Judge rules Trump has to stay quiet and not defend himself in court - Carroll Case

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Specially made civil law.

How quaint.

a reply to: JinMI

Defamation is a federal law. Thus why this case is being heard in federal court.

a reply to: JinMI

How so? Genuine question.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

www.theguardian.com...

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: JinMI

Defamation is a federal law. Thus why this case is being heard in federal court.

Then by all means, provide the statute...

a reply to: JinMI

From the Guardian article:

"We are grateful to the survivors and advocates who fought so hard for the ASA to become law and support all survivors in their healing journey.”

Politicians also celebrated what the act was able to achieve. “Hundreds of survivors of sexual assault have sought justice through the act, but the window to file a case in court will soon close,” said Linda Rosenthal, a Manhattan Democrat who sponsored its passage through the New York legislature.

“Archaic laws have long shielded abusers and shut survivors out of the opportunity to have their voices heard and seek justice through the courts. With the work of Safe Horizon and many other advocates, the ASA has successfully given power back to survivors.”

Advocates believe that victories in high-profile cases gave confidence to other victims previously too frightened to speak out."

Sounds like a good law to me. No?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Depends on the evidence, like it always has.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: WeMustCare

It certainly would've been a cheaper option for him. The actions of him and Habba have done nothing to ingratiate him to the jury that will decide punitive damages.

Ted Boutrous, one of the premier litigators in the country, has speculated Trump could be on the hook for as much as $100 million.

In this country, make it $200 million. CNN paid over $200 million for saying a conservative boy in a red had was taunting a liberal, when he wasn't.

Whatever the $$$$ is, Trump and his family will get it back, many times over.

a reply to: JinMI

Well, yes.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I meant I understood....."gotcha"....it is just a phrase. Not that i fooled you....

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

For those convicted of rape or abuse. Yes. In Carrolls case no. It is not even about it being Trump.

Something similar happened to me in high school which is maybe why i take this so personally.

I would not go on a date a girl and she told some friends i had done something to her at a party. It got back to the parents.Authorities were involved and thank god nothing happened. The problem was i was never at the party. I was working. I was innocent.

If that happened today she could sue me like is happening here. With no evidence. With no criminal conviction. With no witnesses. How can someone be held liable for something that cannot be proven true?

a reply to: JinMI

They cannot. I just do not see how defamation can be applied if you are stating you did not do something and you did not.

a reply to: matafuchs

Oh. Gotcha now. Apologies!

a reply to: matafuchs

Something similar happened to me.

Girl I previously dated claimed I did all sorts of illegal things to her. Told her parents, they went to the police. Filed a report, took photos of bruises etc.

Detectives came to where I worked and questioned me. I brought them right to the manager where she promptly printed out all my clock ins/outs. Luckily I was working quite a few insane hours and was able to combat all the lies she spun. Every instance she told police happened during hours I was working.

Not all folks accused of such are able to have that luck and defense.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: JinMI

They cannot. I just do not see how defamation can be applied if you are stating you did not do something and you did not.

Because,

...Trump.

a reply to: matafuchs

How can someone be held liable for something that cannot be proven true?

It happens on Liberal Fantasy Island, unfortunately for Trump.

Hopefully he won’t have to pay a cent to that whack in the end.

And that will give the Libs something else to cry about added to the 10 million other things.

Which Judge let former/next President Trump attend his Mother-In-Law's funeral today?

I remember reading one of them did, but it's not something liberals are proud of.

Funeral Highlights Vid Clip: gettr.com...

a reply to: WeMustCare

He did attend, though, didn't he?

a reply to: WeMustCare

None of them. Trump's presence isn't required in court.

a reply to: Threadbarer

He seems to be his own worst enemy.

Apart from his learned legal team, so it seems.