try it then, easy pay day1939 said:
anyone can just claim with no evidence that they were assaulted 30 years ago, then if you deny it it's defamation and you owe them $83 million.
Ag CPA said:
Who cares, F him.
Old McDonald said:try it then, easy pay day1939 said:
anyone can just claim with no evidence that they were assaulted 30 years ago, then if you deny it it's defamation and you owe them $83 million.
Just wait until they do it to your candidate!Ag CPA said:
Who cares, F him.
Pure ignorance.Ag CPA said:
Who cares, F him.
Trump has been mistreated and I hope all the lawsuits are thrown out. I have never thought that is a reason to vote for him though even though I will vote for him if he is the nominee. Trump cries victim more than Bubba Wallace.1939 said:
This Jean King thing is just absolutely nuts, anyone can just claim with no evidence that they were assaulted 30 years ago, then if you deny it it's defamation and you owe them $83 million.
It's pure lunacy, what a sham of a country we live in.
Irrelevant since she had zero proof of the assault. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff, and she had no proof, but knew NYC jury would side with her without question.Whistle Pig said:
It seems being a pathological liar is a liability in a "he said she said" civil case.
We only think we have a Constitution and the rights therein, until you're stuck in a courtroom with a judge who is repugnant to the Constitution.AggieZUUL said:
Garbage judge. Freedom of speech is dead.
Until it happens to you..Ag CPA said:
Who cares, F him.
When you have been adjudicated as having raped someone and then making defamatory comments about it, the legal recourse is to APPEAL. If you comment on the case, you can say "I disagree with the verdict and maintain my innocence, we are pursing an appeal." Go beyond that and you're playing with fire.Quote:
What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men, you just can't reach.
So you get what we had here last week -- which is the way he wants it.
Well, he gets it.
That'll be the day hell freezes over there's a long line from Ted Kennedy to Clinton to the current holder of the WH and nothing ever happens. It's almost like a badge of honor for that side of the isle.LoudestWHOOP! said:Just wait until they do it to your candidate!Ag CPA said:
Who cares, F him.
you do not seem to have a very good understanding of the concept of "evidence." Her testimony is "evidence," as is Donald Trump's testimony. The province of the court is to determine which evidence to believe, in which evidence to discard.Quote:
…. she had zero proof of the assault. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff, and she had no proof, but knew NYC jury would side with her without question.
Tell them you identified as a woman and dare them to call you out on it!1939 said:Old McDonald said:try it then, easy pay day1939 said:
anyone can just claim with no evidence that they were assaulted 30 years ago, then if you deny it it's defamation and you owe them $83 million.
I'm a dude, doesn't work that way
You voted for Biden. Look in a mirror.Quote:
Anyone who supports him makes me seriously question their competency
Ahh, but you describe our current environment of lawfare so very well...Antoninus said:you do not seem to have a very good understanding of the concept of "evidence." Her testimony is "evidence," as is Donald Trump's testimony. The province of the court is to determine which evidence to believe, in which evidence to discard.Quote:
…. she had zero proof of the assault. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff, and she had no proof, but knew NYC jury would side with her without question.
Civil lawsuits simply do not require "conclusive" proof. They really acquire only "a preponderance of the evidence"…"more likely than not."
in this case, that means that the judicial system has determined that it is "more likely than not" that she is telling the truth, and Donald Trump is lying.
that is a very distinct question from the question of whether this particular sort of "lie" should give rise to a claim for defamation.
The problem with this is, it was determined by a group of folks who already judged Trump before this case ever came to light. Move this to Hempstead, Texas and it would have been a different result. Of course they would accept her claims of evidence over his. It is a flawed system. Thank God for appeals.Antoninus said:you do not seem to have a very good understanding of the concept of "evidence." Her testimony is "evidence," as is Donald Trump's testimony. The province of the court is to determine which evidence to believe, in which evidence to discard.Quote:
…. she had zero proof of the assault. The burden of proof in a civil case is on the plaintiff, and she had no proof, but knew NYC jury would side with her without question.
Civil lawsuits simply do not require "conclusive" proof. They really acquire only "a preponderance of the evidence"…"more likely than not."
in this case, that means that the judicial system has determined that it is "more likely than not" that she is telling the truth, and Donald Trump is lying.
that is a very distinct question from the question of whether this particular sort of "lie" should give rise to a claim for defamation.
Quote:
not more than likely than not.
Odd way to describe the Constitutionally-protected right to a trial by jury.Quote:you describe our current environment of lawfareso very well...Quote:
…understanding of the concept of "evidence." Her testimony is "evidence," as is Donald Trump's testimony. The province of the court is to determine which evidence to believe, in which evidence to discard.
Civil lawsuits simply do not require "conclusive" proof. They really acquire only "a preponderance of the evidence"…"more likely than not."
in this case, that means that the judicial system has determined that it is "more likely than not" that she is telling the truth, and Donald Trump is lying.
that is a very distinct question from the question of whether this particular sort of "lie" should give rise to a claim for defamation.
Just … wow.Quote:
Justice is determined when hard facts are presented, not "more than likely than not".
You can't call someone a liar for years, then when you get called into court for it, put up a half assed defense, get adjudicated a rapist and for defaming someone, then later try to go in court again for a "do over."Antoninus said:
I am a lifelong Libertarian-leaning, GOP-voter, and I absolutely despise Donald Trump. With that background, this verdict concerns me.
Any time that someone denies an allegation against him, he is essentially calling the original speaker a "liar."
As far as I can tell, that is really all Trump did here. He denied Carroll's allegation that he had raped her. That sort of denial absolutely should not give rise to civil liability
