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

the garments she claims to have had on negates her claim that he boned her. That he might have grabbed her crotch or even given her a fingering is somewhat more believable other than the fact that as you noted it was in a dressing room in near proximity of dozens of other people and why she was acting comatose is hard to fathom. What is even more unbelievable is her life story of constantly being screwed blued and tattooed by dozens of men since she first hit puberty.

 

That you had to ask exposes your own bias. "The jurors were correctly informed that the rape is not in question."

The entire basis of a defense against this kind of case is that the defendant was correct, or at minimum believed he was correct in declaring the plaintiff a liar.

 

This is the kind of case we used to see in the south during the Jim Crow era.

A black man is arrested for something, charges filed, a jury empaneled and a trial is held.
The defendant is quickly found guilty and sentenced.
A later review of the case exposes prejudice and sketchy legal process that convicted an innocent man. And when queried, the (white male) jury inevitably says "Well we probably wouldn't have convicted the ni$$er if we'd known that".

Bias and prejudice cannot always be avoided. It is almost always evident if one looks objectively.

 

Surely you know that's not a valid comparison.

And, do not use the n word anymore. OK?

 

Point made then.
And if a word triggers you stay away from the news.
Lots of triggers there, eh?

 

To be totally fair, it could be very likely the jury never was told about all the previous men Carroll has accused in her life, due to New York's "Rape Shield" law.

(I cannot say for sure that happened in these specific civil cases, but I cannot find any news sources mentioning that the jury was told)

It's a stupid law that prevents the other side from bringing up a woman's past "sexual history", even when it could be very relevant.
(This can even include past rape allegations!)

You can read post #10 in this thread for a lot more information about that:
Disturbing new rules affecting allowable evidence in rape cases in Canada (Feb 25, 2023 )

Some judges have been known to hide behind these Rape Shield laws, to bar the introduction of evidence, even when theoretically the state's specific law might not prevent that evidence from being barred. An example of that happening in this story:
Man falsely accused of Rape (posted in Women's Rights section, Dec 14, 2022 )

A lot of the common public naively assume that the defense will always be permitted to tell the jury anything that could be helpful to their side of the case.

 

Yes. Your racism has no place in America.

 

Past acts by the victim are ABSOLUTELY NO excuse.

Where did you get this idea of yours?

 

Are you claiming that if a woman has a long history of accusing men of rape and sexual misconduct, that should not factor into a jury's decision at all about trying to decide whether she is telling the truth about a current accusation of sexual misconduct?

If so, please start another thread so we can discuss that. (You can leave the link here)

 

what we don't have a place for is throwing the race card without a valid reason. I see that a lot from the left

 

especially when the ONLY evidence is her claims and her veracity is a key issue? that she waited over a decade to make the allegation alone should doom it to having been thrown out of court

 

Should Trump's past financial sins that haven't even been adjudicated be used against him in trial of the current financial crimes he's charged with?

Of course not.

There are rules of evidence, in part because it would blow cases up to trying to adjudicate these past acts.

The large penalty concerned Trump's constant attacks on his victim. And, your argument clearly doesn't apply there, either.

 

It will be interesting to see his appeal of the sexual assault case.

 

yeah it will be. If I were the judge I would have granted a 12b6 motion to the defense

 

So, you have seen all the evidence in the rape case?

From a $$ perspective, the $83M is more significant, especially considering his and his party's financial situation.

A 12b6 won't work on that, as there is TONS of totally relevant and current evidence.

As it is a civil trial, he can't throw his lawyers under the bus.

So, what do you think he will try?

 

it wasn't a rape case -it was a claim for civil damages where the plaintiff had no evidence other than what she claimed happened at some point in a two year period over 20 years ago IIRC. the time alone combined with her failure to report it timely would be sound grounds to throw that nonsense out

 

Even if that happened, it wouldn't undermine the finding of $83M in damages in the other case.

 

The thing is, I think the reasoning you are using relies on circular logic. Yes, Trump's words about her would be disgusting, if her accusation were true.
But if her accusation were not actually true, then all his words about her would be perfectly justified.

As I have explained before, a court's "finding" or "determination" about facts is NOT the same thing as those facts being true.
For me to say unequivocally that Trump's words were wrong and disgusting, I would have to know with certainty that what the accuser said was actually true. Yet juries are willing to find people guilty or liable without certainty of the facts. I personally would be very reluctant to find people guilty for public words without a much higher burden of evidence. Higher than the minimum necessary to find someone guilty, and much higher than the amount of evidence juries need to find someone liable. And much much higher than the amount of evidence that was in this case.

Unlike you, I very much value free speech.
How do we know Trump's words are not justified?
And if you don't think Trump going public with attacks against Carroll are justified, what makes you think that Carroll going public with accusations against Trump were justified?

 

The outcome of the sexual assault case is not justification for assault. It is justification for APPEAL.

No, you don't get to attack someone like Trump did. And, I don't believe you have seen the evidence in that case.

Again, he can appeal.

Carroll has stayed within the legal boundaries.

 

Once again, demonstrates the Left's automatic willingness to trust government, and government officials.
Why question anything if government has decided what the truth is?

 

Unless she is lying.

But then again, just because something is made illegal in law doesn't mean it's not going to happen, or even that there is any way to stop it, or punish the transgressor. (That depends on the specifics of the situation)

But I really don't place the blame on Carroll. She's just a ditsy nobody. I place the blame on the New York judge for allowing this lawsuit to even proceed.

 

???

This isn't something new. It's how America works.

If someone sues you and you lose, you don't get to attack them.

Trump is not above the law.

 

Yes - Trump is appealing his loss in his sexual assault suit. That's what's supposed to happen if he thinks there were mistakes made.

The next part, the defamation case. I think he's going to have a tough time with that one.

And, you cheap shots at Carroll are disgusting, wrong, and don't go to forgiving Trump's assault.

 

I don't believe that's true.

As I told you before, you are invoking an equivocation fallacy, claiming that because a court "determined" something happened, that it means the court "knows" it happened and should also assume that thing happened when coming to a decision for a different purpose.

Obviously if the court is willing to convict or find someone liable due to just to an accusation by another person, in what is basically a "he said, she said" situation, which courts oftentimes are, then your reasoning would not correctly apply to that situation.

All rape victims who speak out to the public about having been raped by a specific man should be found financially liable to the man if the man claims he didn't do it, if we took your reasoning to its logical conclusion.

Or are you claiming that saying a man raped you is not as bad as what Trump said about her?

 

NO.

I said that our system of justice has a way to handle this. You may know that Trump appealed the sexual assault finding. If he has a basis for appeal, he SHOULD appeal. That's how it works.

The OTHER suit, the one that lost him $84M, is for defamation.

That defamation was going on for a long time, and really picked up when he lost the sexual assault suit.

That offense has been illegal in America even before we had a constitution.

Why are you still complaining about this? AGAIN, he can appeal.

One significantly interesting point is that the $84M penalty has him backing off on slandering Carroll!! And, that's what it was supposed to do.

It might slow him from attacking others like that, too!