Trump loses Carroll case appeal

[WorldWatcher]

The problem with your reasoning ing is that no such law exists,

It does. They were shown in the indictment, the supporting documents, they were presented in court. They were presented to the jury.

or that would be what he would be convicted under. You missed that part.

The felonious falsification of business records to hide or aid in another crime was the basis for his conviction.

People that reviewed the court materials and testimony now this. Others just go with what they are told in an echo chamber that they want to believe.

WW

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with your reasoning ing is that no such law exists, or that would be what he would be convicted under. You missed that part.

No such law exists?

Then Trumps crack team should have been able to easily get thrown out

They failed BIGLY and Trumps big mouth got him convicted

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No such law exists?

Then Trumps crack team should have been able to easily get thrown out

They failed BIGLY and Trumps big mouth got him convicted

How when the judge ignores all of the pertinent laws, what would it matter?

 

[WorldWatcher]

How when the judge ignores all of the pertinent laws, what would it matter?

What law school did you attend to claim the Judged ignored pertinent laws?

WW

 

[rightwinger]

How when the judge ignores all of the pertinent laws, what would it matter?

Actually, Trump ignored the pertinent laws and was convicted for it.

Trump needed to convince one juror that he was innocent

He failed BIGLY

 

[rightwinger]

What law school did you attend to claim the Judged ignored pertinent laws?

WW

Fox News School of Law

 

[BULLDOG]

When Artificial Intelligence advances with Robotics enough there will be Artificial Lifeforms created for sex and the home, and all of this will end. Demographics and statistics will prove this out.

JD Vance is leading the research in that field with his groundbreaking experiments using couch cushions.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

What was thr defamation? Denying he did it? As I said before, just because a sham court ruled someone is guilty doesnt mean they give up the right to claim their innocence. It's almost as if you all think trump HAS to agree with the verdict. He doesnt.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Are you upset because you donated to Trumps election fund and YOUR donations might pay this?

Nope, I've never donated to any political candidates. Im sure they can do just fine without my money. This case, however, was wrong and deserves to be overturned. How can you sue someone, even in civil court, without any evidence? Hell, by those standards, you could levy a rape allegation against some random stranger and if you can get a story together that would convince a jury its possible they cpuld have done it (not that they DID do it), you could win a judgemebt against that person.

 

[ThisIsMe]

#1 Testimony by Carroll and other * IS * evidence.

Sure, really, so if I make an allegation against you, and I can get a few people to side with me and back me up, I can get you banned...and you'd say that would be ok? And you can't deny it because doing so, I could then sue you for defamation, right?

#2 She was awarded a much smaller amount in "damages", the $83 comes form punitive damages*** and from the fact that after the first award Trump immediately went to the airwaves and twitter repeating the claims that caused him to lose the first time

Where does it say someone who was judged guilty has to agree with the verdict? It's HER fault, she brought it upon herself by bringing a claim of which she had no proof.

it really surprises me that you all believe that if someone claims they are innocent of an allegation, that that is somehow defamation.

It's like this:

Carroll: "you raped me 30 years ago!"

Trump: "no i didnt!"

Carroll: "how dare you defame me!"

Like...really?

. The second award being much higher than the first to escalate up the punitive damages.

When it comes to punitive damages, it matters not the net worth of the claimant, it is the assets of the respondent that is factored in.

WW

***Punitive damages, also known as exemplary damages, are a type of financial award in civil lawsuits intended to punish the defendant for particularly harmful or malicious actions and to deter similar conduct in the future

Well, shit, then I need to file a lawsuit claiming bill gates rapes me 30 years ago, wait for him to deny it, then sue him for defamation...I'll be RICH!

 

[ThisIsMe]

You can proclaim your innocence until the cows come home or to the ends of the earth, but, you had best not slander the person that just beat you in court, or you will probably be back in court, losing again, like Donnie. On the other hand, I don't really care how stupid he is. It isn't my $5 Million Dollars. Maybe he is just losing donor money, so figures, it doesn't matter.

And so you are among those who thinks that once someone is ruled guilty by a court, they somehow lose the ability to continue to claim their innocence. Are you telling me that courts are never wrong?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What law school did you attend to claim the Judged ignored pertinent laws?

WW

I watched the judge ignore them.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The New York Supreme Court is not the highest court in the State. That is the Court of Appeals.

Isn't the NYSC the LOWEST level of criminal courts?

 

[White 6]

And so you are among those who thinks that once someone is ruled guilty by a court, they somehow lose the ability to continue to claim their innocence. Are you telling me that courts are never wrong?

Proclaiming your innocence and further slandering the one who just beat you in court, in front of a jury are two different thing. If slandering, got you in courts in the first place, slandering more, after leaving court after losing is a really stupid idea, unless playing and paying with other people's money.

 

[rightwinger]

Proclaiming your innocence and further slandering the one who just beat you in court, in front of a jury are two different thing. If slandering, got you in courts in the first place, slandering more, after leaving court after losing is a really stupid idea, unless playing a paying with other people's money.

Trumps problem is he just can’t keep his mouth shut.
His lawyer tells him to shut up, the judge tells him to shut up. But Trump just keeps bad mouthing the victim, the judge, the jury and the prosecutor

Juries take notice

 

[BULLDOG]

Trumps problem is he just can’t keep his mouth shut.
His lawyer tells him to shut up, the judge tells him to shut up. But Trump just keeps bad mouthing the victim, the judge, the jury and the prosecutor

Juries take notice

Trump knows the rules don't apply to him. If you doubt that, just ask the Supreme Court.

 

[rightwinger]

Trump knows the rules don't apply to him. If you doubt that, just ask the Supreme Court.

Trump plays a game where he insults everyone associated with the trial……Then uses it as evidence that they are prejudiced against him

 

[ThisIsMe]

Proclaiming your innocence and further slandering the one who just beat you in court, in front of a jury are two different thing. If slandering, got you in courts in the first place, slandering more, after leaving court after losing is a really stupid idea, unless playing a paying with other people's money.

What did he say that was slander? He denied he knew her, he denied the event happened. Where's the slander?

 

[BULLDOG]

What did he say that was slander? He denied he knew her, he denied the event happened. Where's the slander?

You should ask the judge and jury. They were there and heard the testimony. You weren't.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You should ask the judge and jury. They were there and heard the testimony. You weren't.

It wasn't televised. Do you know?