DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Trump-Carroll Defamation Trial

Just like your Biden, Hunter, Hillary, Bill, Pelosi, Shumer,...Shall I continue?

You can continue all you like. Because all you can do is try to compare people who, other than Hunter, who is not an elected official BTW, haven't been charged of anything to your hero who is facing 91 criminal counts.

So yes, please continue to spew drivel that has no basis in facts.

Just like yourself I wasn't on that jury so I don't have all of the evidence they saw in front of me. But I will say that after you have already been found liable of having sexually assaulting someone, and the judge made it plain that it constituted rape, you can't go around repeating lies and defaming someone AFTER you have already been found liable for doing it. It could be that it wasn't a single incident but instead he continually repeated these things over and over and over again. So the cumulative impact of the the repeated offenses may have played a part in it. I mean it's just like doing the same crime over and over again. Once you do that it's not like your punishment will be based on a single violation of the law. Each time you repeat the same infraction the punishment increases. But that's simply a guess on my part.

I guess I dont understand how him proclaiming his innocence counts as defamation.

Once it has been established in court that you in fact did what you were accused of, proclaiming you innocence is effect calling the accuser a liar when the court in fact has proven just the opposite. And then there were the personal comments calling her degrading names. It's not as simplistic as you're trying to make it sound.

https://lasvegassun.com//news/2024/jan/27/donald-trump-is-on-the-hook-for-883-million-in-def/

This has more info.

Unless you attended the trial it would be hard to know.

There were witnesses that testified to how that number was reached. If you walked in her shoes maybe you would think differently.

A jury of peers made the decision. In addition trump has never stopped defaming her. This is the second case for defamation. The first was $5. All he had to do was shut up. Just like all he had to do was return the documents he stole.

If you were raped and then gone through what she has since then.

You may sing a different song.

I was raped. I didnt try to extract 83 million from him.


Plus the court ruled that she was not raped, just sexually abused.

She is spending all her time gloating about this on the national media while she pimps her book. I dont feel sorry for her at all.

Sorry for your experience.

The court was a civil case they could not rule on rape.

How you feel about her is irrelevant.

The point is she was awarded the money by a jury of peers not politicians for justifiable reasons. He will appeal and lose but the amount could be reduced. It will still be a big number.

And the fraud case will be way more.

When the felony trials begin. He will be looking at prison till his hair falls out and the orange spray fades.

They ruled on the alleged rape in a previous case. Read the link I posted and expand your mind.

Nothing changes civil cases are about awarded amounts.

However, NY law is extremely complicated when it comes to rape.

In New York, a victim needs to convince a jury that a man put his penis in her vagina without her consent in order to prove rape. This is the layman’s translation of Rape 1, currently defined in criminal statute as forcible compulsion through “penetration, however slight, of the penis into the vaginal opening.”

It’s harder to prove than it sounds, because juries tend to get really hung up on the physics of a rape. Did the penis penetrate or merely have “contact” with the victim’s vagina? What if it wasn’t his penis, but just a finger—perhaps the view taken by some of the jurors in Carroll’s case (though she says both)? If she was also anally penetrated—which is not technically rape—can she be sure that she was also vaginally penetrated? None of this amounts to a hell of a lot of difference to the victim—who has to sit through the humiliation of a trial splitting hairs over which human organ touched which of her body parts and to what degree to the satisfaction of 12 random strangers.

Judge in E. Jean Carroll Case: Yes, Donald Trump Is a Rapist

On Wednesday, Trump’s request for a new trial in the E. Jean Carroll case, after he was found liable for sexual abuse, battery, and defamation, was rejected. And in his desperate attempt to avoid accountability, the twice-impeached and twice-indicted former president may have unintentionally allowed himself to now be formally known as a rapist.

Trump’s team had requested a new trial in the case, arguing that the $5 million in damages he was ordered to pay Carroll was excessive, because he was only charged with sexual abuse. The jury had not found that Trump “raped” Carroll, a talking point Trump’s team often parroted.

But Judge Lewis Kaplan called Trump’s semantic argument “entirely unpersuasive.” He clarified that the jury found that the former president did indeed “rape” Carroll based on the common definition of the word.

Kaplan noted that New York penal law (the jury in the Carroll case was based in New York) has a “far narrower” definition of the word “rape” than in “common modern parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere.”

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’” Kaplan wrote.

“Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that [rape, as ‘commonly’ understood].”

“A United States District Judge has now formally held, in a lengthy written opinion, that it is perfectly appropriate, and, indeed, entirely accurate, to call a certain former President of the United States a rapist,” noted George Conway, lawyer and husband to former Trump aide Kellyanne Conway.

All that to say, based on the legal language, a rapist—for the third presidential cycle in a row—is leading the 2024 Republican primary.

https://newrepublic.com/post/174448/judge-e-jean-carroll-case-yes-donald-trump-rapist

I'm very sorry to hear what happened to you. As for you suing him, there are two things that need to be considered.

1. Suing someone who can not pay is counterproductive. You will incur a mountain of legal debt by suing someone that has no ability to pay the lawsuit.

2. Not everyone understands their rights and that they have the right to sue. And this latest case was not a lawsuit about the sexual assault/rape itself. It was about defamation. Unless your assailant had the means to, and did in fact have the national stage to continuously malign you, call you names and defame your character, defamation may very well not have applied in your case.

The fact is he was not found guilty of rape. You can talk around it all you want, but it wasnt rape. Libtard feelings dont matter.

HMMMMMMMM

Would you think it was stupid if it was you he shoved against a wall and put his fingers in you? I don’t care how much they gave her, it should have been more.

They based it on the estimated cost of reputation repair from experts. She could spend it all trying to erase his remarks from the internet, but she should just kick back and enjoy the money… if she ever sees it. And the damages are added when it’s determined to have been done with malice. Trump runs everyone down with malice…

And just think, you were actually trying to hold a legitimate conversation for once on this board. At least until you got your wittle feewings hurt. Let's try this again. I didn't post anything about anyone's feelings. I quoted what the judge in the case said himself.

And the reason those Tweets weren't allowed in? It's because none of them contain any facts related to the case.

I dont care what you posted. I dont read mosts of you posts because its just a bunch of feces coming out your mouth.

So you went from caring about what I posted because you commented on my post, to not caring about what I posted because you can't argue or lie that it's what the judge said and not anyone's feelings?

You're hilarious!

Quoted for Mr Mouth Vomit so he can learn some actual facts about the case.

You are being ignorant.

Like somehow you know what happened when you were not there and you do not know Ms. Carroll.

You did not attend the trial. You did hear testimony or listen to witnesses.

You do not want to admit trump is a rapist. Why? Because you want to believe him.

It is not good enough for you how the jury rules or what the law states.

He didn't know Stormy either. He said so.

Just FYI on how the award was broken down
Seems like the jury thinking trump won't stop was the driving factor for the high punitive damages.

The award includes $18.3 million in compensation for harm caused to Carroll’s reputation plus $65 million in punitive damages to penalize Trump and deter him from engaging in any future defamation.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ordered-pay-83-3-235417140.html

And somewhere along the way trump has convinced those who refuse to look for themselves that this was a trial to determine his guilt or innocence when it was no such thing. His culpability had already been established in the previous trial. This trial was simply to break down what he had done and determine what the monetary judgement should be for what was already proven to have done.

Yet publicly both he and his attorney were complaining they weren't allowed to provide evidence of his innocence. The time for that was the previous trial where his culpability was determined. You present your defense in a trial to determine if your guilty of something or not. In that trial he lost. You don't get a second trial to try and prove you didn't do it. This trial was to determine how much the things he did impacted E. Jean Carroll and should cost him. Nothing more

How is looking at facts ignorance? The jury deliberated and found him not guilty of rape. That's a fact! Your feelings on the matter don't count.

And even after trump paid Rudy his legal fees, Rudy continues to help trump blame the judge for trumps own actions. For those keeping score they have blamed Biden, The Justice System, the judges, the prosecutors, the witnesses and every other excuse in the world why trump should not be held accountable for the things he says and does....

Giuliani says judge in Trump defamation case is a ‘disgrace’

Rudy Giuliani defended former President Trump after a jury ordered him to pay $83.3 million for defaming columnist E. Jean Carroll and called the presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan, a “disgrace.”

“Well, the judge is a disgrace to the greatest court in America. It’s called the mother court, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,” Giuliani said on Newsmax on Friday after the ruling, highlighted by Mediaite. “It’s had some of the greatest judges in American history. This judge is a pure disgrace.”

Giuliani, the former New York City mayor-turned-Trump attorney, criticized Kaplan over his conduct with the attorneys in the trial.

Trump was ordered to pay Carroll the large sum of money for defaming her in 2019 when he denied her accusations that he sexually assaulted her in the 1990s. It’s the second time Carroll has won damages from Trump at trial, adding to the previous $5 million she received last year when a verdict found Trump liable for sexually abusing her and defaming her over a separate comment.

Giuliani, defending the former president, said Trump was found “not guilty or not liable for rape.”

“It was sexual assault. Not rape,” he said. “And second, you can be guilty of rape and still, a person can be a wacko.”

He argued that Trump was able to defend himself against Carroll’s accusation and the defamation she caused him.

Trump has vowed to appeal the “ridiculous” defamation ruling. He said he disagrees with both verdicts and will be appealing the “Biden Directed Witch Hunt” that is focused on him and the Republican Party.

Giuliani, a longtime Trump ally, was ordered by a jury in December to pay $148 million in damages to two former Georgia election workers he claimed committed fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

After Trump lost the 2020 election, Giuliani led unsuccessful legal efforts that attempted to overturn President Biden’s victory.

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...0DU63FJm2CMjtItOA_ocHMpFNwflqrIASMw5UDIs

But it was ONLY sexual assault Rudy said. Like that's no big deal, right? Hmmmm, that sounds familiar. It's the judges fault Rudy said. And of course the man who has never had any evidence of such wild accusations, which is why he was found to owe two election workers he defamed himself more money than trump has to pay E. Jean Carroll, makes another unsubstantiated claim that it's a “Biden Directed Witch Hunt”.

Yeah, it's everyone's fault but trumps. Just ask the GOP.

Dumb moment for me - but I just realized for whatever reason that this was a jury verdict. I kept thinking it was a bench trial, for whatever reason, which I thought was odd.

There you have it. The "actual malice" that the jury considered.

Eve - I am terribly sorry to hear about your past incident. That is truly awful and my heart goes out to you. I think part of the reason behind the $83.3M verdict that is different from your situation - whether we agree or disagree on the value - is that there were punitive damages involved due to the actual malice and the widespread dissemination of his statements. If I was defaming Oober here in our township (as I often do ), I don't think it would damage his reputation as much as a highly followed, public figure making those statements across worldwide media.

Its ok.My rape was years ago. I felt ashamed/humiliated and didnt talk about it for years. I learned my lesson: never go into a strangers house alone. I wish there was a guide for young women about what NOT to do as they navigate life because I had to learn everything the hard way. Cant trust men as far as I can throw them.

I can certainly understand your feelings there.

Watched some legal talking heads talk about timelines when she might see the money. They said with Trump’s appeals process the damages my be lowered some, but not significantly… Of course any amount in the millions is significant. Anyway, they said she won’t see a dime of it in 24, but in 25 he will have to pay her.

Keep my name out yo' mouth!

With Trump's platform and fairly well established history of his followers acting on his thinly veiled threats (not even talking about Jan 6 here), it's not hard to see a path to an unprecedented dollar amount for defamation. I'd also assume that him declaring his innocence after a verdict essentially boils down to "doubling down" on what had already determined to be defamation.

The article that stated that the dollar amount was also factoring in Trump not being able to keep his mouth shut is both confusing and hilarious. By continuing to proclaim his innocence, is Trump basically just getting his money's worth out of the $83m verdict?

I do what I want!!!

Haha, yeah, that's a good way to look at it. I hadn't thought about it in that context, but it makes sense. I'd have been curious if one of the jurors looked like that Charlie Kelly meme with all the red yarn, saying "Okay, this is how much he has defamed her up to this point. If we extrapolate the average number of defaming tweets/truths, and look at this lifespan, this would be the cumulative number of damages throughout the course of all this."

That's obviously a joke, but yeah, you make a great point.

Can you tell me what exactly each of them has done. I mean Hunters situation is pretty clear,., But other than him, what do they actually have on the others. Other than guess work.. They have NOTHING on them,,, So comparing them is kinda silly...

I realize this back and forth is mostly conjecture, but are you aware of any precedent for a jury anticipating and estimating a person's future offenses and applying punitive damages in advance? 🤣

No, I'm not. Good question. I imagine that will be one of the central points for an inevitable appeal.

Right. Still a hard sell though...


"There's no precedent for punishing my client with punitive damages before the fact. You can't assume my client will repeat an offense."

Uhhh... your client is Donald Trump.

He’ll never pay a dime. And he’ll get away with it. GOPers don’t have the nads to hold the asshat accountable for anything.

Trump's gonna pick his own GOP judge and jury for the appeal?

Unique take.

No, but only because he can't. That is however the only way he would say that it's fair.