Trump ordered to pay $83.3 million for defamation suit

[HighStepper]

Where do you people come up with this stuff?

I know I said I wasn't going to comment again but I couldn't let this statement go untested because it is simply false. I never heard of this woman until the trial but I heard of Trump all the way back in the 80's. Most Americans knew of Trump back in the 80's because of the drama with his first wife, he also dated supermodels, Regis Philbin would call him "The Donald" on his morning show and Trump had a cameo in Home Alone 2 in 1992.

What she wrote in her book was libel against Trump, he should counter-sue her.

Ok, now I'm done with this ridiculous topic.

Not libel when what was said was proven to be true in a court of law.

Ok, Trump had a brief cameo appearance in 1992, Home Alone 2

Consider that in order to get big money for defaming one's reputation one needs to have a big reputation.

E. Jean Carroll's was a trailblazer in New York City's elite literary circles. Carroll is a lauded writer, journalist and author. Carroll was an advice columnist who appeared on TV and was featured in Elle Magazine for nearly 30 years.  She wrote for Saturday Night Live in the 1980s and hosted "Ask E. Jean," a TV show that aired from 1994-96.

Carroll was a cheerleading beauty queen crowned Miss Indiana University in 1963, and in 1964, and won the Miss Cheerleader USA title

E. Jean Carroll

[bats]

What she wrote in her book was libel against Trump, he should counter-sue her.

It's too late for that because their issues have been decided in court. And he lost, bigly.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

[Romanticlover]

Ok people, lets look at the timeline:
E Jean Carroll wrote a book that was released in 2019, the assault civil case was in 2023.
That means she made libelous claims before the trial, Trump tried to sue her but the judge dismissed his case.
You and I know that her book influenced the jurors and judge.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/29/donald-trump-rape-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/

I still never heard of her before the trial, I never heard that she was a writer for SNL.

[Romanticlover]

Here is an interview from 1989 on the #1 morning show in America at the time:

[bats]

Ok people, lets look at the timeline:
E Jean Carroll wrote a book that was released in 2019, the assault civil case was in 2023.
That means she made libelous claims before the trial, Trump tried to sue her but the judge dismissed his case.
You and I know that her book influenced the jurors and judge.

Trump didn't file his counterclaim until after the verdict in the sexual assault case. Carroll was on CNN the day after the verdict, and when a reporter asked what she thought when the jury answered "no" to the question of whether he raped her, she replied that she thought at the time, oh, yes he did--oh, yes, he did.

Trump claimed Carroll's comment was defamatory because it "disregarded the jury's finding that [Mr. Trump] did not rape her." The judge found, however, that although the jury answered "no" to the rape question, that didn't matter because the jury did find that he "raped" her digitally. The difference between a penile rape and a digital rape for purposes of a defamation claim, the judge found, was minimal since both acts are felonious sex crimes in NY.

The bottom line is that Trump lost badly in these cases, continued to make things worse for himself, and had shitty lawyers to boot. In other words, it was another Trump legal clusterfuck.

[Romanticlover]

Trump did have incompetent lawyers, I will give you that.
But when you load the jury with naïve gullible people who hate the defendant then said defendant doesn't stand a chance.

"She wrote it in her book so it must be true, women never lie." - brain dead juror mentality

[bats]

But when you load the jury with naïve gullible people who hate the defendant then said defendant doesn't stand a chance.

"She wrote it in her book so it must be true, women never lie." - brain dead juror mentality

Do you know something about the jurors? Anything at all? Of course not. You're speculating based on a result you don't like.

But let's say the jurors came to dislike Trump. Why wouldn't they? They were convinced, at least by a preponderance of the evidence, that he sexually assaulted a woman and that, after she dared talk about it publicly, he attacked her personally in a way that only a man as loathsome as Trump would.

Note: I misspoke in my earlier post. In the first trial, Trump had competent counsel in Joe Tacopina, a respected litigator in New York. But "Joe Taco" got himself out of representing Trump, most likely because Trump is both the world's worst client and the world's worst witness.

[Romanticlover]

"A jury is twelve people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty." - anonymous

[bats]

"A jury is twelve people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty." - anonymous

At least when you trash America's jury system, you don't do so as an officer of the court. So you're a smidge above Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba.

[Danno]

"A jury is twelve people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty." - anonymous

I've been on 3 juries.
One a murder trial that lasted 3 months. took 2 weeks and 250 people to get down to 12
Liked every minute of it.
Very interesting and learned a lot

[zoezane]

E. Jean Carroll was raped by rapist trump.  I find this informative how men talk about rape who have not been raped.
When I did phone sex in Las Vegas, I had famous male rock stars confess to me how they were raped by family memebers. I don't think they would talk about it in here.  Those raped men would be supportive of E. Jean Carroll.  They wouldn't come up with the boring gold digger escuse.  How many times have rapists got away with raping women, thousands. 

Raping women on this planet, it's a noraml thing men do.  It's okay I can rape as many as I want and get away with it.  I'm glad, I'm not one of those raping men. 

[Romanticlover]

The jury said Trump assaulted her, the jury said he didn't rape her under the definition of NY law.
Again, this was a civil trial and not a criminal trial so he wasn't convicted.

My brain hurts from reading lies and non-sense, I need to take a break.

[Bande]

Neil in the following video could not of said it better.
MSNBC interview? Anyone see that? Kind of proved what a whack job EG Carol is.

[bats]

The jury said Trump assaulted her, the jury said he didn't rape her under the definition of NY law.
Again, this was a civil trial and not a criminal trial so he wasn't convicted.

My brain hurts from reading lies and non-sense, I need to take a break.

We know it was a civil case and that by the time Trump's victim spoke out about her assault, it was too late for him to be charged criminally. But here's some "nonsense" offered by the judge in granting Carroll's motion to dismiss Trump's counterclaim:

The jury in Carroll II was instructed that it could find that Mr. Trump "raped" Ms. Carroll only if it found that he forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's vagina with his penis. It could not find that he "raped" her if it determined that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll's private sexual parts with his fingers - which commonly is considered "rape" in other contexts - because the New York Penal Law definition of rape is limited to penile penetration. As the Court explained in its recent decision denying Mr. Trump's motion for a new trial on damages and other relief in Carroll II, based on all of the evidence at trial and the jury's verdict as a whole, the jury's finding that Mr. Trump "sexually abused" Ms. Carroll implicitly determined that he forcibly penetrated her digitally- in other words, that Mr. Trump in fact did "rape" Ms. Carroll as that term commonly is used and understood in contexts outside of the New York Penal Law.

[dogwalker]

Ok.....but again....the verdict is the verdict.
Whether you agree with it or not that's the current situation.
Will it change in the future?  Maybe. Maybe not.