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

Listen here. You got parts of this correct, but still made major errors. So, you are WRONG.

The ex post facto prohibition is contained in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the US Constitution.:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."


Trump was most definitely sued for battery, in fact, it was count 1 of the complaint. See attached PDF of actual Complaint. You can be sued civilly for committing a crime, happens all the time. Think about the movie stars hittinhg the paparazzi or the drunk football player punching someone at a strip club. Those settlements or verdicts you read about are coming from the civil case, not the criminal case.

https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-con...nd-battery-lawsuit-trump-november-24-2022.pdf

 

I believe the State of New York changed the law to allow women to sue in civil court after the Harvey Weinstien case and the Times Up movement started. I believe Ms. Carrol’s legal team decided to use that opportunity after the law was change to go after Trump. I do not believe the state of New York had Trump specifically in mind when they changed the law.

 

Yes, it is a civil case. I never said differently.

All one has to do is read. What is the first word after the words "Verdict Form?" It is "battery" followed by a set of verdicts. So you are wrong.

 

Just so there is NO further misunderstanding in the Trump case... He was NO found guilty of rape or sexual assault. Now stop playing word games and move along.

 

Sigh. All you have to do is read. Why do you keep coming back here to say things that aren't true. Yes, he was not found liable (remember, this is a civil case, as you pointed out) for rape as defined by the New York Law. He was not found not liable for sexual assault, as that wasn't one of the options. He was found liable for "Sexual Abuse." Here is the New York Law on Sexual Abuse:

Rape in New York statutes requires genital on genital contact. Carroll wasn't able to confirm what it was that Trump shoved in her vagina against her will (she was turned away from him when he did it according to her testimony). As such, the jury returned the verdict consistent with the charge that would be true if it was his fingers and not his penis.

Seriously, just read next time.

 

it appears there will be more lawsuits on this

https://www.theblaze.com/shows/the-...E LIST - 7 Day Engagement&tpcc=email-breaking

 

People need to be more specific, and clearly state that, after hearing all testimony and evidence, a jury found that Trump jammed his fingers into a woman's vagina without her consent.

With appx 27 total women accusing Trump of sexual assault, and him having admitted to doing so.....we can all be pretty certain that Trump is indeed a rapist. But public figures perhaps should be specific and only call him a sexual assaulter.

 

^ Funny post, amirite, Bill? Funny thing to do to a woman.

Haha.

 

Carroll didn't sue Trump for sexual assault. She sued him for defamation essentially for calling her a liar. She claimed that he assaulted her. He denied the allegations of assault and claimed the she was lying. The jury found that she had been truthful regarding the assault and then determined the amount of damages. After Trump continued to lie she filed a second lawsuit again alleging defamation and won a much larger verdict.
E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump - Wikipedia

 

Here is PBS's take

PBS News' Take on the ABC News Lawsuit Is Really Something

 

That wasn't really a very interesting article.

It's pretty much a matter of semantics, though, isn't it? I mean....he was found by a jury to have jammed his fingers into a woman's vagina without her consent. I guess that technically isn't "rape" in a legal sense, but....well, the judge in the case said;

- Lewis A Kaplan, said that when Carroll repeated her allegation that Trump raped her, her words were “substantially true”. Kaplan also set out in detail why it may be said that Trump raped Carroll.


In any event, it's nice to see you so adamantly shilling for your rapist sexual assaulter. Keep it up - you're doing God's work.

 

Hopefully CNN and other media outlets won't cave like ABC/Disney. The best way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. Although he's in a much more powerful position in the end Trump will completely discredited like the late Senator Joe McCarthy.
U.S. Senate: "Have You No Sense of Decency?"
Senator McCarthy’s Oversight Abuses • Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy

 

RINO

 

So ABC was right by the law but was afraid of skeletons that may surface during disclosure; that appears to be that author's position. In some places, that is called blackmail or kompromat if you will. Using compromising information to get better terms than the law would legally allow. This case follows the trend with djt, he loses on facts, wins on leverage. Source, type of leverage is irrelevant, just secure it such that facts and law against you stand no chance.

In today's day and age, I wonder what kind of compromising information one could get as King of the USA with nobody to tell him no.

Speaking further about how the U.S. Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan, Enrich categorizes it as one that's "basically meant to prevent exactly this type of lawsuit." He even adds, "I think ABC had a pretty good chance of prevailing in court if they had wanted to let it go that power."

Our own Kurt Schlicter, who is a lawyer, wrote a column published earlier on Thursday morning, also mentioning that Supreme Court case. And while he acknowledges that such a case means defamation lawsuits mostly fail, he also is of a much different view, highlighting how discovery would likely have been rather embarrassing for ABC News, and also that the Trump legal team could have asked for and won even more money.