A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person…

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Read-only
Total: 418
#211
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
She walked the jury through the first statements Trump made in 2019, and the many times he has repeated his claims — that he's never met Carroll, that she isn't his "type," that he didn't assault her and that the case is a "hoax" — since then, including some just days earlier.
"Those false denials and attacks continued while you were in this courtroom … while you were sitting in those seats," Kaplan said, before showing a clip of a press conference Trump held last week, when he again lashed out at Carroll.

Then she showed a recent Truth Social post in which Trump vowed to deny the allegations "a thousand times."

Assuming that CBS isn't also lying about what Kaplan said, this is beyond reasonable. Only a deranged person would think that the words "you aren't my type" are in ANY context "defamatory"

#212
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No verdict criminal or civil can ever morally compel a man to confess or cease attacking his accuser's credibility. To defend such a notion is the realm of religious inquisitors and fascists.
The last famous people to be persecuted by the Court for habitually and consistently denying the court charges was during the Salem Trials. 

The list of famous people the Democrats put in prison for political disagreements range from Alice Paul to MLK. Trump is just another casualty of the policies of an immoral party.
#213
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So you are saying the Politico article misquoted the Judge? 
No, I'm saying they never quoted the judge at all. You cited a news article reporting on the verdict, that's very different from and was never intended to be a legal breakdown of the judges ruling.

The fact that I have to explain this says a lot.

What were the exact phrases Trump said that were defamatory according to the Judge
There were multiple statements. For the full list you can see the actual ruling here. Start on page 4:
#214
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
Between taking things out of context and false equivalences, one can paint their opposition however they want. It's just a question over whether reality matters to the target audience. With MAGA, the answer is a clear and emphatic NO.
#215
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Only a deranged person would think that the words "you aren't my type" are in ANY context "defamatory"
Again, cherry picking one piece of the case and evaluating it as if it occurred in isolation. That's how how any good faith attempt to respond to an argument works, but not like you care about that.

As I eluded to with ADOL, insults and belittlement as well as repetition all plays a role. One of the central questions regarding defamation which I haven't even gotten to in this thread is whether a person acted with malice. Trump isn't telling people she's "not his type" purely out of self defense. It's a cheap shot at Caroll, and one which is factually false as proven by the fact that he confused images her with his own wife. There is no reasonable case to be made that his comments are anything but loaded with malicious intent.
#216
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
. It's a cheap shot at Caroll,

Again, only a deranged person could believe that was defamatory.
#217
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Again... It's only one small piece of the story. You continue to break the case apart and evaluate each individual part as if it occurred in isolation. That's not... how... a... case... works.

Feel like I've said that before.
#218
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
The fact that it was even a part of the case is outrageous. You keep repeating that there exists a rational context where a man can say the words "she is not my type" and be liable for reputation damages. That was in the court documents you posted.
#219
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Again... A major part of proving defamation is demonstrating that the defendant acted with malice.

An example of how one establishes that the defendant was acting with malice is to show that the defendant went beyond self defense (as in denying the allegation) and decided to (rhetorically) attack the plaintiff.

There is no rational ground to stand on while claiming Trump's "she's not my type" comment was intended to do anything other than insult Ms. Carroll's appearance, which if isn't obvious enough by reading it becomes even more obvious by listening to the many many times he has said this to the laughter of the crowd. Or if you need it put more simply... He's making fun of her. Everyone in his audience knows this.

Making fun of someone in an unwelcomed fashion is malicious by definition.

Moreover, because Trump actually mistook her for his own wife the claim is now reasonably established as factually inaccurate.

Another element of defamation is that the defendant acted with at minimum, a "wreckless disregard for the truth".

So not only does this comment establish malice, it also establishes a wreckless disregard for the truth - Both sides of the coin in one shot. That is why it is impactful to the case.

Do you understand now?
#220
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Newly unsealed transcripts from Donald Trump’s deposition in the E. Jean Carroll case show that the former president mistook Carroll for his ex-wife Marla Maples in a photo.
The transcripts show that during his October 2022 deposition, Trump was shown a black and white photo where he is interacting with several people, including with his then-wife Ivana, Carroll and her then-husband.
“I don’t know who – it’s Marla,” Trump said when shown the photo. “That’s Marla, yeah. That’s my wife,” he says when asked to clarify.
Trump’s lawyer, Alina Habba, then interjected and said “no, that’s Carroll,” according to the transcript.
#221
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
"she's not my type" comment was intended to do anything other than insult Ms. Carroll's appearance...

That's madness. You can't claim someone raped you and also care about whether or not they think you are sexy.

Unless you are one of those deranged people who say stupid things like "most people think rape is sexy...."
#222
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
That's madness. You can't claim someone raped you and also care about whether or not they think you are sexy.
*Double facepalm*

Ms. Carroll doesn't care. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I or anyone in this trial is talking about.

First of all, Trump didn't tell anyone to look at old photos of her when she was much younger and considered by most to be far more attractive. His comments were made in the present tense, so there's definitely a heavy agism connotation to it.

But far more importantly, this has nothing to do with Ms. Carroll's feelings, it is entirely about (1) Trump's intentions, and (2) the natural and realized impacts of Trump's actions.

His comment here establishes the former, regardless of how they were received by Ms. Carroll herself.
#223
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Ms. Carroll doesn't care.
Cool, then she can stop pretending that she does.

when she was much younger
Most women are not very good looking at 52. She probably didn't look much different now at 80. Not that she actually cares about if she is Trump's type like you said. Only her lawyer thought it was important to bring up in court. Because apparently in Manhattan, getting sexually rejected by Trump is worth a few million in punitive damages....

There's a picture up of her at 52, she looks like plaster of Paris makeup around sunken zombie eyes. She actually looks better at 80 somehow.
#224
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Cool, then she can stop pretending that she does.
She's not, that has absolutely nothing to do with defamation.

Have you read a single word I've written? No, of course you haven't.
#225
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
I read it, you said she doesn't care. 

I think we are done, since I agree with you. It's not just Trump's admiration she doesn't care about either.
#226
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Most women are not very good looking at 52.
And you wonder why all the women have left this site?
#227
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
You're still here, and you count as plenty.

And before you file your defamation lawsuit, you are not my type. Make sure that gets on the Manhattan court record.
#228
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,639
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Double_R
Have you read a single word I've written? No, of course you haven't.
Of course he hasnt.

He only thinks something is true if it helps Trump or Putin.

#229
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

[IwantRooseveltagain] Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422851]
[ADreamOfLiberty] Yea that crosses the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422862]
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866 ]


#230
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Double_R
I read the transcripts you sent a link to.  Are the 4 remarks from Trump is what she is saying is the defamation?
Topic's author
#231
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman is a weirdo.
Topic's author
#232
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
There's a picture up of her at 52, she looks like plaster of Paris makeup around sunken zombie eyes. She actually looks better at 80 somehow.
This is coming from a guy who lives alone and has never been with a woman.

#233
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10

[IwantRooseveltagain] Is someone who lives all alone since his mother died and has never been with a woman a weirdo? [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422851]
[ADreamOfLiberty] Yea that crosses the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422862]
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866 ]


#234
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@DavidAZZ
I read the transcripts you sent a link to.  Are the 4 remarks from Trump is what she is saying is the defamation?
Basically yes, those are the remarks the jury was assigned to evaluate
#235
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
When someone writes a book about a public figure and goes on TV to talk about public figures they become a public figure.
Many of Trump's accusers have done television interviews, that doesn't make them public figures in any meaningful sense.
They did television interviews accusing a public figure of serious offenses. That is about as meaningful as it gets.
or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved.


This is really basic stuff.
That you pretend to not understand.


The problem is that he attacked her repeatedly and relentlessly, and did it in the most public way possible.
If one instance wasn't defamation, neither were a hundred.
Repetition has a greater impact on public perception than non repetition.
The shaping of public opinion isn't the disqualifier. The nature as opinion and the impossibility of establishing the facts beyond a reasonable doubt are.



This is really basic stuff.
That you pretend to not understand.


The right to respond includes proportionality.
Cite law. Cite precedence. You're making things up.
You haven't cited a single law or precedent in this entire conversation.
You didn't read.




Regardless, I'll be happy to dig further into this as soon as you claim that disproportionate responses are justified. Go on, tell me that's what you believe. And when you do you might want to think about what the term "excessive force" means.
I'll tell you what "excessive force" does not mean: communication.

If there was some legal rule of proportionality in public attacks (and there isn't circa the 1st amendment), it would be absurd to consider the accusation of rape to be anything but the highest tier of attack. It's an attack that could attract the attention of prosecutors and assassins rather than just a loss of reputation.

Therefore, since you insist on comparing speech to violence: EJC dropped a hyper-sonic fusion cluster bomb on Donald Trump. Nothing is disproportional after that.


Carroll was nothing more than an accuser in a sea of accusers.
Irrelevant. Actually if there are a bunch of people "pushing you" you are in more danger. So if you believed your own analogy a relevant defense for "stabbing"


If Trump treated her like any normal person running a country would have, none of us would have ever heard of her.
Well if you're just going to do the reassertion thing (and of course you were always going to), I'll just start tallying it to make a point.

answer: (1) Your opinion of decorum has no legal relevance. Reassertion Count: 2


Trump went way beyond all of this. EJC was just a private citizen
Who publicly accused him of rape. End of story. Nothing else is relevant.
Not how the law works, nor should it.
It is how it should work, it is how it did work. It doesn't matter what a judge thinks. It doesn't matter what a jury thinks. It doesn't matter what a prosecutor thinks. It doesn't matter what the public thinks. There is an absolute right to assert your innocence which means you have an absolute right to call your accusers liars.



Turns out when you decide to shut your brain down, no further arguments prevail. Who knew?
You do, that's why you keep doing it.


To ignore your false analogies is simple, easy, and I'm doing it right now.
Of course you are, because you have no response to it.
Violence is not similar to speech in a relevant way. That is the response.


and they followed that process.
They did not.
And yet you can't present a single argument to back that up other than your opinion of how you think the law should work.
You cut off the next sentence: "the absolute certainty that they broke their oaths to deliberate on the evidence and render a decision regarding the law mean we know there is no legal force."

Out of order:

Of course you are, because you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do.
Guess you had no response so you just removed it from the quote.


Taking home top secret documents is not like taking home top secret documents if you don't argue when someone asks for them.
People walk out of stores with unpaid merchandise all the time. What we wouldn't do is treat the guy who turned around and bright it back to the store the same as the guy who shoved it down his pants and tried to peel off as soon as he was stopped.
To correct your analogy it would be more like taking a mint from a restaurant that you thought was complimentary home and setting it in a tray for years and when they ask if you have it and you say "maybe, it would be mine anyway fuck off" they send in swat teams and some other guy who also took a mint but held onto it for three times as long then returned it (probably after getting wind that they better not get caught as hypocrites when the rules magically changed).

If taking the mint was illegal, then Joe Biden committed a crime. If it wasn't then it doesn't matter if you argue with people who claim to own it.


Basic common sense.
That ignorance is actually an excuse for breaking a law? I agree. Pity you have double standards.


Trump isn't being charged for taking the documents home. He's being charged for lying to federal investigators and his flagrant attempts to stop the federal government from retaining it's property,
Sure, I've seen what the FBI calls "lying". Oh and woops you're wrong again:

[UNITED STATES OF AMERICAv.DONALD J. TRUMP andWALTINE NAUTA,] After his presidency, TRUMP was not authorized to possess or retain classified documents. [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23839647/govuscourtsflsd64865330.pdf]
I'm sure you don't care, you'll just conveniently fail to respond to this and move onto something else that you want to repeat. What does that mean by your standards of behavior: "...you have no response to it. That's what unserious people who have no interest in facts or logic do."


Denying a crime is like a linebacker breaking a woman's jaw.
He didn't just deny the crime.
He broke her jaw too?! Oh, lol sorry I thought you were being a serious person for a moment.


You're either being brazenly dishonest or are breathtakingly ignorant of the case you continue to rail against in your quest to engage in civil war. It really is amazing to watch.
Get some popcorn. The show isn't over.


If you can't figure out how appealing a conviction fails to meet the four basic elements of defamation then I have nothing more to say to you, your brain doesn't work.
Mmm.....

You have failed to explain why the mechanics of defamation that you advanced would not result in criminal appeals being by definition defamatory. The argument to absurdity stands.






#236
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Then she showed a recent Truth Social post in which Trump vowed to deny the allegations "a thousand times."
Apparently Double R believes you're only allowed to deny accusations once if you're POTUS.


What were the exact phrases Trump said that were defamatory according to the Judge then if Politico is lying to both of us?
Well let's see his answer to this question. My bet: "Well it's not one thing you see, it's an attitude problem" -> He's orange, and racist, CNN told me so


#237
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
What were the exact phrases Trump said that were defamatory according to the Judge
There were multiple statements. For the full list you can see the actual ruling here. Start on page 4:
"Ms Carroll's accusation that Mr. Trump "raped" her first became public on June 21 2019"

The pseudo-court asserts that EJC defamed Trump. Interesting admission.

Statement One:
Trump denies meeting her. - Doesn't affect reputation, hasn't been proven or disproved
Trump claims her motivation is to sell a book. - Opinion
Trump claims the book should be sold in a fiction section. - Opinion OR a statement that the book contains falsehoods
Trump shames those who make up false stories of assault, names Julie Swetnick not EJC. If he did name EJC that would merely be a denial of a crime. Protected speech, any accusation against a public figure is a matter of public interest

Trump claims there is zero evidence for Julie Swetnick's accusation. - Protected speech, any accusation against a public figure is a matter of public interest

Trump point out there are no pictures, surveillance, video, reports, sales attendants, clearly arguing that there is no evidence against him. All arguments to the innocence of a person of a crime are forever protected by the right to confront accusers and all criminal matters are matters of public interest. That's why court filings are public.

Trump denies the incident occurred. All denials of a crime are forever protected speech and all criminal matters are matters of public interest. That's why court filings are public.

So not only can Trump deny he committed a crime, I can deny Trump committed a crime. In fact I can deny that any random person anywhere in the world committed a crime. It's accusing people of a crime without evidence that may be subject to defamation liability.

Trump points out that false accusations diminish the severity of a real assault. True, and a matter of opinion, and protected speech (matter of public interest), and not mentioning EJC. (layers upon layers of lawlessness was required to survive dismissal)

Donald Trump asks for information as to whether Carroll is working with the democratic party. If that's defamatory I guess working with the democratic party damages one's reputation. It's about time that become the case.

Trump says people should pay dearly for such false accusations. Yes they should, it's called defamation. EJC would be liable if Trump could produce an alibi. Unfortunately the crime apparently took place 1995 +- 1.5 years, making it difficult. You can try to report a crime that happened sometime within a three year period 20 years ago, it should give the police something to smile about after you hang up.

Trump denies he met her. Points out (quite reasonably) that being in a coat line with someone does not constitute meeting them.

It goes on like this. It's just Trump denying that he committed a crime or even met her over and over while making commentary about matters of public interest.


Only a deranged person would think that the words "you aren't my type" are in ANY context "defamatory"
Again, cherry picking one piece of the case and evaluating it as if it occurred in isolation.
Via the magic of TDS two non-defamatory statements combine into a defamatory statement.


Only a deranged person would think that the words "you aren't my type" are in ANY context "defamatory"
Again, cherry picking one piece of the case and evaluating it as if it occurred in isolation.
@Greyparrot, what you don't understand is that there was more than one cherry. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!

Not only did he deny raping someone, but he said that false accusations are bad and there is no evidence. That proves it! Let's end English common law. Guilty until proven innocent. Liable is guilty. Once 4 people in NYC say something happened or didn't happen that's it the end of public discussion. Retroactive defamation is a thing too!

You know what would be really fun, making a town of moon landing deniers, and then having a civil trial against NASA. Then, anyone who calls a moon-landing-denier wrong is guilty of defamation. Penalties should start at over a billion 300 million trillion 300 million dollars.



As I eluded to with ADOL, insults and belittlement as well as repetition all plays a role.
Insults and belittlement are defamation now, or make other statements defamatory where they weren't before. This is what Double_R claims to know of defamation law and precedent. Until humanity understands the psychology that created this fracture in reality in his brain, we will never have peace.


is whether a person acted with malice.
(2) Malice [in context] means whether someone didn't care if it was true or lied intentionally as opposed to just being bad at discerning the truth. It does not mean "that guy is upset".

Something that is always a question when it comes to expression of TDS.


Again... It's only one small piece of the story.
The world is full of magic. Non-defamatory statements combine and become defamatory. Orange men become fascists. *tribal drum beats*


You continue to break the case apart and evaluate each individual part as if it occurred in isolation.
Yep, don't look too closely. That's not what courts of law are for, looking at details and all.


Feel like I've said that before.
I feel like you're going to say it again. It will mean nothing when you do, as it means nothing now, as it meant nothing last time. You're trying defend a hopeless joke resolution, of course you can't get into specifics.


Again... A major part of proving defamation is demonstrating that the defendant acted with malice.
(2) Malice [in context] means whether someone didn't care if it was true or lied intentionally as opposed to just being bad at discerning the truth. It does not mean "that guy is upset".

This is, in fact, basic stuff that you pretend to not understand.


There is no rational ground to stand on while claiming Trump's "she's not my type" comment was intended to do anything other than insult Ms. Carroll's appearance
There is no rational ground to stand on while claiming that an insult is defamation or makes any other statement defamatory.


Or if you need it put more simply... He's making fun of her. Everyone in his audience knows this.
Yes. Rather tame for someone who falsely accused him of rape if you ask me. I would be a lot meaner.


Making fun of someone in an unwelcomed fashion is malicious by definition.
Not a legal definition.

(2) Malice [in context] means whether someone didn't care if it was true or lied intentionally as opposed to just being bad at discerning the truth. It does not mean "that guy is upset". Reassertion Count: 3


Moreover, because Trump actually mistook her for his own wife the claim is now reasonably established as factually inaccurate.
Everybody is liable for misreporting relative sexual attractions got it.


it also establishes a wreckless disregard for the truth
rofl, *gets up drinks some water comes back to the screen, rereads*, rofl (back on the floor)

"When you said my client wasn't hot was that not a reckless disregard for the truth? I mean LOOK AT HER!"
"That makes perfect sense, 86 million dollars pay up"

Oh I'm sorry did I focus too much? Here let me take the glasses off. Oh my, I can't read the words but that paragraph sure is long! Trump must be guilty of rape and insurrection and eating babies!

TDS turned a quarter of America into clowns but the oath keepers are the problem. Yea...


Do you understand now?
You're trying these profoundly absurd arguments, rewriting four hundred years of jurisprudence and for whom? You'll never convince a rational person and the irrational TDS possessed zombies will agree with you regardless of what you say. I mean look at FLRW:

"Trump voter: Ah luv thee Donald, e has 5 times the brain power that ah hav!"

That's all you need to do. It accomplishes the same thing (absolutely nothing).

I wonder if this is about you. Do you feel that you're convincing yourself?


(2) the natural and realized impacts of Trump's actions.
We need to stop Trump. With the bully pulpit he owns he can cause any woman in the world to be perceived as unattractive by simply uttering the phrase "She's not my type".

This kind of power is too much for any one man to hold!


Cool, then she can stop pretending that she does.
She's not, that has absolutely nothing to do with defamation.
So very true.
Topic's author
#238
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
Always remember that you are a dummy. A dummy who supports a rapist to be President.
#239
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Double_R
Basically yes, those are the remarks the jury was assigned to evaluate
Got it, thanks.  I'm not well versed in court documents.

I would agree with GP and ADOL here that the statements made were pretty weak and I wouldn't consider it defamation if I was on that jury, but I wasn't so I couldn't change the outcome.  I think it was a long stretch for the jury to say that those statements alone were the defamatory remarks considering what has been said by others about other people. But in this case Trump already lost a court case stating that he did sexually abuse Carrol so it was already held against him to defend his position of not raping the woman, so it was against Trump from the start.

It really looks like she took advantage of him with this defamation case.  Can't say I blame her considering the position she sits on and how much Money Trump has.

I think she is a fraud with the whole thing and was able to benefit from all of it financially.  Curious to know if any of those millions would go to some of the jury or judge.

I am coming late in the thread here and didn't read everything, so I may be beating a dead horse.

#240
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
[IwantRooseveltagain] A dummy who supports a rapist to be President. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423445]
More defamation... 1 count of lying about a conviction and one count of lying about a rape. Additional penalties are $150,000,000