Trump defamation settlement (Ed.)

[denso13]

Criticising a convicted felon and rapist? I'd certainly hope so.

 

[blup]

Yep like calling him a “convicted felon and rapist.”

When you know it’s a lie. It’s funny, there must be so many despicable acts to criticise Trump for, without making up lies about him.

The fact is, in the civil case the jury did not make a finding of rape, but since the case was a libel hearing, the judge commented that it was in effect close enough to support a finding of truth in the allegation to defend the the defamation.

Trump hasn’t even been tried for rape, so he cannot be found guilty of rape no matter what any judge or forum idiot says.

The AB C fellow said he was found civilly liable by a jury which was wrong in a narrow sense, but conflicts with what the judge said on the substance of the allegation when assessing damages. All seemingly inconsistent to me, but AB C wanted to settle so it wont be tested on by a judge or on appeal, meanwhile the Donald is appealing the case against him, maybe he will win that too.

 

[opps]

Yep like calling him a “convicted felon and rapist.”

When you know it’s a lie. It’s funny, there must be so many despicable acts to criticise Trump for, without making up lies about him.

The fact is, in the civil case the jury did not make a finding of rape, but since the case was a libel hearing, the judge commented that it was in effect close enough to support a finding of truth in the allegation to defend the the defamation.

Trump hasn’t even been tried for rape, so he cannot be found guilty of rape no matter what any judge or forum idiot says.

The jury found him guilty of having sexually assaulted E Jean. They agreed that he had inserted part of his body into her. She was uncertain whether is was his finger or his mushroom. The judge clarified that the strict legal definition would have required Donnie to insert his mushroom. The judge went on to say that it was rape in the broader sense of the word.

Felon? He was found guilty in the hush money case, again by a jury. Perhaps you can argue that he isn't a convicted felon because the judge didn't pass sentence, but that is semantics. He is a felon.

Calling him either is not libel/slander or a lie. As previously mentioned the only thing that ABC got wrong was that they said the jury agreed rather than the judge.

 

[opps]

The AB C fellow said he was found civilly liable by a jury which was wrong in a narrow sense, but conflicts with what the judge said on the substance of the allegation when assessing damages. All seemingly inconsistent to me, but AB C wanted to settle so it wont be tested on by a judge or on appeal, meanwhile the Donald is appealing the case against him, maybe he will win that too.

One of Trump's attempts to overturn the first defamation case (May 2023) is that a witness (Jessica Leeds) recounted his having sexually assaulted her on a flight- Trump's defence are arguing that sexually assaulting a woman on the flight, at the time of the assault, was not a federal crime and that her testimony should be struck. What kind of defence is that? I abused a woman but it wasn't a specific crime at the time.

Trump has, on more than one occasion, said that that he is entitled to sexually assault women, i.e. he doesn't need to seek consent.

I honestly don't see him overturning the first ruling. That means he still owes her $5m from the first case and $83.5m from the second case.

 

[opps]

Probably pardon himself.

As @Gone Skiing has said, it is a civil case. Trump is only able to pardon himself in federal cases. The E Jean Carroll case is civil. The hush money case is a state level case, as is the loan fraud case. He cannot pardon himself in any of those cases

With interest charges- Trump owes over half a billion, and that doesn't include they stayed ruling in the hush money case.

 

[motorbiking]

For what ever reason, some like to run with the "convicted felon and rapist" tag. The fact remains, he's never been convicted of rape, found liable for rape or anything close to that. Nobody disputes the financial reporting convictions.

 

[opps]

For what ever reason, some like to run with the "convicted felon and rapist" tag. The fact remains, he's never been convicted of rape, found liable for rape or anything close to that. Nobody disputes the financial reporting convictions.

He was found liable of sexually abusing E Jean. Do you think it acceptable to stick a finger in a female without her granting consent?

If someone did that to your mum/aunt/sister/daughter, how would you react? Would you shrug and say, "well, they are famous so it is all good"?

 

[motorbiking]

He was found liable of sexually abusing E Jean. Do you think it acceptable to stick a finger in a female without her granting consent?

If someone did that to your mum/aunt/sister/daughter, how would you react? Would you shrug and say, "well, they are famous so it is all good"?

How would you feel if an ex accused you of rape etc. some 25 years after the fact?
How would you go about defending yourself? Do you think it would be possible for you to have a fair trial?

If you were a Juror sitting on a 25 year old Rape criminal allegation, would you feel that someone saying he did it and telling a friend or two was enough to secure a conviction?

How do you know there was no consent? Because she said so.... 25 years later!

 

[Notch7]

How would you feel if an ex accused you of rape etc. some 25 years after the fact?
How would you go about defending yourself? Do you think it was possibly for you to have a fair trial?

If you were a Juror sitting on a 25 year old Rape criminal allegation, would you feel that someone saying he did it and telling a friend or two was enough to secure a conviction?

How do you know there was not consent? Because she said so.... 25 years later!

Trump apologist.

 

[motorbiking]

Trump apologist.

don't be silly.

 

[jono_h]

How would you feel if an ex accused you of rape etc. some 25 years after the fact?
How would you go about defending yourself? Do you think it was possibly for you to have a fair trial?

If you were a Juror sitting on a 25 year old Rape criminal allegation, would you feel that someone saying he did it and telling a friend or two was enough to secure a conviction?

How do you know there was not consent? Because she said so.... 25 years later!

I’d be a little surprised as I hope that my attitude to women is considerably more respectful than Trump has shown his to be.
Well I’d have as much oppurtinity to give my side of the story to the Jury as the other party. And there’s a strict process for juror selection to ensure a fair trial.

I don’t know. But the jury in that case clearly did.

Exactly that. She gave her recollection of events and the jury believed that was the sequence of events.


It’s kind of how the justice system works. Two parties give their version of events to 12 of their peers, who pass judgement. Do you have a better system? Do you think 25 years is too late, and there should be a statute of limitations?

 

[motorbiking]

I’d be a little surprised as I hope that my attitude to women is considerably more respectful than Trump has shown his to be.
Well I’d have as much oppurtinity to give my side of the story to the Jury as the other party. And there’s a strict process for juror selection to ensure a fair trial.

I don’t know. But the jury in that case clearly did.

Exactly that. She gave her recollection of events and the jury believed that was the sequence of events.


It’s kind of how the justice system works. Two parties give their version of events to 12 of their peers, who pass judgement. Do you have a better system? Do you think 25 years is too late, and there should be a statute of limitations?

In the US there are time limits for such criminal prosecutions typically 10-20 years. Hence why for this case, he was never charged, tried, found guilty, or convicted of rape, battery, sexual assault or any similar criminal offence.

I'm not a fan of having civil courts rule on criminal matters. For the obvious reason that the burden of proof for criminal courts is beyond reasonable doubt and for civil courts its the balance of probability.

Your attitude to Women is largely irrelevant. Someone you had an encounter with 25 years ago, now sees that you've become a billionaire and a friend says, hey thats got to be worth a few quid.

I know of several cases of woman wrongly accusing people of rape, to get revenge for being dumped or simply attention. They are not all sugar and spice.

 

[denso13]

But the jury in that case clearly did.

And that's all that matters, for now.

 

[motorbiking]

You think the Jury gave a verdict on a Rape trial? Surely you're not that stupid.