Trump ordered to pay $83.3 million to E Jean Caroll

[GeorgiaModerate]

Kobe Bryant is off-topic for this thread.  If you want to discuss it, take it to someplace like the Off-Topic board.

[MT Treasurer]

No comment on this particular case/verdict (no minds will be changed), but the assumption that Bill Clinton/Donald Trump/random other famous person does not need to rape completely misunderstands what drives them to actually engage in acts of rape, pedophilia, etc. – the constant drive to exercise power and find validation while thinking they can get away with it. It's not so much about sexual gratification as it is about the thrill and control.

Most of these people experienced nothing but rejection before they became famous/successful. They are usually deeply broken individuals.

[Ferguson97]

What a laughable argument. The accusation is the proof? Gotta do better than that bud

Testimony is a form of evidence. That's not me making a normative statement, that's a fact of the law.

[GeorgiaModerate]

There wasn't evidence. Civil cases are decided based on if you think there's a 51% chance he did it and the jury of NY democrats decided no evidence is good enough to find him liable

Seriously, I'm open to changing my mind if you have any evidence. I don't think the election was stolen. I like data. So please provide one piece of evidence that this happened. You can't, because it doesn't exist

Her testimony under oath is evidence. It might not be convincing to you but it doesn't matter, legally it's evidence. So there. There was evidence.

What assurance do you have to know she didn't lie under oath?

I have served on several juries, including as foreman in a felony trial.  In every one of them, the judge instructed us that sworn testimony IS evidence, as much as any exhibits admitted into evidence.  The jury weighs the credibility of that testimony (and other evidence) in their deliberations.  They may believe it, disbelieve it, or somewhere in between -- but nonetheless, it is evidence.

[GeorgiaModerate]

OK, unlocking the thread after some chainsaw surgery.  Let's keep it civil and on topic, please.  Specifically:

• Don't call each other rape apologists.
• Other celebrity accusations are off-topic.

If I missed anything, you can report it.

[emailking]

Yeah I should also note her testimony under oath is not just evidence (whether she's lying or not) but it's sufficient evidence to find him liable for sexual assault if the jury finds it credible and does not find her credibility impugned by other evidence. It could even be sufficient for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, however, that doesn't usually work out in practice without some corroborating evidence. Other evidence in this case though is her friend that she told about the assault contemporaneously and who testified to that in the first trial.

[BG-NY]

Kobe Bryant is off-topic for this thread.  If you want to discuss it, take it to someplace like the Off-Topic board.

For those interested:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=579131.new#new

[Inmate Trump]

Who is Jean Carroll?

Someone who accused Trump of sexual assault decades ago with no evidence, corroborating witnesses, or even a date that it supposedly happened. Not even the year

In 2019, she said it happened 23 years ago.

That would put it in 1996.

#math

The biggest actual impact is money spent on all his legal problems is less money he (and Rs) will have to actually campaign

Blatant election interference

Well that's just blatantly false. A case of defamation brought forward by someone who is unaffiliated with the Democratic Party or Joe Biden's re-election campaign is not election interference.

Trump should have kept his mouth shut, but because he's a 77-year-old toddler he's incapable of doing so. Whether he assaulted her or not is beside the point now. He's guilty of defamation and he'll keep having to pay for it unless he learns to simply shut up.

Donald Trump is his own worst enemy. The Democrats didn't make him continue to talk sh1t about this woman. The Democrats didn't make Trump call up state officials to get them to overturn election results. The Democrats didn't make Trump betray the country and try to overthrow democracy.

It seems like what you're actually angry about is that Donald Trump is not above the law.

[South Dakota Democrat]

IMO, it demonstrates the absurdity of the cases against him and convinces independents that he really is being targeted

Sure Jan.

[Redban]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

[emailking]

geez and I just supported your sentiment in the other thread. uggh

[South Dakota Democrat]

It does not matter much, if anything it helps Trump.

Of course you'd say that.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

IMO, it demonstrates the absurdity of the cases against him and convinces independents that he really is being targeted

I mean, most polls (which blue avs have been loving/believing in a lot lately) show a pretty healthy majority of Americans want Trump in jail for any reason lol.

[South Dakota Democrat]

No comment on this particular case/verdict (no minds will be changed), but the assumption that Bill Clinton/Donald Trump/random other famous person does not need to rape completely misunderstands what drives them to actually engage in acts of rape, pedophilia, etc. – the constant drive to exercise power and find validation while thinking they can get away with it. It's not so much about sexual gratification as it is about the thrill and control.

Most of these people experienced nothing but rejection before they became famous/successful. They are usually deeply broken individuals.

Well said.

[emailking]

They are going to appeal.

We don't know that actually. He needs to put up 83.3 million in cash, now, in order to appeal, and pay interest on that in the meantime, for an appeal that's not likely to succeed. Another possibility is the lawyers try to make a deal to pay some fraction of the amount owed.

[Randy Marsh]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

[pbrower2a]

How is that possible when her attorneys were seeking 10 million?

65M of the 83M is punitive damages, which jurors can award to any amount they choose (depending on laws in their jurisdiction).

Whatever someone thinks of Trump that is a ridiculous amount in punitive damages. How do you come to that number and with what calculation?

Can you appeal that?

Yes. Punitive damages are shaky upon appeal.

[emailking]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

It's allowed, but if you're guilty it's probably not a good idea.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

False generalization.  If Trump had limited himself to asserting his innocence and defending himself in court, there never would have been a defamation case.  But Trump didn't do that, and instead continually and viciously attacked her -- even after he had been found liable for sexually assaulting her.

[GeorgiaModerate]

How is that possible when her attorneys were seeking 10 million?

65M of the 83M is punitive damages, which jurors can award to any amount they choose (depending on laws in their jurisdiction).

Whatever someone thinks of Trump that is a ridiculous amount in punitive damages. How do you come to that number and with what calculation?

Can you appeal that?

Yes. Punitive damages are shaky upon appeal.

Interestingly, the jury seems to have hit on an amount of punitive damages that are actually working.  Trump has not attacked Carroll since the verdict was announced, although we'll see if this lasts.

[Randy Marsh]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

False generalization.  If Trump had limited himself to asserting his innocence and defending himself in court, there never would have been a defamation case.  But Trump didn't do that, and instead continually and viciously attacked her -- even after he had been found liable for sexually assaulting her.

He’s running for President. He has the right to assert his innocence publicly, not only in court

[Inmate Trump]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

False generalization.  If Trump had limited himself to asserting his innocence and defending himself in court, there never would have been a defamation case.  But Trump didn't do that, and instead continually and viciously attacked her -- even after he had been found liable for sexually assaulting her.

He’s running for President. He has the right to assert his innocence publicly, not only in court

According to what? Not the law.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

False generalization.  If Trump had limited himself to asserting his innocence and defending himself in court, there never would have been a defamation case.  But Trump didn't do that, and instead continually and viciously attacked her -- even after he had been found liable for sexually assaulting her.

He’s running for President. He has the right to assert his innocence publicly, not only in court

According to what? Not the law.

Correct.  Running for office does not place a person above the law.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

False generalization.  If Trump had limited himself to asserting his innocence and defending himself in court, there never would have been a defamation case.  But Trump didn't do that, and instead continually and viciously attacked her -- even after he had been found liable for sexually assaulting her.

He’s running for President. He has the right to assert his innocence publicly, not only in court

Running for office doesn't allow a person to violate the law.  In addition:

1) Carroll filed her initial defamation suit long before Trump announced his candidacy for 2024.

2) Trump could certianly proclaim his innocence without defaming Carroll.  But he can't resist personal attacks.

You continue to claim that defamation is nothing more than proclaiming his innocence.  You are wrong.

[Randy Marsh]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

False generalization.  If Trump had limited himself to asserting his innocence and defending himself in court, there never would have been a defamation case.  But Trump didn't do that, and instead continually and viciously attacked her -- even after he had been found liable for sexually assaulting her.

He’s running for President. He has the right to assert his innocence publicly, not only in court

Running for office doesn't allow a person to violate the law.  In addition:

1) Carroll filed her initial defamation suit long before Trump announced his candidacy for 2024.

2) Trump could certianly proclaim his innocence without defaming Carroll.  But he can't resist personal attacks.

You continue to claim that defamation is nothing more than proclaiming his innocence.  You are wrong.

Defamation is whatever 9 NY democrats want to nail Trump with. This is lawfare.