Trump loses Carroll case appeal

[ThisIsMe]

Two juries said they believed Carrolls description of the event over Trumps denials

Uh huh...based on zero proof. Im sure the good people of new york would neeeever want to see trump lose a law suit...right?

 

[rightwinger]

Uh huh...based on zero proof. Im sure the good people of new york would neeeever want to see trump lose a law suit...right?

There was Carrolls testimony and Trumps denials.
Jury believed Carroll

The trial was about Trumps defamation of Carroll not sexual assault

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are certainly free to believe all of that no matter how wrong and goofy it is. Like Dan Quale once said, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind"

Why shouldn't we believe it?

.Biden could never have done anything wrong, right? Amazing how "believe all women" ended the moment one came forward to accuse him...or his own daughter wrote about her experiences....then the dems suddenly didnt want to believe all women anymore...

 

[ThisIsMe]

There was Carrolls testimony and Trumps denials.
Jury believed Carroll

The trial was about Trumps defamation of Carroll not sexual assault

I knkw what the trial was...the point is, her story didnt add up...but those new york jurors certainly ate it up...

And both trials were related. She accused him of something with no proof, then when trump tried to claim he didnt do it, she slapped a defamation suit on him, so, the one wouldn't have happened without the other.


The Justice system is sorely lacking when someone can bring a lawsuit against someone else, and have as many flaws as her case did, offers zero proof, and still somehow manage to win.

As I stated a moment ago, you all rushed under bidens wing when he got accused, why didnt you believe Tara reade, or bidens own daughter?

 

[rightwinger]

I knkw what the trial was...the point is, her story didnt add up...but those new york jurors certainly ate it up...

And both trials were related. She accused him of something with no proof, then when trump tried to claim he didnt do it, she slapped a defamation suit on him, so, the one wouldn't have happened without the other.


The Justice system is sorely lacking when someone can bring a lawsuit against someone else, and have as many flaws as her case did, offers zero proof, and still somehow manage to win.

As I stated a moment ago, you all rushed under bidens wing when he got accused, why didnt you believe Tara reade, or bidens own daughter?

If only Trump had just denied the assault there would have been no defamation case.

But Trump, as usual, can’t keep his mouth shut

He had to make personal attacks on Carroll which met the threshold of defamation….$5 million please

Then, after being warned by the judge and his own lawyers to keep quiet, he continued the attacks…..$34 million please

 

[ThisIsMe]

If only Trump had just denied the assault there would have been no defamation case.

But Trump, as usual, can’t keep his mouth shut

He had to make personal attacks on Carroll which met the threshold of defamation….$5 million please

Then, after being warned by the judge and his own lawyers to keep quiet, he continued the attacks…..$34 million please

What did he say? He denied her claims. Maybe he said she was a whack job..or something similar, you call that defamation?

 

[WorldWatcher]

What did he say? He denied her claims. Maybe he said she was a whack job..or something similar, you call that defamation?

Trump never testified before the Jury, he didn't "say" anything to them.

(CORRECTION: He didn't testify in court. The defense did use video of his deposition, which was not helpful for the defense.)

WW

 

[rightwinger]

What did he say? He denied her claims. Maybe he said she was a whack job..or something similar, you call that defamation?

Again, Trump is his own worst enemy.
Can’t keep his damned mouth shut.

Nothing wrong with denial, but personal attacks against Carroll cost him Bigly

 

[BULLDOG]

From her testimony arising from an event alleged to have happened 30 years ago.

MAGA has succeeded with you. You don't trust our courts, schools, doctors, scientists, legitimate journalists, or any other traditional source of information. You only trust fox or some other MAGA approved conspiracy theory source. You've even got to be careful of those approved sources too, cause if they happen to say something that doesn't praise your fat orange cult leader enough, they suddenly become your enemy too.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why shouldn't we believe it?

.Biden could never have done anything wrong, right? Amazing how "believe all women" ended the moment one came forward to accuse him...or his own daughter wrote about her experiences....then the dems suddenly didnt want to believe all women anymore...

Another MAGA fueled response

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes, she was recalling an event from 30 years ago

Meanwhile, Trump

Bragged about grabbing women by the pussies
30 women claimed he did the same to them
Claimed he didn’t know who she was and was presented with a picture of the two of them laughing together
Claimed she was “not his type” but misidentified the woman in the picture as his wife Marla Maples


Who did two juries believe?

They believed he defamed her.

 

[OODA_Loop]

MAGA has succeeded with you. You don't trust our courts, schools, doctors, scientists, legitimate journalists, or any other traditional source of information. You only trust fox or some other MAGA approved conspiracy theory source. You've even got to be careful of those approved sources too, cause if they happen to say something that doesn't praise your fat orange cult leader enough, they suddenly become your enemy too.

Not really. Trying a case based on 30 year old, beyond the statutes of limitations testimony is what isn't trusted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not really. Trying a case based on 30 year old, beyond the statutes of limitations testimony is what isn't trusted.

The case was heard with in New York's statute of limitations for Civil Cases based on the law(s) passed by the New York Legislature.

And remember Carroll I and Carroll II were defamation cases and the defamation happened when she spoke out. So those were an aspect of the cases which were much more recent to his sexual assault in the 1990's.

WW

 

[rightwinger]

They believed he defamed her.

Not hard to believe

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not hard to believe

Entirely subjective. Out of all the "evil" he is purported to have committed this was all they had against him?

 

[OODA_Loop]

The case was heard with in New York's statute of limitations for Civil Cases based on the law(s) passed by the New York Legislature.

And remember Carroll I and Carroll II were defamation cases and the defamation happened when she spoke out. So those were an aspect of the cases which were much more recent to his sexual assault in the 1990's.

WW

She couldn't even remember when she alleged it happened....late 1995 early 1996.

But the rest of her 30 year old recollection is accurate.

Not so much.

 

[WorldWatcher]

She couldn't even remember when she alleged it happened....late 1995 early 1996.

But the rest of her 30 year old recollection is accurate.

Not so much.

I don't remember the exact date I almost crashed into the ocean in an E-2 Hawkeye as a result of a "soft cat" and almost got run over by an aircraft carrier (USS Midway). But I know it was in late 1983 early 1984.

I can't tell you the date by I can describe the incident very accurately.

The jury believed her, maybe if he'd had the balls to take the stand the jury would have believed him.

WW

 

[OODA_Loop]

I don't remember the exact date I almost crashed into the ocean in an E-2 Hawkeye as a result of a "soft cat" and almost got run over by an aircraft carrier (USS Midway). But I know it was in late 1983 early 1984.

I can't tell you the date by I can describe the incident very accurately.

WW

You're not asserting your recollection of events as sworn testimony in a court case.

You can't claim your 30 year old recollection is accurate when you cant even recall factual base chronology of the events.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not really. Trying a case based on 30 year old, beyond the statutes of limitations testimony is what isn't trusted.

The court have specific guidelines for which cases can be heard. If you don't trust those guidelines, you don't trust the court.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You're not asserting your recollection of events as sworn testimony in a court case.

I would, why wouldn't I.

I can still name members of the crew they would back up the story.

You can't claim your 30 year old recollection is accurate when you cant even recall factual base chronology of the events.

Sure I can.

Sure she can. There was corroborating testimony from others that were contemporaneous to the time involved.

The jury believed her, maybe if he'd had the balls to take the stand the jury would have believed him.

WW