Trump loses Carroll case appeal

[ThisIsMe]

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

What did he say that caused 78M worth of damages to her?

 

[WorldWatcher]

What did he say that caused 78M worth of damages to her?

Since you asked the same question in a previous post, here is the same response from a previous post.

#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. 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.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Since you asked the same question in a previous post, here is the same response from a previous post.

#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. 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.

1) what did ge say that was defamatory?

2) punitive damages are not unlimited, I've read some articles that say punitive awards can be no more than actual damage awards, I've read others say that it can't be more than 4x the actual damages. In this case, it was 15x the damages award. Some might call that frivolous.

3) what was particularly "harmful or malicious"? She came to this with no proof, with an accusation that was 30 years old, based on a plot of her favorite TV show, asking for an award that was over 100% of her total lifetime net worth up to that point. You think that just because she got a jury to say its possible that trump COULD have done it (not that he DID do it), that entitles her to millions in judgements, and then to sue for defamation when he denies it.

Just because you lose a court case doesn't mean you have to have in and agree that you are guilty. You ALWAYS have the right to proclaim your innocence, unless you are saying that once the judge puts the hammer down, thats it, you're guilty, no more questions asked?

 

[rightwinger]

What did he say that caused 78M worth of damages to her?

$5 million damage

But then he wouldn’t keep his mouth shut and ran up $78 million in punitive damages

 

[BULLDOG]

It wasn't televised. Do you know?

I didn't know court findings weren't valid unless approved by you. When did that happen?

 

[WorldWatcher]

1) what did ge say that was defamatory?

You should have watch the trial. The documents and testimony was publically available.

I'm not your sea lion.

2) punitive damages are not unlimited, I've read some articles that say punitive awards can be no more than actual damage awards, say that it can't be more than 4x the actual damages. In this case, it was 15x the damages award. Some might call that frivolous.

So might.

So what. The award is what it is.

3) what was particularly "harmful or malicious"? She came to this with no proof, with an accusation that was 30 years old, based on a plot of her favorite TV show, asking for an award that was over 100% of her total lifetime net worth up to that point. You think that just because she got a jury to say its possible that trump COULD have done it (not that he DID do it), that entitles her to millions in judgements, and then to sue for defamation when he denies it.

I get you don't like the jury believed her.

Can't help you with that.

Just because you lose a court case doesn't mean you have to have in and agree that you are guilty. You ALWAYS have the right to proclaim your innocence, unless you are saying that once the judge puts the hammer down, thats it, you're guilty, no more questions asked?

He second defamation wasn't about claiming his innocence. It was continued defamation.

He could claim he hadn't defamed her all day long, however he could not continue to defame her and expect no reaction from her or the courts.

If you are interested in the details, go review the court documents and testimony - no I'm not hunting them up for you.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

I didn't know court findings weren't valid unless approved by you. When did that happen?

Huh? I never said they were. I asked what the slander was, you said ask the jury, I said it wasn't televised and, did you know? Then you came back with this post

 

[ThisIsMe]

You should have watch the trial. The documents and testimony was publically available.

The trial wasn't televised

I'm not your sea lion.

Hmm?? Fort Fun Indiana alt account? He's the only other person on this forum that I've use that phrase.

So might.

So what. The award is what it is.

So no answer. Got it.

I get you don't like the jury believed her.

Can't help you with that.

So no answer, got it.

He second defamation wasn't about claiming his innocence. It was continued defamation.

Yet nobody can describe the defamation.

He could claim he hadn't defamed her all day long, however he could not continue to defame her and expect no reaction from her or the courts.

Claiming innocence is defamation? In whose book?

If you are interested in the details, go review the court documents and testimony - no I'm not hunting them up for you

If you didn't want to discuss the topic, why did you even respond?

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

The trial wasn't televised

I didn't say I watched it in Television. I "watched" the trial via news reporting and reading the documents that were posted on the courts website which included filings, motions, documentary evidence, video evidence, and testimony transcripts.

Yet nobody can describe the defamation.

It was well described at trial. You shouild have paid attention then.

Claiming innocence is defamation? In whose book?

That's not what I said. I actually said: "He could claim he hadn't defamed her all day long, however he could not continue to defame her and expect no reaction from her or the courts."

If you didn't want to discuss the topic, why did you even respond?

I am discussing the topic. Correcting your errors is part of it.

WW

 

[BULLDOG]

Huh? I never said they were. I asked what the slander was, you said ask the jury, I said it wasn't televised and, did you know? Then you came back with this post

You seemed to want to relitigate the case. I doubt you have standing and I know I don't. I didn't participate in the trial. I don't have the answers you asked for. If I did, I probably wouldn't bother telling a whiney MAGA anyway.

 

[rightwinger]

You seemed to want to relitigate the case. I doubt you have standing and I know I don't. I didn't participate in the trial. I don't have the answers you asked for. If I did, I probably wouldn't bother telling a whiney MAGA anyway.

Don’t fall for his trap

Regardless of what Trump said, they will say it wasn’t slander

Two juries ruled otherwise

 

[ThisIsMe]

I didn't say I watched it in Television. I "watched" the trial via news reporting and reading the documents that were posted on the courts website which included filings, motions, documentary evidence, video evidence, and testimony transcripts.

I kinda figured. You probably just watched the reporting from CNN and took it for gospel. Ive not seen a site that has the full transcript of the trial, only edited excerpts. I have doubt that anyone read the entire transcript, if it exists in full.

Also..what video evidence?

It was well described at trial. You shouild have paid attention then.

Paid attention to what a biased news outlet told me? See, this is why I said the trial should have been televised, because this after the fact recount of events based on biased reporting only makes it more suspect. There was a reason the judge didnt want it televised.

That's not what I said. I actually said: "He could claim he hadn't defamed her all day long, however he could not continue to defame her and expect no reaction from her or the courts."

Im still trying to find out what he said to defame her, other than denying it happened.

I am discussing the topic. Correcting your errors is part of it.

Ive not seen any correction...only you telling me that you got your version of it from biased news.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

You seemed to want to relitigate the case. I doubt you have standing and I know I don't. I didn't participate in the trial. I don't have the answers you asked for. If I did, I probably wouldn't bother telling a whiney MAGA anyway.

You could have just said "I don't know"...that would have sufficed.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I kinda figured. You probably just watched the reporting from CNN and took it for gospel. Ive not seen a site that has the full transcript of the trial, only edited excerpts. I have doubt that anyone read the entire transcript, if it exists in full.

Also..what video evidence?



Paid attention to what a biased news outlet told me? See, this is why I said the trial should have been televised, because this after the fact recount of events based on biased reporting only makes it more suspect. There was a reason the judge didnt want it televised.



Im still trying to find out what he said to defame her, other than denying it happened.



Ive not seen any correction...only you telling me that you got your version of it from biased news.

Why lie?

I told you that I watched the reporting on the trial INCLUDING the publicly available trial evidence and transcripts made available to the public through the courts website.

You lie and claim all I watched was CNN.

You seem to have difficulty being honest.

You have an agenda and damn the facts and the truth.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

Why lie?

I told you that I watched the reporting on the trial INCLUDING the publicly available trial evidence and transcripts made available to the public through the courts website.

You lie and claim all I watched was CNN.

You seem to have difficulty being honest.

You have an agenda and damn the facts and the truth.

WW

Ive looked for a transcript of the trial, all I've found was a heavily edited version, where they skip pages...sometimes up to 10 pages will just be omitted, for the Jean Carroll testimony, but for the trump testimony, they made sure to put every word there.

Thats sus.

And the trial was 4 weeks? What..8 hours a day? Are you telling me you read the WHOLE transcript?

If so, point me to it because I've not seen the full transcript.

You say "trial evidence" which amounts to what, a recording of locker room talk and the claim that she told someone about it 30 years ago?

All I've ever wanted to see in this case is a shred of proof from her. She doesn't have it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ive looked for a transcript of the trial, all I've found was a heavily edited version, where they skip pages...sometimes up to 10 pages will just be omitted, for the Jean Carroll testimony, but for the trump testimony, they made sure to put every word there.

Thats sus.

At the time of the trail the full and complete transcripts were on the court web site.

And the trial was 4 weeks? What..8 hours a day? Are you telling me you read the WHOLE transcript?

You should check your facts. Carroll I started April 25th and closing arguments were May 8th.

That's 2 weeks not 4.

And yes I read the daily transcripts. Didn't take that long as most of the real world day was not active testimony. There were late starts, breaks, lunch, etc.

You could read through a full day of testimony in about 45 minutes to an hour.

If so, point me to it because I've not seen the full transcript.

Go research your self, I'm not here to do it for you.

Sorry you didn't pay attention at the time and now want to come here years later and pontificate on something you don't have the facts on.

You say "trial evidence" which amounts to what, a recording of locker room talk and the claim that she told someone about it 30 years ago?

All I've ever wanted to see in this case is a shred of proof from her. She doesn't have it.

In your opinion. The jury disagreed.

WW

 

[ThisIsMe]

At the time of the trail the full and complete transcripts were on the court web site.

And now? Doesn't seem to be available.

You should check your facts. Carroll I started April 25th and closing arguments were May 8th.

That's 2 weeks not 4.

My bad, I thought it was 4 weeks. Still, you read 2 weeks worth of testimony?

And yes I read the daily transcripts. Didn't take that long as most of the real world day was not active testimony. There were late starts, breaks, lunch, etc.

You could read through a full day of testimony in about 45 minutes to an hour

Ok, so 10 hours of testimony? Let's call it 8 hours. Point being, I doubt anyone actually sat down and read the full, unedited, unsummarized transcript of their testimonies.

.



Go research your self, I'm not here to do it for you.

Sorry you didn't pay attention at the time and now want to come here years later and pontificate on something you don't have the facts on.

The facts haven't changed. She provided no proof, thats a fact. Trump never defamed her. The fact that nobody has cited his defamation, other than he denied the incident, tells me nobody can come up with it.

In your opinion. The jury disagreed.

WW

im sure they did. It's apparently pretty easy to get rich these days. Just target a rich guy, fabricated a story, forget all the details, change your story, lie about aspects of it, but if you have a sympathetic jury, you're making bank.

 

[Clipper]

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

Carrol wrote a book about the trial which was recently published which will drive sub~human Dopetard to hysterics.

Let's see how long it takes him to run his big mouth again.

 

[BULLDOG]

And now? Doesn't seem to be available.



My bad, I thought it was 4 weeks. Still, you read 2 weeks worth of testimony?


Ok, so 10 hours of testimony? Let's call it 8 hours. Point being, I doubt anyone actually sat down and read the full, unedited, unsummarized transcript of their testimonies.



The facts haven't changed. She provided no proof, thats a fact. Trump never defamed her. The fact that nobody has cited his defamation, other than he denied the incident, tells me nobody can come up with it.




im sure they did. It's apparently pretty easy to get rich these days. Just target a rich guy, fabricated a story, forget all the details, change your story, lie about aspects of it, but if you have a sympathetic jury, you're making bank.

Too bad you weren't present in the court room to explain to the jurors why they were wrong. Seems their verdict was all your fault.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Too bad you weren't present in the court room to explain to the jurors why they were wrong. Seems their verdict was all your fault.

Lol, one doesnt have to be IN the court room to see that justice had broken down. Again, if she could have shown any proof, id be fine with her winning...though id still disagree on the amount. She waited 30 years to come forward.

The fact is, she had no proof. A tape of locker room talk and a unverifiable claim that she told a couple friends.

Thats not proof that trump assaulted her.