According to Stormy Daniels, doesn't sound like there's much difference in size between his finger and his member
The lawsuit is another one of Trump's stunts. If he does pursue the lawsuit Trump will have to testify. A skilled litigator will absolutely destroy him. If I recall his deposition in the original lawsuit didn't go very well for the Donald. Something tells me that he will not subject himself to a repeat.
This reminds me of the time I was playing basketball, drove to the basket, a defender clotheslined my neck with his forearm, and he called a foul on me for my neck fouling his forearm.
The jury found her so credible, they dismissed her main accusation as a lie. Even though they were not under the same constraints of a criminal trial. (ie prosecution has to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) He should absolutely sue, out of principle. He’s not going to get any money out of her he doesn’t already have.
Hey, im all for Trump keeping sexual assault in the news for the next year because he lost the suit. That Donald, playing 3d chess
I haven’t seen any data to suggest the civil verdict reached by the Democratic laden Trump hating jury who said plaintiff’s core accusation was false had any affect positively or negatively on Trump’s chances in the 2024 general election.
You do realize that his alleged victim sued him for defamation because he denied he raped her. According to her the “denial” defamed her. So did she use “Trumpian logic” or is that just related to Orange man bad?
So many other problems, but still leading Biden in so many polls. Your best bet is to pray for the economist to outlast the majority of economists who say we're heading into a recession soon. If we do, Biden is done. It'll be either President Trump or President DeSantis if the economy takes any sort of hit at all. That is the only thing keeping Biden viable.
This is a case Trump might be able to win on paper, but no jury is going to award damages. I predict $1. Trump wins in principle. Remember, he got a judgment against Stormy Daniels for over $100k. The whole storyline on both sides is embarrassing for our democracy.
Yes I do realize that. I think he may have also said other things about her as well that may have been part of the basis for her suit but cant recall specifically. And since you include lawyer in your screen handle here, I’m sure you realize that allowing losing litigants to be liable for defamation claims simply because their claim failed, when it could fail for 1,000 different reasons, isn’t going to happen. And also that he’s a public figure and she’s not, so their respective defamation standards are completely different. He’ll never prove actual malice (especially since the jury found that some penetration occurred by virtue of the sexual assault award) and his claim won’t survive summary judgment. That’s his Trumpian logic, not orange man bad.
Based upon the facts as I know them from what little I have read, you got it backwards. He will likely win Summary Judgment as the elements for his claim are undisputed. She lied when she accused him of rape. The malice isn’t as hard as you think under these facts, but as I posted earlier I am sure I only know 20% of the “facts” if that. He won’t get any real damages. This whole thing is a distraction.
I'm shocked that somebody who is a practicing attorney could be so wildly wrong. I usually ignore you because most of your posts seem trollish to me and not worth the response, but I don't want people looking at your username, thinking you have expertise, and buying into the complete nonsense you're spewing here. The very fact that you think a jury finding him not liable of rape claim means that there is a legal judgment that she lied is just baffling. What it means is that she didn't PROVE he raped her. You're an attorney. You have to understand how burdens of proof work. In the countersuit, Trump has the burden of proving she lied when she accused him of rape, and that will require him to prove that her rape accusation was false.
He’ll never prove actual malice or reckless disregard. Case will be dismissed. May want to take a torts/con law primer.
LOL. You oblivious have little to no trial experience. The offensive use of collateral estoppel is a very well established legal doctrine. This issue was fully litigated and she lost. The jury verdict form is the only evidence he needs. I have personally used this doctrine several times in cases with similar facts. This doctrine is so powerful it even bars issues that weren’t litigated, but could have been.( at least in the state I practice) I don’t practice in NY, so perhaps their case law limits its application, but don’t come on here and try to lecture me on burdens of proof.
If I had a dollar for every person who claimed a party ‘will never prove…”. LOL. Almost on a daily basis the news reports on a case that someone won or lost where everyone says WTF. In your response, you don’t even understand the standard. Actual malice is either knowingly false or reckless Disregard. When you say actual malice or reckless, disregard, that shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about. In this case, I believe he may be able to satisfy both standards because I believe the woman publicly walked back the rape claim. (Although, I admittedly have not seen it because I frankly don’t give a $hit)
Time will tell who “doesn’t know what they are talking about” but my suspicion is that you’re on the wrong side of this analysis. If her accusation alone is proof of actual malice (or reckless disregard) against a public figure, then the Donald better open his checkbook as more than anyone in the US he’s spent a lifetime accusing private citizens (who have a much lower standard of proof their claims against him) of doing things they didn’t come close to doing. Our courts will never allow the full tilt of this slippery slope. And that’s why he’ll ultimately lose bigly on his defamation claim agains Carroll.
Nowhere did I say the verdict was evidence of her actual malice. The verdict is evidence of the falsity of her accusation. That is all. The actual malice is the more difficult burden to prove, but I think it’s doable. The known falsity of the statement is where she’s gonna get smacked upside the head, because I believe she’s already admitted that he didn’t rape her on TV. Again, as I said, I have not seen the interview and I don’t know exactly what she said. But I have read that she walked back the rape allegations after the jury determined she wasn’t raped. I have had more than 100 jury trials in my 30+ years of practice. I can’t even tell you how many bench trials I had, and well over 1000 judicial arbitrations. I tell you this because your first statement that time will tell is 100% correct. Nobody on this message board, whether you’re a lawyer or not, has any idea what a jury or judge is ultimately going to do with a case like this. I have had numerous cases where I was on each side of victory where I was shocked. I once argued a case in front of my state Supreme Court in which they changed the facts in order to rule against my insurance client and overturn my trial victory. In essence, they made up shit to fit their narrative. Over the years that happened to me and my brethren dozens of time. I am confident that every lawyer on this board who litigates has identical stories to tell. Our judicial system is not what it seems. It is not impartial; often times is not very educated; it’s political; it’s often corrupt; and it is subject to emotion, including anger, just as you and I are. There is no verdict in the Trump cases which could surprise me. My expectations are too low for all involved.