ABC to pay $15 million to Trump library to settle lawsuit, court documents show

Ahh, now it is "intellectually dishonest" not factually incorrect. Basically, I hit you right in the feels and while you can't dispute a single word that I said, you are so bothered by what I said that you are both claiming that you didn't read it and have a shifting explanation for how it is wrong. Good stuff.

 

Total BS... that CIVIL case was all about defamation of character... And from the looks of it, Trump was right all along.

 

Sigh, wrong again.

 

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty, the argument 'everyone knows', a fallacious and juvenile spiel parents are familiar with. "Everyone knows it" - "Everyone's going" - "Everyone's got one."

Alleged Certainty

To quote a certain Too Hot poster - You make me laugh.

 

I wonder if someone shoved their fist up his rectum if he would feel he had been raped or merely sexually assualted

 

She sued him for battery and defamation. Feel free to read the verdict from the jury on that case.

 

It’s remarkable how backwards society / case law in certain states had this issue a few decades ago.

Unrelated, but the California law that stated something along the lines of young boys don’t have the necessary facilities to be victims of sexual abuse in the Mendendez Brother’s case is the most egregious example. If their father did anything they both accused him of it seems like the most obvious case of sexual abuse ever.

 

I think Byron York's response to this article and Judge Kaplan is worth reading. I do not like defending Trump but I wish his detractors would stop going out of their way to go over and above about what Trump has done when what he was found guilty of is bad enough.

 

Adjudicated doesn't mean it really happened. In this case it simply means Democrats are often very corrupt and lie a lot

Edit: Lawyers know that before the trial begins guilt or innocence has often if not usually already been determined by jury selection. In heavily Democrat jurisdictions it can be close to impossible for someone like Trump to get a fair trial

Trump didn't get an impartial jury of his peers from his community. He got a lynching jury l. His was not tried on the facts of the case.

 

Six more network settlements, and Trump can afford another rape.

 

Is it really a rape if you're a star and they let you do it?

 

…but I guess it’s okay to sexually batter a woman, so long as he’s “your guy.”

 

For a finding of defamation of a public figure by a media outlet the plaintiff must prove that the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false and must prove actual malice with
"convincing clarity". The statement by the judge most likely would have more than enough for a jury to find that Stephanopoulos acted in good faith when he referred to Trump as a rapist.

 

Should a judge be issuing statements that could influence a jury? I'm not sure I would agree with your opinion that a jury would be swayed by Judge Kaplans take but I find it unusual that he felt the need to publicly opine on this settlement.

 

Although it's the role of a judge to issue instructions to a jury regarding the interpretation of the law in this case Judge Kaplan's statement wasn't directed to the jury. It was actually part of his opinion denying a request for a new trial from Trump's lawyers or alternatively to reduce the amount of damages awarded to Carroll.
Judge clarifies: Yes, Trump was found to have raped E. Jean Carroll

 

You said it would impact any jury that might sit to hear this defamation case outside Kapalan's jurisdiction. Should Kaplan have done that?

 

Exactly. Trump's lawyers were trying to get the judgement tossed on the basis that since the jury found the E.J.C. had failed to prove by a preponderance that Trump raped her. he didn't defame her when he denied it and called her a liar. That is why the judge needed to explain the difference between NY's then archaic definition of rape (since revised) and what conduct most would almost universally consider to constitute rape. It was for that reason the judge included that language. It was not surplusage or gratuitous language. It's inclusion was necessary for a judgement going up on appeal. Any suggestion the language did not belong there is not based on any significant knowledge of the law.

I personally wish ABC had fought it as I believe they would have won on the merits. I do understand why ABC didn't want the Trump/Bondi/Patel up their butts any more than necessary for the next 4 years. Better to throw Trump a rare victory and be done with it.

 

there was no way ABC would lose that case. They sold out the principle of a free press to pacify a tempestuous child given the keys to the kingdom by an oligarch and an ignorant electorate being fed tiktok data and too lazy to try and understand the reality of the economy

 

I disagree. Will they now refuse to report things that might irritate dear leader? They stepped far out on the slippery slope and are going to now have to fight to get back to freedom of press. Just another dagger in what helped build this country and sustain it when we lose a free press. And why? In pursuit of more revenue or a better business future? Terrible choice. jmo