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

I mean, a majority of the electorate voted for him right after the “Grab her by the P” tape leaked. He’s not subtle. They didn’t care about his abuse of women then. What makes you think they’d care now?

 

Did I say he was? Perhaps you should try to read a bit closer. He was found liable for sexual abuse, as the jury believed the testimony that he put something (fingers or his penis) inside her without consent and forcibly.

 

Believe it or not, I'm pretty close to turning on Trump.

It really depends to me on what "sexual abuse" entails. I wouldn't promise not to vote for him if he received the nomination... but that will become the most likely possibility for me. I just couldn't do it.

 

That door has been wide open for quite some time now. Remember Harvey Weinstein?

 

"Liable?" What is that?

I'm liable to think you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Men, especially juvenile men embellish their sexual escapades all the time. Trump is not exactly the most reliable source for anything, especially when he's bragging about himself. And that works both ways, when it comes to the things he shouldn't be bragging about and the things he should be bragging about.

 

Please... stop with the deflections. Trump is NOT the person slick Willies was/is to woman.

 

No. The correct term is “liable.” So, with that scrivener clarification, feel free to formulate your opinion accordingly.

 

Apparently, it was necessary, at least for the victim. And if you think the sole purpose of this lawsuit was a money grab, then well it was successful.

 

That makes literally no sense. You asked if this opens the door to people in Hollywood facing these types of cases. I said, see Harvey Weinstein. How is either your question, or my answer, even remotely deflection or connected in any way to Clinton?

 

1. Yes.
2. I didn't hear closing arguments, but I would anticipate the one I bolded above in 186 That's why I bolded it.

 

The jury did not find the plaintiff “lied.” The jury may not have found enough evidence to find a rape occurred, but they found there was a sexual assault. There is no finding that the plaintiff lied.

To be sure, as an aside, at least in my experience, when a jury thinks a plaintiff lies, the jury does not then reward the “liar” with $5 million.

 

If any of the lawyers have another definition, feel free to share.

New York Sex Abuse Lawsuits and Settlements

"The legal definition of sexual abuse or sexual assault in New York is essentially the same as it is in other states. Under New York law, any form of unwanted and intentional sexual touching or contact can qualify as sex abuse. The touching can be considered “sexual” when it involves a person’s intimate body parts."

That's enough for me. Done with Trump. What's happening to him with the indictment in New York is bs, but I've had enough.

If Republicans want to beat Joe Biden so badly, don't put up a person with this much baggage, character flaws, and immaturity. It's not any one thing for me, it's all of it put together.

We shouldn't have to elect a President on the gamble that his administration will reign in his worst excesses.

 

NY law defines rape as unwanted PIV penetration. Sexual assault in NY is all other unwanted touching that does not include PIV penetration. The jury found there was not enough evidence to find Trump guilty of rape. But found enough for a guilty verdict for sexual assault. Likely because the other witnesses against Trump described sexual assault encounters without PIV penetration. And Trump's "Grab them..." quote describes sexual assault, and not specifically rape.

Again, if you think it's ok to sexually assault women as long as there is no evidence of PIV penetration, then that's an awful hill to die on in my opinion. What message does that say? Men can do whatever they want to women as long as they keep it in their pants? Horrific wouldn't begin to describe this. But if you want to defend Trump because this is what the jury found, go ahead.

 

Let’s assume you’re correct that the jury believed all that happened was that Trump placed an unwanted kiss or hug, and as instructed the jury thought they had to find him liable. The jury would then have to award plaintiff the damages caused by that minimally intrusive “assault,” plus the damages that Trump caused her by lying about the unwanted hug or kiss.

The jury found FIVE MILLION DOLLARS in damages by that “assault” and Trump’s corresponding denial of that assault.

Contrary to popular belief, a jury panel, sitting together, generally miss nothing and generally is pretty smart as a whole panel. Just ask yourself, would you award someone $5 million dollars for an unwanted hug, or even an unwanted kiss?! I know I wouldn’t. And thus I cannot imagine this jury found the assault to be the relatively minor hypothetical you posed.

 

Go to post 186 and click on the link on the bottom to read the definitions of words or phrases. It defines "sexual contact." I'm not going to copy and paste, it's getting a bit graphic. I would go by those, not a summary on an attorney's website.

 

Which makes this whole thread a garbage thread. The title of the thread claims he was guilty, I asked if the term guilty was proper in a civil case which was ignored. Then the discussion of him being "guilty" just continued.

 

OJ Simpson was found liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron by a civil jury. Whatever word you use in your head for describing OJ's culpability for what happened to Nicole and Ron, use in describing Trump's culpability for what happened to Carroll.

 

She didn't even know what year this supposed crime happened... In the real world that would be it... over... done. NOT libel.

 

It's legal stuff, you don't understand.