Appeals Court Upholds Carroll’s $83 Million Judgment Against Trump.

[BackAgain]

A real judge vs the usmb failed Liability supposed-lawyer:

Your denial of my status Asa lawyer is just your usual dishonestly based nonsense.

“This was a rape claim, this was a rape case all along, and the jury rejected that — made other findings,” his lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said outside the courthouse.

It was a civil case premised, partly on a claim of “rape.” The civil jury explicitly rejected the claim of rape.

A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference.

Wrong. The judge offered a public comment about which he was flatly wrong as the verdict sheet itself established.

He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood.

There a no common understanding of the word rape when the Penal Law defines the term. And this wasn’t a criminal case, anyway.

...

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.

An exemplar of how absurd the judge was.

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”

False. If it were true — and it wasn’t — the jury would have made said so. But they said otherwise.

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”

Maybe. Maybe not. But relevant. The judge gave the jury the precise instructions. Is this judge now speaking shit about the jury’s determination? That is improper judicial behavior.

As usual, the dainty, you made not one salient point.

 

[Dante]

Nope. He lost because this case was brought in the deep blue cesspool of NYC.
Actual facts and logic and justice and fairness were irrelevant in that proceeding.

A jury of his peers.

the end

 

[BackAgain]

The ruling went against the argument that: "presidential immunity should shield him from liability for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll." That is a big deal and you should celebrate it as it goes against any narrative that the SCOTUS ruling made Trump a King.

D'Oh!

So? I agree with their decision insofar as it denies that Presidential Election immunity argument as a basis for reversal.

Are you so fully retarded as to imagine that this was the sole point on appeal of the defense?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Trump has never been convicted of rape. Now let's talk about you assholes in the UK and allowing illegals to rape children.

We both know it's true so STFU and sit the fck down, Stumps

Lets recap on the case.
1.Trump tries to rape Carroll in a New York departmnt store. But he has a small cock and cant manage.
2. Years later she rights about his vicious sexual attack.
3. Trump defames her by calling her a liar.
4. She takes him to court.
5. The judge agrees with carroll that trump did try to rape her and awards damages.
6 The appeal court agrees.
7. He hasnt been convicted of rape but the courts agree he tried to rape her.
8.You are paying thru your taxes for this circus.
9. When you are famous they let you do it
10 sexual predator.

 

[Dante]

Your denial of my status Asa lawyer is just your usual dishonestly based nonsense.

It was a civil case premised, partly on a claim of “rape.” The civil jury explicitly rejected the claim of rape.

Wrong. The judge offered a public comment about which he was flatly wrong as the verdict sheet itself established.

There a no common understanding of the word rape when the Penal Law defines the term. And this wasn’t a criminal case, anyway.

An exemplar of how absurd the judge was.

False. If it were true — and it wasn’t — the jury would have made said so. But they said otherwise.

Maybe. Maybe not. But relevant. The judge gave the jury the precise instructions. Is this judge now speaking shit about the jury’s determination? That is improper judicial behavior.

As usual, the dainty, you made not one salient point.

The apologist in you is in high gear.

congrats

either way, djt is proven to be a sexual predator in proven in a court of law in the state he hails from; in the city he hails from; by a jury of his peers

 

[Donald H]

USMB needs to fix the system that anticipates words and enters them.

I have no idea what you mean with that. In any case, it changes nothing on a president's complete immunity from justice. At least in England they could chop the king's fkn head off.

 

[Dante]

So? I agree with their decision insofar as it denies that Presidential Election immunity argument as a basis for reversal.

Are you so fully retarded as to imagine that this was the sole point on appeal of the defense?

Points?

He lost.

now go back home

 

[Meathead]

The judges rejected President Trump’

77.2 million people re-elected President Trump

 

[BackAgain]

The apologist in you is in high gear.

False. Denying your baseless biased claims is simply a matter of fairness and objectivity. Of course a twit like you couldn’t understand.

congrats

either way, djt is proven to be a sexual predator

False. A civil judgment doesn’t constitute proof of guilt. For that, one would need a legitimate criminal court conviction.

in proven in a court of law in the state he hails from;

Nope. Still just a civil jury verdict on a civil case in a deep blue wasteland.

in the city he hails from

by a jury of his peers

Sort of. But only in the strict legal sense that they were part of the jurisdiction in which the case was tried.

The things you imagine you know or understand is far greater than what you actually do know or understand.

You remain hopelessly ignorant.

 

[Dante]

False. Denying your baseless biased claims is simply a matter of fairness and objectivity. Of course a twit like you couldn’t understand.



False. A civil judgment doesn’t constitute proof of guilt. For that, one would need a legitimate criminal court conviction.

Nope. Still just a civil jury verdict on a civil case in a deep blue wasteland.



Sort of. But only in the strict legal sense that they were part of the jurisdiction in which the case was tried.

The things you imagine you know or understand is far greater than what you actually do know or understand.

You remain hopelessly ignorant.

"liability"

"guilt"

legal terms, but we all know djt is a sexual abuser of women, maybe even young ones. We know for a fact that Donald John was an enabler of Epstein and his crimes.

 

[BackAgain]

"liability"

"guilt"

legal terms, but we all know djt is a sexual abuser of women,

No. We don’t. Not even you. But you choose to admit it.

maybe even young ones.

No basis for that ^ claim, whatsoever. Wait. I get it. You’re a shitlib, so you’re happy to presume guilt. And you’re happy to rely on “guilt by association.”

We know for a fact that Donald John was an enabler of Epstein and his crimes.

No. We don’t “know” any such thing. But keep swinging and missing, the dainty, you perpetually ignorant troll.

 

[Dante]

No. We don’t. Not even you. But you choose to admit it.

No basis for that ^ claim, whatsoever. Wait. I get it. You’re a shitlib, so you’re happy to presume guilt. And you’re happy to rely on “guilt by association.”

No. We don’t “know” any such thing. But keep swinging and missing, the dainty, you perpetually ignorant troll.

again,
"liability"
"guilt"
legal terms, but we all know djt is a sexual abuser of women,
maybe even young ones.

We know for a fact that Donald John was an enabler of Epstein and his crimes.


Is This The Hidden Part of the Trump-Epstein Drama?

Epstein was trying to buy a South Florida estate. He brought Trump along to see it one time. A short time later Epstein found out that Trump had gone behind his back and placed a higher and ultimately successful bid on the property. He’d snatched it out from under him with a much higher bid. The problem was that Trump’s entire empire in 2004 was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. It made no sense that Trump was coming up with $41 million to buy this property. Epstein suspected that Trump was acting as a front for a Russian oligarch as a money-laundering scheme. And in fact Trump did purchase and flip the estate two years later to a Russian oligarch named Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million, or a profit of over $50 million dollars.


Epstein was pissed for his own reasons (he wanted the estate). But he also suspected the money laundering scheme. So he threatened Trump that he would bring the whole thing out into the open through a series of lawsuits. Right about this same time authorities got a tip about Epstein’s activities which started the investigation that led to his eventual 2008 plea deal.


Two of these points are well-known. The transaction with the Russian oligarch has been written about extensively and was the subject of criminal probes. Of course, Trump denies it was money-laundering. But that part of this story is well-known. It’s also well-known that Trump and Epstein fell out over this real estate transaction. Those two parts of what I’m explaining are established parts of the Trump story. What’s new is the idea that Trump was either the key source who started the Epstein investigation or one of them and that he did this to retaliate against Epstein’s threats and protect himself from being exposed in a money laundering scheme.

I can’t stress this point enough: You can’t tell what you don’t know. This isn’t an accusation. It’s formal logic. So even if we accept the idea that Trump played a role in Epstein’s downfall, it’s not exonerating. It shows what we’ve long suspected: that Trump had known about Epstein’s operation for years and was fine with it. (That’s assuming for the moment he wasn’t a direct participant — it’s the weekend, I’m being generous.) He only made a call when Epstein was threatening to expose a money laundering scheme.

 

[BackAgain]

again,
"liability"
"guilt"
legal terms

Again: we know. So what?

but we all know djt is a sexual abuser of women,

No; we don’t. Not even you. You choose to believe that, maybe. But that’s different than “knowing.” I often have to tell you trite shitlibs that words have actual meanings despite your best efforts to muddy the waters.

maybe even young ones

Not even a shred of evidence for that. As I already told you.

We know for a fact that Donald John was an enabler of Epstein and his crimes.

No. We don’t you merely believe it.

Is This The Hidden Part of the Trump-Epstein Drama?

Leave it to a shitlib mindless troll (like the dainty) to cite to an unsupported opinion piece as alleged support for a ridiculous claim.

 

[Robert W]

The judges rejected President Trump’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision extending presidential immunity should shield him from liability for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/nyregion/trump-e-jean-carroll-defamation.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20250908&instance_id=162129&nl=breaking-news&regi_id=82070660&segment_id=205502&user_id=0be3b67ae7031af55ebcbfadb31786d5

A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a $83.3 million jury award against President Trump for defaming the writer E. Jean Carroll in 2019, after she accused him of a decades-old rape in a Manhattan department store — an attack for which he was separately found liable of sexual abuse.

The court also rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision last year affording presidential immunity for official acts barred a finding of liability in Ms. Carroll’s lawsuit.

The unsigned ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan was unanimous.

It really doesn't if Ms. Carroll get the money. What is important is that Trump defamed her and she beat him in court. He also remains an adjudicated rapist. Not to mention a convicted FELON!

This too will be appealed.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump STILL won in 2024.

But lost $83 million

 

[martybegan]

But lost $83 million

In a rigged trial who's only goal was to get him to not run in 2024 at most, and to not win in 2024 at least.

In that view it was a failure.

 

[boilermaker55]

You left out P01135809 is a criminal and twice impeached and a sex offender!

 

[rightwinger]

In a rigged trial who's only goal was to get him to not run in 2024 at most, and to not win in 2024 at least.

In that view it was a failure.

E Jean Carrol did not care about the election
She just wanted him to shut up

Trump wouldn’t do it and it cost him Bigly

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does this mean Trump will lose in 2028?

 

[martybegan]

E Jean Carrol did not care about the election
She just wanted him to shut up

Trump wouldn’t do it and it cost him Bigly

BULL ******* SHIT.

One of the many lawfare prongs that blew up spectacularly and led to Trump winning in 2024.