DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Jury finds against Trump in E Jean Carroll Trail

A jury finds Trump liable for battery and defamation in E Jean Carroll trial.


https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174975870/trump-carroll-verdict

Listening to trump's deposition and how he described "access hollywood."

He justified his actions by basically saying rich guys have been doing that throughout history. He said a million years ago again proving his ignorance. trump has no idea what was going on a million years ago.

No remorse at all like it was like no big deal. He raped E Jean Carroll. It could only be proved that he sexually abused her and then lied.

Lying is all he knows. A truly repulsive human being. I hope justice is served and he goes to prison for Jan 6th and Georgia where he tried to cheat himself into office.

How this traitor is even a consideration after all he has done is astounding.

Read the link and see what 19 other women had to say about trump:

And this creep is running for president. Think about that.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/g...t-similar-patterns-19-women/70197377007/

He is the best of the best republicans!

Not surprised, and I think they got it right.

Who knows what happened?

I just find if odd the cricket starts chirping 20+ years after the fact.

'It Was Really Bad': Ex-Trump White House Press Secretary Details Harassment

Ed Mazza
Wed, May 10, 2023 at 1:55 AM EDT·2 min read


Stephanie Grisham, who served as White House press secretary under Donald Trump, said she witnessed the then-president’s sexual harassment firsthand.

She told CNN that she had to try to protect one staffer in particular that Trump would request accompany him on trips.

“He one time had one of my other deputies bring her back so that they could look at her ass, is what he said to him,” she said. “I sat down and talked to her at one point, asked her if she was uncomfortable. I tried everything I could to ensure she was never alone with him.”

She said she spoke to a couple different chiefs of staff, including Mark Meadows, about Trump’s behavior.

“I think, at the end of the day, what could they do other than go in there and say, ‘This isn’t good, sir’?” she said. “Donald Trump will do what Donald Trump wants to do.”

Grisham’s comments came hours after a civil jury found the former president liable for sexual abuse and defamation in a case brought by writer E. Jean Carroll.

Grisham said Trump would often comment on people’s looks and plastic surgery and such.

“But with this one staffer, it was really bad, to the point that I was extremely uncomfortable,” she said, adding that all senior White House staffers at the time knew about the situation.

“I did everything I could to keep her off of trips actually and to stay with her if she was with him alone because I was really nervous about what could happen,” she added.

She did not name the staffer, but she has recounted the details before and wrote about the incidents in her book.

Critics slammed her for doing nothing when these and other alarming incidents took place, but cashing in by writing a book about it afterward.

“I frankly see no redeeming quality in this woman or any of the Trump accomplices who now want to clear their names and want to make a buck,” CNN political commentator Ana Navarro said at the time.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/really-bad-ex-trump-white-055540065.html

Who knows?

Look at his history. Listen to what the people who have been around him say.

"When your a star you can grab them by the ****"

Listen to those who have been assaulted by him.

The guy is a pig. He is an ego maniac who believes he beyond the law. His behavior for his entire life shows who he is.

Ask Stormy.

Chirping crickets??

He is on tape. "just find me the votes to win." "I can't help myself. I am attracted to beautiful women. I just grab them, kiss them, grab them by the puss*. You can do anything you want when you are a star."


Crickets??

He has been impeached twice. He has been indicted. He will be indicted again

Unless you were there, don't act like you know. Since it sounds like you were there, why didn't you do something about it?

I am not saying he did or didn't. All I am saying is it sure took the woman a long time to say anything, and sorry, I find that suspect.

So, since you know, what happend that day, and while we are on it, why were you in that dressing room?

For the record, I don't think you were in the dressing room, anywhere near the place, nor know what happened despite the fact you think you do.. I will say that your comments underscore that the guy wasn't going to get a fair trial, especially in the venue in which it was held.

End of the day a Jury of his peers found him guilty on evidence presented at his trial to the court. What else do you need to know. The "Yeah But" seems very much like a deflection or someone not wanting to accept the legal process. Reminds me of the spin we heard after Sue Robinson made her announcement and adjudication after hearing the evidence.

No, a jury of hos peers found him liable. This was civil, not criminal.

WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED PEEN, OR ARE JURY VERDICTS NOW FAKE NEWS IN THE MAGA UNIVERSE? Trump was found liable (guilty) in the civil matter. What else do you need to admit that he’s unfit to be human, let alone POTUS.

A point worth noting. But a technical one.

Based on the evidence the Jury thought he was guilty and so they found him liable.

I mean that sounds so much better right?

Liable === Guilty in a civil suits.

Based on the evidence the jury found him liable. There is a lower standard for this that criminal guilt. Accepting this means accepting the legal process.

No, liable means liable.

This is why we have some much disinformation theses days.

The verdict of liable is the equivalent to guilty in a civil suit, period. Stop lying to yourself. Sure there is a lower standard of proof. But I bet you called OJ guilty.

I did not call OJ guilty. I respect the legal process.

Peen you are being ridiculous.

Of course I was not there.

Did you listen to the accounts of the witnesses?

Evidence allowed at trial was admitted to demonstrate his behavior pattern.

You are in denial about who this creep is. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, and webbed feet like a duck.
Guess what it is a duck.

What else do you need to see or hear to prove who this guy is?

It is on tape in his own words. trump could not spell the truth if it was tattooed on his forehead.

He has done nothing but lie his entire life. His history is right in front of your nose if you wished to look. You don't want to look so you want to attack the credibility of those who do know. The people who testified are credible. Then there is trump. Who has lied so many times that the only thing he has proved is that he is not credible.

Forget Republican. Look at the person. Take off the blinders. Look behind the curtain. He is not a wizard. He is a lying scum bag who deserves to be in prison. He is a demonstrated traitor who tried to overthrow an election that he lost.

He denied covid and lied about it. The result was 100's of thousands lost their lives because of his inaction.

The party does not matter. He would have done the same thing if he had declared he was a democrat.

He is nothing but who he is.

Of course… .

Typical.

Liable = guilty in a civil case…but Not surprised that the trump brigade is still on their back foot supporting this womanizing, self proclaimed groping rapist, POS . SMH.

Maybe if you take a look at the laws involved at the time of the incident and law after the M2 movement you may understand. But I don’t suspect that to change the trump brigade mentality because in their mind a law that hurts trump is a witch hunt against him only, and not others who commit the same crime.

It means he's liable. See above for not respecting the legal process.

There is a big difference, and it isn't "technical" as you suppose.

So he is held legally responsible? Sounds pretty similar to being guilty. The exact same thing? No. The preponderance of the evidence is a lower threshold than beyond a reasonable doubt. However in both cases you are found to have done what you are being accused of and held responsible for your actions. People can attempt to trivialize that all they wish.

Per my revised statement - Based on the evidence the Jury thought he was guilty and so he was found liable. He could not be found liable unless the jury thought he was guilty - as in he did what he was accused of. Yes, the threshold and burden of proof is reduced in a Civil trial. But it would be an accurate summation to say the Jury thought he was guilty. Because if they did not then they would have voted in a different way and he would not be found liable.

The rest is semantics.

Next we can discuss the definition of the word "is" ...

It's not difficult to try and understand the frivolity of it all. Supposedly they only found him liable, but not guilty. Because you know, juries always impose 5 million dollar judgements against people they have found not to be guilty of anything. So it's nothing more than semantics to try and downplay such a verdict. You see here is the semantics part of it all....

They are correct that in a civil trial the actual verdict in and of itself is liable or not liable. What can't be downplayed and what they would like to avoid admitting is that in the jury room they must first decide if they find the person guilty of what they are being accused of in order to make a such a judgement and the punitive amount of the judgement is a decision as to just how much damage those actions were as a matter of degree.

So to award a judgement in the first place a jury in a civil trial must decide guilt. Then they must decide how much the person or people they wronged by that guilt deserve to be compensated.

A nice reference site. I have used it and linked it for years.

I heard Alyssa Farah Griffin yesterday and she sure seemed like either she was going public soon or looking into legal counsel




https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladi...-behavior-towards-women/?sh=4fca9e934727

TOPLINE Two former Trump White House officials said Tuesday they reported instances of what they described as the ex-president’s improper behavior towards women to other senior staffers, hours after a jury in a New York civil court found him liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll and awarded her $5 million in damages.

Appearing on CNN, former White House Communications Director Alyssa Farah Griffin said she had seen “countless cases” of what she considers “impropriety” in the White House that she reported to Trump’s various chiefs of staff, including Mark Meadows.

When Tapper specifically asked Farah if she informed Meadows or other chiefs of staff about instances she witnessed of “Donald Trump behaving inappropriately with women,” she said she did and so did former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.

Grisham, whose books included examples of Trump’s alleged harassment of women in the White House, later appeared on CNN and confirmed Farah’s claims.

Speaking to CNN anchor Erin Burnett, Grisham said she had spoken to several different chiefs of staff, including Meadows, about Trump’s behavior, but she thought there wasn’t much they could do other than tell him “This isn’t good, sir.”

Saying “Donald Trump will do what Donald Trump wants to do,” Grisham reiterated Trump’s alleged lewd remarks about a specific female staffer who she claims she had to try and protect—repeating a claim she made in her book.

Grisham said Trump had asked one of her deputies to bring the female staffer on his trips “so that they could look at her ass”

Forbes has contacted Meadows and the former president’s office for comment.

Forbes Daily: Get our best stories, exclusive reporting and essential analysis of the day’s news in your inbox every weekday.


“[Trump] would always comment on women's looks. He would even talk to me sometimes about various plastic surgeries, et cetera…But with this one staffer, it was really bad…And the sad thing is every senior staff member knew it, everybody talked about it in our White House,” Grisham told Burnett.

KEY BACKGROUND
Earlier on Tuesday, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming writer E. Jean Carroll in a civil suit. The jury ruled that Carroll should receive damages totaling $5 million—$2 million for sexual abuse and $3 million for defamation due to Trump’s dismissal of the allegations as a hoax. Ahead of the trial Trump denied all allegations made by Carroll and has labeled her suit as a “political attack” attack against him. The former president reacted negatively to the verdict on his Truth Social platform, calling it “a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time” and reiterating his claim that he doesn’t even know Carroll. Trump’s legal team is set to appeal the ruling. Carroll had first accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in a memoir published in 2019. She alleged that the incident took place in the 1990s in a dressing room in the department store Bergdorf Goodman.

Let's get rid of all the legal mumbo-jumbo and lawyer speak.

In normal people terms:

This was a civil case: the jury decided that more likely than not he did it.
If this were a criminal case they would have had to decide that he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

No, not beyond the shadow of a doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

Liability does not mean guilty. They are similar in that they are a negative outcome for the defendant. Liability is through action, or inaction. It means he caused it somehow. And since they are muddling sexual assault with defamation what was he actually found liable for?

People have a visceral need to say Trump is guilty, and anything will fulfill this burning desire I suppose. I'll wait until he is actually found guilty of something.

Nope ... we are just talking and having a conversation. There isn't a need to say he's guilty. *** But in conversations people communicate and say things that might not be technically accurate but convey the meaning and sentiment of a situation ... it's a lot like saying the USA is a democracy, when in fact the USA is a democratic republic.

I think there is definitely a need for some like yourself and Peen to try and come up with some technicality or argue a definition to try to say people can't say he's guilty. That'd be a you thing.

If he's not viewed and JUDGED to have been guilty of the actions he was accused of - there is no liable. You can define Libel vs a guilty VERDICT. . . but you can't get around what the jury determined. My revised statement is 100% correct.

Anyone can read the forms the jury filled out in how they determined the trump case here.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html

The questions and yes answers were filled out to such questions as these.......

Did Ms. Carrol prove by a preponderance if the evidence that Mr. Trump sexually assault her? Answer; yes

Did Ms. Carrol prove by a preponderance if the evidence that Ms. Carrol was injured as a result of Mr. Trump's conduct. Answer; yes

To make a judgement in this case the jury had to fill out the jury forms in which they concluded trump's guilt. It's there in black and white for all to see.

Need FATE's 'Mike Drop' gif.

To add - if you are accused of something and the jury hears the evidence and says "yes he did it" , while technically the verdict it he was found liable. . . in the vernacular it'd be correct to say the jury thought he was guilty of what he was accused of.

And yet, that is not what they said. They said he is liable. He is culpable. He is responsible.

Guilt comes from the criminal, he was not charged criminally nor was he found guilty.

I also try to point out to people that we don't have a democracy.

Words have meanings.

What we have is a creep who should never hold any office in government.

In fact he should be in prison.

You shouldn't talk about your current president like that.