Trump Sexual Abuse/Defamation Case

[Sonny Tufts]

The jury has found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Damages are around $5 million.

 

[acptulsa]

Thanks for the informative link...

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Thanks for the informative link...

There wasn't one when I posted, just TV coverage. But here are a couple:
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/donald-trump-rape-trial-jury-deliberations-verdict-tuesday
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-donald-trump-verdict-rape-trial/

 

[jmdrake]

There wasn't one when I posted, just TV coverage. But here are a couple:
https://www.fox5ny.com/news/donald-trump-rape-trial-jury-deliberations-verdict-tuesday
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/e-jean-carroll-lawsuit-donald-trump-verdict-rape-trial/

From the link:

Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, shook hands with Carroll and hugged her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. As the courtroom cleared, Carroll could be heard laughing and crying.​

Ummmm....okay. I usually shake the other lawyers hand at the conclusion of a case, not the opposing party. And I've never hugged the opposing lawyer. I've never seen that done before either. Odd.

 

[dannno]

Lol... so she got money for something that never even happened??

What is wrong with those jurors?

 

[Dr.3D]

From the link:

Trump’s lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, shook hands with Carroll and hugged her lawyer, Roberta Kaplan. As the courtroom cleared, Carroll could be heard laughing and crying.​

Ummmm....okay. I usually shake the other lawyers hand at the conclusion of a case, not the opposing party. And I've never hugged the opposing lawyer. I've never seen that done before either. Odd.

Money can make people do things they wouldn't normally do.

 

[dannno]

This is proof that no criminal trial for Trump can ever be held in NY and still be considered Constitutional. They will never be able to get an unbiased jury.

 

[69360]

It's Trump's fault he lost. He didn't take it seriously or appear. It was a very weak case. No physical evidence or eyewitnesses. A few biased witnesses. Basically a he said she said situation. This is probably the least of his legal troubles though.

 

[jmdrake]

It's Trump's fault he lost. He didn't take it seriously or appear. It was a very weak case. No physical evidence or eyewitnesses. A few biased witnesses. Basically a he said she said situation. This is probably the least of his legal troubles though.

His public statements that he never met the woman coupled with the fact that he later mis-identified her as his ex wife (undermining his "She's not my type" defense) made him a poor witness in his own defense. Frankly he should have settled like Bill Clinton did.

 

[PAF]

It's Trump's fault he lost. He didn't take it seriously or appear. It was a very weak case. No physical evidence or eyewitnesses. A few biased witnesses. Basically a he said she said situation. This is probably the least of his legal troubles though.

Oh, no worries, his "republican" base are fired up now and will do everything they can to get him back into office.

Distractions. Over and over again. People never learn. Even +$8 Trillion in a single term later.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Lol... so she got money for something that never even happened??

What is wrong with those jurors?

When the defense calls no witnesses it's much easier for a jury to find for the plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[dannno]

When the defense calls no witnesses it's much easier for a jury to find for the plaintiff by a preponderance of the evidence.

How can there be any witnesses to something that didn't happen almost 30 years ago?

You aren't very smart for being a lawyer..

 

[dannno]

It's Trump's fault he lost. He didn't take it seriously or appear. It was a very weak case. No physical evidence or eyewitnesses. A few biased witnesses. Basically a he said she said situation. This is probably the least of his legal troubles though.

Blaming the victim...

 

[Sonny Tufts]

How can there be any witnesses to something that didn't happen almost 30 years ago?

You aren't very smart for being a lawyer..

I'm smart enough to know that it's not a good idea to fail to put on a defense. Given that Trump didn't appear in court to rebut the plaintiff's story, its pretty obvious that the jury believed Carroll's testimony regarding sexual abuse and disbelieved Trump's deposition testimony, especially when he mistook Carroll for his ex-wife after claiming that Carroll wasn't his type. The grab-'em-by-the-pussy tape didn't help Trump either.

I'd be interested in knowing whether Trump's attorneys advised him to testify and he refused or whether they advised him not to testify, figuring that on the basis of his deposition he was a loose cannon and would make a bad witness. Maybe they were as arrogant as Trump and figured they'd be able to easily discredit Carroll on cross-examination.

 

[dannno]

I'm smart enough to know that it's not a good idea to fail to put on a defense. Given that Trump didn't appear in court to rebut the plaintiff's story, its pretty obvious that the jury believed Carroll's testimony regarding sexual abuse and disbelieved Trump's deposition testimony, especially when he mistook Carroll for his ex-wife after claiming that Carroll wasn't his type. The grab-'em-by-the-pussy tape didn't help Trump either.

I'd be interested in knowing whether Trump's attorneys advised him to testify and he refused or whether they advised him not to testify, figuring that on the basis of his deposition he was a loose cannon and would make a bad witness. Maybe they were as arrogant as Trump and figured they'd be able to easily discredit Carroll on cross-examination.

That wasn't the only time Trump couldn't see the evidence, they were giving him small blurry images on purpose to confuse him.

Any time a rich/wealthy person is accused of something like this and the person is seeking monetary damages, there should be a VERY high standard for whether the events actually took place. It is very common for people to make up stories about wealthy people and seek money in a lawsuit.

The jurors are either really dumb, or just want to get back at Trump for something the media told them about him, which also never happened.

 

[jmdrake]

How can there be any witnesses to something that didn't happen almost 30 years ago?

You aren't very smart for being a lawyer..

Trump said it didn't happen. She said it did. Trump got caught lying twice in depositions. The smart lawyer just won 5 million for her client.

 

[jmdrake]

That wasn't the only time Trump couldn't see the evidence, they were giving him small blurry images on purpose to confuse him.

Then it was Trump's lawyer's job to catch that and object. Did Trump pay his own attorney? He has a reputation for not doing that.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-sue-didnt-pay-lawyers-author-new-claims-1460828

Any time a rich/wealthy person is accused of something like this and the person is seeking monetary damages, there should be a VERY high standard for whether the events actually took place. It is very common for people to make up stories about wealthy people and seek money in a lawsuit.

The jurors are either really dumb, or just want to get back at Trump for something the media told them about him, which also never happened.

So tilt the scale of justice either further to the rich? Ummmm.....okay. Trump had enough money to pay for a lawyer to object to the pictures you say are blurry. (I haven't seen them so I'll take your word for it.) With 5 million at stake he could have afforded to pay $100,000 for a competent defense if in fact his defense was incompetent. Trump lied about never having met the victim (photographic evidence of that), and frankly back in the day she was as hot as his ex wife Marla Maples. The jury did him a favor by not finding him liable for rape and only finding him liable for sexual assault. He is the "grab em by the pussy" guy. The jury didn't believe that the victim got raped in a department store without anyone hearing. But a groping? Yeah, that could have happened.

Edit: Also remember there was a defamation part to this case. Trump said he never even met the woman and got caught in a lie. Most of the 5 million dollar judgment was probably for the defamation.

 

[acptulsa]

Blaming the victim...

That's how they want you to think.

Whatever you do, don't think back to 2016, and all the talk we heard about the best people, the best deals, and how nobody can fool with America with Trump in charge because he's too smart and fights too hard...

And whatever you do, don't for a second think about just whose rook this 3D chess move is designed to capture.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It was a "he said, she said" case - and if I understand correctly, the "he" side didn't even bother putting on much of a defense beyond "he didn't do it". So of course the "she" side won.

What else could reasonably have been expected?

 

[AngryCanadian]

They are trying to do everything to make sure Trump is never given the opportunity to run for the White House ever again.