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.

But were you an eye witness? Were you there? If not he couldn't have done it.

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.

Cornell school of law

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.

Funny how you frequently claim Pit is here just to argue. And here you are trying to spin this, somehow, anyhow.

Words do absolutely have meaning, so perhaps you need to look at what I said and what the jury said and what the court's ruling was and stop confusing them.

I said: "Based on the evidence the Jury thought he was guilty and so he was found liable."

And your statement above is utterly incorrect. The court verdict IS Trump is liable.

What the jury "said" was:

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

And once again I then said: "in the vernacular it'd be correct to say the jury thought he was guilty of what he was accused of." ... if someone is accused of something and jury hears the evidence and rules they believe the defendant did what he is accused of, one most definitely can say the jury thought he was guilty of what he was accused of.

I knw what you said. You continue to dodge being precise so you can live in the vernacular. In the end Trump is going to spend lunch money on this, unless he bleeds the plaintiff dry in appeals. Of course, he is still not guilty of a crime, at least not yet. This seems like an idiotic thing to hang a hat on. Enjoy.

The person hanging their hat would be you. I said in my second post you were technically right. I changed what I said to be technically correct by talking about how the jury viewed Trump instead of talking about what the verdict was or wasnt. You've spent a bunch of time since then being wrong and trying spin this someplace it isn't.

Now in a "toys out of the pram" sort of post - you're onto deflect saying this is lunch money to Trump and that it's not a crime. . . . . I think you seem to be missing the point.

If I respond to this to let you know you can have the last post is that me looking for an argument or you?

Enjoy the hallow victory.

Guy (Trump) is a predator, no matter what he was found liable for.

Wow, some people around here have rapey creep vibe fetishes. Who knew?

Who's that?

So, trump has to pay $5m for sexual assault. The jury made up of 6 men and 3 women. People from NY a group of his peers found him liable.

And your response is about Biden?

From last night town hall when asked about the mob from Jan 6th. “They were there with love in their heart — that was unbelievable and it was a beautiful day.”

The worst day in American history and trump had that to say.

There are not words to describe the filth of this traitor.

Here's the crazy argument being made. "The jury filled out the form stating they find he was guilty of sexual assault, but he's not guilty of sexual assault."

What did the verdict say?

The verdict was based on the findings of the jury. The jury found that he was guilty of sexual assault and said so on the forms they filled out. Somehow your ploy is to minimize that even when you know it's true.

So the verdict returned was?

Liable based on the fact they found he was guilty of sexual assault. They made that plain.

So the verdict was liable? I think that is what was said.

I notice you left out defamation on your list.

What judgement was entered?

This was the juries findings. I know you hate that and have refused to admit that, but that's what happened. It was shown in black and white. But that doesn't mean much to some people in America anymore.

The verdict was liable? So they didn't find him guilty? Just liable? Got it.

You seem not to understand what a liable verdict is based on. You can not hold someone liable unless you find them guilty of committing an act to be found liable of. They based the verdict of him being liable on the fact they found he was guilty of sexual assault in this case. Yes, they found he was guilty of sexual assault which is exactly what the verdict was based on.

But watching your little dance to deny that is most certainly entertaining.

You did not read the Cornell thing I suppose.

Yes, you can find someone liable with finding them guilty of a crime. In this case they found it was more likely than not he did it. "Preponderance of evidence" is "more likely than not". It is a low standard.

Again, they did not find him guilty, they found him liable. There is a big legal distinction there. The verdict is liable, the judgement entered is liable.

I continue to point out what the facts are, you spin but I am the one dancing? See if Santa Claus will bring you a dictionary or two for Christmas this year, younappezr to not understand the definitions to an abundance of words.

Yes, the standard in a civil trial is much lower than in a criminal case which most people are fully aware of. That's why the findings are not considered to be held up as a criminal offense. That does not however change the findings.


And they did. It seems you are the one in need of a dictionary.

That was mistyped

You can find someone liable without funding them guilty. OJ is the textbook on that.

I am guilty of being a Browns homer. I am guilty of thinking every single offseason for the last 23 years that somehow the Browns were' going to take a giant leap forward.

Pit - you are guilty of arguing with someone that won't listen to reason and instead insists on a conversation about the definition of guilty as a VERDICT only.

Using the word 'guilty' to describe what the Jury decided and felt about Trump in relation to the actions he was accused of is absolutely legitimate. The only thing it is not appropriate for is in relationship to saying the verdict was one of guilt. It's not hard - unless someone simply wants to argue for the sake of arguing, or if they want to deflect from Trump, his actions and what the jury thought he was guilty of.

But this jury did determine that trump was guilty of sexual assault. It was shown right on the jury forms. That's exactly what his liability was founded upon.

They did not.

The word guilty does not appear. They found the plaintiff "proved through a preponderance of evidence" that did something. This is still not a guilty verdict. He was not found guilty. There is a legal meaning to that and that was not met.

If the NYT printed a headline that says "Trump found guilty of sexual assualt" he would be able to sue them for libel. The headline is he was found liable for it. Guilty involves a criminal complaint and criminal punishment. This was a civil case.

The findings found him guilty and the liable verdict was based on the fact they found he was guilty of sexual assault. Once again, you must be found as doing something wrong and guilty of doing something in order to be found liable. Sexual assault is what they found he committed and that the libel verdict was based on.

The term appears on the jury form which breaks down exactly what they had found that trump did to base the verdict on. Their finding was that he committed sexual assault. This isn't complicated.

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

Did Ms. Carrol prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mr. trump sexually abused Ms. Carrol? Answer; Yes.

So your theory seems to be that they found he committed sexual abuse against her but they didn't find he was guilty of committing sexual abuse against her?

And the verdict was?

This started because someone said that the "jury found him guilty" and they did not. They found him liable for doing something, with a preponderance of evidence. They believed her more than they belived him. He was not found guilty, the verdict sheet doesn't say guilty. You can think he is guilty, but the jury found him liable. I know it is hard for you to not fight about something. You are wrong if you say they found him guilty.

The finding is, has been, and always will be liable. No matter what you or anyone thinks he is guilty of. No matter how you spin it. He was not found guilty.

When he fills out a government form and it asks "have you ever been found guilty of a crime" he can still answer that as "no".

I did not say the jury's verdict was stated as guilty or innocent of sexual abuse. That's not a verdict that a jury can conclude in their verdict of a civil trial. I said the jury in their findings determined he was guilty of sexual abuse. You are arguing a point with me that I never made. The fact they found he was guilty of sexual abuse is the very reason he was found liable. You seem to be confusing the findings of the jury with the verdict rendered by the jury. Their findings are the very reason the verdict was reached as it was.

I will go with Trump was found liable for sexual assault and defamation.

Guilty is not a technically accurate wording for a civil lawsuit, liable is the more accurate wording.

carry on..

And yet you keep saying "they found he was guilty of sexual abuse" which they did not. They decided that he did it, that is not the same as finding guilt. I am not the one confused. Spin from you does not change this.

So they found that he did it but didn't find he was guilty of doing it? Sometimes I don't think you hear yourself.

I hear just fine, other than low frequency in my left ear. They found he was more likely than not to have done it. But that does not find guilt. If we do this 30 more times will yuppie finally understand the jury did not find him guilty?

They found him to have committed sexuall abuse which is what the judgement handed down was based on.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is only needed to conclude guilt in a criminal proceeding. That standard in a civil proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence. They followed the standard required of them in a civil trail and determined that trump had committed sexual abuse. As such they found him libel based on their determination.

Your defense? "They concluded he did it but doesn't mean they concluded he was guilty of doing it."

No the judgement handed down was he is liable. Judgement is when the verdict is recorded and penalties assessed.

My defense? I have stated the fact the jury found him liable. The finding is he was liable. You continue to spin the jury found him guilty. They did not.

The jury did in fact find he committed sexual abuse. They made that as clear as they could make it saying so on the jury form. The verdict was that he was libel of doing so. If the jury had determined he had not done so, he would have not been libel of doing so. You do understand that the jury must determine what someone did that made them libel don't you? And in this case they determined that he was libel because he was sexually abusive.

This is what I keep trying to explain to you. Good job. You finally pitSplained to me the very thing I have been telling you.

See how they didn't find him guilty, just that the believe he did it now?

No, they determined he did it by the preponderance of the evidence. That's what the verdict and monetary amount was based on.

What you are claiming is like saying you determined someone broke into your house and stole things but you aren't claiming they are guilty of being a thief.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand back to square one.

I am claiming that they used a "preponderance of evidence" to find him liable. They did not find him guilty.

Did that person get tried criminally (guilty) or civilly (liable) and did they steal the goalposts you are trying to yet again move.

Keep defending your guilty hero. He’s guilty as sin. He’s a proven sexual predator. Get over it.

He was found liable which means the jury thinks he did it.

It's funny but these last few posts are really silly. He has been found liable. That's the actual wording... But realty says, HE DID IT which makes him guilty of the act..

You can spin it anyway you want however. still means the same thing..

Certainly not my hero. He was found liable. Some people can't handle that isn't being found guilty.

Let me knowwhn he is required to be on the sex offenders list.

Exactly.

In other words the Jury thought he was guilty.

In other words - the court found him liable because the jury believed him guilty of that of which he was accused.

Still defending him lol….Awwwww that’s sweet, You don’t need you worry your little head he’ll make the list eventually. Besides trump doesn’t need to be on a list. We all know what he is. He’s even admitted, he has the power and can do what he wants to women. Liable = Guilty in a civil case and now he must pay the consequences. 5mil. Guilty guilty guilty. The sex predator must pay the lady he assaulted = liable = Guilty. Potato …pootato. Pay the fine and shut up.

But they did not FIND him guilty like you said. Had they found him guilty he they would have assigned a level and he would go on the sex offenders register. Thinking he is guilty is not the same as finding him guilty, which was your original statement and it is still incorrect.

However, you wish to look at it the results are he has to pay up.

What is important is that the results of the trial again prove the absence of character.

Just like when he was impeached twice. The fact the Senate was spineless does not change he was impeached.

trump U was a fraud. He paid up.

He is under an indictment now. He will be indicted for the document theft. He will be indicted in Ga. for trying to coerce officials to throw the election with fake electors.

He will be indicted for Jan 6th. For Jan 6th he should be exiled from after being tried for treason.

Liable is the negative outcome for the defendant in a civil case. Guilty is the negative outcome in a criminal case. They are not the same thing and produce different results.

Are you talking about my original post in this thread or the first statement in my last comment?

If you need to go back to my first comment in this thread - WHICH I HAVE ALREADY CLARIFIED - then you are one sad little poster with a need to be "right" instead of have a conversation and are here trolling simply to argue.

I am talking about the whole thread. My response seems to have sparked the whole debate where people keep trying to spin he was found guilty.

You do realize I am not the only one in this? Everyone that can't accept he was found liable and not guilty must be sat too right? Nice of you to mention it that way. I really expect nothing less from you though.

You are trolling. Just look at what you've written, endlessly.

I don't know who all is still talking - but I do know most of the comments I have seen - just like mine since the moment you first commented - have said he was not "found guilty" and that it is not a guilty verdict. However you keep spinning comments and trying so hard to fight about this ... when people make comments about what the Jury decided and thought: which is they decided he did what he was accused of, which is - in every day vernacular - the exact same thing as saying the jury thought he was guilty.

It is only YOU that wants to try and bur the difference between what posters are saying regarding what the jury said and thought (Yes - he did it) and what the court ruling/verdict actually is (libel).

Perfect example is your last response to me. I haven't called it a guilty verdict since you corrected me with your first post. But here we are 20+ comments between us, and in order to try and fight you have to reference my very first post ignoring everything since.

He's trolling??

35-40 posts arguing with him over something most of us learned in grade school?

You all are just whiney because Frank doesn't roll over when the bullies run onto the playground.

This argument is, was, and will always be summed up best right here:

If this was Ben Rothlisberger we were talking about no one would be argueing the semantics of the word guilty.
Just sayin.

What was he found guilty of?

By found guilty I mean what court returned a verdict of guilty against him?

Most comments have been this "yeah, he's liable so he's guilty" like those are one and the same.

Sure..spin it all you like. You did the old "well technically but" spin. It's like people can't possibly wrap their minds around the idea he's not actually guilty of something. I know you've been dying for the day you can stand in the street and bang pots over it, but this was not it.

Trolling is now repeating fact that is not part of the zeitgeist of the blind hate here.

Nothing. That wasn’t the point.
The point is if Ben was found ‘liable’ for being the rapey creep in this case, we’d all be calling him guilty. But it’s not a common enemy so semantic battles occur.

I’m out. Ben is a rapey creep. So is donny. In my mind, they’re both guilty. Call it what you want. I’m not getting dragged into this back and forth any further.
I came to make a point. I did. I’m out.

They certainly found him to be guilty. Just not in criminal court. If they didn't find he was guilty, why did they assign he pay her millions of dollars? What finding did they reach in order to award her that money? It was stated plainly on the jury form why they did so.


There is no criminal penalty in a civil trial. The jury does however decide what a defendant did as to the grounds of what the payment should be. Saying he did it means they concluded he was guilty of doing it. Just like they did here.

Nah, they just hand out millions of dollars in settlements for things they haven't concluded the defendant is guilty of, right?

You keep resting on the verdict and not the findings which the verdict was predicated on. And you know it. Their findings were that he is guilty. That's the very reason he was found libel and it says so on the jury forms which shows what their finding were.

You keep missing words have meanings. You don't get to reassign those to suit you. The finding is when the jury returns the verdict to the judge or when a judge makes decides the outcome. Therefore, and read this slow like, the finding was he was liable. The finding was not he was guilty.

Their findings is what they base the verdict on. Yes, words do have meaning. A jury listens to the evidence to come to a resolution as to who is credible. Those are the findings of facts they use with which to reach a verdict. since you like this source so much......

In a jury trial: the jury is the fact finder that decides what really happened in the case at hand. In a bench trial: the judge is the fact finder that decides what really happened. In an official investigation: an agent or committee may be appointed to determine the facts.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fact_finder

You are just picking nits

I won't say I lie it so much, but it is useful.

Interesting you posted a link to something not really in question.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/verdict

.

There finding was he is liable. Not that he was guilty. That was not on the table here. This is irrespective of whether he did something or not. He was responsible for it. So they found him liable.

Ironically you, in your condescending tone, explained it to me like you came up with it then when I pointed out that had been what I said you pivoted. But you can't possibly be here to fight, you are just saving the bots.

No, in their finding of the facts they stated he did in fact commit sexual abuse against Ms. Carrol. Based on those findings they reached the verdict that he was libel and gave her a hefty settlement of 2 million dollars based on that fact.

I'm trying to save you but I fear you are beyond help. Anyone can plainly see that a verdict is determined on the finding of the facts.

The said she "proved through a preponderance of evidence he committed sexual assault" They did not say he was "guilty" of sexual assualt. Can you guess why? Because they did not find him guilty. See how simple that is? It is plain and simple.

So he did it but he's not guilty of it? Yeah, seeing through that is pretty easy.

so, Trump is libel for defaming the woman.

What's the freakin idiot do? Goes on a nationally televised town hall (more like one of his rallies) and defames her again.

This guy is an idiot.

Hey Peen, there are 26 other women out there saying he did the same to them, they however decided NOT to come after him then or now. And don't forget , Trump said he can do those things because he's a STAR.

The only one chirping around here are those, like you, who can't stop defending a dumb ass like Trump.

Correct. Glad you finally get it.

This thread is proof that we need to bring back schoolhouse rock.

You are a REALLY bad loser. Everything you said is wrong... What I quoted is most especially wrong.

I'm starting to actually feel sorry for you.

Here's a clue... Whether they found him libel or not. It doesn't change what I think of Trump and it doesn't change who he is. It doesn't make me happy or sad. It is what it is.

Only one person spinning here. That would be you.

Take care and good luck with whatever is going on in your life that's making you so unstable.

Aww, you feel sorry for me? At least I'm not some sanctimonious...

Just for fun- lets compare who's involved, what they did, and their support bases- our QB, Watson and Trump- one a successful QB, one a FORMER President of US and billionaire?- Watson likes massages and "might" have exposed himself, Trump - he's got lots of women claiming sexual rape, assault, brags about grabbing them by the P word- both are found guilty by law, support bases- Watson vilified by general public- he stated he always honored women- Trump is adored by millions, on national TV abuses his victim again AND brags he can do anything- he's a star....WOW, only in America- where are the REAL leaders- how do millions follow the idiot. At least Watson was forced to get some help, Trump, he keeps on giving.

But you absolutely are.

The good ol "I know you what am I"

Can you sink lower than that?

Did you consider yourself "sad" since you seem to not be able to let this go?

Yet here you are not letting it go. lmao

I wasn't the one that called someone sad for not letting it go.

Okay.

I said i feel sorry for you. And i do. In order to carry on arguing, you had to ignore about a dozen of my posts and talk about my very first post. Its like when you had to write one more post in order to tell me you'd let me have the last word 🤣. Seriously.... Ignore a days worth of posts and conversation and randomly go back to my first comment which I'd already acknowledged was inaccurate. Smh.

What ive said in my posts - after my first post, which you commented on and correctEd me - has been correct and yet you've tried to needle and troll continuously. You also started the passive aggressive insults. But its all good because thats very much expected.

So me answering other people is needling and trolling you? You really are kidding right? Tell me you think the world revolves around you without saying you think the world revolves around you.

Losing is tough. ……Boo hooo

What did I lose? Did you convince yourself that me being right is me losing?

Totally wacko I tell ya.

Yep, but of course the trump brigade will skip out again.

I’d usually say “your mind” …You know continuously defending a proven sexual predator. But that’s a mindless hobby bro.

I am not defending a "proven secual predator" I have merely disrupted the dancing about singing "Trump is guilty" party with the simple fact that he was not found guilty of anything, merely liable.

So another swing and miss by you.

Yes, you have defended that POS in just about every post you make. Like other trump supporters, you’re in denial. y’all have lost your collective minds.

Nice spin on that. "Just about every post"? That would be a lot of defending which I have not done.

This thread in particular I pointed out that the original assertion that he was found guilty was incorrect. That is a commentary on our legal system and how it works, not about Trump. We have a process in place, I discussed the process. You only see what you want to see, I am not the one that has lost my mind or is in denial. I care far more about the objective legal process than I do any politician.

Another swing, another miss.

denial.

Please, show me where I have defended him in "just about every post". Please, go on now.

Did the jury find beyond a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Trump sexually abuse Ms. Carrol? Answer; yes

Which in some people's world claims they didn't find that he is guilty of having sexually abused her. The only basis for saying that is that the verdict was libel. Yet the fact is she was awarded 2 million dollars based in their findings on the matter of battery in the case. For them to have awarded her 2 million dollars for battery, they had to find that he committed battery. This is so basic.

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

Look at you back to say the same things again so I can again ask you "Did the jury return a verdict of guilty?' The answer is still no. He is still not guilty. He still does not need to register on the sex offenders list.

But, of course, you will still spin, gaslight and use biased "articles" after you google search for to try and obfuscate the idea he wasn't found guilty. Which was the original assertion in all this.

Like I said, all you have to lean on is the fact a jury can only return a liable verdict. Yet that doesn't change the fact they found he was guilty of battery by sexually abusing Ms. Carrol. That's how they arrived at the 2 million dollars. Had they have not found him guilty of battery by sexually abusing her there would have been no 2 million dollar judgement in the battery portion of the case.

You do realize that portion of the settlement and the finding of facts was about battery and not defamation, right? They did find he committed battery by sexually abusing Ms. Carrol. No amount of spin can change that.

Everything after this is spin and politics.

So you admit they returned a verdict of liable?

Good, that should be enough for you to move on now.

BTW- You are obviously not paying attention..... again. That link takes you directly to the jury forms. So the actual jury forms are spin? lmao

Please show me one of your posts that you actually thought trump was guilty of anything he’s been accused of first.

You are the one that made an absurd assertion then cant actually back it up. Thank you, you've proved you were incorrect.

denial .

Did you expect anything other than that?

And yet you still haven't proved your wild assertion.

I didn't believe he would be able to prove his wild assertions either.

This very thread helps prove at least part of it.

It proves all I said was Trump wasn't found guilty. You continue to try and spin that, but the bare fact is he was found liable.

This horse is more than dead.
It's fully decomposed.

The verdict was liable. 2 million dollars of the E. Jean Carrol settlement was based on the very fact they found he committed sexual abuse against here. You're still hung up on the verdict while denying the finding of the facts that the liable settlement was based on.

So you dont accept the courts finding of liable? Typical.

I do. And I also accept the jury forms which show the very reason they awarded her that 2 million dollar portion of her settlement was because they found he was guilty of committing sexual abuse against her in the battery portion of their ruling. You know, the very reason they awarded her that 2 million dollars.

They awarded her $2m because they found him liable. Not because they found him guilty.

That entire 2 million dollar potion of the settlement settlement was based on what the jury found he had done in the battery phase of the trial. The actions he had committed. To say that they awarded him 2 million dollars based on something they did not find he was guilty of doing makes zero sense.

According to some they didn't find he had any guilt in the battery portion of the trial and just gave her that 2 million dollars out of the goodness of their hearts.

According to some words can just mean what you need them to at their convenience.

The verdict is still liable.

Once again, you are talking about the verdict. I'm talking about the finding of facts the verdict was predicated on.

Yes because the verdict is 1) what is important and 2) the original cause of all this was an incorrect statement on the jury findings.

The facts are they did not find him guilty, they found him liable. Reconcile yourself to that fact. It won't change, no matter where you try to move the goal posts.

I guess the horse is not dead enough.

Sheesh..

Yes. Three pages of seeing the pathetic defense of a disgusting rapist is more than enough for one thread.

They specifically found him not liable on the rape one.

Yeah that makes it all better for the trump brigade. Lol

E. Jean Carroll adds Trump’s post-verdict remarks to defamation case, seeks at least $10M

NEW YORK (AP) — E. Jean Carroll, the advice columnist who won a $5 million sexual abuse and defamation award against former President Donald Trump, is seeking at least $10 million more in a court filing Monday that seeks to hold him liable for remarks he made after the verdict.

The amended lawsuit was filed in Manhattan by Carroll’s lawyers, who said Trump “doubled down” on derogatory remarks about the former Elle magazine columnist during a cable television appearance a day after the verdict.

“It is hard to imagine defamatory conduct that could possibly be more motivated by hatred, ill will, or spite,” they wrote of Trump’s remarks at a CNN town hall. “This conduct supports a very substantial punitive damages award in Carroll’s favor both to punish Trump, to deter him from engaging in further defamation, and to deter others from doing the same.”

A nine-person jury two weeks ago decided Trump had sexually abused Carroll at an upscale Manhattan department store in early spring 1996. It also found that Trump had made false statements that damaged her reputation after she went public with her allegations in a 2019 book.

Carroll testified during the trial that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room. Trump, who is campaigning for the presidency, did not attend the trial or testify.

The jury decided Carroll hadn’t proved she had been raped, but found that Trump had sexually abused her. Trump continues to deny that the attack happened. He said Carroll made up the allegation to help sell her book.

Joe Tacopina, a Trump lawyer, declined to comment on the new legal claim.

Carroll defamation claims against Trump have proceeded in two separate lawsuits, one decided in the trial that just concluded, and another that previously dealt only with derogatory remarks that Trump made in 2019 while he was still president.

That lawsuit, which has been tied up in still-unresolved legal appeals, is the one to which Carroll, 79, has added her new claims.

Carroll’s lawyers asked for a speedy resolution “while she remains in good health and before Donald Trump’s time and attention are consumed entirely by his presidential campaign.”

A spokesperson for the U.S. government lawyers declined to comment.

Carroll’s lawyers added that “Trump was motivated by purely personal reasons, rather than presidential or official reasons,” saying he “implied that Carroll was too ugly for him to sexually assault, falsely stated that Carroll had previously lodged fake allegations of sexual misconduct against other men, and invented a baseless narrative that Carroll fabricated her accusation for money, to promote a book, or to further a political conspiracy — without possessing or pointing to one iota of support for those claims.”

In the new claim, Carroll’s lawyers said Trump, “undeterred by the jury’s verdict, persisted in maliciously defaming Carroll yet again” at the CNN event.

“He doubled down on his prior defamatory statements, asserting to an audience all too ready to cheer him on that ‘I never met this woman. I never saw this woman,’ that he did not sexually assault Carroll, and that her account — which had just been validated by a jury of Trump’s peers one day before — was a ‘fake,’ ‘made up story’ invented by a ‘whack job.’ Those statements resulted in enthusiastic cheers and applause from the audience on live TV,” the lawyers wrote.

They added: “Trump used a national platform to demean and mock Carroll. He egged on a laughing audience as he made light of his violent sexual assault, called Carroll names, implied that Carroll was asking to be assaulted, and dismissed the jury’s verdict vindicating Carroll.”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-ra...1zwi7HPqeGjXQHUWUDagGXirdGoUXxxgIv_IsJ-k

I hope she wins again. donny is incapable of keeping his KFC hole shut. If he loses this case he’ll be out yammering it up again like the whiny b he is. . When he does I hope she sues him again. Rinse and repeat. His idiot followers can keep sending him money, filling her, his enemy’s, coffers. They’re too far under his thrall to realize the the hilarious irony of it all.

I told my wife when we watched that town hall that trump just gave her yet another cause to sue him. It's exactly the way Bill Barr said it is. "Trump is his own worst enemy."

Yeah no kidding. No wonder he never appears in court. Or go under oath for anything. He’s a pathological liar and narcissist idiot. And his base follows him blindly.

His base is mostly the same.

Judge allows E. Jean Carroll to amend lawsuit include fresh damages from Trump

A New York judge approved writer E. Jean Carroll's amended 2019 defamation lawsuit against former President Trump on Tuesday to include damages over remarks he made about her during a televised CNN town hall event last month.

Why it matters: The amended lawsuit contributes to the myriad legal perils bearing down on Trump, who on Tuesday was arraigned in a Miami federal court on charges from the Department of Justice related to retaining classified information and obstruction of justice.

Trump, who is running for president, made the comments one day after a New York jury held him liable for sexual abuse and defamation in a separate lawsuit from Carroll, who was awarded $5 million in damages from Trump.

During the town hall, Trump ridiculed Carroll and the jury's decision, calling her a "whack job" and claimed that her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in the dressing room of a luxury Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s were "fake" and "made up."

In the amended lawsuit, Carroll is seeking at least an additional $10 million in damages.

Between the lines: The amendment is to a previous defamation lawsuit Carroll filed in 2019 in response to Trump denying her accusation.

Trump had attempted to delay proceedings by arguing that he can't be sued because he made the denial at issue while he was president, though he did sit for a deposition in the case in October 2022.
Carroll filed another lawsuit in November 2022 just minutes after a New York law allowing adult survivors of sexual violence to sue over attacks that occurred decades ago went into effect.
The second lawsuit went to trial last month, and while the jury did not determine whether Trump raped Carroll, as she alleged, it did find that he sexually assaulted her in the dressing room.

What they're saying: "We look forward to moving ahead expeditiously on E. Jean Carroll's remaining claims," said Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, in a statement after the amendment was approved.

Carroll and Kaplan previously said they were considering a fresh defamation lawsuit against Trump townhall event comments, according to the New York Times.
Representatives for Trump did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment.

The big picture: Carroll's amended lawsuit was approved by District Judge Lewis Kaplan, the same judge that oversaw the trial over Carroll's second lawsuit.

At least 26 women, including Carroll, have made public allegations of sexual misconduct or assault against Trump over the years, but only a few resulted in litigation and only Carroll's has ever gone to trial.
Trump filed an appeal against the jury's verdict earlier this month and has denied Carroll's accusation.

https://www.axios.com/2023/06/13/tr...CWZzC5-GfO5wJy-xoQI601P4EHs1Dr8MZnYx4zUM

The man truly is his own worst enemy because he simply can't keep his pie hole shut.

The damn fool got off pretty much for chump change (for him anyway). It could have gone a whole lot worse for him. Now, it will.

Come on Peen... I wasn't there when Mt. Rushmore was chiseled out of a mountain, but there it is.

I wasn't there when Henry Ford started his first engine, but he did it.

I wasn't there when Kennedy was shot but he's dead.

In the end, there will be a jury to look at all the evidence that you and I as just regular citizens will never see and they'll render a decision.

Some people don't respect the legal process. He wasn't there either and a jury heard all of the evidence. The jury has spoken but many of those who claim to respect the process decide not to when they don't get their desired results.

I want to I’ve in Peen’s world where it didn’t happen unless there are witnesses… I could thrive in that system.

In some weird plot twist the person found guilty now wishes to portray himself as the victim. But then doesn't he always?

Donald Trump sues E. Jean Carroll with his own claims of defamation

The former magazine writer was awarded millions in a lawsuit against Trump.

Former President Donald Trump is now suing the writer who sued him for defamation.

Trump is accusing E. Jean Carroll of defaming him when, after a jury held him liable for sexually assaulting her but not raping her as she initially claimed, Carroll appeared on television and insisted he did rape her.

"In response to that specific inquiry, Counterclaim Defendant disregarded the jury's finding that Counterclaimant did not rape her, and replied: 'Oh yes he did, oh yes he did,'" the lawsuit said.

Trump's counterclaim said Carroll's statements following her successful battery and defamation lawsuit caused "significant harm to his reputation," making him deserving of compensatory and punitive damages.

The former president's lawsuit also took aim at statements Carroll said she made privately to defense attorney Joe Tacopina at the conclusion of the trial.

"Specifically, Counterclaim Defendant stated in the Interview that she emphatically told Mr. Tacopina at the conclusion of the trial that 'he did it and you know it,' again reaffirming her claim that Counterclaimant raped her. Counterclaim Defendant made these statements knowing each of them were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity," Trump's lawsuit said.

A jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages in May. Trump's attorney recently put $5.5 million into an account controlled by the court while the defense pursues an appeal of the jury's verdict and damage award.

In a statement, Carroll's attorney, Roberta Kaplan, called Trump's counterclaim an attempt to delay accountability.

"Donald Trump again argues, contrary to both logic and fact, that he was exonerated by a jury that found that he sexually abused E Jean Carroll by forcibly inserting his fingers into her vagina. Four out of the five statements in Trump's so-called counterclaim were made outside of New York's one-year statute of limitations. The other statement similarly will not withstand a motion to dismiss," Kaplan said.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-sues-jean-carroll-claims-defamation/story?id=100437874

Trump wants that as well..

Next thing you know, Trump will start suing Jury members if they find against him.

Next thing you know trump will proclaim and declare that all women are virgins so he can prove his innocence for any of his deplorable deviant sexual misconduct. And his base will jump with glee as they usually do.

If he's the best they have, I see trouble on the horizon.

Judge rejects Trump bid to dismiss E. Jean Carroll defamation claims

The judge shot down Trump's presidential immunity argument, saying it's "not a 'get out of damages liability free' card."

A federal judge on Thursday ruled against former President Donald Trump in his bid to dismiss writer E. Jean Carroll's defamation claims against him on the grounds of "presidential immunity."

In court filings, Trump's lawyers had contended he couldn't be held liable for calling Carroll an opportunistic liar in 2019 in part because he did so in furtherance of his presidential duties.

“Mr. Trump argues that he is entitled to absolute presidential immunity because he ‘made the three alleged defamatory statements in direct response to Plaintiff’s allegations which impugned his character and, in turn, threatened his ability to effectively govern the nation,’” U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of New York wrote in a 46-page ruling.

But, he wrote, Trump’s response was over the top, and presidential immunity is “not a ‘get out of damages liability free’ card.”

Carroll is suing Trump in federal court in New York alleging he defamed her after she went public with her allegation that Trump had raped her in the dressing room of a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s.

"Mr. Trump did not merely deny Ms. Carroll’s accusation of sexual assault," Kaplan wrote. "Instead, he accused Ms. Carroll of lying about him sexually assaulting her in order to increase sales of her book, gain publicity, and/or carry out a political agenda.

"Even assuming that the president’s decision publicly to deny an accusation of personal wrongdoing comes within the outer perimeter of his official duties, it does not follow that the president’s own personal attacks on his or her accuser equally fall within that boundary," he added.

"Mr. Trump does not identify any connection between the allegedly defamatory content of his statements — that Ms. Carroll fabricated her sexual assault accusation and did so for financial and personal gain — to any official responsibility of the president. Nor can the Court think of any possible connection," Kaplan wrote.

Kaplan also said Trump waited too long to raise the immunity defense, noting that his lawyers offered "no explanation" for the "three-year delay" in raising the immunity defense.

Carroll attorney Roberta Kaplan, who's not related to the judge, praised Thursday's ruling.

"Judge Kaplan's denial of summary judgment confirms that once again, Donald Trump’s supposed defenses to E. Jean Carroll’s defamation claims don’t work," and it "removes one more impediment to the January 15 trial" in the case, Kaplan said in a statement.

Trump attorney Alina Habba said, "We disagree with the court's decision and will be taking the appropriate steps to preserve all viable defenses."

The defamation case was the first Carroll filed against Trump, but it will be the second to go to trial.

Last month, a jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and then defaming her in comments he made after he left office. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages, a verdict that Trump is appealing.

That case went to trial first because the pending case was tied up in appeals over issues relating to the presidency.

Carroll has since amended her original lawsuit to add new defamation claims stemming from Trump's comments following the $5 million verdict, including calling her claims a "hoax" and referring to her as a "wack job."

Trump filed a counterclaim against Carroll on Wednesday, in part for continuing to refer to the alleged incident as a "rape," because the jury last month found she had failed to prove by a "preponderance of the evidence" that Trump had raped her.

The jury instead found Trump liable for battery after it decided that Carroll had proven Trump sexually abused her.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...nC4APverm3saTKLwp0JzAnI0ySl4g0jxis94vlyo

I hope they give her ten times more for him continuing to lie.

So basically trump has tied up the whole process again. And now doesn’t have to pay a dime until this new case is resolved? Pffft.

Pretty sure Trump is broke and living off political contributions now. I mean they took his charity piggy bank, his brand is all but dead, and he and his offspring couldn’t come up with a legit income stream if their lives depended on it. OMG that family is stupid. BARBIE is the only one who might survive without all the money.

Judge finds Donald Trump’s appeal in E. Jean Carroll case ‘frivolous’

“Mr. Trump has not provided a single reason for the court to find that there is any likelihood that he will succeed on appeal,” U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote.

NEW YORK — A U.S. judge on Friday ruled that former President Donald Trump had filed a “frivolous” appeal of his decision not to dismiss the first of writer E. Jean Carroll’s two defamation lawsuits stemming from her claim that he raped her.

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan also denied Trump’s bid to put Carroll’s case on hold while he appeals the June 29 decision, which found that Trump did not deserve absolute presidential immunity for calling her a liar.

“Mr. Trump has not provided a single reason for the court to find that there is any likelihood that he will succeed on appeal,” Kaplan wrote. “This court certifies that the appeal itself is frivolous.”

Under federal rules governing court procedure, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan could order Trump to pay damages and costs to Carroll if it found his appeal frivolous.

Trump’s lawyer Alina Habba said in an email that she disagreed with but “fully anticipated” Kaplan’s decision, and will “promptly move before the Second Circuit for a stay to preserve our client’s entitlement to presidential immunity.”

Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to the judge, declined to comment.

The case is among a slew of legal problems that Trump, 77, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, faces as he seeks another White House term.

These include four separate criminal indictments, including two for attempting to reverse his 2020 election loss.

No irreparable harm

Carroll, 79, sued Trump in November 2019 over his denial five months earlier that he raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman department store dressing room in Manhattan in the mid-1990s.

The case is separate from the May 9 verdict where a jury found Trump liable to pay Carroll $5 million for sexual abuse, and for defamation over a similar denial in an October 2022 social media post. Trump is also appealing that verdict.

In seeking a stay, the former president said he had a substantial likelihood of showing that Kaplan’s June 29 decision was wrong, and that there was “immense public interest” in letting the appeals court decide the issue.

Trump also said he would suffer irreparable harm if a trial, scheduled for Jan. 15, 2024, occurred before the appeals court weighed in.

But the judge said Carroll deserved her day in court without having to compete with possible trials in other Trump cases and the later stages of his presidential campaign.

Kaplan also said Trump waived any claim to irreparable harm by waiting more than 3-1/2 years to raise the immunity defense as a reason for delay.

“The only purported harm Mr. Trump reasonably may claim he would suffer in this case would be having to stand trial,” the judge wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do..._jTNsqfBAy8Bp9Wm0XUJNwUhKI25-_Wc-IlvJSkE

Trump filed a frivolous lawsuit? Who'da thunk it!?

But but but, he's perfect. He's the second coming! How could he ever be wrong about anything?

He got caught grabbing a ladies crotch and now he doesn’t want to be labeled as a rapist. Poor Donnie.

Im going to miss the Kraken lady

me too.
pure comedic gold.


wonder if they'll serve diet Dr. Pepper in the ladies' State Lockup?

Stacking Ls.