Salads Made Of Words
It cannot be over-emphasized how contagious TFG’s deranged speech is to those who spend what is probably too much time around him.
I strained to listen to TFG’s lawyer, Will Scharf’s unpunctuated speech to reporters this morning. A speech delivered after oral arguments were made in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case that was heard by a 3-judge panel at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal.
Just to make sure that I was hearing what I was hearing, I slowly and methodically transcribed the speech which I have pasted below. I could write a tome on any given point expressed by Mr. Scharf, but my emphasis is the absurd remark that caused me to spray my coffee this morning.
Down the rabbit hole we go, Alice (punctuation guessed at, and here’s a visual aid):
No fair jury could have reached the verdict that was reached in this case, and as a result, we believe that this verdict needs to be overturned. But there’s more than that. In addition to this improper propensity evidence, President Trump and his trial team were prevented from cross-examining E. Jean Carroll and other witnesses on crucial issues. Crucial issues in particular, relating to political motivation and the political coordination behind this entire lawsuit. This is a lawsuit that was instigated in large part by George Conway, a longtime political foe and adversary of President Trump. This is a lawsuit that was funded by Reid Hoffman, a key political ally of the Biden-Harris Administration and a major Democrat donor. We were limited in the evidence we were allowed to present at trial about these crucial facts. We were limited in cross-examining E. Jean Carroll on aspects of that dynamic that underlies the entire lawsuit, and that, too, unfairly corrupted the jury’s deliberations in this case and requires reversal of the jury verdict. I think this political coordination point is particularly important, though it is important to emphasize because what we have seen in the last few years is a weaponization by the Biden Administration and by their political allies, of our legal system and of our courts to unlawfully unconstitutionally interfere with President Trump’s core First Amendment right to run for President. That is a right guaranteed to him by the constitution. That is the right that his political opponents are attempting to strip away from him. We have seen this in case after case after case where unfair political motives have underlay what should be serious legal proceedings. And I think when you look at this situation in toto, when you look at what the Left, when you look at what the Biden-Harris Administration is attempting to do to President Trump, this is insane.
Uh, excuse me? “President Trump’s core First Amendment right to run for President?” I never heard of that one. Wait and I’ll go and Google it.
Yeah…no.
Allow me to translate. “I the attorney for Donald Trump realize I will never get serious work after this and I’m not sure I’ll even get paid. So, I parrot the paranoid delusions of this madman because he is the only audience that matters at this point.”
In what universe does it matter who paid the lawyers and helped her bring the case? Sure, I guess it matters in the political universe. The only thing that matters is the festering question at hand: did he do this? If he raped her and defamed her then it doesn’t matter who paid the bills. Biden could have written the check himself. It still doesn’t matter.
1Thanks but lets cut to the chase. This is purposeful relentless intimidation and badgering, spewing lies and fear in a coordinated attack on our Rule of Law which holds our Democracy together.
2While I do not entirely agree with John McWhorter about trump’s word salads, much that he says makes sense:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/05/opinion/trump-talk-weave-english.html
Scharf’s statement is inelegant but not even ungrammatical, aside from misusing the verb to lie.
And, in context, not incorrect. trump asserted that he had speech rights that allowed him to say whatever he wants in the process of campaigning, not that he has a right to campaign. He does have that right. No one questions that.
He lost the argument that campaign speech inactivates defamation laws, but that is what Scharf is saying.
trump knows he lost the appeal. That’s why he is so angry.
3I loved the look on the faces of his lawyers when he said he was “disappointed” in them.
4Since I cancelled my NYT subscription, maybe you can tell me who the “friend” is in John McWhorter’s opinion piece. I also read he said it’s a mistake to debate trumpf.
5I often find legal speak to be a word salad.
It’s obvious that Trump told him to mention certain people and things if he wanted to get paid.
6I’m just amazed that he snuck in the phrase “improper propensity evidence”. It was what their whole appeal was about.
7“President Trump’s core First Amendment right to run for President?”
He must not have specialized in Constitutional law. Or other law for that matter. Or a public speaking 101 course.
8Steve @ 5
McWhorter said he had had slight contact with trump and so wondered whether he (McWhorter) was the friend, although McWhorter is a professor of linguistics, not English.
For me, I join the Xitter poster who doubted whether trump has even one friend who is a professor of English. I might add — or anything else.
I accept most of what McWhorter said about communication, but I think he completely missed the point about trump. trump does shtick. Nothing he says makes any more sense — or is intended to — than Don Rickles calling someone a hockey puck.
9Harry @ 9: When my grad students put an “etc.” at the end of a list in a paper, I challenge them to name 3 other things lumped in that catch-all. If they cannot, then it gets dumped and the 1 or 2 other items in mind are explicitly listed.
When T says “English professors tell me”, I wish some reporter would ask him to name two of them. Like you, I don’t believe he knows even one. And even if he did, he’d likely mangle the name, the way he recently referred to Musk as “Leon”.
10Yeah, not only does the melting pumpkin that is the Toxic Orange, not have even one English professor in his camp, the man is constitutionally unable to make friends for any reason. I think of him and the donut shop creep as a pair of the absolute most unattractive charismaless mongrels ever. There is no place anywhere that would house “friends” of the House of Dump. They don’t exist. Also, you twirpy idiot, there IS NO “President Dump.” He doesn’t exist either. And his ear shows no sign of having been shot. So many liars, so little time.
11