive that you taught law.

I understand concurrent jurisdiction. What you know I meant by my statement is that the County DA should defer to the feds since it was a federal election. I realize that a phone call to Fulton County, where allegedly illegal conduct occurs, will confer jurisdiction but that doesn’t mean it should have been exercised by the DA.
Click to expand...
so if it was a local election, the DA should prosecute? could you explain the difference between the situations when it comes to the penal interests of the state of georgia? georgia has an interest in prosecuting election fraud that takes place within its borders. why does it matter what election?

in addition, the rico case was not about the election per se, as much as it was about georgia's electors. surely georgia has as much interest as any body in protecting the integrity of its elector appointments, so that the candidate who actually wins the states gets the votes.

finally, elections are conducted at the state and local level. there is no federal election process. the state courts have by far more experience with georgia elections than the federal court. if any precedent needs to be set, it should be decided by the state courts, rather than create another species of the federal law of state statutes under erie.

doj usually gets involved in elections only when federal law is implicated -- i.e. violations of the voting rights act or due process or one-person, one-vote. otherwise, it is left to the states. if trump had merely contented himself with the raffensberger phone call, i doubt doj would have gotten involved. j6 and the elector scheme, of course, forced doj to be involved (which is yet another reason the "did fani confer with feds" nonsense is just that).
 
Ramrouser said:
I assumed you had I was asking Super since he’s the one who said I didn’t understand voir dire

I’ve not attacked this civil jury verdict. I’ve simply pointed out that Trump faced an uphill battle with a jury trial in Manhattan. Imagine a jury trial against Adam Schiff in Idaho. It would be “fair” but still difficult.
Click to expand...
you wrote "Ok, she prevailed with a jury pool of 97% Dems. This civil case is not the heart of lawfare."

so i think we can infer that you think the civil case was part of lawfare, if not its heart. and the jury pool comment was obviously a way to cast doubt on on the fairness of the trial.

if you are retreating from that position, and now merely noting that it is harder to win a case in a jurisdiction where you are hated than where you are liked, fine. you are right that adam schiff would prefer CA as a venue to ID. but thats not what you said nor what you have been saying.
 
Ramrouser said:
The 97% was obviously a bit of an exaggeration to make a larger point.
Hard core liberals in Manhattan are not going to like the Republican nominee for President whether it’s Romney or Trump.
Finally, Trump improved his numbers in NYC, NY and especially NJ from 2106 and 2020.
Click to expand...
Well, when was the trial? Those improved numbers should indicate that the jury pool was a lot more fair to defendant Trump than you indicated, no?
 
superrific said:
you wrote "Ok, she prevailed with a jury pool of 97% Dems. This civil case is not the heart of lawfare."

so i think we can infer that you think the civil case was part of lawfare, if not its heart. and the jury pool comment was obviously a way to cast doubt on on the fairness of the trial.

if you are retreating from that position, and now merely noting that it is harder to win a case in a jurisdiction where you are hated than where you are liked, fine. you are right that adam schiff would prefer CA as a venue to ID. but thats not what you said nor what you have been saying.
Click to expand...
The civil case was broadly part of lawfare since it was hatched at a gathering at Molly Jong Fast’s Manhattan apartment by George Conway and other Never Trumpers and funded by liberal Dem donors. Carroll was the conduit of these individuals to “get Trump” for an alleged act from the 1990s which resembled a “Law and Order” episode (her favorite show}. So I’m not retreating. The narrow issue of the fairness of the civil trial is a separate issue.

The jury verdict was fair to the extent civil process was followed: it was just a tough venue for Trump.
 
wmheel1287 said:
Well, when was the trial? Those improved numbers should indicate that the jury pool was a lot more fair to defendant Trump than you indicated, no?
Click to expand...
While there was an almost 600k swing in votes in nyc from 2020, most of the improvement came from the other NYC boroughs, NOT Manhattan.
 
Calheel said:
The defamation case was in SDNY, not state court, and the SDNY pulls jurors from the following counties: New York, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess and Sullivan.
Click to expand...
You’re right. That case was in federal court. My mistake.
 
superrific said:
so if it was a local election, the DA should prosecute? could you explain the difference between the situations when it comes to the penal interests of the state of georgia? georgia has an interest in prosecuting election fraud that takes place within its borders. why does it matter what election?

in addition, the rico case was not about the election per se, as much as it was about georgia's electors. surely georgia has as much interest as any body in protecting the integrity of its elector appointments, so that the candidate who actually wins the states gets the votes.

finally, elections are conducted at the state and local level. there is no federal election process. the state courts have by far more experience with georgia elections than the federal court. if any precedent needs to be set, it should be decided by the state courts, rather than create another species of the federal law of state statutes under erie.

doj usually gets involved in elections only when federal law is implicated -- i.e. violations of the voting rights act or due process or one-person, one-vote. otherwise, it is left to the states. if trump had merely contented himself with the raffensberger phone call, i doubt doj would have gotten involved. j6 and the elector scheme, of course, forced doj to be involved (which is yet another reason the "did fani confer with feds" nonsense is just that).
Click to expand...
These state issues you raise should be handled by the State's Attorney General's office and NOT a local County DA. The only reason the call came into the County was because the State's SOS's office is in downtown Atlanta. It makes no sense for one county (out of 159) to pursue alleged state interests in a state wide election.

This directly impacts me as I am an Atlanta/FC resident. Fani's decision to pursue a cumbersome 18 defendant (including ex POTUS) RICO action sapped manpower away from her office to try other criminal cases and causes numerous defendants to languish in jail awaiting trial. It also placed a tremendous financial burden on the County - especially in light of her payments to her lover boy. There simply has to be a cost/benefit analysis in making a decision to file the RICO action.

What the evidence is showing, and will show, is that Jack Smith et al knew the State's Attorney General would not pursue these claims so they enlisted the DA in deep blue Atlanta to file the action as part of their lawfare against Trump. I bet the investigations are going to reveal extensive coordination and collaboration between her office and Jack Smith's group. There's a reason they are all "lawyering up" in DC as we speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top