$83.3 Million Ouch!

[jpl458]

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.

 

[Isaac]

What is defaminng?
I think with NYC juries, everything is expensive lol

 

[jpl458]

Defame
Damage the good reputation of (someone); slander or libel.

The number was based on how much it would take for him to stop. In his lastest posts he did not mention her name. So, for now, that number was $83.3 million. And, he had a crappy lawyer.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Its bull. She has no character.

 

[jpl458]

Its bull. She has no character.

And Trump does? It was edjucated in a court of law. He will not use competant lawyers because good lawyers will follow the law and not just do what Trump, The litigator in chief, wants them to do. Plus, when does all the winning start? You would think folks would get tirred of losing. Plus, there si the $370 mill in the fraud case. But he is so rich he will ask you for money to cover the judgements.

 

[moke123]

Should the over / under on when he defames her again be in hours or days?

I feel a little bit , extremely little bit, sorry for Habba. She really put her career in the crapper. Such a poor performance. Embarrassing.

Less than 3 hours of deliberations is incredibly fast.

 

[moke123]

Should the over / under on when he defames her again be in hours or days?

Too late. guess it was hours.

 

[AccessBlaster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751066699787379060

 

[moke123]

He seems a little triggered.

 

[jpl458]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751066699787379060

I don't know it, and I am a person.

 

[moke123]

It's his audition tape for VP.

 

[Isaac]

Should the over / under on when he defames her again be in hours or days?

I feel a little bit , extremely little bit, sorry for Habba. She really put her career in the crapper. Such a poor performance. Embarrassing.

Less than 3 hours of deliberations is incredibly fast.

Not for a jury in NYC deciding something about Donald Trump

 

[AccessBlaster]

Might be a while before this is settled on appeal, crazy woman's attorney and the judge had a close undisclosed relationship in the 90's.

Trump's firebrand attorney Alina Habba claimed she was unaware that Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan - who are not related - worked together in the early 1990s, with the judge serving as her 'mentor', reports the New York Post.

'It was never disclosed. It’s insane and so incestuous,' Habba said, arguing their alleged close relationship was never disclosed and she only became aware of it after the conclusion of the case.

There's always a Biden connection.

Roberta Kaplan also represents President Biden’s daughter Ashley Biden in the SDNY criminal investigation that led to the guilty pleas of two individuals in connection with the theft of Ashley’s personal diary.

Roberta Kaplan spouse is Rachel Lavine high ranking member of Biden's cabinet.

 

[jpl458]

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.

I understnd that in the first trial one of the jurors was a Trump supporter, be said that he had to follow the law.

 

[moke123]

So, does that mean that she didn't defame him by accusing him of sexual assault

Yes, it does. In order to defame it must be a non-truthful statement. The Jury found that he did indeed sexually abuse her, therefore her statement is true and not defamatory.

 

[Isaac]

Have you guys read the story about this woman who she really was her lifestyle etc? She has spent her whole life in career being absolutely obsessed with the subject of ra**. Said some rather bizarre and controversial things about it as well as claiming that she learned sex tips from her dog.

To me she fits the perfect profile of a woman spurned and thus resentful who no one has ever desired and wanted to get back at the world somehow

 

[Isaac]

Yes, it does. In order to defame it must be a non-truthful statement. The Jury found that he did indeed sexually abuse her, therefore her statement is true and not defamatory.

Classic series of torts which essentially leaves a person unable to even say out loud that they believe they're innocent.

I accuse you of something, you claim you didn't do it, I sue you for doing it which has a very low standard of proof, you then in the eyes of the law have done it and therefore you saying you were innocent is now giving rise to another tort claim of mine, defamation.

It's a dirty use of tort law but apparently pretty common and open to anyone with a little capital to burn.

 

[jpl458]

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Me, I never beat my wife, but following Trumps lead, I just grab her.....................................................................

 

[Jon]

Yes, it does. In order to defame it must be a non-truthful statement. The Jury found that he did indeed sexually abuse her, therefore her statement is true and not defamatory.

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.

To win a civil case, it is about a probability of truth being above 50%. In this example of cascading torts, to me it just seems wrong that you can sue someone for defamation for $83 million when a (biased) jury in a previous trial is basically saying it is more likely than not Mr Trump did bad things. I mean how often does it happen that person A accuses person B of XYZ. person A denies it but then loses in court. Then, person B goes for another trial saying that person A's denial is tantamount to defamation, and so trial number two starts.

I also have big problems with the initial trial in the first place. It was he said, she said. How many years ago was it, something like 20 years? Two witnesses, but both were friends. No DNA. Financial motive. Middle of a department store. She also claimed ra** which the jury didn't believe her on. So if the jury didn't believe her ra** claim, how can they believe anything else she says?

The penalties for the crime of defamation seem to be ridiculously high. I was punched in the head by a thug and the police said I might get something like £10 compensation from the guy. Are hurty words really worth six million times the compensation I would get for potentially life threatening injuries? It is all completely out of whack!

 

[jpl458]

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.

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.