“We”?
Donald, I think you just admitted that there were other people in on it with you.
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
207 points (99.1% liked)
News
23014 readers
7 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.
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
He probably thinks he's Louis XIV these days and is using the royal 'we.'
Definitely
i'd be okay if he died from gangrene, too. But I'd much rather he go out like Luey XVI
He can get the painful Anal fistulae over and over as well. Ol' Lou got those so bad it required a special knife to drain.
Or the streamer "we", he's about to start calling his crowd "fam" as well
Lawyer to the jury: "ok chat..."
Lol that would be hilarious
Well yeah, one of them went to prison for this exact payment!
You can't trust that guy he went to prison! (For the same crime trump is being tried for)
Here’s what’s so messed up about the ridiculous motion for mistrial because Stormy’s tale of disgusting sex was ‘prejudicial’: the defense denied any sex ever happened.
So, having a witness come in to answer questions about, uh yeah, the sex that absolutely happened is not “prejudicial”, it’s just Truth curb-stomping them.
If they were actually concerned with how it would make the demented rapist look (they weren’t), then the ploy to claim sex never happened was about as misguided as anything else trump’s pitiful legal teams have ever done. Because of course they were going to establish that it had happened.
Afterwards, they throw this pathetic excuse for a legal motion out there, no doubt simply to coddle the napping baby rather than through any actual reasoning.
Keep yappin’ Donnie. Keep digging up, you demented bastard.
It's simpler than this. If they thought any of this was legitimately out of bounds they could have objected at any time and didn't.
The judge even said they he was surprised they didn't object more.
I think they planned on using it to appeal it, but the judge shut that door right on their fingers.
I have heard that you can't appeal things that you didn't raise objections to during the trial; there need to be mistaken rulings on the part of the judge for an appeal to work, it's not just relitigating the case.
Preservation of error. Depends on the type of appeal.
Today, Trump's lawyers learn that in an adversarial system of justice, it's not the judge's job to object to things on your behalf.
Keep going, guys, you'll soon be worthy of a law degree.
It's all just delaying tactics. Diaper Don knows from a lifetime of experience how to exploit his way out of consequences. He wants to get reelected and make all his problems evaporate into a miasma of totalitarianism.
That's why he acts like a spoiled child - he's immune to the negative effects of even the few consequences he's ever suffered over his whole misbegotten life.
The judge made a good point: Trump never denied the sex happened. If they had, he could have struck that part of her testimony. But they never denied it happened, have never taken any legal action to stop her from saying it, and didn't bother raising any questions about it on cross-examination.
It's like Trump's lawyers expect the judge to do their job for them.
How the fuck does that even work?
Moron: "Your honor, I didn't rob that bank."
Witness: "I'm the bank teller and I saw him rob the bank"
Paid Liar: "OBJECTION! My client said he didn't do it, strike that from the record!"
Judge: "Ok. Guess he didn't do it."
The trial isn't about Trump having sex or paying for sex, but violating finance laws. If they had denied the sex then it wouldn't be relevant to the case.
Sounds like my 9 year old screaming "I didn't!!!" When he clearly did
Trump's speech level has proven to be at the 4th grade so this tracks.
Generous.
Shut the fuck up Donnie!
I'm super cereal u guys
I'm glad the judge sees through their obvious tactics to attempt to cause a mistrial.
Well moving for a mistrial is certainly an attempt "to cause a mistrial".
They intentionally did not object to testimony as it was given and later tried to use it to force a mistrial.
Well that certainly doesn't seem like a successful trial strategy.
The article starts by talking about the trial and then randomly switches to talking about apple juice.
What even is journalism these days?
Way to make OJ Simpson's plead sound educated.
If the adult diapers fit, you must take a shit