$83.3 Million Ouch! (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

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.

Given the way the uber rich are "handled", I find the fact that she was alone with Trump in the lingerie department unbelievable for starters. So, that kills the rest of the storyline. I have been in Bergoff's and other high-end outlets. It wouldn't happen with an ordinary man. Women who shop in that kind of store would NOT be happy if men were wandering around alone in the lingerie department. It would never happen with a famous man because he would always immediately attract a personal shopper and a non-famous man would attract a tail to ensure that he didn't bother the female shoppers. If you believe this women with no facts, why do you not believe the woman who worked for Biden. I find her account far more credible and she recounted it to people at the time. It even got airplay on TV if I recall. Instead she was made out to be the "bad guy". I guess she should have sued for defamation. Oh, right. You can't sue a Biden or a Clinton. Hillary just ruined the women who accused her womanizing husband. No need for lawsuits. Although, Clinton did lose the one that was brought.

I hate to make this personal but I really don't like "your" democracy very much. It is grotesquely unfair. I'm very sorry that you don't see the hypocrasy and frankly frightened by it. I guess that is why it continues. The people who live in the bubble are blinded by the reflections. You just keep justifying it. Can you even hear yourself? You are quite OK with Trump being persecuted by a crazy woman but even worse charges with actual details and times and places are ignored because you have to protect Biden. You have decided that Trump is the evil orange man and are quite pleased to see bogus lawsuit after bogus lawsuit thrown at him. "my"criminal justice system would actually impart justice. Judges would be unbiased. Juries can be iffy. But the "system" should have a way of removing judges who continually make biased rulings.

 

[Pat Hartman]

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.

 

[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

 

[Pat Hartman]

As usual, you miss the point. 20 large donors. And strangely enough, one of the biggest is the woke Disney company. I cannot imagine why they would ever contribute to Trump so I clicked the link and looked at the detail. Shows quite a different picture.

You might want to look a little deeper into your "fact" checkers. When you click into the details, the total number is completely different so I'm not sure what the total number actually is. Probably their total contributions to ALL campaigns over the past 40 years - NOT JUST TO TRUMP and not just last election. If you drill into the data they contributed $13,451 to the RNC and they contributed $2,433 to Trump - quite a different picture than $10+ million.

The Sands donated $208 to DeSantis, couldn't find a donation to Trump. Maybe for previous years.
Blackstone donated $3,731 to Trump. They gave Ted Cruz $20,000 +

So, I say - BOGUS and misleading crap designed to impress the low-information reader.
If you don't drill down, and most people won't, you see quite a different picture.

 

[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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I know, I just didn't post the older numbers. And in 2016 Disney gave Trump 13,277 but they gave Hillary 511,526. I guess they wanted her to win 38 times more than Trump. In 2020, they did make a sizable donation to Trump. They gave him 132,579 but they gave Biden 1,351,415. I guess they only wanted Biden to win 10 times more than Trump. They did not give Trump $10 million plus as the website wants you to think.

What kind of influence do you suppose you can buy for $132,000 when you give 10 times that to the opposition? Isn't that why we want to know who is contributing to what campaign?

When you use a filter that asks specifically for Trump, that is not what you get. You get the number you posted which are not even close to reality. The "open secret" is that they don't want you to be able to actually get a list of the top donors since that is not what the website produces even though they have the data and could quite easily produce it.

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

 

[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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

What did you do with all the money you embezzled from your parents?