Trump loses Carroll case appeal

[rightwinger]

NYC is awash in TDS.

NYC has known Trump his whole life
Nobody knows him better

 

[Zafira Cherry]

They have been retarded....she lied about the dress and she can't even remember the day.
not sure what happened in their minds....Just because Trump is an obnoxious asshole doesn't make her a truth teller.
She will never see a penny.....not gonna happen.

JO

rape/sexual assault is traumatic.

 

[Zafira Cherry]

Yeah? Who the fuck are you? Nobody…So, blow it out your ass dipshit

what is your stand on rape

 

[meaner gene]

NYC has known Trump his whole life
Nobody knows him better

The home of Trump University
And the Trump charity.

Both were shut down for fraud.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not going to argue, other than the jury knew that.

Oh im sure they did. My issue is that she potentially stand to gain $83M, on lawsuit where she had to provide exactly zero evidence. The amount of damages she claimed for defamation is 40 times her current net worth. How can she claim 80M dollars in damages when her current net worth up to this point has been about 2M?

 

[mudwhistle]

Partisan jury is just politi-speak for Trump lost repeatedly and you don't like it.

No....a partisan jury and a partisan judge hand-picked by Democrats.

That's all it means.

 

[mudwhistle]

The home of Trump University
And the Trump charity.

Both were shut down for fraud.

That's weird.

Auto-pen had to pardon his whole family preemptively because of all the yet to be discovered crimes they were guilty of.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let me know when you publish or testify on tort reform, but for now, you get to deal with law, the way it exists. People sue people in the US, all the time. I have never sued or been sued. Some awards by juries do raise an eyebrow with me also, but at least in this case, I know he brought this judgement on his own head, running his mouth publicly attacking the plaintiff, after he lost the original case, so I have no reason to feel sorry for him.
View attachment 1123646

So you agree that someone who proclaims their innocence should be held liable for defamation? That ridiculous. That adds to the absurdity of this case. Thats like saying "i can accuse you of something, and if you try to deny it, im going to sue you for denying it" that's exactly what happened here. SHE made the allegation, with no proof. Just because you win a frivolous lawsuit with no evidence doesn't mean the other side has to capitulate to the judgement. Like, everyone is expecting since she won the case, that means trump is supposed to say "oh you all..you got me..I did it.."JUST because the judge ruled that way? Of course not, a person can still say they are innocent even after a judgement, especially one as dubious as this....

Unless you are saying courts never get anything wrong.

 

[meaner gene]

Oh im sure they did. My issue is that she potentially stand to gain $83M, on lawsuit where she had to provide exactly zero evidence. The amount of damages she claimed for defamation is 40 times her current net worth. How can she claim 80M dollars in damages when her current net worth up to this point has been about 2M?

You have to realize the $83 million verdict was purely Trumps fault.
He couldn't keep his big mouth shut about the assault trial verdict.
Just like Trump couldn't stand his loss in the 2020 election.
The difference is one was protected speech under the 1st amendment, and the other was a defamation against an individual.

 

[meaner gene]

No....a partisan jury and a partisan judge hand-picked by Democrats.

That's all it means.

To kill a mockingbird?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Oh im sure they did. My issue is that she potentially stand to gain $83M, on lawsuit where she had to provide exactly zero evidence. The amount of damages she claimed for defamation is 40 times her current net worth. How can she claim 80M dollars in damages when her current net worth up to this point has been about 2M?

It's about him and his actions, nothing else.

 

[meaner gene]

That's weird.

Auto-pen had to pardon his whole family preemptively because of all the yet to be discovered crimes they were guilty of.

Not at all. Cong Comer tried to years to find any evidence against them and couldn't.

Biden knew that with Trump back in control, he would pick purely political actors to run the DOJ, FBI, US Attorneys offices etc.

And they would spare no taxpayer expense to bring bogus charge after bogus charge against his family just to harass and bankrupt them with legal bills.

What the right labeled "lawfare".

So Biden preempted the attack.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No....a partisan jury and a partisan judge hand-picked by Democrats.

That's all it means.

Nope.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

To kill a mockingbird?

Trump is a murder crow.

 

[justoffal]

So you agree that someone who proclaims their innocence should be held liable for defamation? That ridiculous. That adds to the absurdity of this case. Thats like saying "i can accuse you of something, and if you try to deny it, im going to sue you for denying it" that's exactly what happened here. SHE made the allegation, with no proof. Just because you win a frivolous lawsuit with no evidence doesn't mean the other side has to capitulate to the judgement. Like, everyone is expecting since she won the case, that means trump is supposed to say "oh you all..you got me..I did it.."JUST because the judge ruled that way? Of course not, a person can still say they are innocent even after a judgement, especially one as dubious as this....

Unless you are saying courts never get anything wrong.

The case will collapse on its merits, she'll never see a dime.... but she may very well see a reverse lawsuit to recover legal fees... If she doesn't croak first.

 

[meaner gene]

So you agree that someone who proclaims their innocence should be held liable for defamation? That ridiculous. That adds to the absurdity of this case. Thats like saying "i can accuse you of something, and if you try to deny it, im going to sue you for denying it" that's exactly what happened here. ...

You left out that a jury made the decision that Trump did as charged, and the court of appeals upheld the verdict.

Trump could have argued the judge was wrong, or the jury was wrong and been within his rights. But when Trump instead chose to attack the person who sued him. Saying she lied, that's defamation.

Trump could have made that claim in a countersuit, but doing so in public, with absolutely no proof she lied, other than his ego couldn't stand losing to a girl.

 

[justoffal]

You left out that a jury made the decision that Trump did as charged, and the court of appeals upheld the verdict.

Trump could have argued the judge was wrong, or the jury was wrong and been within his rights. But when Trump instead chose to attack the person who sued him. Saying she lied, that's defamation.

Trump could have made that claim in a countersuit, but doing so in public, with absolutely no proof she lied, other than his ego couldn't stand losing to a girl.

It's also defamation to accuse somebody of something they didn't do. Eventually that's where this case will end up despite the original verdict and despite the appeals court which are all within the same incestuous infected judiciary...

There will be a counter suit based on the flimsy proceedings and scant evidence that was used once again as a lawfare proceeding. Anyone can proclaim their innocence...it does not vicariously slander the person who is accusing them.

That is one of the worst twists and perversions of slander law that I have ever heard of and it will never stand on higher appeals because it is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[rightwinger]

No....a partisan jury and a partisan judge hand-picked by Democrats.

That's all it means.

LOL
Trump always says that when he loses

Then there is Judge Aileen Cannon

 

[rightwinger]

It's also defamation to accuse somebody of something they didn't do. Eventually that's where this case will end up despite the original verdict and despite the appeals court which are all within the same incestuous infected judiciary...

There will be a counter suit based on the flimsy proceedings and scant evidence that was used once again as a lawfare proceeding. Anyone can proclaim their innocence...it does not vicariously slander the person who is accusing them.

That is one of the worst twists and perversions of slander law that I have ever heard of and it will never stand on higher appeals because it is absolutely ludicrous.

Stupid Trump just couldn’t keep his mouth shut
Even when his own lawyers and the judge urged him to do so

He deserved what he got

 

[meaner gene]

Trump is a murder crow.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" tells the story ...
Atticus defends Tom Robinson, a Black man accused of assaulting a white woman, despite facing strong prejudice,...
The trial reveals the deep-seated racism and injustice within Maycomb.