$83.3 Million Ouch! (2 Viewers)

[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

 

[Pat Hartman]

Sadly, these witch hunts seem to be in the fabric of human DNA and repeat themselves as history has shown.

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.

 

[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?????????

‎America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast: E Jean Carroll: Not raped, still gets $83M. Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing with Dr. Gorka on Apple Podcasts

‎Show America First with Sebastian Gorka Podcast, Ep E Jean Carroll: Not raped, still gets $83M. Joe DiGenova and Victoria Toensing with Dr. Gorka - Jan 31, 2024

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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I don't get it. Are we saying that Trump has been sued for $83M because he said he didn't ra** her

Apparently, saying she lied about the ra** episode defamed her. 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.

 

[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.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Are Johnny Depp and Amber heard not famous?

They are both famous and so have the same "influence" with the public

Public Figure Defamation Lawsuits: Standards & Proving Actual Malice

In defamation law, a public figure is someone who has assumed prominence in society, while a private figure is someone who does not qualify as a public figure.

www.minclaw.com

In the state of NY, truth is no defense. Hence Trump was convicted of defamation even though his remarks were true.

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

He didn't lose. The judge threw the case out. Didn't matter. He couldn't win in NY anyway.

 

[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

 

[Pat Hartman]

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**.

I don't care what this particular jury had to say. The outcome was predetermined. The jury was lied to. Trump's speech was stifled, the jury was already predisposed to convict. I suggest that you go alone into the lingerie department of a high end department store. Keep a stopwatch and time how long it takes a saleswoman to shadow you. If you think that you would be left alone to potentially accost a customer, you need to have your head examined. Customer service has gone the way of the dodo bird but not in all cases.

I'm surprised that Bergdorf's didn't sue the woman for libel. Trump shouldn't have had to do it himself. How would the fact that women are in jeopardy of getting ra**ed in their store go over with their clientele? It would be a very bad look for them. For the same reason that the testimony in the RE trial had the "victims" claiming that they were not victims.

 

[Isaac]

The biggest lesson we learn from a lot of this stuff is NOT Musk's "don't incorporate in Delaware", it's "don't do business in NYC".

That's the problem with the expansive application of jurisdiction and venue. If you have very much at all to do with a place like NYC, then their peeps will prosecute you for something, and your "jury of your peers" will be a bunch of left wing nuts, the kind that live in NYC to begin with.

Safest thing is to stay away from it, which shouldn't be hard - NYC is a toilet to begin and end with. Do business in safer places.

 

[Jon]

You are still confusing the law.

I'm not sure I'm confusing anything. My understanding is that she accused Trump of putting his penis inside of her, something which the article you linked to mentioned. So, common parlance of what ra** constitutes is irrelevant to this argument. That is why the jury didn't believe her ra** claim, but did believe the digital penetration claim.

I am not sure what Ma. law refers to?

In any case, if Trump says he did not ra** her, and by this he was referring to the NYC definition, but she is referring to common parlance, it seems a bit unfair to say that one definition of ra** beats another, especially when the said act allegedly happened in NYC where Trump's definition is accurate.

 

[moke123]

Ma. Law refers to the law in Massachusetts. I was drawing a comparison how legal definitions differ by state.
Trumps case was Federal but limited by NY Law.

Here's the judges full written decision https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-sd-new-yor/114642632.html

It's a good read. He goes into the ra** issue. Interesting thought in one of the footnotes about trumps access hollywood tape and his Grab'em by the Pu**y quote- How do you know he wasn't talking about E. Jean Carroll?

I understand where your coming from, I just have a much different perspective on jury dynamics and the subtle quirks in the laws and legal system. I've been involved in hundreds of ra** cases, have compiled deep background profiles on prospective jurors, and have polled jurors after trial as to their thoughts on the proceedings and deliberations. We see it through different eyes, irrespective of political views.

 

[Jon]

I think the common understanding of what ra** is probably differs by age group too. From my perspective, it does not involve digital penetration, even though it seems to be the common current definition. When I was in my youth I'm sure that there was only one type of ra**.

The crude grab 'em quote was about people letting you grab them, rather than Carroll's claim of not letting them.

In Trump's case, I don't think liberals will be able to divorce themselves unpassionately from their political beliefs where there is 24/7 Trump bashing on all the news channels. They are convinced Trump is a bad man prior to any of these court cases coming out. Factor in it being in New York with a democrat judge, the chance of him getting a fair trial are zero.

Aside from Trump, I've always had huge skepticism of ra** claims against rich men. Sure, it happens. But there is also a huge financial motive for the accuser to transform their lives by making a claim. And if you look at the UK, the claimant remains anonymous whilst the accused has their reputation trashed. Just look what has happened to Russell Brand. They should also make the accused anonymous too, considering the reputational damage.

Also, when it comes to ra** cases, I keep hearing that the real figures of ra** are way higher and men get away with it because their isn't enough evidence. Well, how do you know they got away with it? If you haven't the evidence you don't know! And therefore you don't know what the real rates of ra** are.

I'm sure there are plenty of women who have been raped but don't report it. But there are also those who a) make false accusations, and b) later on decide it was non-consensual, because they changed their mind after the fact. And what about men? It seems rather odd in UK law that a drunk woman cannot consent because she is too drunk, but if both of them have sex, the man is the rapist, even though he is drunk too. Can something please explain that to me? Being drunk is about ones ability to make a decision, so why are they saying women can't and men can? It is an example of overreaching with legislation. I am surprised this type of discrimination against men is not outlawed, especially since everything is supposed to be equal nowadays. I would love to hear the counter argument to this, anyone?

 

[Pat Hartman]

That is why the jury didn't believe her ra** claim, but did believe the digital penetration claim

But we cannot believe Tara Reed.

It is an example of overreaching with legislation.

This is the typical hysterical whiplash. Throughout history, women have had trouble being taken seriously when they claim ra**. Witnesses are very unlikely and unless the assault was violent and the woman immediately goes to the emergency room to collect samples, there isn't actually any proof unless a pregnancy results. And still the question is - did she just change her mind? So, now we have to "believe all women" - OK, maybe not "all" women because some men simply cannot be accused of ra**, like Biden. It is the same as hiring people for a job for which they are completely unqualified just because they check a box that in the past might have disqualified them.

Let us not forget that actual ra** is not a crime of passion, it is a crime of hatred. Most nonconsensual sex falls somewhere in the middle. An over zealous pursuit combined with too much alcohol or other drug of choice. Perpetrators of the former should be castrated and spend at least 10 years in prison, Perpetrators of the later shouldn't have their lives ruined by a prison sentence. The larger the age difference between the two parties, the more likely it would be considered ra** even when technically consensual.

 

[Isaac]

later on decide it was non-consensual, because they changed their mind after the fact

I believe that this number is absolutely massive. Just from life experience it's something that we all know regret happens very commonly after such an encounter. And the me too movement has encouraged them all to report it as ra** if they decide in hindsight that they didn't really want to. Which is kind of a tricky concept.

 

[Jon]

Here is another example of the unfair justice system when it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct. Christian Horner has his name plastered over the front pages of a newspaper, whlie the accuser remains anonymous. Is this really the way to go about things?

The reputational damage from these things rarely goes away, even for the innocent.

Christian Horner is under investigation at Red Bull

MailOnline understands the accusations surrounding Christian Horner, the husband of Spice Girls singer Geri Halliwell, relate to claims of wrongdoing made by a team employee.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[moke123]

Price of fame.