Jump to content

Federal Jury Orders Donald Trump to Pay $83.3 Million in Defamation Case


Social Media

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Yes, billionaires are always selling silly NFTs that portray themselves as things they are too stupid and too cowardly to be, like fighter pilots and astronauts. Billionaires also cut up the suits they wore when getting their mugshot, and then sell the threads to their cult.

 

trump does not have the funds to cover the $5 million + $83.3 million plus what Judge Engoron is going to assess him on the 31st. Despite inheriting $412 million from 'dad', and receiving a massive allowance every month from age 3 until his father died (according to his niece Mary), donny is a bit cash short. He also owes a lot via the SIVs put together for him at Deutsche Bank, so servicing his debt plus paying the penalties is going to have the guy cutting up more suits and hoping his goobers are maxed out on their Mom's credit cards yet. Lucky for him he is a bloated land whale, so his suits have a lot of material.

 

It is likely NY will simply seize his NYC properties and auction them off. Of course trump will still owe the debt on the properties.  It will be fun to watch when a crane rolls up Fifth AVe and rips his silly name off the front of his garish tower. All the Russians inside will get the shakes, as will the Chinese bank that has 3 floors in it.


And then you woke up!

  • Confused 8
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I've heard of people getting off charges when there are one or two. Statistically, the bigger the number, the lower the probability of acquittal.

Trump has 91 indictments to answer for. That puts him in the top 0.0001 % of people charged with felonies. It's fairly inconceivable he can be acquitted on all 91 charges. He'd have a better shot at winning a lottery.

Given the fatuous responses you have posted, I doubt you have the intelligence to comprehend basic probability and statistics. Trump is toast, unless mass insanity prevails, so he can pardon himself.


OMG,  another one that believes everything they hear on “The View”.

 

  • Confused 8
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

A conflict of interest when the two worked together over 30 years ago? So what?

I will surmise, from the available info, that there is a former partner at Paul Weiss who knew both Judge Kaplan and Robbie Kaplan during their time together at the firm who is now suggesting that their relationship was not so professionally benign as the parties, or at least Ms. Kaplan's team, is suggesting. Maybe someone with a grudge -- who knows?

 

Judge Kaplan has as yet responded to the formal request.

 

I will note to keep things on track that Ms. Kaplan is out gay and most likely was during her time at the firm.

Edited by jerrymahoney
  • Like 1
  • Confused 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, pomchop said:

That is not what trumpers seem to think...except for the extra deranged magas who seem to think obama is still the president....i guess you must be referring to yet another conspiracy theory that some moron on the deep web has come up with that biden is really not biden but is obama wearing a biden mask or something along those lines....or maybe it's michelle as after all she is a man and Barack is probably back in kenya hanging out where he was born trying to figure out how to overthrow the us or how to get trump to send him a happy birthday card.

 

I can't compete with that level of analysis, it's white flag waving time for me.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Danderman123 said:

"Trump only sexually assaulted her, he didn't rape her" is not going to sound great on the campaign trail.

 

Speaking of E Jean Carroll and campaign trails...

 

I know somebody who won't be.

Edited by ozimoron
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, riclag said:

Cut & paste anti Trump far left news sources 

with no personal input. Use to be a time the rules required commentary besides the news source .

 

No rape, no criminal trial, no witnesses, no evidence to a rape , no

time, no date,

Just a civil trial that made up a new law designed for Trump with the help of Hoffman a dem donor!

https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-survivors/

 

You need to see witnesses for someone to be convicted of rape?

 

In this case, Ms. Carroll confided to friends about the rape, back in the day. Yes, I know, you are going to say that she planned for Trump to win the presidency, so she could sue him.

Edited by Danderman123
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“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”

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

Not guilty of rape! More dem lawfare and conflicts of interests!

imop

All under appeal , see you in court again.

Edited by stats
oversized font normalized
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, riclag said:

Just a civil trial that made up a new law designed for Trump with the help of Hoffman a dem donor!

https://19thnews.org/2023/05/e-jean-carroll-trump-new-law-justice-assault-survivors/

 

 

Contrary to your claim above, I don't see anything in your cited report saying Carroll or her attorneys or her civil case had anything to do with the passage of the law.

 

Hoffman isn't even mentioned by name in the article.

 

Though it's clear that passage of the law was helpful to Carroll's ability to file a new civil case.

 

"Within hours of the law going into effect in late November, Carroll filed a battery and defamation civil suit against Trump. (She filed a separate defamation suit in 2019 that has been postponed.)"

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s. A source indicated that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s mentor.

 

This is called a conflict of interest and constitutes grounds for a reversal in an appeals court.

 

what source?

  • Sad 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

 

what source?

 

Trump's lawyer did not disclose it.

 

In her motion, Habba cited a recent New York Post article which quoted an unnamed source suggesting Roberta Kaplan had considered Judge Kaplan her "mentor" at the law firm.

https://www.newsweek.com/alina-habba-conflict-judge-kaplan-e-jean-carroll-lawyer-1865169



 

Edited by rattlesnake
  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...