Posted on 05/09/2023 12:18:04 PM PDT by Morgana
A jury has found that Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll.
The panel of six men and three women also found that Trump injured advice columnist Carroll in a Manhattan Bergdorf Goodman dressing room and defamed her, ordering the former President to pay her $5million in damages.
Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct or assault by more than two dozen women, but this has so far been the only case to end up before a jury.
Carroll, 79, sued for battery under the Adult Survivors Act, a law passed in New York that allowed a one year window for sexual assault claims normally outside of the statute of limitations.
Her claim for defamation was based on statements made by Trump, 76, when he was President and posts to Truth Social, his own social network in which he called her a liar.
Over two weeks the jury heard emotional testimony from three accusers and two of Carroll's friends, among other witnesses, while Trump himself was a no show.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Yes, because he has good counsel who know what has to be done.
“He was found liable of sexual battery, not rape, and defamation. Total awarded damages of 5 million.”
Yes, but....she accused him of rape....not of sexual battery. If he didn’t commit the rape, then how the hell do they manage to convict him of anything else. Logic would follow.... that if he’s not guilty of the rape, then the incident never happened... because she lied. It’s not rocket science (except to some).
I say that with full realization that it’s New York and that logic has gone bye-bye in cities like NY or in any cities run and ruined by the radical left.
In trust for a grandchild, and placed there long before the suit ever was thought of, is more than enough to keep Carrol’s grubby paws off of the money. Even if Donald is the trustee, it’s there for the sake of the minor beneficiary, one of his grandkids or a nephew or niece.
“Who knows in this case, but it seems to me that what the New York legislature did by just arbitrarily opening up a new one-year window for all kinds of screwed-up women to make unsubstantiated, decades-old allegations against men they hate should be unconstitutional.”
The term “ex post facto” comes to mind.
Just for starters.
Huh? Ok. For all the reasons stated, he will not win the appeal. I never said he wasn’t going to appeal
That is the definition of clear and convincing evidence, but the burden of proof in civil litigation is the preponderance of the evidence
Same as me saying, “haha, I have a gun, I can’t wait to hijack this plane, harhar!” waiting in the airport TSA line.
Rape is the act of forcing someone into a sexual act against their will. Battery is the act of engaging in unwanted physical contact with another person resulting in some sort of harm. Not the same thing. The jury basically said that he groped and grabbed her but didn’t rape her.
Monica’s blue dress.
Are there different thresholds depending on the count? Again, apologies, from CNN:
“To prove her defamation claim, the jury had to find that Carroll’s legal team proved by the preponderance of the evidence that Trump knew it was false when he published the statement about Carroll last year and knowingly exposed her to public ridicule. They also had to determine that she proved by clear and convincing evidence that the statement was false, and that Trump made the statement with actual malice.”
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/09/politics/carroll-trump-jury-deliberations/index.html
Does that make any sense, or is it slippery journo speech? This doesn’t make sense to me.
Rape jokes are neverfunny.
It is my understanding that the change in law was mostly about adult survivors (male and female) of child sexual abuse from clergy.
At least that is what I remember from the discussions at the time.
TY for sharing your expertise.
I’m not following you. Was this suit not originated long after the SOL, on the basis of the special “Adult Survivors Act?” And that had a one year deadline, by which time she filed. -—— It was. The Adult Survivors Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it extends the statuette of limitations to any individual subject to a law where the statuette of limitations for that law has already expired for that particular individual. Think the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws and constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy. The tolling of an statuette of limitations on particular offense is legally similar to being tried and found not guilty of that particular offense.
Fortunately, this silly case will not do it.
He will run, and he will win.
If only the cheats don’t steal it again.
Where is Bill Clinton?
He is getting up in years, and Time is taking its toll.
The judge told the jury that IF ( implying that Trump HAD done so ) "kissed her on the check, that that, and that ALONE could be taken for "sexual abuse"!
There was not a scintilla of evidence that he had ever done that ( nor anything else that has been claimed ), but the jury took THAT part and ran with it.
She didn’t say he went all the way. She said he put a finger (or 2, I don’t remember) into her vagina.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.