#MeToo #metooindia @mjakbar
Delhi court starts hearing MJ Akbar's defamation case against Priya Ramani.
Sr. Adv. Rebecca John begins submissions for Ramani.
#MeToo #metooindia @mjakbar
Continues showing case documents.
John: Only the first four paras of the article referred to Akbar, rest of the article was about male bosses in general.
#MeToo @mjakbar
John: This is self-evident. The portions of the article in inverted commas are from articles written in America by American authors, which is why they are in inverted commas. They've nothing to do with Akbar.
Judge: Has he made complaints against others also?
John: No, he has only picked out Ramani, and he admits he was aware of others also.
His wife, on the other hand stated that, Pallavi's flaunting the relationship publicly threatened to destroy their family- which he admitted.
#MeToo #MJAkbar #PriyaRamani
#MJAkbar #MeToo
More from Live Law
More from Law
I was right. "Lawyer" starts out with name-calling and an insistence that trial is "unconstitutional". He's saying Trump's 1/6 speech was rather bland, and pretending that was the only thing the House managers talked about, and the managers were "slanderous."
Bilious bullshit.
"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).
Bilious bullshit.
Trump's "lawyers" won't offer any sort of defense.
— DCPetterson (@dcpetterson) February 12, 2021
They will distract, deflect, distort and dissemble.
They'll engage in whataboutism and name-calling.
They'll call the trial "unconstitutional," even though the Senate decided it wasn't.
They won't engage with the facts.
"Lawyer" is arguing that since there were objections raised by Democrats to some of the vote counts in 2016, that means Trump didn't engage in sedition.
I'm not sure how that logic works.
Now they're running a Trump campaign commercial.
A bunch of whataboutism, contrasting patriotic music behind Trump's racist dogwhistles about "law and order" against Democrats making firey speeches with dark music.
He went to the moronic Gym Jordan argument that Trump couldn't have instigated insurrection if the violence was gonna happen anyway (without acknowledging Trump had been encouraging and building up to that violence for close to a year).