$83.3 Million Ouch!

[Jon]

Then by your logic any female that is molested has zero recourse unless there is video or witnesses. She should just be silent, is that correct? Or does your logic only applly to Trump, who has bragged about what he can do because of his celebrity. I didn't take it as locker room talk, because I have spent a lot of times in locker rooms as an athlete and never heard anyone brag about molesting women against their will.

Trump never said he did it against their will. He said they let him, which is the opposite of against their will.

And if someone is claiming they have been molested but have no evidence, then they shouldn't be able to prove their case. Any system that ignores this opens innocent people to malicious and financially motivated coups against their life earnings. Case in point is Trump's recent loss in NYC.

 

[Jon]

Except that Trump cannot charge her with defamation because he is a public figure. She gets to accuse him of sexual assault with no facts. He is prevented from defending himself and when he does, she accuses him of defamation. She accused him of a heinous crime and those with TDS of course believe her despite the flaws in her memory and complete inability to provide any concrete facts which Trump might have been able to use to exonerate himself. So now, in "their" democracy, the defendant, if they don't like him, doesn't get to provide any defense because it might offend the person who accused him??????????? It is really good for you that there wasn't a person (man or woman) living in the state of NY who hated you enough to charge you with a sex crime last year because you would not have been able to defend yourself either and it would have cost you a ton of money to just go to trial and we would all be oooing and ahhing over what an awful person you are. No facts required, simply "j'accuse" And, if you dare to even try to defend yourself publically, you get charged with the crime of defaming the person who accused you. WHAT COUNTRY ARE WE LIVING in people?

The "law" that was used to enable this woman to accuse Trump of sexual assault and get her case heard was specifically passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor in 2022 so that it could be used to allow this woman to accuse Trump of doing something completely outrageous and unbelievable. It seems to have come from a Law & Order episode rather than from reality.


SHE DEFAMED HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why do you not understand that? Her accusation was political and a fabrication and done with malice aforethought. She is even being funded in this endeavor by a Trump hater with the specific intention of keeping him off the ballot in 2024.

My thoughts entirely Pat. You summarised it well. Sadly, these witch hunts seem to be in the fabric of human DNA and repeat themselves as history has shown.

If someone denies something, loses in court, why doesn't the court automatically then charge that person with additional charges of lying to the court? Or some kind of perverting the course of justice? Yet this cascading torts issue in the Trump cases appears to be exactly that. Keep suing for more of Trumps hard earned wealth, syphoning off from the gravy train. How about earning your own God damn money!

 

[moke123]

I have a problem with this! Firstly, that was not the jury's finding. The jury's finding is that in the balance of probabilities, they think there is a greater than 50% chance bad orange man abused her. Call me pedantic but that is the reality.

This explains it a little https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...donald-trump-ra**-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/

Carroll testified that she struggled to get Trump off her as he shoved his mouth on hers, yanked her tights down, and penetrated her with his hand and then his penis. She described him curving his finger inside her, saying it was "extremely painful" and "a horrible feeling."

Under New York criminal law, an assault only constitutes "ra**" if it involves vaginal penetration by a penis. That was the definition the jury was instructed to use in the civil case.

By responding "no" to the question of whether Carroll proved Trump raped her, the jurors indicated they weren't convinced Trump penetrated Carroll with his penis, according to Kaplan, who first wrote about the issue in July, when he denied Trump a new trial in the sexual abuse case.

In some states digital or oral penetration is included in the definition of ra**.

 

[Jon]

This explains it a little https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...donald-trump-ra**-e-jean-carroll/72295009007/


In some states digital or oral penetration is included in the definition of ra**.

Her lawyers were trying to convince the jury that Trump raped her in the "traditional" manner. Since the jury did not believe her, they are essentially saying that on the balance of evidence, she is probably lying.

 

[moke123]

Since the jury did not believe her, they are essentially saying that on the balance of evidence, she is probably lying.

She was unsure if he actually penetrated her with his penis but that he did try. Juries believe complainants all the time but can't convict because ALL the elements of that crime can not be proven, but they can convict on lesser included crimes. They awarded her $2 million for the abuse so obviously they believed her.

 

[Steve R.]

Another bogus persecution of Trump.

15 Facts About E. Jean Carroll's Case the Media Don't Want You to Know

Serious concerns have fallen under the radar regarding E. Jean Carrol's entire lawsuit against Donald Trump.

www.breitbart.com

Note the quote below. A new law was passed in 2022 to essentially "legitimizes" the ability to persecute Trump for an old "crime" that predated the law. That is virtually equivalent to a "Bill of attainder", which is considered unconstitutional.

14. The lawsuit was only able to proceed after Democrats created the Adult Survivors Act in 2022. She conveniently pursued this suit in November following the law going into effect, which allowed her to avoid the statute of limitations for this case.

6. She never came forward with these allegations over the years despite constantly being open about sexuality, posting things that were very sexual in nature on social media — many of which Trump has shared. They include remarks such as “How do you know your ‘unwanted sexual advance’ is unwanted, until you advance it?” and “Sex Tip I Learned From My Dog: When in heat, chase the male until he collapses with exhaustion … then jump him!”

One person on Breitart made the comment below:

No complaint to Bergdorf, no complaint to police,
no complaint to a friend or family member of what had
to be a pretty amazing thing as being raped by Donald Trump.
Not even a diary entry about it. How in the world did this
stroll through the courts?

 

[Jon]

She was unsure if he actually penetrated her with his penis but that he did try. Juries believe complainants all the time but can't convict because ALL the elements of that crime can not be proven, but they can convict on lesser included crimes. They awarded her $2 million for the abuse so obviously they believed her.

From the link you gave it says she did say he raped her, unless the article is inaccurate:

Carroll testified that she struggled to get Trump off her as he shoved his mouth on hers, yanked her tights down, and penetrated her with his hand and then his penis.

But surely they can also only convict on the lesser included crime if they have ALL the elements of that crime too and can prove it? Or in other words, it does not matter what the severity of the crime is, the same rule applies, namely, you need proof.

I'm not sure how this case is any different to the ra** and sexual assault allegation against Biden. Both cases were a long time ago, each had their "evidence" where they told their friends at the time. None had DNA to corroborate. Yet Trump gets sued for millions and all the #metoo feminists turn a blind eye and keep quiet on the Biden case. They all claim the alleged victim is a nutjob, just like in Trump's case.

To say they believed her, belief is on a gradient, not a yes or no. They can be fractionally more convinced by her argument than Trump, who was absent. But regardless of it being Trump or anyone else, when there is no credible evidence I am amazed how they can convict. It is just one persons word (and her mates, who I am sure wouldn't object to a) bringing down Trump, and b) seeing her friend get loaded), verses anothers.

 

[moke123]

jpl458 said:
Defaminng is expensive. Remember, it was jury, not Joe Biden. ButwhataboutHuntereslaptop? In days, what's the over and under , in days, before he asks you to send him money.

Read your point. WHO donates to Trump - the little people with little amounts. WHO donates to Biden and Haley and DeSantis - rich people who expect favors. That alone should explain to you why the "system" hates Trump so much. They don't own him. They cannot control him. He is an existential threat to "their" democracy.

Yup, little people. https://www.opensecrets.org/2020-presidential-race/donald-trump/contributors?id=N00023864

Contributor	Total
Las Vegas Sands	$45,010,542
Adelson Clinic for Drug Abuse Treatment & Research	$45,005,600
America First	$37,416,082
Walt Disney Co	$10,589,052
Laura & Isaac Perlmutter Foundation	$10,500,000
Energy Transfer LP	$10,033,580
Marcus Foundation	$10,000,000
Eshelman Ventures LLC	$7,000,000
GH Palmer Assoc	$6,005,600
Hendricks Holding Co	$5,007,548
Uline Inc	$4,093,701
Pulse Biosciences	$4,005,600
Stephens Inc	$3,520,490
Blackstone Group	$3,034,030
Mountaire Corp	$1,500,100
Irving Moskowitz Foundation	$1,300,000
Beal Bank (Employees)	$1,109,555
Cerberus Capital Management	$1,087,624
RDV Corp	$1,034,369
Intercontinental Exchange Inc	$1,018,537

 

[Steve R.]

Seems that Tara Reade has a legitimate case against Biden.

Tara Reade Bashes E. Jean Carroll for Supporting Biden

Tara Reade, who accused President Biden of raping her in 1993, bashed Donald Trump accuser E. Jean Carroll for "singing his praises."

www.breitbart.com

Indeed, Reade has questioned why there has never been an investigation into her claims against Biden and called for him to drop out of the presidential race in 2020.

 

[moke123]

So, I say - BOGUS and misleading crap designed to impress the low-information reader.

And your looking at the wrong cycle. There are no totals for 2024 cycle as it's still ongoing.

 

[Isaac]

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Classic.

 

[moke123]

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Considering she's been dead for 14 years and in a nursing home for years before that I'd say never. But thanks for asking.

 

[Steve R.]

Why believe the charges from a prosecutor who appears to be corrupt and is evidently abusing the law for her own personal gain?

Report: Willis Fired Whistleblower Who Warned Her About Mishandled Funds

Embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis fired an employee who warned her about mishandling federal funds, according to a report.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Steve R.]

Once Trump took office and officially said that he would not be pursuing charges against Clinton, I was really happy I voted for him. She deserved prosecuting (ordinary citizens get years in jail for mishandling secret documents) but doing so would have opened wounds to no purpose. He showed excellent judgement. We can't say the same for the Biden administration and should Trump manage to rise over the cheating to win in November, I would be quite OK for him to prosecute all the Biden administration people who violated people's rights in their persecution of Trump and all his supporters. Trump is in the samp position that Israel is in. If he doesn't squash the deep state, they just keep coming back. Sure hope he has enough people in training to start on day 1.

Democrats give no quarter. Trump was magnanimous by not pursing H. Clinton (and others), that "favor" was returned with eight years of endless civil and criminal charges (not legal) to "get Trump" at any cost. The ends justify the means.

Gorka has an excellent podcast. His pithy summary (paraphrased) - Carroll lies about being raped, Trump call her out on that. Somehow the court incongruously determines that the person who lied was the one who was injured?????????

The Happy Women Podcast

News Commentary Podcast · Updated Daily · Jen and Katie are two happy women bringing you inspiring stories, politics, pop culture and lifestyle hacks, all with an eye to making our communities and our country a better place to live!

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Jon]

I don't get it. Are we saying that Trump has been sued for $83M because he said he didn't ra** her, something which the jury in the previous case agreed with? Or was the award for something else?

 

[AccessBlaster]

Apparently a fraudster and proven liar can be defamed. Liberal logic.

 

[moke123]

He doesn't get to sue her for the unproved/unprovable accusation because he is famous and so he can't be defamed (the law on this is truly stupid) but since she is not famous, his rejection of her accusation somehow defames her

She was more famous than him years ago. Please explain this law that you claim is stupid.

Are Johnny Depp and Amber heard not famous?
What about Kate Hudson, Cameron Diaz, Russell Brand, Keira Knightley, Kate Winslet, Katie Holmes, Sean Penn, Rebel Wilson, Jim Carrey, and Tom Cruise? They're not famous?

Oh, by the way, Trump did sue her and lost.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/07/1192526887/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation-lawsuit-dismissed

 

[Jon]

Why isn't she also suing the jury who agreed with Trump? Saying they didn't believe her ra** accusation is the same as what Trump said. I'm sure there is some law protecting the jury, but you get my point.

 

[moke123]

And did you learn from your posted article that the only real difference is the burden of proof?

Hence Trump was convicted of defamation even though his remarks were true.

Not convicted, He was found liable. The jury disagrees with you as to the truth.

In the state of NY, truth is no defense.

Best if you re-read the defamation statutes.

Why isn't she also suing the jury who agreed with Trump? Saying they didn't believe her ra** accusation is the same as what Trump said. I'm sure there is some law protecting the jury, but you get my point.

Because the jury did believe her.

You are still confusing the law.

Under N.Y. law, ra** is defined as penetration by penis and penis only.
Under Ma. law, ra** is defined as forced penetration of the ****** and other orifices. Whether it be by penis, digital, oral, or by object.
In common parlance, non statutory definition, unwanted forced digital penetration is referred to commonly as ra**.

So the jury found that not enough evidence was produce to show he used his penis. Not that nothing happened. Her describing it as ra** is proper as what happened is commonly referred to as ra**.

here's the jury verdict form

https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1#fullscreen&from_embed

 

[Isaac]

I don't get it. Are we saying that Trump has been sued for $83M because he said he didn't ra** her, something which the jury in the previous case agreed with? Or was the award for something else?

YES! that's what's SO crazy about this.

he isn't being punished for raping her. he's being punished for simply SAYING he was innocent after she said he raped her. the damages are all for defamation basically.

Talk about MeToo on steroids (or should I say aphrodisiacs). Forget about due process, you can't even say you're innocent.

GAHH. Vote republican, stop the insanity