25 Reason Trump won't pay a dime to E Carrol...

[MagicMike]

Rape is defined as forced sexual intercourse with the penis and the vagina.

In the state of New York.
Other places yes....it was rape.
For your own clarification ask yourself....would unwelcome fingers in the vagina of one of your own female loved ones (wife, daughter, sister, mother) qualify as a rape in your OWN mind?
Well, there ya go.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

In the state of New York.
Other places yes....it was rape.
For your own clarification ask yourself....would unwelcome fingers in the vagina of one of your own female loved ones (wife, daughter, sister, mother) qualify as a rape in your OWN mind?
Well, there ya go.

.

You're not supposed to talk about another poster's family.

Quit it.





.

 

[john doe 101]

So if I say your raped me then you are a rapist, right?

Prove it in a court of law, shit head.

 

[ThisIsMe]

This wasn't a criminal case, where all of that would be necessary before a jury could find him guilty and put him in prison.

In civil cases it doesn't work that way.

Exactly…in a civil case, it appears you don’t need evidence to make someone pay…

So, we think that’s ok…why?

 

[ThisIsMe]

On top of their testimony was Trump's revelation that celebrities can do to women what she claimed he did to her. And being in a civil court, she needed only to prove her claims beyond a preponderance of the evidence. She did that.

Someone making a statement is not evidence of a physical action. People talk “big” a lot. Locker room talk, whatever you call it, happens all the time.

Also, he never said he molested anyone. He said they “LET” you. He was talking about women being attracted to the celebrity.

You are right though, preponderance of evidence, which is among the flimsiest and thinnest burdens of proof, means that you don’t need to prove your case, it just means you have to convince a jury that “it’s more likely he did it than not”, meaning, you don’t have to see any proof, just basically “yeah, I think he did it” is what my it amounts to.

For that reason, I would expect the appeal to overturn it. The judgement is excessive and frivolous, and was an obvious hit job by a liberal judge and jury

But, if it sticks, I’d say trump should turn around and sue e Jean Carroll….for 83.3 million dollars…for defamation.

What SHE did was ACTUAL defamation, and, by the rules that were just dispensed, as long as trump can bring two buddies to say he didn’t touch her, he would win that case.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The jury has to rule on a standard of “more likely than not” instead of “beyond a reasonable doubt”

In this case, the jury found it more likely that Carrol was telling the truth than Trump

Sure, I understand that. It’s messed up in my opinion. When we’re talking 80 million dollars, you’d think the courts would require more than “I think he could have done it”

I can’t believe that’s even a thing to be honest.

 

[rightwinger]

Someone making a statement is not evidence of a physical action. People talk “big” a lot. Locker room talk, whatever you call it, happens all the time.

Also, he never said he molested anyone. He said they “LET” you. He was talking about women being attracted to the celebrity.

You are right though, preponderance of evidence, which is among the flimsiest and thinnest burdens of proof, means that you don’t need to prove your case, it just means you have to convince a jury that “it’s more likely he did it than not”, meaning, you don’t have to see any proof, just basically “yeah, I think he did it” is what my it amounts to.

For that reason, I would expect the appeal to overturn it. The judgement is excessive and frivolous, and was an obvious hit job by a liberal judge and jury

But, if it sticks, I’d say trump should turn around and sue e Jean Carroll….for 83.3 million dollars…for defamation.

What SHE did was ACTUAL defamation, and, by the rules that were just dispensed, as long as trump can bring two buddies to say he didn’t touch her, he would win that case.

Trump was not ordered to pay $83 million because he sexually assaulted E Jean Carrol
He was fined for repeated Defamation and an inability to keep his mouth shut.

 

[MagicMike]

.

You're not supposed to talk about another poster's family.

Quit it.





.

Does the technical definition of what constitutes a real rape change when it happens to someone you aren't personally close to?
That was my point.

 

[Care4all]

Exactly…in a civil case, it appears you don’t need evidence to make someone pay…

So, we think that’s ok…why?

The civil courts have worked just fine for centuries.

 

[Faun]

Someone making a statement is not evidence of a physical action. People talk “big” a lot. Locker room talk, whatever you call it, happens all the time.

Also, he never said he molested anyone. He said they “LET” you. He was talking about women being attracted to the celebrity.

You are right though, preponderance of evidence, which is among the flimsiest and thinnest burdens of proof, means that you don’t need to prove your case, it just means you have to convince a jury that “it’s more likely he did it than not”, meaning, you don’t have to see any proof, just basically “yeah, I think he did it” is what my it amounts to.

For that reason, I would expect the appeal to overturn it. The judgement is excessive and frivolous, and was an obvious hit job by a liberal judge and jury

But, if it sticks, I’d say trump should turn around and sue e Jean Carroll….for 83.3 million dollars…for defamation.

What SHE did was ACTUAL defamation, and, by the rules that were just dispensed, as long as trump can bring two buddies to say he didn’t touch her, he would win that case.

Also, he never said he molested anyone. He said they “LET” you. He was talking about women being attracted to the celebrity.

That's him saying they "let you." And he's a sexual predator. Apparently, not all women let him.

What SHE did was ACTUAL defamation, and, by the rules that were just dispensed, as long as trump can bring two buddies to say he didn’t touch her, he would win that case.

Nope, she didn't defame him. A court found he sexually assaulted her. And he can't bring two friends to deny her account. Trump already said he never met her.

For that reason, I would expect the appeal to overturn it. The judgement is excessive and frivolous, and was an obvious hit job by a liberal judge and jury

Oh? On what grounds do you think he'll be granted an appeal? Can't be based on losing by a preponderance of the evidence as that is the standard bar to meet. Doubtful it will be over an excessive judgement since the judgement was originally only $5m. It's $83m for punative reasons because he continued attacking her. He can't help himself. He has a history of thus, like he dud with Rosie O'Donnell. At most, he might be able to get the judgement reduced. But more likely than that, he will continue attacking Carroll and she'll sue him again fir even more. Don't forget, he can't restrain himself.

 

[j-mac]

OK, post above and my response.

The Judge didn't limit him to "yes, or no" answers regardless of the question.

What the Judge do was limit responses to the subject of the trial (which was damages) and that the responses had to be germane to the question asked.

There were two trails, the first was the Trial of Fact, FPOSTUS#45 was fully allowed to present a defense and testify in the trail that determined he was liable. ** HE ** chose not to testify and not to present a defense at all. During the Trail of Fact no defense was presented, once the claimant rested their case, the defense passed on presenting a rebuttal case. The Judge even provide 3-Days for FPOTUS#45 to appear in court to testify, FPOSTUS#45 blew off the case. Then they wend to closing arguments and the trail was closed.

Once he lost on the liability in the Trial of Fact, he doesn't get to relitigate it during the second trail for damages. The second jury cannot reverse the decision of the first jury.

His right to defend himself was not taken away by the court, FPOTUS#45 choose not to present one.

WW

It was a hypothetical….Are you ok with ANY judge treating you the way he treated Trump? It’s a disgrace.

 

[j-mac]

Willis wasn't being sued, moron. This was a special hearing to determine whether or not she should be allowed to continue leading the prosecution. If Willis was allowed to ramble on, then the judge permitted it for whatever reasons he deemed fit. But if the judge had cut her off, then she'd had have a cup of STFU, just like every other person taking the stand would. Courtrooms are not public debate forums.

This judge allowed her to answer, unlike Engorn, he was giving Willis a chance to answer, because he had not pre judged the claims…The only reason to stifle a witness is when the judges mind is already made up…Engorn is a ideologue who railroaded Trump.

That may be, but she didn't serve her client very well, did she?

it’s not over dummy…

At least you spelled it right, lol

I called it right as well.

 

[j-mac]

Also, he never said he molested anyone. He said they “LET” you. He was talking about women being attracted to the celebrity.

That's him saying they "let you." And he's a sexual predator. Apparently, not all women let him.

What SHE did was ACTUAL defamation, and, by the rules that were just dispensed, as long as trump can bring two buddies to say he didn’t touch her, he would win that case.

Nope, she didn't defame him. A court found he sexually assaulted her. And he can't bring two friends to deny her account. Trump already said he never met her.

For that reason, I would expect the appeal to overturn it. The judgement is excessive and frivolous, and was an obvious hit job by a liberal judge and jury

Oh? On what grounds do you think he'll be granted an appeal? Can't be based on losing by a preponderance of the evidence as that is the standard bar to meet. Doubtful it will be over an excessive judgement since the judgement was originally only $5m. It's $83m for punative reasons because he continued attacking her. He can't help himself. He has a history of thus, like he dud with Rosie O'Donnell. At most, he might be able to get the judgement reduced. But more likely than that, he will continue attacking Carroll and she'll sue him again fir even more. Don't forget, he can't restrain himself.

30 year plus? You people are pathetic…

 

[multivita-man]

This judge allowed her to answer, unlike Engorn, he was giving Willis a chance to answer, because he had not pre judged the claims…The only reason to stifle a witness is when the judges mind is already made up…Engorn is a ideologue who railroaded Trump.

It's the judge's discretion. The judge's job is to make sure defendants get due process. There's no evidence that Engoron denied Trump due process, but that's what appellate courts are for.

it’s not over dummy…

It pretty much is unless Trump can become dictator for life.

I called it right as well.

Sure ya did, lol

 

[j-mac]

It's the judge's discretion. The judge's job is to make sure defendants get due process. There's no evidence that Engoron denied Trump due process, but that's what appellate courts are for.

it sure is….just don’t cry when this is overturned…

It pretty much is unless Trump can become dictator for life.

oh, quit peeing in your panties.

Sure ya did, lol

Uh huh….

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are correct, however, consider a judge telling you that the only answers you can give are “yes, or no” regardless of what the question is….

It‘s at that point, not to mention violations of his fair right to a fair trial, that the judge took away the most important aspect of a fair trial, by taking away for him to defend, or speak on his own behalf…

It was a hypothetical….Are you ok with ANY judge treating you the way he treated Trump? It’s a disgrace.

It wasn't a hypothetical, you very specifically said the Judge took away ** HIS ** right to a fair trial, that the judge took away the most important aspect of a fair trial, by taking away for ** HIM ** to defend, or speak on ** HIS OWN ** behalf…

That isn't hypothetical it's claims about the case.

Which is factually incorrect. FPOTUS#45 was fully able to mount a defense at the trial for liability and ** HE ** declined, didn't present any defense, didn't call any witnesses, the Judge even gave him a 3-day extension to notify the court and to testify on his own behalf before the case was rested and went to closing arguments.

But FPOTUS#45 ignored the proceedings and then didn't like the results, that's his problem, not a problem with the courts.

It was a hypothetical….Are you ok with ANY judge treating you the way he treated Trump? It’s a disgrace.

Am I OK with a Judge allowing me to present a defense at the Trial of Fact, and choosing on my own not to present a defense, then later in a second trial being limited to talking about the subject of the second trial which was the damages? Absolutely. If you want to put on a defense do it during the trial that determined yes/no were you liable. I wouldn't expect to be able to relitigate a trial I ignored.

WW

 

[rightwinger]

It was a hypothetical….Are you ok with ANY judge treating you the way he treated Trump? It’s a disgrace.

The Judge followed the law and they were way past the point to relitigate the case. Trump cannot follow direction

Trump should have gone to jail for repeated contempt of court.

 

[j-mac]

The Judge followed the law and they were way past the point to relitigate the case. Trump cannot follow direction

Trump should have gone to jail for repeated contempt of court.

Why even have a trial, when the judge rules you guilty before the trial even starts? It’s an outrage.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Trump was not ordered to pay $83 million because he sexually assaulted E Jean Carrol
He was fined for repeated Defamation and an inability to keep his mouth shut.

Based on an allegation that couldn’t be proven.


Trump did what anyone would do when accused of rape, he claimed he didn’t do it. You all are apparently of the mindset that if someone is accused of something and they deny it, then that is defamation. That’s absurd. He, like anyone else, has a right to deny an allegation made against them, and just because a court found him “liable for sexual assault” that never was proven, that doesn’t mean he gives up the right to proclaim his innocence.

That’s what you all don’t seem to get, the sexual assault case was never proven with any kind of evidence, trump still maintains that he didn’t do it. After the trial was over, all the lefty media outlets were still claiming he raped her, so naturally he kept denying it.

again, if I were trump, I’d launch a massive lawsuit against all of the media outlets that kept claiming he raped her and I’d sue e Jean Carroll, all for defamation. Unless someone can offer up some proof.

 

[j-mac]

It wasn't a hypothetical, you very specifically said the Judge took away ** HIS ** right to a fair trial, that the judge took away the most important aspect of a fair trial, by taking away for ** HIM ** to defend, or speak on ** HIS OWN ** behalf…

That isn't hypothetical it's claims about the case.

Which is factually incorrect. FPOTUS#45 was fully able to mount a defense at the trial for liability and ** HE ** declined, didn't present any defense, didn't call any witnesses, the Judge even gave him a 3-day extension to notify the court and to testify on his own behalf before the case was rested and went to closing arguments.

But FPOTUS#45 ignored the proceedings and then didn't like the results, that's his problem, not a problem with the courts.



Am I OK with a Judge allowing me to present a defense at the Trial of Fact, and choosing on my own not to present a defense, then later in a second trial being limited to talking about the subject of the second trial which was the damages? Absolutely. If you want to put on a defense do it during the trial that determined yes/no were you liable. I wouldn't expect to be able to relitigate a trial I ignored.

WW

1st, I said this….”consider a judge telling you that the only answers you can give are “yes, or no” regardless of what the question is….”

That sir is a hypothetical question…

Next…”In September 2023, Engoron issued a summary judgment that Trump and his company had committed fraud for years.”

So, no, there was no trial.