Trump back in court...again

[Bradskii]

Yeah, I'm losing track as well. This one is the defamation case against the woman he sexually assaulted - E. Jean Carroll. The defamation portion of the original case was held over as Trump was president, but is now due to be heard on Tuesday. From here: E. Jean Carroll is taking Trump to trial over defamation and sexual abuse. Again. Wait, what?

'US District Judge Lewis Kaplan...ruled that Trump doesn't get a re-do on Carroll's sexual abuse claims. Trump defamed Carroll, he ruled, and the jury's job is only to decide how much Trump owes in damages for the statements he made defaming Carroll while in the White House.

Carroll added additional claims to her lawsuit, too. After Trump lost the first trial, he called the case "rigged" and disparaged Carroll as a "whack job." Carroll's lawyers slapped additional defamation allegations into her lawsuit for those statements.'

And guess who she's bringing in as an expert witness to assess damages...Ashlee Humphries, who testified in the first trial. Hey, that name rings a bell...yep, you may remember her from another recent defamation case where she was an expert witness for damages in the defamation case against Giuliani. And he was pinged for...wait for it...$148 million.

Apparently this is only going to last a couple of days. There's nothing to decide except the dollar figure.

 

[Laodicean60]

Trump

I bet this old dude is getting worn out. I get worn out here. lol, But the law prevails.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Yeah, I'm losing track as well. This one is the defamation case against the woman he sexually assaulted - E. Jean Carroll. The defamation portion of the original case was held over as Trump was president, but is now due to be heard on Tuesday. From here: E. Jean Carroll is taking Trump to trial over defamation and sexual abuse. Again. Wait, what?

'US District Judge Lewis Kaplan...ruled that Trump doesn't get a re-do on Carroll's sexual abuse claims. Trump defamed Carroll, he ruled, and the jury's job is only to decide how much Trump owes in damages for the statements he made defaming Carroll while in the White House.

Carroll added additional claims to her lawsuit, too. After Trump lost the first trial, he called the case "rigged" and disparaged Carroll as a "whack job." Carroll's lawyers slapped additional defamation allegations into her lawsuit for those statements.'

And guess who she's bringing in as an expert witness to assess damages...Ashlee Humphries, who testified in the first trial. Hey, that name rings a bell...yep, you may remember her from another recent defamation case where she was an expert witness for damages in the defamation case against Giuliani. And he was pinged for...wait for it...$148 million.

Apparently this is only going to last a couple of days. There's nothing to decide except the dollar figure.

Right. The judge didn't even let the jury hear the case. Interesting.

He was never charged with rape, nor did the jury say he committed rape. Yet apparently he lacks the First Amendment right to say he did not rape her. Sexual abuse is not rape.

I was fondled on the knee when I was 11 by a creepy man in the theater. I just moved to another row and wondered what was wrong with that creeper. I was not raped, thank God.

This will be appealed. But he's being tied up instead of being free to campaign, so mission accomplished in the short term.

 

[Bradskii]

Right. The judge didn't even let the jury hear the case. Interesting.

He did. They found in Carroll's favour. This matter is only to determine damages.

He was never charged with rape, nor did the jury say he committed rape. Yet apparently he lacks the First Amendment right to say he did not rape her. Sexual abuse is not rape.

From here: As Trump Continues to Insult E. Jean Carroll, 2nd Defamation Trial Opens

'Still, Mr. Trump continues to attack her relentlessly, repeating that he had never met Ms. Carroll and denying that he assaulted her. Minutes after the verdict last year, he began to issue a stream of blistering posts on his Truth Social website, and later he went on CNN, where he called Ms. Carroll a “wack job” and said the trial was “a rigged deal.”

If a jury of your peers has decided that you sexually assaulted a woman then you are going to get into trouble if you keep on defaming her. You can appeal the verdict regarding defamation if you like. And Trump has. Twice. And been tuned down twice.

But the guy simply won't shut up. Which won't help at all when it comes to deciding punitive damages.

But he's being tied up instead of being free to campaign, so mission accomplished in the short term.

He doesn't need to be in court. And the matter is going to be over in a day or so. Stay tuned for the result. And Trump's comments after it.

 

[Gene2memE]

Right. The judge didn't even let the jury hear the case. Interesting.

He was never charged with rape, nor did the jury say he committed rape.

The judge *did* say it. From The Washington Post, quoting the judge's ruling:

“The finding that Ms. Carroll failed to prove that she was ‘raped’ within the meaning of the New York Penal Law does not mean that she failed to prove that Mr. Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape,’ ” Kaplan wrote.​

​

He added: “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”​

​

Kaplan said New York’s legal definition of “rape” is “far narrower” than the word is understood in “common modern parlance.”​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

Yet apparently he lacks the First Amendment right to say he did not rape her. Sexual abuse is not rape.

Quoting the judge again:

"Instead, the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump deliberately and forcibly [probably can't quote that part on this forum] with his fingers .... Mr. Trump’s argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury’s verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New York Penal Law definition of “rape” to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump."

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045/gov.uscourts.nysd.590045.212.0.pdf

I was fondled on the knee when I was 11 by a creepy man in the theater. I just moved to another row and wondered what was wrong with that creeper. I was not raped, thank God.

There's a yawning, qualitative difference between being "fondled on the knee" by a creepy man and unwanted, deliberate and forceful digital penetration of a woman's private areas.

This will be appealed.

As is his want. But, he's been found guilty twice, so I don't think that an appeal is going to change much.

But he's being tied up instead of being free to campaign, so mission accomplished in the short term.

It's a civil trial, so Trump doesn't even need to appear. At all. It also started WELL before Trump declared he was running for a second term, so there's no political games going on here.

Trump was found by a jury of his peers to have sexually assaulted a woman, by using his fingers to penetrate her, and then lied about it and defamed (repeatedly) the victim.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Right. The judge didn't even let the jury hear the case. Interesting.

They are hearing the case on the matter of damages. Jury selection starts tomorrow. The judge has found that the facts of the case are substantially similar to the facts already found in a similar case. As a matter of law, a jury can't rule contrary to the previous case. See section "II" of this article:

The E. Jean Carroll I Case: Explaining Trump’s Second Civil Defamation Trial

He was never charged with rape, nor did the jury say he committed rape. Yet apparently he lacks the First Amendment right to say he did not rape her. Sexual abuse is not rape.

The actions the previous case found Trump did are covered under "rape" in most states, but NY's criteria are tighter and the jury did not find that was proven.

I was fondled on the knee when I was 11 by a creepy man in the theater. I just moved to another row and wondered what was wrong with that creeper. I was not raped, thank God.

This will be appealed.

He can try to appeal, but if there is no basis the appeals court will reject it. Trump has already appealed (and lost) several aspects of this case. (It was actually filed first and concerns earlier defamatory behavior than the previously completed trial, but Trump claimed he was free to defame since he was president. The court disagreed.)

But he's being tied up instead of being free to campaign, so mission accomplished in the short term.

The case was brought by the woman he assaulted and defamed while he was still president. It's purpose was unrelated to the 2024 campaign.

 

[Bradskii]

...but Trump claimed he was free to defame since he was president.

He's used this excuse on at least a couple of occasions. This is the way it pans out:

'We're charging you with X'
'But I was allowed to do it because I was president'.
'That's not a valid excuse.'
'Oh. In that case I didn't do it'.

How is this not a schoolyard level argument?

'You'll be punished for breaking the window?'
'But Jimmy said I could'.
'No he didn't'.
'Oh. In that case I didn't break it'.

 

[Mayzoo]

Yet apparently he lacks the First Amendment right to say he did not rape her. Sexual abuse is not rape.

Trump may declare his innocence for as long he wishes.

"I am innocent of all charges" is acceptable 1st Amendment speech.

"She is a lying, whack job" is defamation.

 

[Pommer]

[Fine points axed]


The case was brought by the woman he assaulted and defamed while he was still president. It's purpose was unrelated to the 2024 campaign.

Good thing that Clinton wasn’t allowed to shirk the Paula Jones case in 1997.
He was in his second term, (with nothing to lose), but a sitting President can be compelled to Court to defend a lawsuit.
Being President≠above the law; the office sits outside of our Laws, but not the holder.

 

[wing2000]

Trump simply can't keep his defaming mouth shut. And in the case of Jean Carroll, he'll pay for it.....again.

 

[Pommer]

He's used this excuse on at least a couple of occasions. This is the way it pans out:

'We're charging you with X'
'But I was allowed to do it because I was president'.
'That's not a valid excuse.'
'Oh. In that case I didn't do it'.

How is this not a schoolyard level argument?

'You'll be punished for breaking the window?'
'But Jimmy said I could'.
'No he didn't'.
'Oh. In that case I didn't break it'.

If you’ve found a “way“ that works, why would you abandon it?

To one side it’s a shame that Trump “gets away” with things; to the other it’s
“‘What’s-the-big-deal’? More persecution for Donald Trump! They hate him!“

 

[Pommer]

Trump simply can't keep his defaming mouth shut. And in the case of Jean Carroll, he'll pay for it.....again.

If you’re rich enough there’s no such thing as “defamation“; it’ll cost ya, but one can say anything until one runs outta ca$h

 

[Bradskii]

If you’re rich enough there’s no such thing as “defamation“; it’ll cost ya, but one can say anything until one runs outta ca$h

Well I doubt if he'll be declaring bankruptcy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Trump simply can't keep his defaming mouth shut. And in the case of Jean Carroll, he'll pay for it.....again.

As I recall, he managed to repeat the demonstrated defamatory statements the same day as the verdict in the first case (called Carroll II by the court) which could have lead to *another* defamation suit. Giuliani had the same problem, right after the jury issued their award he went outside the court and repeated the defamation. The plaintiffs went and file another suit against Rudy the next day seeking a gag order.

 

[A2SG]

As I recall, he managed to repeat the demonstrated defamatory statements the same day as the verdict in the first case (called Carroll II by the court) which could have lead to *another* defamation suit. Giuliani had the same problem, right after the jury issued their award he went outside the court and repeated the defamation. The plaintiffs went and file another suit against Rudy the next day seeking a gag order.

Seems Rudy is following Trump's lead: when you're guilty, keep on doing it and claim you're being persecuted.

-- A2SG, that's the way to Make America Great Again, I guess....

 

[loveofourlord]

Seems Rudy is following Trump's lead: when you're guilty, keep on doing it and claim you're being persecuted.

-- A2SG, that's the way to Make America Great Again, I guess....

they both seem to be using the alex jones strategy of angering the jury during the case. 22 times DURING jury selection trump defamed e-jean carol, today he's been chastised for defaming her during her examination in the trial.

Because best way to help you win a case, or maybe not lose a billion dollars is to do the very thing your acused of doign DURING YOUR TRIAL for it.

 

[wing2000]

This afternoon....

In Manhattan federal court, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan warned Donald Trump that he could be thrown out of the courtroom if he didn’t stop making comments. Lawyers for E. Jean Carroll said that during her testimony, Trump said “Witch hunt” and “It was a con job” loud enough for the jury to hear. “Mr. Trump has a right to be present here,” Judge Kaplan said. “That right can be forfeited, and it can be forfeited if he is disruptive, which is what has been reported me, and if he disregards court orders.”

Judge Kaplan then directly addressed the former president. “Mr. Trump, I hope I don’t have to consider excluding you from the trial.” Trump threw up his hands and said, “I would love it.” Kaplan replied: “I understand you’re probably very eager for me to do that because you just can’t control yourself.”

Election 2024: Update from Maria Cramer

www.nytimes.com

 

[Bradskii]

they both seem to be using the alex jones strategy of angering the jury during the case. 22 times DURING jury selection trump defamed e-jean carol, today he's been chastised for defaming her during her examination in the trial.

Because best way to help you win a case, or maybe not lose a billion dollars is to do the very thing your acused of doign DURING YOUR TRIAL for it.

From here: E Jean Carroll testimony in defamation trial prompts Trump’s outbursts in court

'Before court resumed after the break, Judge Lewis Kaplan cautioned: “I’m just going to ask Mr Trump to take special care to keep his voice down when conferring with counsel, so that the jury does not over-hear.”

Trump did not heed Kaplan’s instruction and, before the lunch break, Crowley brought up his comments again.

“The defendant has been making statements again [that] we can hear at counsel table,” Crowley said.'

“He said it is a ‘witch-hunt,’ it really is a con-job.”

Crowley said:

“And while he was sitting there, he posted more defamatory statements, more lies about Ms Carroll and this case. By our count, by our last count, 22 posts, just today,” she said. “Think about that. Think about that when you consider how much money it will take to get him to stop.

“At the end of this trial, it will be your job to decide how much money Donald Trump should pay for what he’s done to Ms Carroll, and how much money he should pay, it will take, to get him to stop defaming her, so that Ms Carroll can maybe, finally, live her life in peace,” Crowley said.

“We submit that that number should be significant. Very significant. Donald Trump, after all, is a self-proclaimed billionaire.”

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Trump may declare his innocence for as long he wishes.

"I am innocent of all charges" is acceptable 1st Amendment speech.

"She is a lying, whack job" is defamation.

He definitely does not word things well. But did she lie? We don't know. She can't remember the incident, the date, anything. But she is sure it happened in a public store.

 

[A2SG]

He definitely does not word things well. But did she lie? We don't know. She can't remember the incident, the date, anything. But she is sure it happened in a public store.

The jury was convinced it happened. They found Trump guilty of sexual assault and defamation.

-- A2SG, and they actually heard the evidence from both sides....