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

[Xzi]

Every lawyer worth their salt is staying as far away from him as possible. He's a sinking ship from a legal standpoint. Oh, and this video as well:

Pretty sure the primary reason he hired Alina Habba is as a stand-in for his wife, who hasn't been seen with him since he lost the 2020 election. Dumb as a bag of rocks that one, and if she isn't taking payment up front, even dumber than that.

 

[tabzer]

A lot of people accusing Trump of rape here.

 

[elk1007]

I haven't really followed this case.
Could someone explain what evidence there is that Donald Trump raped this woman (either by genital or digital penetration)?
From what I can gather, it's just her word against his.

Did Trump admit some level of sexual assault?
Was there video evidence?
Some type of rape kit evidence?

I'm not looking for a political debate here, but instead facts and evidence that were presented during the case.

 

[AdenTheThird]

I haven't really followed this case.
Could someone explain what evidence there is that Donald Trump raped this woman (either by genital or digital penetration)?
From what I can gather, it's just her word against his.

Did Trump admit some level of sexual assault?
Was there video evidence?
Some type of rape kit evidence?

I'm not looking for a political debate here, but instead facts and evidence that were presented during the case.

There wasn't very much hard evidence.
The first case didn't rule that Trump raped her, but did rule that he likely did (paraphrasing) at least to some degree.

The more relevant issue is the defamation that Carroll suffered at the hands of Trump, who vocally denied and spun around the accusations. There is evidence for that, and that was a big part of Carroll's case.

Now, was that defamation worth $83 million? That's up for debate. But there is observable data that Carroll suffered defamation following Trump's remarks.

 

[elk1007]

There wasn't very much hard evidence.
The first case didn't rule that Trump raped her, but did rule that he likely did (paraphrasing) at least to some degree.

The more relevant issue is the defamation that Carroll suffered at the hands of Trump, who vocally denied and spun around the accusations. There is evidence for that, and that was a big part of Carroll's case.

Now, was that defamation worth $83 million? That's up for debate. But there is observable data that Carroll suffered defamation following Trump's remarks.

Thanks for the reply.

Could you please explain more about the defamation aspect?
If someone accused me of something that I claim didn't happen, is it defamation to call them a liar?
Did Trump claim she did something other than lie about the assault taking place?

I must be missing something here.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Thanks for the reply.

Could you please explain more about the defamation aspect?
If someone accused me of something that I claim didn't happen, is it defamation to call them a liar?
Did Trump claim she did something other than lie about the assault taking place?

I must be missing something here.

Sure.
In the first trial (which was filed for both sexual assault and defamation after Trump gallantly denied Carroll's claims to an enormous audience), Trump was not convicted of rape, but he WAS found liable for sexual assault. Basically, they can't prove it, but it's likely enough to assume and take action as if it happened. Trump was found liable for $5 million. This was in 2019.

After this trial closed, Trump went on to bash Carroll and deny what now was legally established. However, since he was President when doing so, he remained immune from having legal action taken against him. When the Adult Survivors Act was passed in 2022, Carroll again sued Trump for the statements made during (and after) his presidency now that he no longer had the curtain of presidential immunity to hide behind. This is the trial that just concluded. Carroll had legal grounds to sue Trump because of the previous trial's precedent.
Additionally, Trump didn't make things any easier for himself by boasting about his immunity from prosecution (even after it was shattered). That flaunting, like in so many of Trump's other cases, gave the public reason to believe that he was abusing the powers of the Presidency; that view is still held by many people today.

Views on the verdict and scope of Trump's penalty differ. However, it's generally accepted from a legal standpoint that Carroll had good reason to sue Trump.

 

[elk1007]

Sure.
In the first trial (which was filed for both sexual assault and defamation after Trump gallantly denied Carroll's claims to an enormous audience), Trump was not convicted of rape, but he WAS found liable for sexual assault. Basically, they can't prove it, but it's likely enough to assume and take action as if it happened. Trump was found liable for $5 million. This was in 2019.

After this trial closed, Trump went on to bash Carroll and deny what now was legally established. However, since he was President when doing so, he remained immune from having legal action taken against him. When the Adult Survivors Act was passed in 2022, Carroll again sued Trump for the statements made during (and after) his presidency now that he no longer had the curtain of presidential immunity to hide behind. This is the trial that just concluded. Carroll had legal grounds to sue Trump because of the previous trial's precedent.
Additionally, Trump didn't make things any easier for himself by boasting about his immunity from prosecution (even after it was shattered). That flaunting, like in so many of Trump's other cases, gave the public reason to believe that he was abusing the powers of the Presidency; that view is still held by many people today.

Views on the verdict and scope of Trump's penalty differ. However, it's generally accepted from a legal standpoint that Carroll had good reason to sue Trump.

Reading into this more, I see there is no evidence whatsoever that the sexual assault occurred.
Trump claims he doesn't know her at all.

The only support for her story are two friends she allegedly told about the incident.
Any one of us could make up a lie and get a friend to lie with us; especially for millions of dollars and clout.

If this happened to me I'd be "defaming" this woman too because it's unfounded and deeply insulting.
The assault being legally establish does not mean it actually occurred and could be overturned by a later ruling.

“I don’t want to be insulting, but when people accuse me of something, I think I have a right to be insulting because they’re insulting me. They’re doing the ultimate insult, they make up stories and then I’m not allowed to speak my mind? No. I disagree with that."

 

[Xzi]

Reading into this more, I see there is no evidence whatsoever that the sexual assault occurred.

Your opinion is of no consequence given that a jury found him legally liable for rape. It's not possible to win such a case with zero evidence.

The assault being legally establish does not mean it actually occurred and could be overturned by a later ruling.

His appeal was unsuccessful, meaning it cannot be overturned now.

 

[supermist]

If this happened to me I'd be "defaming" this woman too because it's unfounded and deeply insulting.

It wouldn't happen to most people because most people do not behave like Donald Trump.

Most people do not find themselves in these situations.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Reading into this more, I see there is no evidence whatsoever that the sexual assault occurred.
Trump claims he doesn't know her at all.

Sure. Keep in mind I'm not arguing one way or the other; in my previous post I was only aiming to clarify.

Keep in mind that Caroll's testimony would have been meticulously scrutinized before admission as well, and Trump has a history of womanizing/sexism as well as sexual assault allegations. This, in addition to his unwillingness to take any responsibility or ownership for anything he has to do with (still claiming that the 2020 election was stolen, demonizing political rivals, etc etc) makes it harder to believe him in a situation like this. Again; I'm not arguing either side here, but aiming to present both sides in a fair light. It is true that there is no tangible proof of rape in this case.
Without analyzing what both sides had to present at the trial, it's difficult to make any further assessments in good faith.

The assault being legally establish does not mean it actually occurred and could be overturned by a later ruling.

This is also true, and I apologize if I implied otherwise. Strictly speaking, Carroll had grounds to sue Trump because of the case. That doesn't mean that the case won't be overturned (although that doesn't seem likely given how things played out). I was speaking strictly from a standpoint of how legal precedent works, outside of the specifics of the case.

Ultimately this is a challenging issue to discuss because neither side can solidify themselves as truthful. Could Caroll have orchestrated this entire thing? Sure. It's unlikely, given how much planning and cross-referencing she'd have to have done with her friends to emerge victorious, but sure. A large part of the case would have been her word against Trump's, and Trump's word is worth pretty much nothing at this point, since lying is second nature to him. In that regard, Carroll would have had the upper hand. Whether she had that in mind from the beginning isn't for me to say.

 

[supermist]

Worth noting that Trump lied over 30k times during his presidency:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/donald-trump-thirty-thousand-lies/

And worth mentioning that given his rabid fanbase, Carroll did put herself in a risky position given who victimized her.

 

[Xzi]

And worth mentioning that given his rabid fanbase, Carroll did put herself in a risky position given who victimized her.

The judge recommended that jurors never disclose they were part of the trial. Which is a warning usually reserved for trials involving mob bosses or drug lords. MAGA is a terrorist cult.

 

[supermist]

And so we're clear the judge is using the save verbiage:

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...e-clear-trump-really-did-rape-e-jean-carroll/

It's not incorrect to refer to Donald Trump as a rapist and I shall continue to do so.

 

[impeeza]

https://www.npr.org/1226626397

So you already have a guilty sentence to be able to find him guilty of a crime?

The difamation charge is a violation of the first amendment but not a sentence of the other charge

 

[supermist]

So you already have a guilty sentence to be able to find him guilty of a crime?

The difamation charge is a violation of the first amendment but not a sentence of the other charge

Cause that was an earlier case which has been resolved

 

[Hanafuda]

Your opinion is of no consequence given that a jury found him legally liable for rape. It's not possible to win such a case with zero evidence.


His appeal was unsuccessful, meaning it cannot be overturned now.

No, that appeal is still pending.

 

[Xzi]

No, that appeal is still pending at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ah, good to know. I figured it would've already been denied on insufficient grounds given how incompetent his legal counsel has been of late, but the circus must go on I guess. Unless the ruling is overturned, it remains factually accurate to call Trump a rapist.

 

[Hanafuda]

Ah, good to know. I figured it would've already been denied on insufficient grounds given how incompetent his legal counsel has been of late, but the circus must go on I guess.

I edited the post because I think that's where it will be heard, but I'm not certain. But it was just filed last May and could take years.

Typically an appeal won't be won or lost based on "insufficient grounds." It'll be more focused on errors made by the trial court, either in procedure or rulings that were prejudicial to the appealing parties' rights.

 

[Xzi]

Typically an appeal won't be won or lost based on "insufficient grounds." It'll be more focused on errors made by the trial court, either in procedure or rulings that were prejudicial to the appealing parties' rights.

Right, but an appeal can be denied altogether on insufficient grounds if his lawyers cannot establish the need for it. IE if the previous court is found to have made no procedural errors.

 

[titan_tim]

I edited the post because I think that's where it will be heard, but I'm not certain. But it was just filed last May and could take years.

Typically an appeal won't be won or lost based on "insufficient grounds." It'll be more focused on errors made by the trial court, either in procedure or rulings that were prejudicial to the appealing parties' rights.

I thought this video was interesting talking about what Trump would have to do if he went for appeal:


Basically, he (or someone else) would have to put up the money in some form of a trust until the appeals process was over. Most people wouldn't touch that bond with a hundred foot pole since he's most likely to lose the appeal. Trump is well known to be someone who doesn't pay their bills back, so that money probably would never come back to anyone who put it up for him in the first place.

Post automatically merged: Jan 28, 2024

The only support for her story are two friends she allegedly told about the incident.
Any one of us could make up a lie and get a friend to lie with us; especially for millions of dollars and clout.

Trump's main defense was that he either never met her, which was proven to be false. His other defense was that he wasn't attracted to her in the slightest, which also went up in smoke when he mistook a picture of her for his 2nd wife.

His own history of womanizing definitely worked against him in this case. There's also the deposition of him basically bragging that famous people get to grab women. His own ego took him down.