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

@oragator1
To calm down the incessant whiners, please correct your thread title to:

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

 

I believe there are 3 things that are true in this case.
1. He did sexually abuse/assault her. (and many others)
2. I believe him when he says he has absolutely doesn't know who she is. (how can you keep track of all the women whose hoohoo's you grabbed. Not talking Wilt Chamberlain but he definitely put up some numbers).
3. He will use campaign donations to pay the settlement. (any money that he has access to he thinks is his to be used for anything).

 

OK Mr Lawyer.....I challenge you to find one major news source that makes the claim this thread title made......Oops I just notice the title was corrected, that is all I wanted was the correction from guilty to liable.

 

That is what a finding in a civil case is (liability). He can't be charged criminally due to the statute of limitations. In a civil case, he was found by a jury to have committed sexual abuse. And here you are trying to protect your psyche against that fact.

 

Libel and liable are two different words with entirely different meanings. Perhaps you shouldn't be disparaging what other people know when you clearly lack knowledge in this area.

 

Pretty sure the thread title is correct.

 

It's funny these people can't put that together. They have no problem calling OJ Simpson a murderer based on that "liable" finding by a civil jury, but not Trump as to his defamation and sexual abuse.

 

OJ is a murderer. Trump is being sued by a political activist bank rolled by one of Joe Biden's top donors Reid Hoffman. Reid hates Trump.

New York created the new law for Ms. Carroll & Ms. Carroll made her accusations of something, from sometime, that wasn’t certain to have happened. There were no witnesses to the claimed events, there was no evidence the event took place, there was nothing to indicate Ms. Carroll or Mr. Trump were even in the same place at the same time.

This is what you get from the left. Corrupt courts, biased judges, and reckless Soros prosecutors. Yes, the judge in this case permitted the presentation of "possibility." And the jury came from a pool where democrats out number conservatives 7-1. Meanwhile, there is the physical proof of bank records showing the Biden Crime Family bringing in millions while JB was VP. No thread on that though.

 

It's all so unfair to Trump. He's a celebrity! He should be able to grab any lady's pussy he wants with no repercussions at all! After all, Trump has said historically, that's been allowed to happen!

Here's a good story on why rape victims can remember some details so vividly. But other details, such as exact date become fuzzy. Basically, victims go into "survival mode," and memories get stored either as central or peripheral. Central ones are long-term memories that people in survival mode remember vividly for a long time. Peripheral ones that are the minutia of a case, such as the exact date, are often lost forever.

What did Trump in were two things. A pattern of sexual assault, and Trump's own words saying he could get away with it because he was famous. It had nothing to do with corrupt courts, biased judges, or where lawyers get their funding from. Not sure how Soros plays a part in this at all, but when you can inject a little antisemitism along with a Trump whine, why waste the chance!

 

yes, the judge, jury, plaintiff, and the janitor who cleans the courthouse are all part of the deep state out to get your hero.

 

This has got to be the stupidest, most un- American statement I've ever heard in here, and this from someone who likes to proclaim his adherence to Christian principles. To defend Trump and degrade the jury of 12 citizens is nothing less than obscene. You should, but undoubtedly won't, be ashamed of yourself.

 

Can anyone explain how does one put up a defense against this accusation? Not just that it was Trump but anyone who would have been the accused. You cannot prove you do not know someone. You cannot prove you never met someone. You cannot prove you never touched someone. You cannot prove where you were on that day because that day is not known. The accuser did not prove any of her claims but didn't need to according to the law. How does anyone defend against this? Serious question.

 

I believe Ms Carroll testified that she was penetrated but she couldn’t see by what and that uncertainty, in my layman’s opinion, is why the jury found him liable for sexual assault (unanimously so) and not rape which in NY is PIV (thank goodness for acronyms).

 

Well, given that there are pictures of them from prior to the incident, it is proven that his claim that they never met is false.

 

Are you saying just because you met someone or were in a picture with someone at any point in time you have no further defense against these accusations? Some people are in pictures with thousands of others over a period of celebrity in their lifetime. I'm not defending Trump just asking how to defend against such accusations. You are saying there is no defense. All the accuser needs to be is believable with no evidence?

 

Here are a couple of suggestions. Don't have a history of assaulting women, for one. If the only testimony that Trump had sexually assaulted someone was E Jean, that carries a lot less weight than three women, including E Jean testifying.

Two, don't go bragging that if you are famous, you can basically do anything you want to women. And when asked about this brag in a formal deposition, don't go saying for better or worse, that's just the way it is.

Third, don't go claiming women accusing you that you have never met them, and that they are lying. Probably best to say nothing at all. Say you never met a person only to have photographic evidence to the contrary isn't good for your defense. Neither is trying defame a person in public.

True, Trump was always going to have a hard time defending himself. Especially when there are up to 18 women claiming some sort assault. His own words and deposition basically saying since he's famous, he could do this and get away with it is what likely ultimately buried him.

 

Proving a negative is certainly difficult, and I'm not an attorney to share how his attorney could have approached it differently, but from following along there are a few things IMO that did him in:

• During the deposition he mistook Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples which undercut his "she's not my type" defense
• Carroll's attorneys introduced the Access Hollywood tape as evidence, and during the deposition Trump defended his comments on the tape saying "Historically, that’s true with stars…If you look over the last million years, I guess that’s been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately."
• Carroll had multiple witnesses, that while not eyewitnesses, did corroborate that she had told them about the assault and others who had similar experiences with Trump. The jury would have to consider that Carroll, and her witnesses, would be committing perjury if they were conspiring to lie about the incident
• Trump didn't take the stand to even try defend his general character or behavior

To side with Trump, you'd have to believe that all of the witnesses are committing perjury and also dismiss Trump's own words on the Access Hollywood tape and deposition about how he feels he's entitled to treat women. I think it's very unlikely this would have ended in a guilty verdict if it were a criminal trial, but I can certainly see how the jurors sided with Carroll in a 50/50 scenario.

 

So you agree there was no defense against this accusation in a civil lawsuit.