Octopus Overlords

This hasn’t caught as many headlines, but this case goes to court in a few weeks and Trump may have to testify:



More here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... e-lawsuit/

This is going to heat up very soon.

I'm ignorant of what the law is here... someone help me.

"The judge is waiting to hear if Trump intends to attend the trial."
"Will he show up?"

First, is the second question wondering if he make his intentions clear by 4/20 - or if he will declare his intentions to attend, and then he does. I assume it's just pondering if Trump will attend the trial... not 'make the deadline'.

Second (and my real question), is this something Trump is allowed to either attend or not attend, based on his own whims? Or is he obligated to attend the trial, and this is just a formal step where Trump needs to reply with "Yeah, see you there." by 4/20?

Which leaves me with: if it's not a matter of choice, and Trump needs to attend the trial, why is there so much language built around making it sound like it is up to him? Or is this something that his lawyers will be forced to attend but his attendance is not required and the court simply wants to know if it needs to make preparations for his arrival?

I'm not a litigator, but since this is a civil trial, I could see two reasons for him not attending. One might be that he just has his legal team attending. He's not on trial criminally in this case, and he might want to avoid the circus. The other would be that no one from his team shows up, which would likely result in him defaulting. Doesn't seem like a sound strategy to me.

Okay, so it could just be that the court wants to know if Trump himself is going to come, so they can prepare for that.

The idea that the court wants to know 'ahead of time' if Trump plans to default (I can assume what that means in this context, but I'm not sure what the legal results of that would be) seems like a weird request of the court.

I guess I've just pictured Trump's lawyers representing him in court for so long, without Trump attending, that it seems odd to think he would attend anything like this unless he was legally compelled (and even then...).

There is another option. TFG and legal team are currently in court and in trial, the outcome and length of which is not yet known. So the next court has given them a bit of time to see how this trial is going, so they know if TFG schedule is cleared up in time to attend the next court appearance.

I'm no lawyer, but "I was already mandatorily present in a different court" sounds like a pretty good reason for not showing up in court.

Only if two exact court dates are in conflict and I'm sure they could coordinate that problem away.

I guess I was mostly curious if it was a question where the court wanted to know if he intended to fulfill a legal obligation vs. if it was a question that had more to deal with the court's own logistics/security plans.

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 10:47 am Okay, so it could just be that the court wants to know if Trump himself is going to come, so they can prepare for that.

It's purely logistics and security. His attendance requires a lot of planning by the court, I'm sure much to his delight.

Jaymon wrote: ↑Tue Apr 11, 2023 12:51 pm There is another option. TFG and legal team are currently in court and in trial, the outcome and length of which is not yet known. So the next court has given them a bit of time to see how this trial is going, so they know if TFG schedule is cleared up in time to attend the next court appearance.

I'm no lawyer, but "I was already mandatorily present in a different court" sounds like a pretty good reason for not showing up in court.

Trump’s not currently at trial anywhere else. This is not about scheduling this case to avoid conflicts with other court dates. It’s simply - as LawBeef said - about determining whether Trump will be there so the court can address security and logistics.

Also, to be clear, Trump doesn’t have to show up, but his lawyers do, unless he’s going to take a default. If a civil defendant fails to appear to defend against the plaintiff’s claims, so long as the court has jurisdiction, judgment will be entered in favor of the plaintiff. That’s called a default judgment. Trump can’t let that happen, because his ability and options to appeal a default judgment are slim to none. That won’t happen.

And so it begins:

This is a civil case and this will be very important:

My favorite detail about all this came out months ago:

Trump claimed that he would never assault Carroll because she was never "his type" (as if that's how rape works).

Later in his deposition, he was shown a picture of a woman and asked to identify her. He said it was Marla Maples, his second wife.

The picture was of Jean Carroll near the time of the alleged assault.

Carroll’s testimony this morning:

Further testimony, including cross examination:

Entering that dressing room, Carroll said, was the biggest mistake of her life, but she testified that the gravity of what occurred didn’t immediately dawn upon her. In fact, Carroll said, she said that she thought her friend, author Lisa Birnbach, would find the alleged encounter funny.

Oof. I really wish that she hadn't used that particular phrasing.

He's really digging himself out during taped deposition here.

Trump claims in Ireland that he’s going to leave and “confront” Carroll and his lawyer reacts:

I still can't believe this guy was (and could be again) in charge of the apparatus to end the world.

malchior wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 8:35 am I still can't believe this guy was (and could be again) in charge of the apparatus to end the world.

Really?! Tracks perfectly for me. Oh, wait, you expected some evil genius type, emphasis on the ‘genius’?

Wow - really wasn't expecting that outcome.

Also found he defamed her, awarded $5M. I'm sure he'll pay right up.

And yet they will still love him.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 3:19 pm Also found he defamed her, awarded $5M. I'm sure he'll pay right up.

File a lien on Trump Tower.

The type of comment you ordinarily hear about in relations to legal matters regarding ex-President's. And an implicit comment on the character of our nation's people on top.

I'm sure they're already being stalked.

FWIW this says a lot about the character of Carroll and Garland. One was willing to stand up for themselves and the other is too afraid or too dilatory about standing up for all of us. A lone actor (and some good attorneys) versus the full DOJ. Hopefully this is a wake up call about the hunger for justice against evil in our society.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 2:35 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Sat May 06, 2023 8:35 am I still can't believe this guy was (and could be again) in charge of the apparatus to end the world.

Really?! Tracks perfectly for me. Oh, wait, you expected some evil genius type, emphasis on the ‘genius’?

instead, we got the very stable genius.

Re: the verdict...

Oh Yeah!


I also hope this is the first brick to fall... and the DOJ finds the world doesn't explode when he's found guilty, and can find the nerve to act.

I find it odd that the jury believed Trump attacked Carroll, but don't believe her that it amounted to rape.

I thought I heard that the judge instructed the jury between a given definition of ''rape" vs a given definition of "sexual abuse" and they selected the latter.

He gave them three options in descending severity. Rape, sexual abuse, or forcible touching. She testified he inserted his penis, which should clearly be rape, but they didn't believe her on that. Or didn't feel comfortable.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/09/nyre ... tions.html

To find that Mr. Trump raped Ms. Carroll, the jurors needed to believe that it was more likely than not that Mr. Trump engaged in sexual intercourse by physical force. The judge explained that “any penetration of the penis into the vaginal opening” constituted intercourse.

I kinda find that definition really problematic.

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 6:59 pm I kinda find that definition really problematic.

Blame the legislature.

Agreed.
So a woman can't rape a woman, it would seem.

SECTION 130.00
Sex offenses; definitions of terms

1. "Sexual intercourse" has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight.

Okay, and she testified about him penetrating her digitally (I'm not sure about any other testimony) - but the judge apparently said it needed to be a penis (ordinary intercourse) - so woman-woman rape is impossible.