Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

a reply to: IgorMartinez

Yes, you made yet another assertion and opinion based off of nothing?

What do you want me to do with that?



Care to answer the same question I've been asking you for 3 pages now?

What piece of testimony convinced you that this 80 million dollar price tag is lawful and just?

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.

Alright, now we are finally getting somewhere!

You view the penalty as a deterrence. That's fair.


So, given what we know, as public information, what is he to be deterring himself from? Maintaining his innocence?

Here's my issue with your view. The only evidence is testimony. Therefore, the character behind that testimony is also part of those words. Make sense?

Being that these are also both public figures, there exists a real problem with defamation as a while. But we can disregard that for the time being for arguments sake and move onto the number.

Defamation means that someone was at a loss of some amount. Was Carroll worth 80 some million before this case as a public figure?

a reply to: JinMI

You are amusing that’s for sure.

What testimony convinced me?

He raped her.

Then what convinced me more?

He dragged her name through the mud after the jury found he probably did rape her.

Do you have any facts to convince me otherwise? I’m all ears…

Watch this with an open mind.



I'd have her as my lawyer any day.

I believe she said most recently she was making 100k, then got cut down to 60k.
Bidenomics shrinkflation.

a reply to: JinMI

So, given what we know, as public information, what is he to be deterring himself from? Maintaining his innocence?

He is being deterred from defaming people. In this case E. Carol.

Here's my issue with your view. The only evidence is testimony. Therefore, the character behind that testimony is also part of those words. Make sense?

The evidence is in the public sphere. His social media posts specifically attacking E. Carol. That, along with other evidence was obviously sufficient for a jury to ascribe the amount they did.

We can’t gloss over the repetitive nature of these offences. How many times can someone break the law before penalities escalate? What are your opinions on repeat offenders?

a reply to: IgorMartinez

What testimony convinced me?

He raped her.

Yet the jury that you've been relying on for your opinion rejected this. Where does that leave you?

Then what convinced me more?

He dragged her name through the mud after the jury found he probably did rape her.

Yet in the first civil trial, he was being accused of rape and defamation. Which was predicated on an article Carroll wrote.

I think you should check your facts as they aren't found within reality based off of this post. (and others as I've pointed out)

Do you have any facts to convince me otherwise? I’m all ears…

You are already convinced. Not from facts. Not from logic and certainly not from law nor justice.

a reply to: JinMI

Defamation means that someone was at a loss of some amount. Was Carroll worth 80 some million before this case as a public figure?

18 million ish was for defamation, the rest was punitive. Do you see the distinction?

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: JinMI

You are amusing that’s for sure.

What testimony convinced me?

He raped her.

Then what convinced me more?

He dragged her name through the mud after the jury found he probably did rape her.

Do you have any facts to convince me otherwise? I’m all ears…

If he raped her, why isn’t he in jail for the crime?

I think she dragged his name through the mud by falsely accusing him of rape.

You prove he raped her.
FFS dude, she can’t even recall any details of when it happened, among other facts that she cannot prove.

a reply to: EndTime

He is being deterred from defaming people. In this case E. Carol.

Is he? Because that wasn't in the jury instructions.......

The evidence is in the public sphere. His social media posts specifically attacking E. Carol. That, along with other evidence was obviously sufficient for a jury to ascribe the amount they did.

Sure, then why wasn't Carrolls article, financing, social media, political connections and actions also admissible?

But more importantly, I'm curious is to what convinced YOU that Trump is liable for that 80 million.

We can’t gloss over the repetitive nature of these offences. How many times can someone break the law before penalities escalate? What are your opinions on repeat offenders?

Sounds like a criminal matter. There is no criminality being litigated here.

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

Defamation means that someone was at a loss of some amount. Was Carroll worth 80 some million before this case as a public figure?

18 million ish was for defamation, the rest was punitive. Do you see the distinction?

Oh yes, I see the distinction. Carroll is awarded all amounts regardless.

Do you understand the distinction is irrelevant?

a reply to: JinMI

Is he? Because that wasn't in the jury instructions.......

He was already found guilty of defamation………

Sure, then why wasn't Carrolls article, financing, social media, political connections and actions also admissible? But more importantly, I'm curious is to what convinced YOU that Trump is liable for that 80 million.

Not sure I understand the first part. 18 million was for defamation, the rest was punitive.

Sounds like a criminal matter. There is no criminality being litigated here.

This was a civil case. There is civila law no? Separate from criminal.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: EndTime
a reply to: JinMI

Defamation means that someone was at a loss of some amount. Was Carroll worth 80 some million before this case as a public figure?

18 million ish was for defamation, the rest was punitive. Do you see the distinction?

Oh yes, I see the distinction. Carroll is awarded all amounts regardless.

Do you understand the distinction is irrelevant?

Why is it irrelevant? Punitive deterrence is very valid if someone continues to reoffend. How else would we stop people from continually committing offences?

originally posted by: matafuchs
Watch this with an open mind.

I'd have her as my lawyer any day.

It’s all a F’in scam perpetrated by the con artist Democrats to keep him from running for president.

They know Biden can’t beat Trump in a fair and legal election.
They know they cannot run another scam like the “Plandemic” to facilitate another massive mail-in voting scam that they did in 2020.
They are going through everything in their con artist bag of scams to find one that might work.

a reply to: JinMI

I’m not convinced by you that’s for sure.

She claimed he raped her, and the jury found him liable for sexual assault.

a reply to: EndTime

You keep saying defamation.

Yet haven't posted what convinced you that she was defamed.

Why is it irrelevant? Punitive deterrence is very valid if someone continues to reoffend. How else would we stop people from continually committing offences?

It's irrelevant because it's all going to Carroll minus attorney fees. How does this keep him from "defaming others.?'


The purpose of this thread is for folks to show me where the defamation is and how it's worth 80m.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: JinMI

I’m not convinced by you that’s for sure.

She claimed he raped her, and the jury found him liable for sexual assault.

You can't even articulate why you are convinced.

Going a step further to tell me what I think is well outside your purview.

Now you're saying he didnt rape her....

a reply to: RazorV66

Were you not aware this was a civil case, not a criminal case?

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: JinMI

I’m not convinced by you that’s for sure.

She claimed he raped her, and the jury found him liable for sexual assault.

Why no criminal trial?
The statute of limitations was extended to have the supposed Trump rape in the time frame, why no criminal trial?

Don’t you find that strange?

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: RazorV66

Were you not aware this was a civil case, not a criminal case?

Of course WFT?

WHY NO CRIMINAL TRIAL?
WHY? WHY? WHY?