Jury finds Donald Trump sexually abused E. Jean Carroll in civil case

[proton]

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is strange that they could find that he did not rape her, but he DID commit battery....so a kind of semi rape?  Just felt her up in the change room? Wonder how they could make that determination, given the paucity of actual evidence.   I have a feeling that this was more of a general expression of disgust at his behavior towards women than a specific finding in this particular case. 

On that scale a dirty look or flirty comment would be worth a million!

[bamnutsak]

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I have a feeling

Good for you.

 

Evidently the jury did too, that and evidence.

 

Between Trump's lawyer and Trump's video depsoition, and Trump's behavior during the trial, and Trump's truthing about the trial, he wasn't putting up much of a defense.

 

Loser (Trump, not any member here).

 

 

 

 

[stevenl]

28 minutes ago, mrfill said:

Its more than that. If he had been convicted, he would have been disqualified from standing for President.

So you feel the need to correct semantics and as reason for that come up with an incorrect claim.

[Tug]

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is strange that they could find that he did not rape her, but he DID commit battery....so a kind of semi rape?  Just felt her up in the change room? Wonder how they could make that determination, given the paucity of actual evidence.   I have a feeling that this was more of a general expression of disgust at his behavior towards women than a specific finding in this particular case. 

Naa she wasn’t sure if he put it in but he did penatrate her with his hand on that she was sure he was found guilty by 6 men and 3 women in 3 hours doesent seem that there was much doubt in their minds 

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is strange that they could find that he did not rape her, but he DID commit battery....so a kind of semi rape?  Just felt her up in the change room? Wonder how they could make that determination, given the paucity of actual evidence.   I have a feeling that this was more of a general expression of disgust at his behavior towards women than a specific finding in this particular case. 

The battery conviction is for sexual abuse:

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Bkk Brian

[jerrymahoney]

6 minutes ago, Tug said:

Naa she wasn’t sure if he put it in but he did penatrate her with his hand on that she was sure he was found guilty by 6 men and 3 women in 3 hours doesent seem that there was much doubt in their minds 

This is from the original complaint (with no maybe's)

 

p. 6
Trump then pushed his fingers around Carroll’s genitals and forced his penis inside of her.  37.

 

p. 7
She told Birnbach how Trump had pulled down her tights and put his penis inside of her.  44.

Edited May 10, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[sqwakvfr]

She might never see the money.  Appeals on civil jury awards can take years.  27 years after the incident so statute of limitations has passed so this was her only course of action.  Once this happens the floodgates will open wide and others will file as well.  

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

And if you'd stop your messianic support for Trump, you'd see the lunacy of not understanding it was a jury that believed her.   Hmmmm .....

 

He is not the Messiah.

He is just a (convicted by a jury) very naughty boy...

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Because of course 80 year old women don’t deserve the rights get to defend themselves against definition in the non crazy America you would prefer.

She said he raped her and he said he didn't and she is not his type.

And now he has to pay for speaking out that he didn't rape her.

What should he have done? Say nothing and let the world think her rape accusations are correct?

 

The 80 year old woman claimed she was raped when she was about 50. If she would have reported the alleged rape at that time, then the police would have asked her for a date and time when it supposedly happened. And then the accused rapist could have checked where he was at that time.

 

Now, 30 years later, what can Trump do? Does he have any chance to prove that on day x he wasn't in that shop? There was no day x, she doesn't remember the day. So now maybe Trump could argue that he was never in that shop for a few months. But what if he was in the shop for shopping, but he didn't meet that woman and he didn't rape her.

How can he defend himself against: He raped me sometime within those 3 months 30 years ago. I don't remember the date. And there is no evidence. And there is no witness. But believe me, he did it.

That's just stupid! 

[bamnutsak]

12 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

She might never see the money.

I don't think this was about money.

 

I think that is on the jury.

 

13 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Once this happens the floodgates will open wide and others will file as well.  

You mean other women will file civil suits against Trump?

 

 

 

[sqwakvfr]

3 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

He is not the Messiah.

He is just a (convicted by a jury) very naughty boy...

One does not get convicted in civil court.  A civil jury can only find in favor of the plaintiff(Carroll) or for the defendant(Trump).  Getting a favorable judgement in civil court is easier than getting a conviction in criminal court.  Also, civil trial juries are mostly 9 where criminal trials are 12.  In criminal trials all 12 jurors must agree and in civil trials a 6 to 3 majority is a win.  Today Donald lost but he will not have to pay for many years as he will appeal this judgement for years and years.

[sqwakvfr]

1 minute ago, bamnutsak said:

I don't think this was about money.

 

I think that is on the jury.

 

You mean other women will file civil suits against Trump?

 

 

 

Yes because this case can be used to bolster any and all new claims.  

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Tug said:

You do understand trump destroys lives when people cross him you do understand that mrs carrol is one of many who have accused him you did see the access Hollywood tape you did see his deposition no sir accept that a jury felt he did it not because of any disgust for him personally but because they feel he did it accept it it’s done he’s a predator it is what he is

Let's assume he is a predator. And let's assume he grabbed many women by the p$%%. Is that prove that he raped that woman? Is it even prove that he met her at that time? No! 

It seems he was convicted because he is an a#%%#$. Sure he is. But that doesn't make him guilty in this case. There is no evidence!  

[mania]

Quote

the jury did not find that she proved he raped her. He does not face any jail time as a result of the civil verdict.

^^^ From the report linked in OP

So just the defamation alone was worth 5 million eh? Wow as someone in this thread said....Kinda scary these days that someone can claim decades later x=? & take a shot maybe get some $$$

[ThailandRyan]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

She said he raped her and he said he didn't and she is not his type.

And now he has to pay for speaking out that he didn't rape her.

What should he have done? Say nothing and let the world think her rape accusations are correct?

 

The 80 year old woman claimed she was raped when she was about 50. If she would have reported the alleged rape at that time, then the police would have asked her for a date and time when it supposedly happened. And then the accused rapist could have checked where he was at that time.

 

Now, 30 years later, what can Trump do? Does he have any chance to prove that on day x he wasn't in that shop? There was no day x, she doesn't remember the day. So now maybe Trump could argue that he was never in that shop for a few months. But what if he was in the shop for shopping, but he didn't meet that woman and he didn't rape her.

How can he defend himself against: He raped me sometime within those 3 months 30 years ago. I don't remember the date. And there is no evidence. And there is no witness. But believe me, he did it.

That's just stupid! 

Re-read your statement and then remember this was a defamation case also where he hade very disparaging remarks and then failed to stand up in court to defend himself.  Does a innocent man just blow of court? Why does he feel he is above the law, as well as you believe he is above the law. 

 

Can you remember where you were 30 years ago and what occurred on this date: Give you a hint It was a very famous Heavyweight boxing match.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, ThailandRyan said:

So all of the #Metoo cases as well as others should just be dismissed and the perpetrators let go.  You realize that this is not a conspiracy and is about justice being served years later after woman have now been able to speak out on sexual abuse, after being afraid to for decades.

So you think all men should be convicted without any evidence because now with MeToo some women "remember" what happened decades ago? 

How can these men defend themselves against accusations like: He raped me sometime during that year, I don't remember when it happened.

The idea that women always tell the truth is just stupid. They often lie, especially if they can make millions. And obviously men also lie. It's stupid to pretend people always tell the truth.

[ThailandRyan]

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Let's assume he is a predator. And let's assume he grabbed many women by the p$%%. Is that prove that he raped that woman? Is it even prove that he met her at that time? No! 

It seems he was convicted because he is an a#%%#$. Sure he is. But that doesn't make him guilty in this case. There is no evidence!  

His statements show he is a sexual predator or can you not see that.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Trump supporters will not accept accusations against him, they won’t accept court trials against him, they won’t accept jury verdicts against him, they won’t accept court sentences against him.

What you write above is mostly true.

But how about people who are against Trump? I am one of them. I would be happy if he would be bankrupt and in jail. 

But that doesn't make him guilty in this case. There is no evidence that he even met her in that shop. 

[Berkshire]

21 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

She might never see the money.  Appeals on civil jury awards can take years.  27 years after the incident so statute of limitations has passed so this was her only course of action.  Once this happens the floodgates will open wide and others will file as well.  

Not so fast Sherlock.  Regardless of whether he files an appeal, he'll still have to fork over the $5 mil....

 

[If Trump files an appeal, that would not stay the $5 million verdict against him, which Carroll can attempt to collect beginning 14 days from now. Rather, in order to obtain relief from having to pay Carroll while he appealed, Trump would have to file an appeal bond (called a “supersedeas bond”) for $5 million (plus interest at 9 percent) with the Court.

If the Court approves the bond, Carroll would not be able to collect from Trump until all appeals were exhausted. If Trump were to lose all appeals, the bond would be paid over to Carroll.]

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/e-jean-carrolls-lawyers-leveled-a-knockout-blow-on-trump?ref=wrap

 

[Road Warrior]

with his grotesque amount of money he can buy/pay for anything !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

[Berkshire]

7 minutes ago, mania said:

^^^ From the report linked in OP

So just the defamation alone was worth 5 million eh? Wow as someone in this thread said....Kinda scary these days that someone can claim decades later x=? & take a shot maybe get some $$$

This is the breakdown of the damages...

 

Sexual assault — $2,000,000

Punitive damages — $280,000

Wanton disregard — $ 20,000

Defamation (loss) — $1,000,000

Defamation (reputation repair) — $1,700,000

Total: $5,000,000

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/e-jean-carrolls-lawyers-leveled-a-knockout-blow-on-trump?ref=wrap

 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

What you write above is mostly true.

But how about people who are against Trump? I am one of them. I would be happy if he would be bankrupt and in jail. 

But that doesn't make him guilty in this case. There is no evidence that he even met her in that shop. 

I’m going with the Jury verdict.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think it’s the sexual abusers who need to be on alert.

 

I myself feel chilled on the matter, you’ll see that from my own responses in this thread.

 

Others perhaps not so.

Are you rich? If yes, then you might be a target, if not, then you don't have to worry.

Let's assume for a moment you are rich.

What would you do if a woman would write in a book that you raped her about 30 years ago? Would you just accept that? Or would you complain and say you didn't do it?

And if she would go to court and accuses you of rape 30 years ago, and she wants a couple of million USD, what would you do?

Would you say: I didn't do it?

Would you expect that she has to bring some evidence to get you convicted?

 

I am sure that I never raped a woman. But if you would ask me what did I do on every single day in January 1990 I would have to tell you: I don't know. I can't prove that I wasn't in that shop in that month.

But it seems that is not good enough anymore - at least in America. 

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

If you are able to separate your hatred for Trump just for a second, you'd be able to see the lunacy of a woman crying rape 30 yrs later.

Or he could have testified. He offered no defense other than denial through his lawyers. He was never going to win.

[bamnutsak]

18 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Yes because this case can be used to bolster any and all new claims.  

I guess, if they fit the narrow scope (New York State, new Victims Laws, etc.).

 

Hopefully any additional alleged assaults, they filmed The Apprentice in many locations, ocurred in more rape-friendly states.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Are you rich? If yes, then you might be a target, if not, then you don't have to worry.

Let's assume for a moment you are rich.

What would you do if a woman would write in a book that you raped her about 30 years ago? Would you just accept that? Or would you complain and say you didn't do it?

And if she would go to court and accuses you of rape 30 years ago, and she wants a couple of million USD, what would you do?

Would you say: I didn't do it?

Would you expect that she has to bring some evidence to get you convicted?

 

I am sure that I never raped a woman. But if you would ask me what did I do on every single day in January 1990 I would have to tell you: I don't know. I can't prove that I wasn't in that shop in that month.

But it seems that is not good enough anymore - at least in America. 

That isn't how the trial went down. She had contemporaneous witnesses, he refused to testify.

[OneMoreFarang]

48 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

Evidently the jury did too, that and evidence.

Which evidence? 

She doesn't even specify a day when that supposedly happened. 

[Berkshire]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Are you rich? If yes, then you might be a target, if not, then you don't have to worry.

Let's assume for a moment you are rich.

What would you do if a woman would write in a book that you raped her about 30 years ago? Would you just accept that? Or would you complain and say you didn't do it?

And if she would go to court and accuses you of rape 30 years ago, and she wants a couple of million USD, what would you do?

Would you say: I didn't do it?

Would you expect that she has to bring some evidence to get you convicted?

 

I am sure that I never raped a woman. But if you would ask me what did I do on every single day in January 1990 I would have to tell you: I don't know. I can't prove that I wasn't in that shop in that month.

But it seems that is not good enough anymore - at least in America. 

You seem to be taking this rather personal.  Relax, no one's coming for you.  And the rich guys out there, I doubt they're worried.  Unless they've done something in the past.  Then perhaps they should be worried.....that's a good thing.   

[sqwakvfr]

2 minutes ago, bamnutsak said:

I guess, if they fit the narrow scope (New York State, new Victims Laws, etc.).

 

Hopefully any additional alleged assaults, they filmed The Apprentice in many locations, ocurred in more rape-friendly states.

The new law might not apply if the alleged assault occurred years ago.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Are you rich? If yes, then you might be a target, if not, then you don't have to worry.

Let's assume for a moment you are rich.

What would you do if a woman would write in a book that you raped her about 30 years ago? Would you just accept that? Or would you complain and say you didn't do it?

And if she would go to court and accuses you of rape 30 years ago, and she wants a couple of million USD, what would you do?

Would you say: I didn't do it?

Would you expect that she has to bring some evidence to get you convicted?

 

I am sure that I never raped a woman. But if you would ask me what did I do on every single day in January 1990 I would have to tell you: I don't know. I can't prove that I wasn't in that shop in that month.

But it seems that is not good enough anymore - at least in America. 

The Jury had little problem fathoming this.