Mr Trump - All discussion here

[butlers]

 

[trastrick]

12 hours ago, butlers said:

 

AP  News

 

"Analysis: Palin's legal fight with the New York Times is far from over"

 

"A surprising and unusual ruling against Sarah Palin in her defamation case against the New York Times (NYT.N) has narrowed the former Alaska governor's route to victory but the high-profile suit is far from over, legal experts said.

 

"In an abrupt twist in a trial seen as a test of longstanding protections for American media, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff on Monday announced plans to throw out the lawsuit - even as jurors were still deliberating. The judge did not inform the jurors of his plan.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/palins-legal-fight-with-new-york-times-is-far-over-2022-02-15/

 

NYT

 

A jury rejected Sarah Palin’s libel suit against The New York Times on Tuesday, a day after the judge said he would dismiss the case if the jury ruled in her favor because her legal team had failed to provide sufficient evidence that she had been defamed by a 2017 editorial erroneously linking her to a mass shooting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/15/business/media/new-york-times.html

Edited February 16, 2022 by trastrick

[Magilla]

On 14/02/2022 at 20:43, butlers said:

https://www.wonkette.com/what-the-hell-are-the-wingers-on-about-now-with-john-durham

Oh dear

https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-goes-hog-wild-with-exaggerations-about-the-john-durham-filing

Edited February 16, 2022 by Magilla

[trastrick]

Palin vs NYT update

 

The Hill

 

"Palin jury learned of Judge's motion to dismiss case against NYT before giving verdict"

 

"Several of the jurors who ruled against former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) in her civil case against The New York Times learned of a (Clinton appointed) judge's decision to dismiss the case before handing down their verdict. 

 

"These jurors reported that although they had been assiduously adhering to the Court’s instruction to avoid media coverage of the trial, they had involuntarily received 'push notifications' on their smartphones that contained the bottomline of the ruling," a filing in U.S. District Court submitted on Wednesday read.

 

"The jurors repeatedly assured the Court’s law clerk that these notifications had not affected them in any way or played any role whatever in their deliberations." 

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/594555-palin-jury-learned-of-judges-motion-to-dismiss-case-against-nyt-before-giving

 

Lol

[Magilla]

3 minutes ago, trastrick said:

The jurors repeatedly assured the Court’s law clerk that these notifications had not affected them in any way or played any role whatever in their deliberations.

That's the appeal screwed!

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, Magilla said:

That's the appeal screwed!

Lol

 

Jury Tampering, a defense lawyers dream!

 

Jury Tampering

 

During a trial, a person may not communicate with a juror about anything related to the substance of the case. No matter how they do it, people who try to influence jurors are guilty of jury tampering. A classic example of tampering is bribing or threatening a juror to decide a case a certain way. More subtle examples are leaving jurors anonymous notes, slipping them photographs, and telling them information that's been excluded at trial.

 

(I would add sending information about the case to the Juror's cell phones.)

 

It's always frustrating to the left when the Law gets in the way of their kangaroo courts.

 

Trump used the Law to run them ragged while they were hell bent on removing him from office.

 

Classic case:

 

Charge: Trump obstructed and stonewalled Congress!

 

Actually he exercised his legal rights, by taking disputed matters to court, Executive Privilege, compliance with Subpoenas, the whole shooting match.

 

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday that she was instructing committee chairs to draw up articles of impeachment. House leaders have signaled they hope to wrap up proceedings in their chamber before Congress leaves for the December holidays. That means they’d like to take a final vote on impeaching Trump in a little over two weeks.

 

And they’ve made clear they believe time is of the essence.

 

“We view this as urgent,” House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff said last week.

 

“They keep taking it to court and, no, we’re not going to wait till the courts decide,” Pelosi said. “We can’t wait for that.”

 

And that's why all her Impeachment attempts ultimately fail. No legal basis!

 

Lol

 

[altus]

59 minutes ago, trastrick said:

Lol

 

Jury Tampering, a defense lawyers dream!

 

Jury Tampering

 

During a trial, a person may not communicate with a juror about anything related to the substance of the case. No matter how they do it, people who try to influence jurors are guilty of jury tampering. A classic example of tampering is bribing or threatening a juror to decide a case a certain way. More subtle examples are leaving jurors anonymous notes, slipping them photographs, and telling them information that's been excluded at trial.

 

(I would add sending information about the case to the Juror's cell phones.)

I doubt jury tampering would apply in this case. The article you quoted from includes

Quote

After the judge's move, several outlet sent the news out via push alerts  — a short message often sent in breaking news situations directly from a news organization to a person's cellphone or tablet or other subscribed personal device alerting them to a story. 

So the jurors reporting they had assiduously adhered to the Court’s instruction to avoid media coverage of the trial had in fact remained subscribed to push notifications from news organisations throughout. It would be impossible to prove the news organisations were jury tampering - they won't have even known people they may have been sending notifications to had been selected to the jury. Even if they received such notifications from the NYT (the defendant), rather than say Fox News, it would be impossible to prove they knew they were sending information to a juror.

[Magilla]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Jury Tampering, a defense lawyers dream!

Notionally wrong in this case, since the jury's verdict was set aside by the judge.

 

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

 

Jury Tampering

 

During a trial, a person may not communicate with a juror about anything related to the substance of the case. No matter how they do it, people who try to influence jurors are guilty of jury tampering. A classic example of tampering is bribing or threatening a juror to decide a case a certain way. More subtle examples are leaving jurors anonymous notes, slipping them photographs, and telling them information that's been excluded at trial.

Who are they going to charge?

 

The jury made it clear that it had not affected them in any way or played any role whatsoever in their deliberations.

 

Regardless, Palin would have to prove the judge was wrong on the law in his actual malice ruling, before getting to any questions regarding the jury...

 

...she can't, because he wasn't!

 

But hey, if Palin wants to throw (other peoples) money away, let her at it...  I can't see her getting her appeal any time soon, and she'd still lose

 

[trastrick]

4 minutes ago, Magilla said:

Notionally wrong in this case, since the jury's verdict was set aside by the judge.

 

Who are they going to charge?

 

The jury made it clear that it had not affected them in any way or played any role whatsoever in their deliberations.

 

Regardless, Palin would have to prove the judge was wrong on the law in his actual malice ruling, before getting to any questions regarding the jury...

 

...she can't, because he wasn't!

 

But hey, if Palin wants to throw (other peoples) money away, let her at it...  I can't see her getting her appeal any time soon, and she'd still lose

 

You're wasting your legal expertise on SF.

 

Or maybe not!  |)

 

But It's not up to a Jury to determine if they've been unduly influenced.

 

Second, A once popular figure, maliciously linked to the attempted assassinations of politicians, in a story that was subsequently "corrected"  (always after the damage is done by these hit pieces).

 

A  Republican  suing the Manhattan  News Paper Of Record, in a Manhattan Courtroom, presided over by a Clinton appointed Manhattan Judge,  with a Manhattan Jury, at first blush has little chance of success.

 

As NPR described it, "The trial represented a dramatic confrontation between the self-professed hockey mom from Wasilla, Alaska, and one of the nation's most august news outlets.

 

Lol, How dare she? (Note to NPR and the great unwashed, she also happened to be a Woman Candidate for Vice President of the United States of America.  So much for mysogyny, Lol)

 

It may take on a different aspect, if the political climate were to change.

 

She'll likely appeal. New trial, new Judge, after the Mid Terms.

 

 

 

 

[Magilla]

14 minutes ago, trastrick said:

But It's not up to a Jury to determine if they've been unduly influenced.

In this case, it makes no difference either way.

 

14 minutes ago, trastrick said:

She'll likely appeal. New trial, new Judge, after the Mid Terms.

Very little chance of getting an appeal, she'd still lose.