Trump appeals verdict finding him liable for sexual assault

[LosLobo]

14 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

No problem. Forget about this case for now, nothing's going to happen fast.

I have really been focused on the Georgia situation especially related to the hour plus long Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger phone call and I mean the entire phone call not just the 'just find me 11 thousand plus votes' snippet. 

Good luck with that.

 

It would seem to show real dedication to the MAGA cause.

 

Perhaps you will also watch Tucker's selective six minute expose of the January 6th Insurrection, along with the other over 41k hours of surveillance video.

 

I am sure the Trump trial for this will be in the near future.

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

Trials are one thing. There is always the possibility he could be re-elected. That is something I do not care to contemplate.

[placeholder]

27 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

No. I mean all the times he told Raffensperger that his saying that he would not further investigate more than he already has to find the about 200,000 illegally cast ballots that Trump claimed could be considered criminal activity on Raffensperger's part.

 

As in:

 

Raffensperger: Well, I listened to what the President has just said. President Trump, we’ve had several lawsuits and we’ve had to respond in court to the lawsuits and the contentions. Um, we don’t agree that you have won. And we don’t — I didn’t agree about the 200,000 number that you’d mentioned. And I can go through that point by point.

 

So basically an implicit threat from Trump. 

[jerrymahoney]

Trump: (To Raffensperger and Ryan Germany, the general counsel for the secretary of state’s office) And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they (are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump: (To Raffensperger and Ryan Germany, the general counsel for the secretary of state’s office) And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they (are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

What in this paragraph do you find significant?

[stevenl]

24 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Trump: (To Raffensperger and Ryan Germany, the general counsel for the secretary of state’s office) And you are going to find that they are — which is totally illegal, it is more illegal for you than it is for them because, you know what they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, that’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. And that’s a big risk. But they (are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds. And you can’t let it happen and you are letting it happen. You know, I mean, I’m notifying you that you’re letting it happen. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.

So lies and corruption.

[jerrymahoney]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

What in this paragraph do you find significant?

Based on these facts and a litany of additional public reporting, Trump appears to be at substantial risk of prosecution for both election and non-election crimes in violation of Georgia state law.

 

Potential election crimes that may be on the table for Georgia prosecutors include: (1) solicitation to commit election fraud, Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-604(a); (2) intentional interference with performance of election duties, Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-597; (3) interference with primaries and elections, Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-566; and (4) conspiracy to commit election fraud, Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-603.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/research/second-edition-fulton-county-georgias-trump-investigation/

[jerrymahoney]

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/22/e-jean-carroll-seeks-very-substantial-damages-from-trump-over-cnn-town-hall-remarks.html

 

Trump faces $10 million defamation claim by E. Jean Carroll after CNN town hall remarks
PUBLISHED MON, MAY 22 20235:31 PM EDT UPDATED 59 MIN AGO

 

This was the final paragraph on the paywall NY Times article on the same story:

 

It was the trial of Carroll II that ended this month when the jury of six men and three women found Mr. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll. The jury did not find Mr. Trump liable for raping Ms. Carroll, as she had long claimed.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/nyregion/carroll-trump-cnn-defamation.html

 

Archive no paywall: https://archive.is/xSZLd

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[jerrymahoney]

Also from the NY Times as linked above:

 

“We (as Trump's attorneys) intend to vigorously oppose this motion, which we view as nothing more than a desperate, last-ditch effort by Ms. Carroll to upend this case,” Ms. Habba said.

 

Asked about the reference to a threatened lawsuit by Mr. Trump against Ms. Carroll, Ms. Habba said, “We have been paying attention to the statements made by Ms. Carroll in the press and are considering all options.”

Edited May 23, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[seajae]

when you consider that she could not give a date etc of when it happened and the judge told trumps lawyers they could not question her on where it happened in the store you really have to wonder at this not being a complete set up by the dems. Her action was paid for by a bilionaire far left idiot that has close ties to democrats/soros and they could not supply anything other than hearsay as evidence that it even happened, makes it impossible to even defend ones self if the so called victim does not have to supply dates and where it happened, only democrat idiots would think this is any form of justice

Edited May 23, 2023 by seajae

[jerrymahoney]

What may be at issue here for the Trump attorneys is that -- while Trump on CNN says it never happened -- Ms. Carroll has been making the post-verdict interview rounds still insisting Trump raped her even though the jury could not come to that conclusion.

 

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/22/e-jean-carroll-seeks-very-substantial-damages-from-trump-over-cnn-town-hall-remarks.html

 

Trump faces $10 million defamation claim by E. Jean Carroll after CNN town hall remarks
PUBLISHED MON, MAY 22 20235:31 PM EDT UPDATED 59 MIN AGO

 

This was the final paragraph on the paywall NY Times article on the same story:

 

It was the trial of Carroll II that ended this month when the jury of six men and three women found Mr. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll. The jury did not find Mr. Trump liable for raping Ms. Carroll, as she had long claimed.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/nyregion/carroll-trump-cnn-defamation.html

 

Archive no paywall: https://archive.is/xSZLd

 

 

 

But as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, it did find that Trump sexually assaulted her which he continues to deny. And since we have way currently of what the jury meant by its decision, this kind of nitpicking is useless.

[jerrymahoney]

12 minutes ago, placeholder said:

But as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, it did find that Trump sexually assaulted her which he continues to deny. And since we have way currently of what the jury meant by its decision, this kind of nitpicking is useless.

And has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the complaint as filed with the Court was for rape.

 

Nowhere in the complaint, nor in Ms. Carroll's testimony nor in the testimony of her 2 principal witnesses, does it ever state that Ms. Carroll was sexually molested but not raped.

 

What the jury meant by their decision is moot point as of now.

 

What is likely at the heart of the appeal is what instructions did Judge Kaplan give to the jury to allow them to come up with a verdict that was not ever suggested by the plaintiff.

 

And that will be a matter of case law and prior decisions.

Edited May 23, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/22/e-jean-carroll-seeks-very-substantial-damages-from-trump-over-cnn-town-hall-remarks.html

 

Trump faces $10 million defamation claim by E. Jean Carroll after CNN town hall remarks
PUBLISHED MON, MAY 22 20235:31 PM EDT UPDATED 59 MIN AGO

 

This was the final paragraph on the paywall NY Times article on the same story:

 

It was the trial of Carroll II that ended this month when the jury of six men and three women found Mr. Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Ms. Carroll. The jury did not find Mr. Trump liable for raping Ms. Carroll, as she had long claimed.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/22/nyregion/carroll-trump-cnn-defamation.html

 

Archive no paywall: https://archive.is/xSZLd

 

 

 

And O Lordy, there are tapes, video tapes and millions of witnesses.

 

 

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And O Lordy, there are tapes, video tapes and millions of witnesses.

 

 

Yes there are tapes of Trump saying that the jury decided Ms. Carroll was not raped by Trump yet for 4 years, on multiple media, he has been accused of rape. 

 

So maybe Trump would have been better off keeping his mouth shut. Maybe you can say the same about Carroll telling the NY Times that, regardless of the jury verdict, He Raped Me.

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

And has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the complaint as filed with the Court was for rape.

 

 

You sure about that?

 

On November 24, 2022, Carroll sued Trump for battery under the Adult Survivors Act (a law passed the previous May which allows sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations).^[54][55] Carroll made a renewed claim of defamation, citing Trump's statements on Truth Social from October.^[56][57] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump#:~:text=On November 24%2C 2022%2C Carroll,on Truth Social from October.

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes there are tapes of Trump saying that the jury decided Ms. Carroll was not raped by Trump yet for 4 years, on multiple media, he has been accused of rape. 

 

So maybe Trump would have been better off keeping his mouth shut. Maybe you can say the same about Carroll telling the NY Times that, regardless of the jury verdict, He Raped Me.

There are tapes, I suggest you take time to give them a watch.

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are tapes, I suggest you take time to give them a watch.

I know what he said.

Edited May 23, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

I know what he said.

And now the judge knows too.

[jerrymahoney]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You sure about that?

 

On November 24, 2022, Carroll sued Trump for battery under the Adult Survivors Act (a law passed the previous May which allows sexual-assault victims to file civil suits beyond expired statutes of limitations).^[54][55] Carroll made a renewed claim of defamation, citing Trump's statements on Truth Social from October.^[56][57] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Jean_Carroll_v._Donald_J._Trump#:~:text=On November 24%2C 2022%2C Carroll,on Truth Social from October.

CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Battery
121. Carroll incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs and re-alleges them as
if set forth fully herein.
122. Trump committed battery against Carroll when he forcibly raped and groped her.

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Battery
121. Carroll incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs and re-alleges them as
if set forth fully herein.
122. Trump committed battery against Carroll when he forcibly raped and groped her.

 

Not raped OR groped her.

Good luck with that.

[jerrymahoney]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And now the judge knows too.

Well that's just fine when they file their new & improved defamation case who knows who the judge will be.

[jerrymahoney]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Good luck with that.

That's the complaint filed but Carroll's lawyers. Tacopina called the jury decision both 'strange' and 'inconsistent'.

 

My luck is not involved.

 

In the appeal, a large part will likely be any case law or precedent where a jury has come up with  -- per Tacopina -- an inconsistent verdict.

Edited May 23, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Battery
121. Carroll incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs and re-alleges them as
if set forth fully herein.
122. Trump committed battery against Carroll when he forcibly raped and groped her.

 

"raped and groped"

[jerrymahoney]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

"raped and groped"

Yes. Not raped OR groped.

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That's the complaint filed but Carroll's lawyers. Tacopina called the jury decision both 'strange' and 'inconsistent'.

 

My luck is not involved.

 

In the appeal, a large part will likely be any case law or precedent where a jury has come up with  -- per Tacopina -- an inconsistent verdict.

To quote a lady, ‘we’ll he would say that wouldn’t he’.

 

Tacopina is playing to and audience of one.

 

Well, perhaps two.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Battery
121. Carroll incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs and re-alleges them as
if set forth fully herein.
122. Trump committed battery against Carroll when he forcibly raped and groped her.

 

This in no way addresses the fact that this assertion of yours is false:

"And has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the complaint as filed with the Court was for rape."

No, not true. It was for "sexual battery".

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Yes. Not raped OR groped.

Actually, the reason for the rape allegation not being supported but the sexual battery allegation is pretty clear. In her to her friends after the alleged incident, Carroll never said she was raped. Just that she was sexually assaulted. So the jury found that since she didn't tell her friends she was raped, there wasn't a preponderance of evidence to support that charge. 

 

"On the stand Tuesday, Birnbach said she recalled she was feeding her young children in her kitchen at the time when Carroll called and walked out of the room to whisper “‘E. Jean he raped you. You should go to the police.’” Carroll described the incident with Trump as a fight, she didn’t want to hear the word “rape,” Birnbach said."

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/02/politics/e-jean-carroll-trial/index.html

 

And there's this from the NY Post 

 

Why did jurors find Trump liable of sexual abuse and not rape? Mixed verdict in Carroll suit explained

Jurors in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit against Donald Trump found him liable of sexual abuse — and not rape — likely because they expected “Law & Order”-style forensic evidence to prove the more serious claim, legal experts told The Post on Wednesday.

The Manhattan federal jury that awarded the “Ask E. Jean” advice columnist $5 million Tuesday decided that Carroll, 79, had proven her claim of sexual abuse in the alleged 1996 attack by Trump, 76, inside a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room.

But they let the 45th president off the hook in her rape allegation — even though both claims were part of the same alleged incident.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/10/experts-explain-jurors-mixed-verdict-in-e-jean-carroll-case/

[jerrymahoney]

Tacopina said. “But what can’t be appealed and won’t be changed is the fact that this was a rape claim from day one and the jury rejected the rape claim even under the lowest standard allowable by law, preponderance of the evidence (or 51%) standard.”

 

https://nypost.com/2023/05/11/trump-to-appeal-5m-judgment-in-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit/

 

An appeal has been filed. That'll be up to a appellate judge panel to decide if they will take the case, or were there any procedural errors involved in the decision.

Edited May 23, 2023 by jerrymahoney

[placeholder]

14 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Tacopina said. “But what can’t be appealed and won’t be changed is the fact that this was a rape claim from day one and the jury rejected the rape claim even under the lowest standard allowable by law, preponderance of the evidence (or 51%) standard.”

 

https://nypost.com/2023/05/11/trump-to-appeal-5m-judgment-in-e-jean-carroll-lawsuit/

 

An appeal has been filed. That'll be up to a appellate judge panel to decide if they will take the case, or were there any procedural errors involved in the decision.

Actually, your claim has been that the jurors' verdict didn't make sense which would give grounds for a reversal. I gave 2 reasons why  their verdict did make sense. Presumably, judges are acquainted with such reasoning.

And using  the characterization of Trump's lawyers'  to sum up the issue is,, somewhat suspect.

The only balancedl item that you offered in your comment was that an appellate judge panel will decide whether they will accept the case. So what?