Next stop Supreme Court? Trump loses $83 million appeal in Carroll case

[Dante]

So..Trump loses again..in this case. Since we know he'll appeal to his tame judges...what will they do?
Exonerate him...or simply refuse to hear the case...just as the Court of Appeals did...essentially confirming the ruling?

Full federal appeals court won't rehear $83 million defamation verdict against Trump

A divided federal appeals court in Manhattan says it will not grant a rare meeting of all of its judges to hear an appeal of an $83 million verdict against President Donald Trump for defaming a magazine columnist.

apnews.com

A divided federal appeals court said Wednesday it will not grant a rare meeting of its active judges to hear an appeal of an $83 million verdict against President Donald Trump for defaming a magazine advice columnist over an encounter three decades ago.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to reject a so-called “en banc” hearing comes several months after Trump appealed to the Supreme Court another jury’s decision to grant $5 million the writer, E. Jean Carroll, after concluding that he had sexually abused her in a department store dressing room in 1996 and later defamed her. The high court has not yet decided whether to hear the case.

Lawyers for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement that her client was “eager for this case, originally filed in 2019, to be over so that she can finally obtain justice.”

After a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel rejected Trump’s appeal of the $83 million verdict in September, an appeals judge asked the other Manhattan appeals jurists to hear the case.

The 2nd Circuit said Wednesday that five judges voted against a rehearing before all the judges while three judges voted in favor of the en banc.

Thank you, because...

I guess to make up the difference, the rapist will have to sue someone for eleventy billion dollars for making a joke about his cankles.

You are expressing your hope that Trump ends up being denied an appellate reversal of the civil verdict and the judgment.

But, what you ignorantly and dishonestly denigrate as “tame” justices have shown a bad habit of ruling against his positions plenty enough.

The civil case against him was always a partisan political witch hunt and a miscarriage of justice. It ought to be reversed and dismissed for a number of perfectly valid legal reasons.

But it’s far from clear that this SCOTUS has the firmness of purpose to actually do its job over this matter. Sad.

USMB Legal Eagles

Supreme Court rejects Trump’s push to toss $5 million verdict in E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse case

The Supreme Court is rejecting a push by President Donald Trump to throw out a jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused writer E.

apnews.com

 

[Dante]

The Supreme Court rarely accepts cases involving such vulgar things a money flowing between private citizens.

But rest assured, this lying [vulgar word for vagina] will never see a dime of Trump's money.

Don't forget "In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration. In August 2023, while dismissing the counterclaim, Kaplan wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true"."

 

[Delldude]

In August 2023, while dismissing the counterclaim, Kaplan wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true"."

Yet not criminally supported.....

 

[Mr Natural]

A lousy $83 million.

Chump change for the greatest human being who ever lived.

 

[Dante]

Yet not criminally supported.....

Appeals to shield oneself behind technicality in law are usually the last resort of criminals. Usually.

Criminality vs Liability? Criminals when found guilty are being held liable for their crimes under the law. Liability comes into play in civil proceedings. Just because a persons is not officially accused in a criminal court of law, does not mean the person did or did not commit a crime we all know they have.

Before djt, no way a politician could've been elected President with his past.

It's cheapens it all and sickens even some people who held their noses while voting for him. It's why he could never get a majority of Americans who voted (or were eligible to vote).

 

[Dante]

A lousy $83 million.

Chump change for the greatest human being who ever lived.

Why did he fight it so hard and the costs, the financial and other costs. He's the World's Greatest Loser on so many levels.

 

[Delldude]

Appeals to shield oneself behind technicality in law are usually the last resort of criminals. Usually.

Criminality vs Liability? Criminals when found guilty are being held liable for their crimes under the law. Liability comes into play in civil proceedings. Just because a persons is not officially accused in a criminal court of law, does not mean the person did or did not commit a crime we all know they have.

Before djt, no way a politician could've been elected President with his past.

It's cheapens it all and sickens even some people who held their noses while voting for him. It's why he could never get a majority of Americans who voted (or were eligible to vote).

Yet not criminally supported.....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet not criminally supported.....

What a low bar you have set for your orange rape daddy.

 

[Dante]

Yet not criminally supported.....

Odd thing is, nobody was arguing that.

so you use red herring as bait

good for you

 

[Delldude]

Odd thing is, nobody was arguing that.

Your hero judge brought it up, you jumped on it.....

Before djt, no way a politician could've been elected President with his past.

Historical Scandals:

While the nature of candidate histories has evolved, many past figures overcame major scandals that were viewed as career-ending at the time:

Grover Cleveland (1884): Cleveland openly faced a major paternity scandal regarding a child born out of wedlock, yet still won the presidency.

Andrew Jackson (1828): Jackson’s campaign survived severe attacks over his marriage and accusations of bigamy.

Warren G. Harding (1920): Harding endured numerous personal controversies and rampant administration corruption (the Teapot Dome scandal), yet he easily skated into office.

Gary Hart (1987): Though he ultimately dropped out of the 1988 race, Hart was initially a leading presidential frontrunner while battling intense media scrutiny over an extramarital affair.

 

[Mr Natural]

Why did he fight it so hard and the costs, the financial and other costs. He's the World's Greatest Loser on so many levels.

One would think that a person who wins a birthing lottery would show some humility and shut the **** up once in a while.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This ought be a good time to remind everyone that it's okay to state the fact that Trump is a rapist.


No, you cannot be sued.

Trump is a rapist.

 

[toobfreak]

Don't forget "In July 2023, Judge Kaplan said that the verdict found that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common definition of the word, i.e. not necessarily implying penile penetration. In August 2023, while dismissing the counterclaim, Kaplan wrote that Carroll's accusation of rape is "substantially true"."

Yet not criminally supported.....

I'm cornfused. Either I'm mistaken or didn't Carroll admit long ago that no rape occurred? And wasn't she caught in perjury too? And there were other extenuating circumstances as well, not the least of which is that the woman is a dog and Donald Trump doesn't chase after dogs, he wants (and gets) supermodels plus the fact that I thought she settled out of court to drop the matter before this case even resurfaced?

 

[Moonglow]

The Supreme Court supports it.

 

[Dante]

Your hero judge brought it up, you jumped on it.....



Historical Scandals:

While the nature of candidate histories has evolved, many past figures overcame major scandals that were viewed as career-ending at the time:

Grover Cleveland (1884): Cleveland openly faced a major paternity scandal regarding a child born out of wedlock, yet still won the presidency.

Andrew Jackson (1828): Jackson’s campaign survived severe attacks over his marriage and accusations of bigamy.

Warren G. Harding (1920): Harding endured numerous personal controversies and rampant administration corruption (the Teapot Dome scandal), yet he easily skated into office.

Gary Hart (1987): Though he ultimately dropped out of the 1988 race, Hart was initially a leading presidential frontrunner while battling intense media scrutiny over an extramarital affair.

You want to argue against Judge Kaplan? What the Judge said is factual. Now please, show us where Judge Kaplan was in error:

Kaplan wrote that the jury's unanimous verdict was almost entirely in favor of Carroll, except that the jury concluded she had failed to prove that Trump raped her "within the narrow, technical meaning of a particular section of the New York Penal Law."

The judge said the section requires vaginal penetration by a penis while forcible penetration without consent of the vagina or other bodily orifices by fingers or anything else is labeled "sexual abuse" rather than "rape."

He said the definition of rape was "far narrower" than how rape is defined in common modern parlance, in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes and elsewhere.

The judge said the verdict did not mean that Carroll "failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape.' Indeed ... the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that."

Your weak and pathetic attempt at some sort of historical analogy(s) ... give me a break. To address it all is a fool's errand. It would take somebody down a trollish-rabbit-hole. You can jump down there all by your yourself.