Donald Trump ordered to pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million, will appeal verdict

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread had a large clean up done, about 3 pages worth. The topic is the NY trial. As a reminder:

​

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic​

Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

Stay on topic​

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah, he had many opportunities not to assault the woman, not to defame her, not to defame her again. He chose not to avoid wrong doing many times. God forbid he be in charge of America with judgement like that.

You don't really believe that story do you?

Raped in a changing room? At some high end fashion store?

Is there something about this changing room that makes that story more believable? Because we've all been in changing rooms. The idea of being raped in one without half the store hearing it is insane. I can hear people talking outside the changing rooms at the registers from inside a changing room....high end stores typically have attendants who will return clothes and offer suggestions and such. The idea this happened is insane...and there's few rapes you can say that about just from the women's story.

The law was passed that allowed this case to happen shortly after Trump left office. It's such a good law...it expires in 6 months. In that time E Jean Carroll didn't want to file charges...then was informed she would have her costs covered....by a Democratic billionaire donor.

Now we've learned that her lawyer knew the judge...possibly quite closely in a mentor/mentee relationship which wasn't disclosed.

Don't be surprised if it's all thrown out on appeal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I see there being a potential conflict, but calling it "incestuous" is worthy of a spit take.

Well it's a bit suspicious....

Considering the fact that this law appears to have been passed just to prosecute Trump.

Considering the fact that Democrats paid for her case.

Considering the evidence that was disproven like the date of the incident, the dress she was wearing, etc.

Then there's the idea that professing one's innocence amounts to "defamation" when you haven't been charged with a crime.

And now we have an undisclosed close personal relationship between a lawyer a judge....not quite as bad as the Fani Willis case, but just as likely to get the verdict thrown out.

 

[truthpls]

You don't really believe that story do you?

Raped in a changing room? At some high end fashion store?

Is there something about this changing room that makes that story more believable? Because we've all been in changing rooms. The idea of being raped in one without half the store hearing it is insane. I can hear people talking outside the changing rooms at the registers from inside a changing room....high end stores typically have attendants who will return clothes and offer suggestions and such. The idea this happened is insane...and there's few rapes you can say that about just from the women's story.

The law was passed that allowed this case to happen shortly after Trump left office. It's such a good law...it expires in 6 months. In that time E Jean Carroll didn't want to file charges...then was informed she would have her costs covered....by a Democratic billionaire donor.

Now we've learned that her lawyer knew the judge...possibly quite closely in a mentor/mentee relationship which wasn't disclosed.

Don't be surprised if it's all thrown out on appeal.

Interesting

 

[JustOneWay]

You don't really believe that story do you?

Raped in a changing room? At some high end fashion store?

Is there something about this changing room that makes that story more believable? Because we've all been in changing rooms. The idea of being raped in one without half the store hearing it is insane. I can hear people talking outside the changing rooms at the registers from inside a changing room....high end stores typically have attendants who will return clothes and offer suggestions and such. The idea this happened is insane...and there's few rapes you can say that about just from the women's story.

The law was passed that allowed this case to happen shortly after Trump left office. It's such a good law...it expires in 6 months. In that time E Jean Carroll didn't want to file charges...then was informed she would have her costs covered....by a Democratic billionaire donor.

Now we've learned that her lawyer knew the judge...possibly quite closely in a mentor/mentee relationship which wasn't disclosed.

Don't be surprised if it's all thrown out on appeal.

Irrelevant. This topic is about Carroll's second defamation suit against Trump. There was no discussion of rape in this trial. It was about Trump's ongoing defamation against Carroll

 

[Ana the Ist]

Interesting

Look...there aren't a lot of rape stories I outright dismiss....but that's one of them. Unless those changing rooms are in some underground basement or some other means that would prevent an entire store from hearing a rape....I don't think that happened.

Just picture yourself the last time you were in a changing room. You can hear kids running around and mothers chasing them, you can hear if someone tries to very quietly hang up a clothes hanger on a hook. You can hear people zipping up a hoodie three changing stalls down. The idea of a rape happening without 20 people nearby thinking "is someone being raped in there"?...is so ludicrous you need brain damage to believe it. We've all been in changing rooms, haven't we? Unless the store is somehow completely empty...which it wouldn't be in 1996....there just no way. It would be difficult to just prevent someone from escaping a changing room. The lock is a sliding bar....and anyone under 200lbs can typically go over the top or bottom of the room....they rarely extended completely to the top. It's not a believable story.

And I don't say that a lot. Last time I said it was about some 15yo European girl claiming she was raped....in the ocean. Not groped, not assaulted...but full on raped in the ocean. The culprit...some unknown 18-22yo boy she met. Now, anyone who has ever tried to have sex in water can tell you....it's an unpleasant and difficult experience for lots of reasons. Try it an a pool and you'll find issues mainly with...

1. Friction. Water isn't a lubricant....in fact, it washes them away.

2. Nothing to push off of...aka lack of mechanical force.

And that's in a pool...with a willing participant....without saltwater, without waves crashing into you. Did that rape happen? I'll put it this way....I'd assign someone to investigate but tell him if he doesn't have anything in 3 days, call it quits and move on.

For some odd reason, we keep learning women will make false allegations for a slew of really bad reasons (not that many are good) and we act like it's not common. It's common enough. There was a woman who drove to Florida from Oregon (I think) to cheat on her husband and afterwards, claimed she was raped because she didn't want to pay for an std test. Seriously. She was cool with ruining a man's life to save a couple of bucks.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Irrelevant. This topic is about Carroll's second defamation suit against Trump. There was no discussion of rape in this trial. It was about Trump's ongoing defamation against Carroll

The defamation was a denial of rape.

I don't see how that's irrelevant.

I understand some people are blinded by hatred and can't see the obvious.....


In some hypothetical time machine scenario where you and I are in Bloomingdale's at the alleged time....I'm putting every single dollar I have on us not watching Trump even go into the changing room with E jean Carroll...let alone a rape.

 

[Arcangl86]

Well it's a bit suspicious....

Considering the fact that this law appears to have been passed just to prosecute Trump.

Why does it appear that way when it lines up with a similar bill passed a couple of years before involving child sexual abuse. And the majority of claims filed under the Adult Survivors Act were against New York, something they could have easily barred in the act if the goal was really just to prosecute Trump. Not to mention the fact that this action started as simple defamation case and only invoked the ASA after it came into effect.

Considering the fact that Democrats paid for her case.

My understanding is that while she did get some funding support at some point during the case, she funded the first portion on her own.

Considering the evidence that was disproven like the date of the incident, the dress she was wearing, etc.

I haven't followed the case enough to be able to speak to this.

Then there's the idea that professing one's innocence amounts to "defamation" when you haven't been charged with a crime.

There's a difference between professing one's one innocence and accusing somebody of lying about something that has been found true as a matter of legal fact.

And now we have an undisclosed close personal relationship between a lawyer a judge

Close personal relationship? Are you kidding me? She was an associate in a law firm he was a partner at for 2 years, thirty years ago. That's teh only relationship being claimed. I couldn't even tell you the name of my supervisor from a job 10 years ago.

....not quite as bad as the Fani Willis case, but just as likely to get the verdict thrown out.

Here I agree. It is just as likely to get the verdict thrown out, as in not likely at all. Willis potentially violated ethics in the Trump case, but her hiring somebody for personal reasons doesn't effect the case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why does it appear that way when it lines up with a similar bill passed a couple of years before involving child sexual abuse.

You'll have to tell me what law you're referring to for comparison.

And the majority of claims filed under the Adult Survivors Act were against New York, something they could have easily barred in the act if the goal was really just to prosecute Trump.

How are those cases faring?

Not to mention the fact that this action started as simple defamation case and only invoked the ASA after it came into effect.

And she wasn't going to sue...till Democrats donated to her legal fees.

My understanding is that while she did get some funding support at some point during the case, she funded the first portion on her own.

Well my understanding is a Democratic donor billionaire who created LinkedIn funded the whole thing. If you have anything different...feel free to share. She did lie about the source of her funding at first if that's what you mean.

I haven't followed the case enough to be able to speak to this.

Ok.

There's a difference between professing one's one innocence and accusing somebody of lying about something that has been found true as a matter of legal fact.

You're going to have to look up the words "liable" and "true" in legal terms.

Close personal relationship? Are you kidding me? She was an associate in a law firm he was a partner at for 2 years, thirty years ago.

That's the claim put forth by a former associate of hers. The judge was like a mentor to her.

That's teh only relationship being claimed. I couldn't even tell you the name of my supervisor from a job 10 years ago.

Ok. Did any of them work as lawyers in a law firm?

Here I agree. It is just as likely to get the verdict thrown out, as in not likely at all. Willis potentially violated ethics in the Trump case, but her hiring somebody for personal reasons doesn't effect the case.

Goes to bias. Is it possible that the judge was biased towards a former associate he worked with in the past and didn't disclose? Yup.

Did Fani use the case to further her relationship with the prosecutor? He did file for divorce when he was hired. Is it possible that the case is motivated by the possibility of furthering a relationship with the prosecutor instead of its own merits? Of course, he did file for divorce the same day she hired him....

If the case has merit...it's going to need a start over under a new DA.

 

[truthpls]

Look...there aren't a lot of rape stories I outright dismiss....but that's one of them. Unless those changing rooms are in some underground basement or some other means that would prevent an entire store from hearing a rape....I don't think that happened.

Just picture yourself the last time you were in a changing room. You can hear kids running around and mothers chasing them, you can hear if someone tries to very quietly hang up a clothes hanger on a hook. You can hear people zipping up a hoodie three changing stalls down. The idea of a rape happening without 20 people nearby thinking "is someone being raped in there"?...is so ludicrous you need brain damage to believe it. We've all been in changing rooms, haven't we? Unless the store is somehow completely empty...which it wouldn't be in 1996....there just no way. It would be difficult to just prevent someone from escaping a changing room. The lock is a sliding bar....and anyone under 200lbs can typically go over the top or bottom of the room....they rarely extended completely to the top. It's not a believable story.

And I don't say that a lot. Last time I said it was about some 15yo European girl claiming she was raped....in the ocean. Not groped, not assaulted...but full on raped in the ocean. The culprit...some unknown 18-22yo boy she met. Now, anyone who has ever tried to have sex in water can tell you....it's an unpleasant and difficult experience for lots of reasons. Try it an a pool and you'll find issues mainly with...

1. Friction. Water isn't a lubricant....in fact, it washes them away.

2. Nothing to push off of...aka lack of mechanical force.

And that's in a pool...with a willing participant....without saltwater, without waves crashing into you. Did that rape happen? I'll put it this way....I'd assign someone to investigate but tell him if he doesn't have anything in 3 days, call it quits and move on.

For some odd reason, we keep learning women will make false allegations for a slew of really bad reasons (not that many are good) and we act like it's not common. It's common enough. There was a woman who drove to Florida from Oregon (I think) to cheat on her husband and afterwards, claimed she was raped because she didn't want to pay for an std test. Seriously. She was cool with ruining a man's life to save a couple of bucks.

I have issues with Trump, he seems kind of self centered. I heard one preacher say how Trump should have given more credit to his team rather then seemingly to himself so much. I also don't like the Israel support He seems to have had, because these days my opinion is that Israel is terrorizing Gaza. That being said, the dems all support abortion and a bunch of seemingly insane demonic policies so they are not even something I would consider as worthy of existing as a party. So when we see the political attacks using the courts on the frontrunner, (not to mention other opponents) how could we look at the cases too seriously? I see the regime in Washington as usurpers and warmongers and Satanic.

 

[Arcangl86]

You'll have to tell me what law you're referring to for comparison.

The New York Child Victim's act

How are those cases faring?

Couldn't tell you, but there are almost 1500 of them, so the chances of the State paying out huge are pretty good, and even if they somehow win every single case, defending that many will cost a fortune. There are also around 1300 other cases against private indivuals. Seems like a lot of fallout if the law was primarily meant to go after Trump.

And she wasn't going to sue...till Democrats donated to her legal fees.

Do you have anything to back that claim?

Well my understanding is a Democratic donor billionaire who created LinkedIn funded the whole thing. If you have anything different...feel free to share. She did lie about the source of her funding at first if that's what you mean.

My understanding is that Hoffman came in as a funder a year after the case was filed. Here is an article that talks about that a bit. Trump rape trial roiled by revelation that accuser got funding from LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman

You're going to have to look up the words "liable" and "true" in legal terms.

Nope. You can't be liable for something that didn't happen. The fact that Trump was found liable for the actions meant that it happened, at least as far as the law was concerned.

That's the claim put forth by a former associate of hers. The judge was like a mentor to her.

Which is part of the job of a partner in a law firm. He's probably mentored hundreds if not thousands of lawyers.

Ok. Did any of them work as lawyers in a law firm?

Why? Does working in a law firm make employees more likely to develop "close personal relationships' with executives?

Goes to bias. Is it possible that the judge was biased towards a former associate he worked with in the past and didn't disclose? Yup.

Sure it's possible. Anything is possible. But the standard isn't is bias possible, it's if bias was likely, and I think claiming that a short employment relationship decades is evidence of likely bias is a slim claim.

Did Fani use the case to further her relationship with the prosecutor? He did file for divorce when he was hired. Is it possible that the case is motivated by the possibility of furthering a relationship with the prosecutor instead of its own merits? Of course, he did file for divorce the same day she hired him....

A special grand jury investigated and recommended indictment of President Trump and a separate grand jury determined there was enough probable cause to do so. That would have been true regardless of who Willis hired as a special counsel. And she also hired two other attorneys as special counsels for the same case. Is it possible she threw a job at somebody who was unqualified because she had some sort of personal relationship with him? Yes. But your theory that she ginned up this case to hire him is a bit farfetched.

If the case has merit...it's going to need a start over under a new DA.

Why?

 

[ozso]

Well it's a bit suspicious....

Considering the fact that this law appears to have been passed just to prosecute Trump.

Considering the fact that Democrats paid for her case.

Considering the evidence that was disproven like the date of the incident, the dress she was wearing, etc.

Then there's the idea that professing one's innocence amounts to "defamation" when you haven't been charged with a crime.

And now we have an undisclosed close personal relationship between a lawyer a judge....not quite as bad as the Fani Willis case, but just as likely to get the verdict thrown out.

Fishy.

 

[A2SG]

You don't really believe that story do you?

Raped in a changing room? At some high end fashion store?

The jury heard the story directly from the people involved, and they believed it.

You only know the hearsay accounts, without the benefit of those giving the accounts being under oath.

Now we've learned that her lawyer knew the judge...possibly quite closely in a mentor/mentee relationship which wasn't disclosed.

They worked together for two years thirty years ago. Both have worked with a lot of other lawyers before and since. Hardly grounds for recusal.

But, I've no doubt Trump's team will try to appeal based on that. I doubt it will go anywhere, as I've yet to see any clear evidence of bias in the way the judge handled the case.

Don't be surprised if it's all thrown out on appeal.

I would be, frankly.

-- A2SG, not that the latest case was about the sexual assault anyway...it was just damages for defamation...which Trump demonstrably did. IN COURT, no less....

 

[Gene2memE]

Looks like Roberta Kaplan is firing back against Habba's claims about the supposed "close personal relationship" with Judge Lewis Kaplan. To the point where she may be seeking sanctions against Habba, and Habba has been forced to pen a very swift retreat from her positions. (Not that this is entirely unexpected. Habba has plenty of experience with court imposed sanctions due to her behaviour on behalf of Mr Trump).

It's a fairly blatant attempt to smear the verdict as tainted, by claiming a conflict of interest and bias in the system.

The only problem is, this is a conflict of interest in the same way that ice water is an iceberg.

They worked in the same large, legal firm. 30 years ago. For an overlap of 2 years. Roberta Kaplan says she has no recollection of ever having world with Lewis Kaplan. She maintains that the only time they have interacted was in the court room (for the Trump cases and one other).

This is all just a part of the standard Trump-world lawyer playbook though.

Look at the attempted smears of the judge and clerk in the New York fraud case, or in the prosecutors in the Federal and Georgia criminal cases. With vanishingly few arguments, and even fewer that have legal merits, team Trump pivots to go after the people involved.

 

[Vambram]

The best way to appeal this lawsuit will be on the grounds that the defense lawyers were refused by the judge to allow evidence from the defense team to be adequately heard and considered by the jury.
I am thinking that Trump should hire a better lawyer before the appeal is considered and judged in court.

 

[Belk]

The best way to appeal this lawsuit will be on the grounds that the defense lawyers were refused by the judge to allow evidence from the defense team to be adequately heard and considered by the jury.
I am thinking that Trump should hire a better lawyer before the appeal is considered and judged in court.

Yeah, it is weird. You would think that a billionaire ex president could get the very best legal representation. I wonder why he is forced to go lower tier lawyers?

 

[Gene2memE]

The best way to appeal this lawsuit will be on the grounds that the defense lawyers were refused by the judge to allow evidence from the defense team to be adequately heard and considered by the jury.

Given that the first trial, in front of a jury, already found him liable for sexual assault and defamation, I'm not sure that this would be the best way to appeal.

I am thinking that Trump should hire a better lawyer before the appeal is considered and judged in court.

Between the 2020 election cases and his personal civil and criminal cases, along with the continued attacks on the legal system in general, I'm thinking Trump has burned so many bridges - both personal and professional - that there aren't that many better lawyers available to him.

I also suspect this is something of a two-way street. Prestigious/high powered law firms don't typically have any tolerance for the sort of baseless filings and arguments Trumps more recent legal teams have been making.

And, Trump doesn't seem to want properly effective counsel. What he wants is someone who'll comply with his requests, allow him to grandstand and parrot political talking points to the media.

There's also the matter of Trump failing to pay his legal bills. The Giuliani bankruptcy disclosure has Trump owing somewhere in the region of $1-10 million to him. And he's far from the only lawyer Trump has stiffed/is attempting to stiff.

 

[Vambram]

Yeah, it is weird. You would think that a billionaire ex president could get the very best legal representation. I wonder why he is forced to go lower tier lawyers?

I would tell you the answer that Alan Dershowitz gave for that question. I remember his answer very well which he gave in an interview with Rich Valdes on Valdes' radio program "America at Night with Rich Valdes"
However, at this time because I am on a short break on my job I don't have the ability to find a web link for Alan Dershowitz's answer. Therefore, I cannot prove what his response was.

 

[Vambram]

Given that the first trial, in front of a jury, already found him liable for sexual assault and defamation, I'm not sure that this would be the best way to appeal.



Between the 2020 election cases and his personal civil and criminal cases, along with the continued attacks on the legal system in general, I'm thinking Trump has burned so many bridges - both personal and professional - that there aren't that many better lawyers available to him.

I also suspect this is something of a two-way street. Prestigious/high powered law firms don't typically have any tolerance for the sort of baseless filings and arguments Trumps more recent legal teams have been making.

And, Trump doesn't seem to want properly effective counsel. What he wants is someone who'll comply with his requests, allow him to grandstand and parrot political talking points to the media.

There's also the matter of Trump failing to pay his legal bills. The Giuliani bankruptcy disclosure has Trump owing somewhere in the region of $1-10 million to him. And he's far from the only lawyer Trump has stiffed/is attempting to stiff.

In a civil lawsuit, any jury has a MUCH lower standard on which to determine a verdict. Therefore, all of these various lawsuits against Trump and his allies don't provide substantial evidence for me of criminal conduct.
So far, the vast majority of Republicans voters agree with that conclusion according to the polling of Republicans voters.

 

[Bradskii]

I am thinking that Trump should hire a better lawyer before the appeal is considered and judged in court.

I'm pretty sure that a good lawyer would put not an inconsiderable amount of time into considering what sort of person they will be representing. That's why Trump ends up with the clowns that he has.