Jury orders Trump to pay woman $83 million for calling her a liar for saying he raped her

Trump is guilty of rape. This was previously settled in a court case:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

I'm tired of the "so many progressives seem" garbage. Trump was found guilty of rape. Period.

Above you claimed to know about no evidence.

How about waiting until you know about the evidence before claiming that the court so grossly mishandled this case? OK?

 

You are attempting to use a logical error that is known as an equivocation fallacy.

A jury making a determination of fact for the purpose of one type of decision is not the same as making a determination of fact for the purpose of a different decision.
When a judge or jury "determines" something, it does not mean what you think it means.

Even in the medical field, with diagnostic tests, when they claim they have "determined" something, it is not completely black and white. The doctors may have to go back and reexamine their original determination if they are planning to use it for a different decision than the test was originally purposed for, if that decision is going to involve something that is very expensive, or risky to the patient.

It's one thing to make an accused person pay money for something that they are accused of doing. But it's a different thing to make that accused person pay money for calling their accuser a liar.
Those two do not just automatically go together.

An example I gave in another thread, we do not automatically put a rape accuser in prison just because a jury determined the accused man was not guilty.

Yet according to the type of logic you are attempting to use, if we accept that it has been "determined" that the accused man is not guilty, then the accuser must be guilty of making a false accusation and should be punished.

Do you think Carroll automatically should have been ordered to have to pay Trump money for defamation (for public damage to Trump's reputation) if the jury had declined to find Trump liable for sexual assault against her?
See how absurd and illogical that would be?

You're attempting to use over-simplified black and white versions of reality.

 

In the first trial of Carroll v Trump, Trump was found guilty of rape and the penalty assigned was $5M.

In the second Carroll v Trump trial, the charge was defamation, etc.

Trump lost that case too, and now the penalty phase has specified a penalty of about $83M.

That's what it means.

This is the part where you don't know what Trump was charged with and you don't know the evidence. I've suggested some places for you to start looking.

Trump was extremely well aware of the charges, as he was reminded constantly.

As stated previously, this trial was not about the rape. It was about defamation. The judge was exceptionally clear to the jury and other parties that the rape was not to be considered, used in argument, used in decisions, etc.

Also, if Trump continues his defamation, Carroll can sue him again. We'll have to see, but the $83M may not be enough to get him to stop. This case only covers Trump's acts up to now.

 

But the defamation hinges on whether the rape happened, doesn't it?

Unless there's something else, seems you're being disingenuous.

 

A determination of fact from a prior court hearing means exactly what 'we' think it means. It stands as fact unless an appelate court claims differently.
Its a sad day when someone who purports to understand the court system tries to compare how it works to doctors constantly reexamining their diagnosis and treatment plans for a patient. You have absolutely no clue whatsover how our legal system works with respect to either a civil or criminal matter. The last thing on this planet our courts want to encourage, is a constant and endless dance over original determination of 'the facts' from the first court hearing in a related case. They actively discourage a rehash the same ground plowed by the original court of jurisdiction.

This is the civil equivilant of calling the jury in a criminal case a bunch of fools for guilty verdict, during the subsequent sentencing hearing, and demanding the sentencing judge set aside the jury's verdict. Its too late. That ship sailed when the gavel came down without that specific motion being granted by the presiding judge then, and when the parties were dismissed from court business a day, or a week or a month ago. You do not conflate or contaminate the basic purpose served from two then three different court functions. You can appeal either decision for any number of reasons, but you cannot re-litigate a rape case, in a defamation case, and then try to relitigate it again during the penalty phase.

He is guilty of rape. That is a fact that a subsequent defamation case cannot change. He is guilty of defamation. That is a finding of fact that this jury cannot revisit now. Its only duty is to award damages based on criteria and evidence described as a function of this hearing consistent with the judges instructions. Appeals of verdicts, are for appelate courts to hear.

 

I vehemently and completely disagree.

Let me give you an example. Normally the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit (for money) is considered lower than in a criminal case.
But this is not always, or should not always be the case. We might find it acceptable to put a man in prison for 4 years based on an accusation. But is it fair or a good idea to order that man to pay money to a woman who accused him? Because now we are creating a big incentive for false accusations.

The meaning of a "determination" is incomplete unless we know exactly what purpose that determination was for.
(Unless the evidence was completely obvious and overwhelming, which is often not the case)

You seem to want to resort to lazy "piecemeal" logic. Where a decision was made, which presumes a fact, and you want to rely on that assumption of fact for another decision, or all decisions. This despite the fact not being known with certainty.

 

I would hardly call either requiring men to pay money or sending a man to prison, based entirely only on the accusation of a woman, a "determination".
Not in the normal sense of that word. Even if the legal system uses that terminology.

 

this comment suggests a lack of understanding of what the term guilty means. Trump has NEVER been CONVICTED of rape. the article you cited is behind a paywall

 

You are free to get into the specifics.

But, no. He was sued for his attacks on Carroll.

He doesn't get to do that, even if he thinks he was wrongly found guilty in a different case.

 

wrong-and btw that is actionable defamation to call someone a convicted rapist (a felon) when they are not

 

Of course, an individual should not be subject to defamation liability for accusing someone else of raping them, not unless evidence exists that there is an extremely high probability they are lying.

(Now of course normally in lawsuits, the plaintiff only has to show a preponderance of evidence that the defendant is lying, what is sometimes considered to be just over 50% probability, but for obvious reasons that should not be the case in defamation lawsuits involving direct personal witness accusations. Because then it would punish someone for speaking up as a personal witness making an accusation unless they had plenty of additional evidence to back them up, and women would be unable to tell the media that a particular man had raped them)

But likewise, an individual who publicly accuses another individual of lying when that individual publicly accuses them of rape should also not be subject to liability. Because to do so would be unbalanced and unfair, clearly setting a double standard. The person being accused was also a witness to the alleged rape (or rather its lack of existing) and so they should also be able to tell their account to the public and accuse the accuser.

There do not exist any specific laws about this, but this is just common sense. I would think it would be a common law understanding.
But in this specific clown case, they have thrown common sense out the window, come up with a novel theory of defamation liability, which of course is only going to get applied one way, against Trump, and not against his accuser. To make the injustice worse, even if Trump were successful in a defamation case against her, they would award her a lot more money from Trump than they would award from her to Trump, because Trump is rich while she does not have any assets.
The idea of "damages" in lawsuits were never originally intended to be about how wealthy the plaintiff is, but in progressive areas they are commonly using that as a prime factor to decide the damage amount, making it more about "punishment" and redistribution of wealth than just actual just compensation for real equivalent damages.

 

No. If there are disagreements, they may be tried in court.

They are NOT addressed by slander and bullying aimed at destroying a person's ability to continue their employment, and which results in death threats, etc.

Now, Trump gets to challenge those decisions (on sexual assault and personal attack) in court. THAT is how our system works.

Do you think the finding against Trump is large enough to cause him to STOP?

I don't, as he's already going with the personal attacks and slander AGAIN!

Carroll may have to sue him AGAIN.

 

And in what exact way do you think Trump used words to "destroy her ability at employment" or cause "death threats"?

Besides the obvious calling her a liar?

And has her employment even been harmed? Look at her occupation and the type of people in that field she works for. If anything she has probably garnered fame and publicity from being an accuser against Trump, something that has only helped her career.

I suspect those death threats would have continued nonetheless from any publicity about her accusing Trump, whether that publicity came from Trump or any other journalist.

Are Trump's personal attacks against her not true? And can you prove they are not true, any more than you can prove her personal attack against Trump is true?
(referring to the rape accusation, which she went very public with)

I'd say she has done more damage to Trump than the other way around.

 

I'm not going to walk you through this lawsuit. You can find the charges made.

Trump had a defense in both cases. Now, he can appeal.

If he starts his public assaults again, there may have to be another suit.

 

The issue is, most judges, and any jury pool from that area, would be likely to have extreme bias in any case against Trump. It could be hard to find impartial courts and jurors in the heart of New York City.

Not to mention the post- #MeToo movement and the inclination by so many progressives to want to automatically believe women, concerning accusations of sexual misconduct.

 

These things he did are just outrageously disgusting. You know that, right? And, conservatives know that, too. Just listen to what they say on the subject! And, the slander doesn't go over well, either.

The assault happened in Midtown Manhattan. Trump Tower is in Midtown East, Trump's business headquarters.

Where do YOU think it should be tried?

My suggestion is that he needs to TOTALLY rethink his misogyny. And, having HIM lead our country is the most unconscionable idea imaginable.

 

What "things" are you referring to, specifically?
If you refer to the alleged sexual assault, that is just circular logic on your part.
If you are referring to the things Trump said about her, such as calling her a liar, that is perfectly understandable (in my opinion) given what she said about him.

 

Don't take it from me - take it from the court records.

No, you are not allowed to cause damage to an individual by defamation of character, etc.

Yes, it's believable that Trump was upset. But, that is also NOT AN EXCUSE.

His options for response are primarily ones of appealing the decision - NOT ATTACKING HIS VICTIM.

 

His "victim" is a certifiable nut case. read her claims-she seems to have been raped or assaulted almost monthly since she hit puberty.

 

read that woman's article about all the bastards in her life or son's of bitches or whatever she calls the legion of men she claims have molested her, groped her, raped her, etc. it's not credible at all

 

Sorry. These are legal cases.

Hate spewed at Carroll is one of the problems, not a defense solution.

 

did you read that nutcase's article about all the men she hates?

 

Remember, this is a legal case.

You should be thinking about how Trump can defend himself on appeal.

And, you can't retry the case on appeal.

 

I couldn't care less. the real loser is the American court system

 

The link itself evidences the issue and problem. The judge says, "A judge has now clarified that this is basically a legal distinction without a real-world difference. He says that what the jury found Trump did was in fact rape, as commonly understood." This is flaming nonsense on stilts. And that was the JUDGE saying it!!!!
The Jury could have found that Trump "grabbed her by the pu$$y". That is NOT rape. It is a sexual assault if unwanted. Rape in New York is penetration with the penis.Carroll claims Trump put his penis inside of her. That is a far cry from stroking the outside of her privates through her clothes which may or may not have even happened. She claims she did not freeze, fought back, for some reason stayed quiet as a mouse as customers and attendants milled about the dressing room she was in and then didn't file a police report. Oh, and she cannot say for certainty whether this was 1995 or 1996.
In another forum we discussed that this story is metaphysically possible. A Jury should not be finding against anyone over anything that is only hypothetically, million to one, possible.