Verdict reached in the Carroll-Trump case (liable for defamation and lesser battery charge)

Fantastic breakdown on why this never went to criminal charges.

 

Really, they’ve been defending the indefensible since 2015 (and probably before that for the birtherism nutters).

It’s a cult.

 

In a recording in which he talks about how he aggressively approaches women. Her evidence is that recoding and her two friends. She even got the year wrong initially. She claims how much this has consumed her life but couldn’t remember the year.

By the way, it’s a civil lawsuit. Burden of proof is much lower. Her attorney told the jury he must be guilty because he didn’t go to the trial to defend himself (despite the fact he put himself through video deposition).

If your only evidence is two longtime friends and a general statement of how a man says he aggressively approached women, that’s a low bar to sue anyone. Reade should sue Biden asap.

 

Yes, the burden is lower. It wasn’t just the access Hollywood tape or the multiple witnesses (although multiple corroborating witnesses and zero defense already isn’t good for a civil suit). The worst thing was Trumps deposition. During his deposition, Trump was questioned about the tape, and instead of denying it or trying to dismiss it as “locker room talk” as he originally did when it leaked, he instead goes back and defends the words. Do you get how crazy that is? I suspect this tape and his deposition played a huge outsized role in the jury’s decision. When given the opportunity and questioned, his position could be boiled down to “yeah I grab em by the pu***, and I’m entitled to because… I’m a StAr”.

Nonsense like this (and history of nonpayment) is why at this point Trump has a hard time getting legit outside lawyers to represent him. Every woman he ever groped or harassed now has a green light to sue, but it’s Trumps own words that opened this up.

 

There was also testimony by two other women that claimed trump abused them. Here's a link that provides an overview of the trial:

E. Jean Carroll vs. Donald J. Trump - Wikipedia

I'm confused by logic of "all they had was testimony" criticism in a civil case involving a sexual abuse incident with no witnesses. It was always gonna be a he said / she said case. The jury considered various pieces of evidence, such as the victim's testimony, corroborating statements from friends, the defendant's disposition, and the testimony of other individuals who have had similar experiences with the defendant. The jury found E. Jean Carroll's testimony credible and saw a consistency between her claim and Trump's prior conduct.

 

From his base's POV, if Trump has enough court convictions ("the biggest witch hunt of all times") by election day, he might be a shoo-in for a second term. Every conviction will be like a merit badge and he'll be an Eagle Scout.

 

He fought tooth and nail to avoid being deposed in court and lost. He didn't mount a defense because he doesn't have one and would only make his situation worse.

The guy raped his first wife for Pete's sake. Quit defending him.

 

You know... you are right. trump could be innocent. But how can we determine that?

Maybe we can grab 9 impartial citizens to hear both sides' perspective on the issue. Let's grab expert on the law to make sure both sides play fair when sharing their thoughts. Even better, allow for an adversarial process where one side can challenge aspects of the other side's claims. Then, when all is said and done, have the 9 folks vote on which side is telling the truth. Would that be a good way to establish trump's innocence or guilt? I think that just might work!

 

One interesting thing to me was that a few days ago was the first time I've heard of this case. Did it go to trial and all happen within a day? The other case against him regarding the pay offs has been in the news for months. Maybe since it was a civil trial, IDK.

 

It has been simmering for years. The legal eagles I follow on twitter have been touching upon it from time to time.

 

It has been ongoing for years, but the actual trial lasted only 3 days I believe.

 

Biased juges and jury, never happens in our country, ever.

Trump will have to pay after the appeals. I am just making a comment on how this sets a low standard for someone to sue over something that happened over 20 years ago with zero evidence other than two close friends. As I said, Reade should sue Biden asap.

 

Yes it created a really bad precedent where if you get sued and 1) get don't put up any defense, and 2) double down that the actions you are accused of is acceptable when it isn't, that you will lose.

The bar to sue is and always been low in the US. The bar to win is still about where it should be.

 

When you say multiple witnesses, do you mean two friends she claims she told them about the incident over 20 years ago?

Trump's video comments again are a general statement. How is that evidence he raped Carroll?

Does it make him look like a complete POS, of course.

I guess I don't know enough about civil lawsuits to determine what a jury can consider to be enough evidence.

 

Reade could sue Biden. And she has friends who can corroborate her story, other women who can testify that Biden assaulted them, a tape where Biden defends his ability to assault women, and a taped deposition saying he meant what he said when he could assault women, then Reade would have a case just as strong as Carroll's. And Reade would likely win.

But absent friends corroborating, other women testifying they experienced the same treatment, and no Access Hollywood type admission, much harder case to win.

 

A few points:

Trump helped select the jury you call biased. He was able to participate in the pre-empaneled process of selecting a jury (voir dire), and he was able to strike jurors he felt were biased.

And, since we are on the concept of jury bias, where do you think in this Country a jury would be sympathetic to a guy sued for sexual abuse, and then repeatedly call the victim a liar. This, when the victim had several corroborating witnesses, and the defendant claimed the victim wasn’t his type, only to confuse the victim WITH HIS WIFE when he was showed photos of the victim. Moreover, the testimony showed that the defendant had a pattern of the same abusive behavior towards multiple women. And then, the defendant was caught on tape bragging about abusive behavior towards women because was entitled to do so as a star.

I’ll ask it this way, if the defendant was not named Trump, in what jurisdiction do you think a jury would be sympathetic to a guy with a fact pattern above?!?!

 

I cant pretend to know what the defense did or didn't do since I paid zero attention to this and only know about what I read in a CNN article.

Seems to me the burden is always on the plaintiff though?

 

It’s been “out there” pretty much just as long as the Stormy Daniels case. Back to the beginning of his Presidency or perhaps before. I guess it wasn’t as juicy a story as the President of the United Stares paying off a porn star.

Of course, the “payoff” case has yet to go to trial.

 

Reade has friends who can corroborate her story, proof she actually worked alongside Biden, and Biden has multiple women claiming sexual harassment.

 

Burden of proof in a civil case: “more than likely he did it, and therefor liable”

Burden of proof in criminal case: “beyond a reasonable doubt”. It’s a higher standard to take a persons liberty than it is to find them “liable”.

Considering Trumps idiocy, it’s pretty obvious why a jury was able to determine Trump “liable” under a civil standard. He all but admitted to it in the deposition! In a civil case, they can also use lack of any defense against him (whereas in a criminal case, lack of any defense explicitly cannot be used against the defendant). It likely would not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for a criminal case, even with Trumps bizarre pseudo admission in the deposition.