“A Judge Shouldn’t Take Over a Case and Frame Somebody” – Rudy Giuliani Explains How E. Jean Carroll’s Lawfare Case Ought to Have Been Tossed (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit

On Friday night Rudy Giuliani joined Rob Schmitt to debate the outrageous E. Jean Carroll case in opposition to President Trump in New York Metropolis.

Earlier within the day, a crooked New York Metropolis courtroom slapped President Trump with an $83 million judgment for talking out in opposition to the disgusting lies of a crazed girl who stated he lured her right into a Bergdorf Goodman retailer some 25 or possibly 30 years in the past and raped her in a dressing room the place they have been making an attempt on lingerie. All the story lacks credulity and is like one thing from a Law and Order sketch.

on Friday the crooked courtroom ordered President Trump to pay E. Jean Carroll $83 million for one thing he stated about this loopy girl again when he was president in 2019. Free speech is not allowed on this nation, particularly for Republican lawmakers, Trump supporters, and conservative journalists.

This case additionally adjustments legislation within the US and places any President in jeopardy of being sued by a US citizen for one thing they stated throughout their time as president.

Trump Legal professional Alina Habba described to reporters how villainous the courtroom handled President Trump and his staff in the course of the present trial.

Legal professional Alina Habba: Women and gents, you aren’t allowed to be stripped of each protection that you’ve. You aren’t allowed to be advised you can’t convey it up. And picture a degree the place a decide tells the lawyer earlier than your consumer, the previous President of america, the main candidate and apparent nominee for the Republican Occasion, earlier than he takes the stand to defend himself. Ms. Haba, inform me the questions you’re going to ask in open courtroom and inform me precisely what he’s going to reply. After which edited my questions, edited the response he was allowed to present…

…We’ll instantly enchantment. We’ll put aside that ridiculous jury. And I simply wish to remind you all of 1 factor. I’ll proceed with President Trump to combat for everyone’s first Modification proper to talk.

On Friday Rudy defined to Rob Schmitt why this case ought to have been tossed from the courtroom earlier than it ever began.

Rob Schmitt: Former New York mayor and U. S. Legal professional Rudy Giuliani joins us tonight along with his perspective on this. What has occurred to our authorized system, sir?

Rudy Giuliani: Yeah, it’s gone to hell. That’s what’s occurred. I imply, we have now an embarrassing state of affairs in america during which we’re a rustic with out legal guidelines. We don’t observe the legal guidelines that we have now. To begin with, it’s patently absurd that this even occurred. I’ve been going to Bergdorf for 30 years, and once I was us lawyer, I wasn’t all that well-known. However the minute I walked into Bergdorf, about ten folks had come round me to assist me. This man was one of the vital well-known folks in New York on the time this occurred. This could be like doing this in the midst of Madison Sq. Backyard. It’s completely ridiculous.

Second factor that’s ridiculous is I don’t know why this case isn’t thrown out. You’re purported to plead a tort, which is what that is. Proper, with specificity. Specificity means to present you sufficient info as a defendant so you may defend your self. When you may’t give me a day and time, how the hell can I defend myself? Now, why doesn’t she do this? She doesn’t do it as a result of trump travels loads, and she or he simply may decide a day as a result of she’s mendacity her bottom off. She may decide a day during which he was in Scotland or a day during which he was in Mar a Lago, or a day during which the best way they did to Michael Cohen, after they stated he was in poland assembly with the Russians and he was in California…

…This decide is a pure shame. He’s telling a lawyer what inquiries to ask. That’s completely ridiculous. He gained’t let him defend himself. And the way is it inconsistent? Let’s say, to begin with, he was discovered not responsible or not chargeable for rape. It was sexual assault, not rape. And second, you could be responsible of rape, and nonetheless an individual is usually a whack up. That wasn’t defamation. You’re allowed to nonetheless defend your self in opposition to defamation.

Democrats are destroying the authorized system in America at this time. This would be the finish of America as we all know it if that is allowed to proceed.