Donald Trump ordered to pay 83 million to his victim for defamation (stop editorializing titles)

[supermist]

https://www.npr.org/1226626397

 

[Glyptofane]

I wasn't going to support Trump anymore over shilling for covid vaxx and Israel and because voting is fake and gay, but because of these ridiculous cases against him, I probably will.

 

[CMDreamer]

:gets popcorn and sits on a couch:

Let the SHOW begin.

US politics are nothing more than show and gimmicks with new episodes now and then.

While a party has "the power", it attacks people inside their country.
When the other party has "the power", they attack people outside their country.

In both cases, citizens' taxes are wasted.

So, what we'll see in the next episode?

 

[supermist]

I'm not sure any citizen or political opponent made Trump sexually assault someone and then lie about it. That whole part is actually apolitical.

However given who the defendant is, this particular case can't not be somewhat political.

 

[Taleweaver]

Anyone want to gamble on how long it'll take before he continues to defame her?


I...admit at first I didn't really get why there had to be a second trial. He was trialed and judged by a jury, which totally invalids the whole "it's just a political witchhunt" bullshit. If he can't convince a bunch of random people that he didn't assault someone twenty years ago...why should we even doubt that it happened?



Look...I went into the first one with the same idea as the Kavanaugh case: it's been so long ago that it's pretty hard to convince anyone of the truth, let alone have evidence. Kavenaugh wasn't happy being targeted, but that's not any admission of anything (I know some didn't like me saying it, but they couldn't convince me otherwise).
Trump, on the other hand, did pretty much everything aside posting videos of him assaulting Caroll. Repeating he had no idea who she was despite being in literal pictures with him. Claiming she "wasn't his type", even though he confused her with his then-wife. Even a sort of rant that implied that people in power have the right to grab women by the pussy. If my sources (admitted: leftwing talking hosts) were correct, there were MAGA people in the jury. If it wasn't so absurd, I'd argue that he WANTED to get convicted. It certainly wasn't a surprise.

This whole "second trial" makes it sound like it's something that it isn't. It was already established that he assaulted Caroll. That was never a point of discussion. Or rather: it shouldn't. If only he kept his damn mouth shut (or his fingers from his truth social posts), this whole thing wouldn't have happened. If only he had behaved in court, I'm sure his penalty would be millions less than the...what is it? 83 freaking million dollars? But no...he just HAD to argue the same "I don't know that woman" bullshit. He just HAD to intimidate his victim yet again. He just HAD to walk out during closing arguments.
It's still absurd, but it's like he's playing a real version of the MAD game. Can he go bankrupt before the election even starts?

What's that? Oh, right...the Engoron case is also to reach conclusion this month. Lemme correct myself: can he go bankrupt before January even ends?

 

[Xzi]

While a party has "the power", it attacks people inside their country.

This was a civil defamation suit brought against him by a private individual. Neither the Democratic party nor the government had anything to do with it.

I can't imagine why anybody would be mad over a billionaire rapist finally facing consequences for his actions. Most of them aren't stupid enough to keep testing the limits by abusing and gaming the justice system for fifty plus years, so this is certainly a rarity. Might even be an infinite money glitch for Carroll if he keeps talking shit.

 

[Hanafuda]

This was a civil defamation suit brought against him by a private individual. Neither the Democratic party nor the government had anything to do with it.

Carroll's lawsuit was funded by billionaire founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman. He is also a major Democratic Party and leftist cause donor. So, technically you're correct the DNC and "government" had nothing to do with it, but a significant source of the DNC's money did. There's nothing legally "wrong" about a major DNC donor bankrolling Carroll's case, but it's probably fair to say the motivations there are a lot more about "getting" Trump, and less about poor Ms. Carroll.

 

[supermist]

Anyone want to gamble on how long it'll take before he continues to defame her?

He might have on the way out of the courtroom already

 

[Xzi]

Carroll's lawsuit was funded by billionaire founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman. He is also a major Democratic Party and leftist cause donor. So, technically you're correct the DNC and "government" had nothing to do with it, but a significant source of the DNC's money did. There's nothing legally "wrong" about a major DNC donor bankrolling Carroll's case, but it's probably fair to say the motivations there are a lot more about "getting" Trump, and less about poor Ms. Carroll.

We all know Carroll is far from the only person who Trump sexually abused/raped. Without his daddy's money to protect him, he would've been handed a life sentence long before running for president, and that's the only real injustice here. He was born one inch from the finish line, and only ever moved backwards from there. That doesn't make him a victim, it makes him a dipshit.

 

[Hanafuda]

We all know Carroll is far from the only person who Trump sexually abused/raped. Without his daddy's money to protect him, he would've been handed a life sentence long before running for president, and that's the only real injustice here. He was born one inch from the finish line, and only ever moved backwards from there. That doesn't make him a victim, it makes him a dipshit.

That's just a bunch of shit-flinging that has nothing to do with the post to which you were replying. When you try to make a point (claiming this lawsuit wasn't political, but just a defamation suit brought by a private individual) and someone has relevant commentary on your statement, you can either stick to the point, or divert the focus. You chose the latter.

 

[Xzi]

That's just a bunch of shit-flinging that has nothing to do with the post to which you were replying. When you try to make a point (claiming this lawsuit wasn't political, but just a defamation suit brought by a private individual) and someone has relevant commentary on your statement, you can either stick to the point, or divert the focus. You chose the latter.

Neither rape nor defamation are political by nature, that much is obvious. Attempting to muddy those waters is a means of playing into Donny's victim complex, and I've had more than my fill of that for one lifetime.

 

[RedColoredStars]

That's just a bunch of shit-flinging that has nothing to do with the post to which you were replying. When you try to make a point (claiming this lawsuit wasn't political, but just a defamation suit brought by a private individual) and someone has relevant commentary on your statement, you can either stick to the point, or divert the focus. You chose the latter.

Are you near MN? I'd like to meet up with you for covfefe and a..... talk?

 

[supermist]

He's also still the Republican front runner.

Given all this, it's means that anyone voting for him tolerates a rapist as president which is gross and reflects poorly on their moral character, or they believe the assault is false which reflects poorly on their intelligence.

 

[CMDreamer]

This was a civil defamation suit brought against him by a private individual. Neither the Democratic party nor the government had anything to do with it.

I can't imagine why anybody would be mad over a billionaire rapist finally facing consequences for his actions. Most of them aren't stupid enough to keep testing the limits by abusing and gaming the justice system for fifty plus years, so this is certainly a rarity. Might even be an infinite money glitch for Carroll if he keeps talking shit.

Well this being brought by a private individual, doesn't mean it won't be related to political reasons, that's how politics "work".

One party will take this into even more attention to disprove trumpet's elegibility to be a presidential candidate, and even then they won't succeed, because politics move not by the people's will, but by the money it brings into the game and trumpet has a lot to throw away.

On the other hand, trumpet's speech is and will be nothing more than crap being himself someone attacking precisely what he represents, a country of opprtunities for everyone, illegal or not. After all he's a business man and nothing more.

 

[Hanafuda]

.... or they believe the assault is false which reflects poorly on their intelligence.

Why is that? What concrete evidence did she present of the event, except for two of her Manhattan socialite friends (who are also vocal anti-Trumpers, i.e. bias) who said she told them about it. It's alleged to have happened almost 30 years ago, and she had no evidence of the specific date, or even any evidence that she'd ever met Trump.

Tara Reade has a much better supported sex assault case against Joe Biden (proof she had regular contact with him, records showing she told others about it at the time) but I don't believe her either, or maybe I should say I wouldn't vote "yes" if I were on a jury. The lapse of time in both cases should make them unsuitable for proof in a courtroom. There's no way a person gets a fair trial when the unverifiable distant past is used as "proof."

 

[Xzi]

Well this being brought by a private individual, doesn't mean it won't be related to political reasons, that's how politics "work".

If we're being pedantic about it, one could claim that everything is technically "related to" politics. Trump raped Carroll decades before he decided to turn himself into a political figure, however, and the defamation case came from his distaste for that previous ruling. He doesn't now get to pass the blame on to the entire Republican party, it was his own individual words and actions that put him in hot water.

One party will take this into even more attention to disprove trumpet's elegibility to be a presidential candidate, and even then they won't succeed, because politics move not by the people's will, but by the money it brings into the game and trumpet has a lot to throw away.

Sadly, rape is not listed as disqualifying for a candidate by the constitution. In a less sick society, it would be enough to disqualify him via public opinion, though.

After all he's a business man and nothing more.

Turns out his entire business empire was fraudulent, too. Wish I could say I was surprised.

 

[supermist]

Why is that? What concrete evidence did she present of the event, except for two of her Manhattan socialite friends (who are also vocal anti-Trumpers, i.e. bias) who said she told them about it. It's alleged to have happened almost 30 years ago, and she had no evidence of the specific date, or even any evidence that she'd ever met Trump.

Tara Reade has a much better supported sex assault case against Joe Biden (proof she had regular contact with him, records showing she told others about it at the time) but I don't believe her either, or maybe I should say I wouldn't vote "yes" if I were on a jury. The lapse of time in both cases should make them unsuitable for proof in a courtroom. There's no way a person gets a fair trial when the unverifiable distant past is used as "proof."

Ah, there's the damage control and whataboutism again.

 

[Hanafuda]

Ah, there's the damage control and whataboutism again.

Ok, so what was the verifiable evidence E. Jean Carroll presented that convinced you that it all happened just as she says?, i.e. what proved her case?

 

[supermist]

Ok, so what was the verifiable evidence E. Jean Carroll presented that convinced you that it all happened just as she says?, i.e. what proved her case?

You seem upset that a court has found Trump liable of rape. Makes you look bad for throwing support his way.

Do better.

 

[Hanafuda]

You seem upset that a court has found Trump liable of rape. Makes you look bad for throwing support his way.

Do better.

Just answer the question.