Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

a reply to: IgorMartinez

There's a clear difference between 2020 when he was POTUS vs now as a private citizen. Just a tad of critical thinking would answer this conundrum of yours.

We should not be surprised to see DJT declare bankruptcy…

So we now have a third entry into my topic where its admittedly not about justice or law.

It's about Trump.


This is going well, I appreciate it.

a reply to: JinMI

The jury has spoken, and I’m speculating about his financial condition, and whether or not it can withstand this ruling.

I believe the AG report of 90 million in liquid assets is probably still closer to truth than other reports about the value of all his businesses which he would have to sell to raise cash.

And with all the legal costs over the past 3 years and some, and these couple rulings, looks like he’s gonna have to sell some property…

a reply to: IgorMartinez

The jury has spoken, and I’m speculating about his financial condition, and whether or not it can withstand this ruling.

Yes, they have. And the question is, it it just? Is it lawful?

Now that we've put your false speculations to rest, we can move on.

I believe the AG report of 90 million in liquid assets is probably still closer to truth than other reports about the value of all his businesses which he would have to sell to raise cash.

Ok, deny facts in favor of your own truth. That always works out well........

originally posted by: JinMI

The figure included $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages, CNN reported.

This is what was delivered today by the jury in the NYC E. Jean v Trump defamation trial. Quite a hefty sum. Remarkably different from the previous lawsuit against Trump:

In a separate suit, she secured a jury determination in May of last year that he had sexually abused and defamed her, with a jury awarding her nearly $5 million, including $3 million for defamatory statements he made after leaving office.

Taking this all at face value, the precedent is very clear. Hurt feelings are far more valuable than hurt bodies.

Link

This isn't all without some sort of precedent however.

Today a jury reached a verdict in the Alex Jones case and ordered the conservative author and TV host to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the Sandy Hook families for something he said in 2014.

Jones was ordered to pay $965 million to the families. Good Lord!

Jones allegedly owes $229 million to just the first three plaintiffs, all family members of Sandy Hook victims.

Is this justice in our communities estimation? Or is it just as long as the political ideologies are supported?

As you point out, last year a jury found that Trump had in fact sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her. They awarded damages that were consistent with a first offense. If Trump had simply accepted that outcome and moved on that would have been the end of the matter.

But he had to immediately turn around, deny the verdict in the case and defame her again. That was basically a flagrant middle finger to the justice system. The increased award and penalties in today’s verdict represents the fact that repeat offenders are usually treated more harshly the second time around. Conversely, if someone who is found liable for misbehavior is willing to accept responsibility for their behavior and apologize, they will often get a reduced sentence. Of course, there is zero chance Trump would ever do that because, as we all know, everything he does is always “perfect”. If you don’t believe it, just ask him.

He probably got treated about the same as any raging a$$hole would be treated the second time around.

a reply to: Boomer1947

As you point out, last year a jury found that Trump had in fact sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her. They awarded damages that were consistent with a first offense. If Trump had simply accepted that outcome and moved on that would have been the end of the matter.

Why should he have moved on and accepted it? He remains consistent that it is not true and it's yet another witch-hunt. The evidence so far supports Trump in that.

He probably got treated about the same as any raging a$$hole would be treated the second time around.

Thank you for being the 4th member to admit to this not being lawful or just, but simply about Trump. I knew I could count on you.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: JinMI

The figure included $18.3 million in compensatory damages and $65 million in punitive damages, CNN reported.

This is what was delivered today by the jury in the NYC E. Jean v Trump defamation trial. Quite a hefty sum. Remarkably different from the previous lawsuit against Trump:

In a separate suit, she secured a jury determination in May of last year that he had sexually abused and defamed her, with a jury awarding her nearly $5 million, including $3 million for defamatory statements he made after leaving office.

Taking this all at face value, the precedent is very clear. Hurt feelings are far more valuable than hurt bodies.

Link

This isn't all without some sort of precedent however.

Today a jury reached a verdict in the Alex Jones case and ordered the conservative author and TV host to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the Sandy Hook families for something he said in 2014.

Jones was ordered to pay $965 million to the families. Good Lord!

Jones allegedly owes $229 million to just the first three plaintiffs, all family members of Sandy Hook victims.

Is this justice in our communities estimation? Or is it just as long as the political ideologies are supported?

As you point out, last year a jury found that Trump had in fact sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her. They awarded damages that were consistent with a first offense. If Trump had simply accepted that outcome and moved on that would have been the end of the matter.

But he had to immediately turn around, deny the verdict in the case and defame her again. That was basically a flagrant middle finger to the justice system. The increased award and penalties in today’s verdict represents the fact that repeat offenders are usually treated more harshly the second time around. Conversely, if someone who is found liable for misbehavior is willing to accept responsibility for their behavior and apologize, they will often get a reduced sentence. Of course, there is zero chance Trump would ever do that because, as we all know, everything he does is always “perfect”. If you don’t believe it, just ask him.

He probably got treated about the same as any raging a$$hole would be treated the second time around.

They found Trump liable not guilty. Two different things, civil court as opposed to criminal court which requires evidence and not just political motive.

a reply to: TzarChasm

A distinction that is being ignored.


But this comes as no surprise.

a reply to: JinMI

If they could actually exhibit tangible evidence, demonstrate his guilt and put him in prison, they would have. He's not in prison so there's your sign.

a reply to: Boomer1947

As you point out, last year a jury found that Trump had in fact sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her. They awarded damages that were consistent with a first offense. If Trump had simply accepted that outcome and moved on that would have been the end of the matter.

Okay I'm a little confused then again Maybe I'm really confused on the matter.

So Trump was found guilty of Sexual assault on something that happened 27yrs ago ? How is that even possible ? But okay so he is guilty So why is he not in Jail ? last I checked sexual assault is a serious crime that you do Prison time for ....

and further more now they are in another court because Trump defamed the woman and now has to pay her $80million ? How is she not being sued for Defaming Trump ? and again if Trump is Guilty why is he not in Jail ?

Sounds to me like the two of them had consensual sex in a dressing room and then 27yrs later she decided it was Rape and now she is $80million richer ....... Good move on her part I guess it really does pay off to bang Rich guys .

a reply to: JinMI

Due process has been followed.

Do you know all of DJTs financial information?

a reply to: TzarChasm

So in lieu of a criminal charge, they pursue to make a new law with a short window in which Carroll was instrumental in creating in order to go after him civilly.

Yet the verbal damages are 13 times more than the damages from alleged actions that could not be proven.


But hey, it's Trump....

a reply to: IgorMartinez

Due process has been followed.

Has it?

If you had to point to one key piece of evidence that justified this finding, what would it be?

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: Boomer1947

As you point out, last year a jury found that Trump had in fact sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her. They awarded damages that were consistent with a first offense. If Trump had simply accepted that outcome and moved on that would have been the end of the matter.

Okay I'm a little confused then again Maybe I'm really confused on the matter.

So Trump was found guilty of Sexual assault on something that happened 27yrs ago ? How is that even possible ? But okay so he is guilty So why is he not in Jail ? last I checked sexual assault is a serious crime that you do Prison time for ....

and further more now they are in another court because Trump defamed the woman and now has to pay her $80million ? How is she not being sued for Defaming Trump ? and again if Trump is Guilty why is he not in Jail ?

Sounds to me like the two of them had consensual sex in a dressing room and then 27yrs later she decided it was Rape and now she is $80million richer ....... Good move on her part I guess it really does pay off to bang Rich guys .

First, you're going to need to separate criminal from civil. Two different methods of remedy, result and metric of "guilt."

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: Boomer1947

As you point out, last year a jury found that Trump had in fact sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll and defamed her. They awarded damages that were consistent with a first offense. If Trump had simply accepted that outcome and moved on that would have been the end of the matter.

Okay I'm a little confused then again Maybe I'm really confused on the matter.

So Trump was found guilty of Sexual assault on something that happened 27yrs ago ? How is that even possible ? But okay so he is guilty So why is he not in Jail ? last I checked sexual assault is a serious crime that you do Prison time for ....

and further more now they are in another court because Trump defamed the woman and now has to pay her $80million ? How is she not being sued for Defaming Trump ? and again if Trump is Guilty why is he not in Jail ?

Sounds to me like the two of them had consensual sex in a dressing room and then 27yrs later she decided it was Rape and now she is $80million richer ....... Good move on her part I guess it really does pay off to bang Rich guys .

First, you're going to need to separate criminal from civil. Two different methods of remedy, result and metric of "guilt."

I see

So criminally Trump is Guilty of nothing .

and so he attacks this woman verbally because she literally made up a giant lie .

So now Her feelings are hurt and reputation ruined because she lied , so Now Trump owes her $80million .....

Clown World Orange man bad.

a reply to: JinMI

The plaintiff’s testimony.

Now are you going to answer my question if you know DJT’s financial information?

a reply to: JinMI

Read these texts from her and you will see she is no more than a sexually devient gold digger looking for a payday.


The judge wouldn't let the jury hear or see this evidence.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I see

So criminally Trump is Guilty of nothing .

Correct. There has not been charge nor trial of anything of such.

and so he attacks this woman verbally because she literally made up a giant lie .

So now Her feelings are hurt and reputation ruined because she lied , so Now Trump owes her $80million .....

Clown World Orange man bad.

Another part of the equation is that she is and was a public figure.

Now for the kicker.

She alleged, asserted and publicly stated that Trump raped her. The first case concluded that it was not the case.


Should Trump sue?

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: JinMI

The plaintiff’s testimony.

Now are you going to answer my question if you know DJT’s financial information?

What exact testimony? C'mon man, with such strong opinions, surely you have something of tangible fact to back it up....right?

The answer to your question was already posted here.

I'm having an impossible time hooking up to Yahoo or Google, is anyone else having this problem or is it possibly just my browser? Some other sites other than the search engine don't work either, but they seem to be tied somehow to Yahoo or google. This site works well, problems with RN though. Can't do a search if I do not have a search engine to use and I don't have any bookmarked so I do not have a search engine to find the site.

a reply to: charlest2

So you don't see it as just or lawful.

I agree.



Given that the only evidence provided is testimony, I would certainly consider her past public postings as evidence as well.