Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

Since I posted this in the other thread...

15 Facts About E. Jean Carroll’s Allegations Against Trump the Media Don’t Want You to Know

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

So the entire jury was wrong?

Were they right?

I'm waiting patiently for someone to come along and sort it out for me.

Will it be you to show what testimony convinced you that Trump caused this woman 80 some million in damages?

60 million was punitive, as I understand it, to deter trump from continuing his attacks. And obviously the jury agreed.

Do you think it's part of our legal system to ascribe a monetary penalty on free speech? Especially speech that has yet to be said?

I agree with the concept of defamation. If that is what you are asking then yes.

Defamation exists in the past tense. What you described is future tense.

Try again?

We now need to consider repeat offences, the trial is about repeative Trump defaming (past tense) someone, to prevent future instances. I agree with deterrence.

what is wrong is the comments were made in office and should had fell uner ex post facto. at the time his speech was protected like a senator or congressman.

The jury wasn't allowed to hear this

a reply to: WingDingLuey

This is in her book. If you have not read excerpts find some. How she talks about being raped but it was not bad enough for her to report.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

So the entire jury was wrong?

Were they right?

I'm waiting patiently for someone to come along and sort it out for me.

Will it be you to show what testimony convinced you that Trump caused this woman 80 some million in damages?

60 million was punitive, as I understand it, to deter trump from continuing his attacks. And obviously the jury agreed.

Do you think it's part of our legal system to ascribe a monetary penalty on free speech? Especially speech that has yet to be said?

I agree with the concept of defamation. If that is what you are asking then yes.

Defamation exists in the past tense. What you described is future tense.

Try again?

We now need to consider repeat offences, the trial is about repeative Trump defaming (past tense) someone, to prevent future instances. I agree with deterrence.

what is wrong is the comments were made in office and should had fell uner ex post facto. at the time his speech was protected like a senator or congressman.

Which begs a question.

Can he pay her from the gov't rape slush fund?

a reply to: JinMI

Biden isn't a part of this thread......

Then it's a good thing I didn't bring him up.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

A coached witness is not a Testimony , it's acting .

I agree, which is why to make a sincere judgement, you would have to be in the courtroom and make up your own mind. Were they acting or do I believe their story?

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Yeah mate This DOJ is on the up and up very honest ,

You must be very confused, we are discussing a civil suit, the Department of Justice was not involved with the courtroom proceedings that took place this month. If you want to get angry, get angry with 🤡lin🤡 H🤡bb🤡, she did a terrible job.

The rest of your woe is me post is not relevant. Comical, but not relevant.

originally posted by: JinMI
Disagree.

Wait, you think that bozo did a good job in court? LOL.

Do you know how the case was brought? Who funded it? Who represented Carroll? How they are all tied together? Guessing not or you would have avoided this question.

Do you know that it's not relevant? That the jury determines the verdict based on the evidence presented and not on the ATS woo?

But here's an idea, give Alina Habba a jingle on the old telephonic device and let her know about the brilliant legal strategy you're suggesting, maybe it will be better than the giant POS one she used.

originally posted by: JinMI
This is incorrect. The entire thing is transcribed.

And the transcription and proceedings have not been released.

Unless you have a magic copy that got out before the trial was concluded and the records made public. Do you have a magic copy? Can you share it?

originally posted by: JinMI
Is this justice in our communities estimation? Or is it just as long as the political ideologies are supported?

The people are becoming too immoral to have jury trials, elections, colleges and college presidents, degrees, high paying jobs, etc. Maybe even guns.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Yeah mate This DOJ is on the up and up very honest ,

You must be very confused, we are discussing a civil suit, the Department of Justice was not involved with the courtroom proceedings that took place this month. If you want to get angry, get angry with 🤡lin🤡 H🤡bb🤡, she did a terrible job.

The rest of your woe is me post is not relevant. Comical, but not relevant.

I feel like we've had this discussion before Augustus

Yes I understand this is a Civil Suit and I understand it is State level . That being said .......

The DOJ is tasked with undermining Trump at every turn and slowing him down and draining his finances , Literally anything to make him stop running for POTUS.

Anything involving Donald J Trump in a court room has the DOJ behind it whether on the face of it or not .

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
I feel like we've had this discussion before Augustus

And yet, here you are, once again bringing the Department of Justice into a civil trial that took place this month and had no involvement from them.

But if you have some sort of proof other than your dejected feelings regarding the result of this CIVIL trial, I'll wait for it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Wait, you think that bozo did a good job in court? LOL.

I don't think she was allowed to do her job. As Ive been alluding do this entire thread...lOl?

Do you know that it's not relevant? That the jury determines the verdict based on the evidence presented and not on the ATS woo?

Why should not the character of the person testifying be relevant? Do tell? As that is the only evidence allowed.

LIke I said, if you want the big orange boogeyman to be silenced, perhaps try doing it without underhanded skeezy judges and politics?

And the transcription and proceedings have not been released.

No? I read the reports as they came out via journalists. It's not my problem if you didn't keep up yet have such strong opinions.....

originally posted by: JinMI
I don't think she was allowed to do her job. As Ive been alluding do this entire thread...lOl?

Who prevented her from following correct court protocol such as filing evidence properly? It certainly wasn't the judge since he had to manpslain the procedure to her.

Why should not the character of the person testifying be relevant? Do tell? As that is the only evidence allowed.

The relevance of who 'funded' the suit has no bearing on witness character, it could have been Joe The Plumber or Jo Mama doing the 'funding' (whatever TF that means) and the testimony and evidence would have been identical.

No? I read the reports as they came out via journalists. It's not my problem if you didn't keep up yet have such strong opinions.....

Transcripts are not journalistic reports which only provide snippets of the entire trial and testimony. Stuff like this is why all of you are outraged, you don't even understand the basics.

The appeal to the first case happened. Two days after the initial verdict. This was the ruling.

On July 19, Judge Kaplan affirmed that Trump had raped Carroll according to the common meaning of the word[c] and ruled against altering the award amount

He affirmed he raped her with no evidence when the jury actually said...

the jury delivered a verdict that first stated that Carroll had not proven that Trump raped her, and next stated that Carroll did prove that Trump had sexually abused her,

So, tell me how any of this is fair.

Then, when Trump went after them for defamation the same judge threw it out even though Carroll called him a rapist in a CNN interview.

particularly when she told CNN "yes he did" rape her in response to a question about the jury not finding him liable for that offense

If someone went on CNN and said you raped them...wouldn't you think you could file a suit? He was then told in the second case he could not mention any of that even though it is why the case was filed...for what he said! However...

Carroll's lawyer asked Judge Kaplan to ensure that if Trump testified, Trump first be required to tell the jury that he would keep his comments to the matter at hand and not make barred arguments, saying "his recent statements and behavior [e.g. in his New York business trial] strongly suggest that he will seek to sow chaos".Carroll's lawyer also asked that Trump be required to admit he sexually abused Carroll and disparaged her with actual malice.

13 days after the initial verdict they filed again. So Carrolls attorneys actually filed another case while Trump was appealing.

But the media has only reported his lawyer is inept, Trump pouted through the whole thing and that he sexually assaulted her. I can understand why someone believe one side.

This is only a portion. You won't read it but it is all fact.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Who prevented her from following correct court protocol such as filing evidence properly? It certainly wasn't the judge since he had to manpslain the procedure to her.

Your framing is laughable. The judge prevented Trumps team from admitting evidence. But do go on to tell me how a judge is explaining court procedure to a lawyer. Your adherence to one authority while minimizing is another is funny yet doesn't move the factual basis.

The relevance of who 'funded' the suit has no bearing on witness character, it could have been Joe The Plumber or Jo Mama doing the 'funding' (whatever TF that means) and the testimony and evidence would have been identical.

Perhaps, being psychic isn't my thing. Point being, it speaks to the character, the weight of said testimony.

Transcripts are not journalistic reports which only provide snippets of the entire trial and testimony. Stuff like this is why all of you are outraged, you don't even understand the basics.

There are a few journalists on twitter who live tweeted the whole thing.

What you describe is the position that you are coming from. You got those juicy talking points though!

Remember, you can still hate the orange man but still wish to see the legal process adhered to.

a reply to: JinMI

"Remember, you can still hate the orange man but still wish to see the legal process adhered to."

Which is precisely what the Judge actually did?

Faced with a lawyer who didn't seem to know what it was.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

But if you have some sort of proof

Famous last words mate. Proof is hard to come by when the very people tasked with providing the proof are corrupted high and low inside and out .

The DOJ and Biden Administration don't see any of this as Wrong . The Ends justify the means so they will Lie, Twist and Fabricate anything to get rid of Trump . They believe they are correct and know what is best for us .

You're a smart guy Augustus but if you're gonna wait around for the Left to prove any of this or for people like me who can see the writing on the wall to prove what is written then you're going to be disappointed.

By the time everyone realizes what is really happening it will be to late.

Anyway, regardless of how anyone feels about the accusation itself, this is just another perfect example of how Trumps a complete loose cannon and can not control himself.

I mean, what absolute kind of moron would get sued 5 million dollars for defamation, then go and publicly rant about how she’s a “liar” and “whack job”. Just blows the mind how he could have thought that was a good idea.