The jury rejected her claim that she was raped, but awarded her $5M in damages for defamation and sexual abuse.
Other Crap Deep Archives
Uncle Scoopy's Fun House
Uncle Scoopy's Fun Mobile Home
Uncle Scoopy's Movie House
Uncle Scoopy's Ballpark
Uncle Scoopy's Novel
Top 20 Nude Scenes of 2022
Top 20 Search - all years
Top Nude Scenes 2000-2009
Top Nude Scenes 2000-2019
French Screen Nudity
Scoopy's Fake Bio
Scoop's Dad's Fake Bio
23 thoughts on “Trump Is Found Liable for Sexual Abuse and Defamation in Civil Case”
This will go to another court and be dropped not enough eveidence.
Thanks Nostradamus…what would we do without you.
The quality of the evidence is already decided. That’s the matter decided by the jury. They decided that he was liable, based on the preponderance of the evidence.
His ability to appeal would be based on whether the judge made procedural errors. Personally, I don’t know the legal system well enough to have any opinion on that matter.
Surely this will be the end of Drumpf!
Sorry no, sexual assault and defamation are his *brand*. He’ll go cry on social media, raise the 5 mill for Carroll and another 5 mill to keep.
He won’t pay shit, this bullshit will be torn apart in subsequent appeals. It was a 3 decade old case with no evidence whatsoever.
Except Trump is a notorious liar…beyond even a shadow of a doubt.
It’s up to a jury to determine the preponderance of the evidence. That has been done, and is not a basis for appeal. I just don’t know whether there is any legitimate basis for appeal. Tacopina thinks he has a case based on the fact that the judge exhibited bias, and perhaps based on the inherent prejudice of a New York venue.
Is that argument valid based upon the conduct of the prodeedings? Beats me. The success or failure of that appeal would hinge on a careful study of the matter by appellate judges who are trained to rule on such erudite matters. I suspect it’s just a strategy to delay the decision, but I don’t know that for a fact. Let’s leave it up to the experts and let it play out.
I’m fairly convinced the mistaking of her for Marla was fake. It was an apparent ploy to show that he didn’t know the accuser. He had it in his mind beforehand: “If they show me any photos, I’ll show no recognition of her at all.” I’m sure he’d seen the pic before and figured when shown that one, he’d go with Marla. He said it instantly which was what gave him away. Huge backfire of a stupid plan to begin with. He didn’t stop to think that it would reveal the two resemble each other and therefore the accuser is his ‘type’.
This bears repeating: they didn’t convict on the rape charge because EJC couldn’t tell if Trump penetrated her with his penis or with his finger…. And everyone always says how tiny his hands are.
I did not know that, Donkey Hotey. It’s icky, but it is good information for this thread. Thanks.
(Also, good name!)
I bet his fingers are still bigger than his penis.
If I’d been on the jury, I’d have wanted to give her more than $5 million. Something closer to that Fox News-Dominion settlement would have been appropriate, something that would actually bite Trump. But the $5 million award is at least reasonable enough it shouldn’t be reduced on appeal. If he were smart, he’d just pay her and get on with his campaign. But he’ll probably appeal, which will just keep the story in the news. I wonder if Ron DeSantis is as happy about the verdict as E. Jean Carrol? More probably.
I’m wondering whether the two of the three findings of liability are contradictory. If Trump did not rape her, then was he not justified in calling her story a lie?
1. The sexual abuse determination is probably correct, based upon his statements and actions at various times in his life. I suppose he felt compelled to kiss her, and maybe he “grabbed her by the pussy.”
2. The jury seems to be reasonable in failing to be convinced of rape.
3. But based on #2, I am skeptical of the finding of defamation.
Bets on how long before he starts bragging about being totally exonerated of rape?
He isn’t already? He is slowing down with age. He IS already lying about not being “allowed” to defend himself.
Oh, I don’t know. They probably felt that rape was too specific. They felt satisfied that SOMETHING sexual happened, but that there was not enough evidence of actual penis-in-vagina stuff. And Trump pretty much defames anybody he does not like, especially if they are telling the truth about him.
Rape covers more than just penis-in-vagina, but yeah, that seems likely.
Not in New York, which has an archaic definition. Penis penetration is required (although not necessarily in vagina) for a rape charge. Fingers (or foreign object) in vagina in NY, for example, would be aggravated sexual abuse.
“Under the New York Penal Code, while aggravated sexual abuse and rape are both felony sex crimes that involve penetration, the two crimes have notable differences. Each of the 4 rape crimes requires sexual intercourse. The New York Penal Code gives “sexual intercourse” its “ordinary meaning” which is penetration, however slight, by a penis. Digital penetration and penetration by an object are not included in the definition. Thus, where penetration is digital, the charge would not be rape, but aggravated sexual abuse.”
The jury did find him liable for sexual abuse, so they probably got it right.
The defamation wasn’t just for him calling her a liar, it was for him saying that her never met her and that she is a stranger lying about him for personal gain.
Since they found him guilt of sexual assault, then they clearly believe he met her. So the claim that she’s a fraud and a hoaxer is still defamation, even if they don’t believe there is enough grounds to convinct of rape.
I don’t follow that 100%. If she did lie about rape, then she is actually a fraud and a hoaxer.
However, your other point is fair. The fact that he may have been right about calling her a liar about one thing doesn’t mean he was correct that she did it for money; doesn’t mean that he never met her; and doesn’t mean that nothing happened because she “wasn’t his type.”
I found the fact that he couldn’t distinguish her from Marla to be pretty convincing evidence that he definitely would have been attracted to her. The jury clearly felt that they met, and that something sexual happened – something that she neither invited nor consented to.
Well, I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know what an appeals court would say about defamation. But it seems to me that it’s possible to say something untrue about something without being a fraud or a hoaxer – for example, the jury might have thought that she genuinely believed she was raped but that she was mistaken (at least according to NY’s legal definition). Or the jury might have thought that she was raped according to a colloquial, loose interpretation of the word, but not acccording to the NY legal interpretation of the word.
Let’s assume for a minute that no rape occurred.
Now look at it from his point of view. He knows he didn’t rape her, and therefore feels it is perfectly accurate to call her a liar.
A sane, prudent man would have stopped right there, but he went on to impute evil motivations to her, to ridicule her looks, to deny ever having met her, blindly and recklessly lashing out at someone who has a conflict with him.
(All the usual plays in the Trump playbook.)
Comments are closed.