I can't imagine that getting up and walking out in the middle of closing arguments IN FRONT OF THE JURY helped at all. He also behaved like a complete jackass during the trail. What do you expect a jury to do when it comes to assessing punitive damages?

Someone has had a lot of work done.
Before:


After:

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Old Army Metal said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Does anyone actually think any amount of contrition on his part would have mattered? LOL at being that obtuse.

---

Well it probably would have gone over better than what he did, which is the exact opposite.

---

Have yall been watching for 8 years? He was toast from the outset with that particular aidience

---

Part of punitive damages is how likely the jury believes the defendant will "do the thing" again. The strategy of all but repeating the same legally defamatory comments in court was always going to run up the punitive damages

Yall still seem to think we are talking about a typical case and defendant. We aren't. He was going to get hammered regardless

For the other ladies here. I have a question.

Have you ever been able to take off pantyhose with one hand, from the front? I know I could not.

Not without a lot of wriggling to help.

Carroll claimed Trump used one hand to pull down her tights. Same as pantyhose.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Yall still seem to think we are talking about a typical case and defendant. We aren't. He was going to get hammered regardless

---

I would certainly agree Trump has not acted like most defendants at the damages stage of a trial

GeorgiAg said:

---

Watermelon Man said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

The thread title " I don't care if you don't like Trump, this is a travesty ".

What is the travesty ? The amount of $$$ awarded the victim or that Trump is liable at all ?

I don't see this as a travesty at all.

---

I had a family member who was railroaded by a corrupt judge, lawyers, and witnesses. The stress eventually caused him to have a heart attack, and he died earlier than he should have.

I sincerely hope that you truly understand the implications of denying justice to anyone you hate.

---

Wow. I'm very sorry for your loss.

I guess I just don't see THIS trial as a travesty. Trump was found liable for sexual assault by a jury in another trial. This trial was to decide the amount in damages done by his words after that trial.

Maybe you are saying the trial where he was found liable was the travesty ? I can understand that. A he said she said verdict is hard to square for whomever is believed to be the liar. I would argue trumps past and present life made it easy to believe her version. I know it would for me if I was a juror in that case.

But if you think it's the amount awarded the victim was the travesty, don't you feel that was a self inflicted wound ?

---

The thing about the trial where he was found to be liable is that the evidence against Trump was rather weak.

All he needed to do was take the stand in that trial and say, "I'm sorry, but I don't remember this at all. Ms. Carroll must be mistaken. This was years ago and memories can be tricky, people have vivid memories of things that never happened all the time. I am apologize for the things I said about her, but I felt I was being attacked and I needed to defend myself. I am sorry."

Less than 5 minutes of contrition, along with some decent lawyering for the defendant, and there would not have been a preponderance of evidence in favor of the plaintiff on the issue of sexual assault. The reason he lost that trial was he provided no evidence, not that the jury didn't believe it

Perhaps a judgement would still have been made for defamation, making the argument that Trump's words were damaging even if assault could not be proven, but it would have been much less. Likely under 7 figures.

If, after that, he would have kept his mouth shut about it, it would have been over. It's really as if this is how Trump wanted it to turn out. He certainly had the opportunity to stop it. Instead, he took great steps to make sure he got this result.


Of course, he had the right to not show any contrition if he didn't want to. A wise man knows when he should exercise his rights and when to keep his mouth shut.

---

This post should be the EOT for all posts about this topic. Spot on. Which is why I quoted Cool Hand Luke earlier.

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.

The second verdict and the massive size of it lays squarely at Trump's feet. Let your attorneys quietly appeal the first verdict but leave E Jean Carroll alone.

---

The hypothetical laid out above may be true, that probably would have been the best thing Trump could have done. However, you keep defending the jury while refusing to provide any evidence as to how Trump defamed her. I don't care what his behavior in the courtroom was, behavior in the courtroom doesn't make you guilty, facts do.

Not a lady, but Trump has superhuman strength and dexterity so why not? LOL.

SIAP but can this get appealed?

It can be appealed but he'll have to put up some money to do so. Only the award is appealable not the prior guilty verdict. The court will likely reduce the punitive but she will eventually get some major money.

There was no "guilty" verdict.

What is your basis for thinking punitive will be reduced, liberal judge and NY has no cap on punatuve damages and this was just 3.5X the compensatory award.

bobbranco said:

---

Not a lady, but Trump has superhuman strength and dexterity so why not? LOL.

---

Tights are called that because they fit tightly to the body. Not easy to put on nor take off and certainly not one handed. Not without her cooperation, anyway.

I realize this along with the fact that it is likely that crazy Ms Carroll suffers psychotic episodes.

And why I was making light of how some would make the argument that Trump is antichrist with superhuman powers. You know the types.

aggiehawg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Not a lady, but Trump has superhuman strength and dexterity so why not? LOL.

---

Tights are called that because they fit tightly to the body. Not easy to put on nor take off and certainly not one handed. Not without her cooperation, anyway.

---

'Hang, because you are/were a lawyer, do you think you, or another highly-qualified lawyer, could have handled this case, at least in the courtroom better? What do you think could have been done to have gotten a better, even if still not favorable, outcome for Trump?

I ask because I've "known" you for almost two decades now and you've always had great insight into what happens in court.

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Not a lady, but Trump has superhuman strength and dexterity so why not? LOL.

---

Tights are called that because they fit tightly to the body. Not easy to put on nor take off and certainly not one handed. Not without her cooperation, anyway.

---

'Hang, because you are/were a lawyer, do you think you, or another highly-qualified lawyer, could have handled this case, at least in the courtroom better? What do you think could have been done to have gotten a better, even if still not favorable, outcome for Trump?

I ask because I've "known" you for almost two decades now and you've always had great insight into what happens in court.

---

TBH, since this was in federal court with no cameras in the court room and just an unofficial transcript from reporters in there, hard to really say. Could another lawyer have handled the case better? Certainly.

At this point I am unsure of who is really calling the shots on Team Trump. I watched an interview with former Trump attorney, Parletore. He quit not because of Trump and said he had zero problems with Trump himself but more with Boris Espsteyn (Sp?) micro managing and not allowing the lawyers to do their jobs.

Having said that, Judge Kaplan was not the model of non-biased judicial temperament from what I have read of the proceedings. And further, I think the result was pre-ordained from the moment they changed the law in NY state, solely to go after Trump. But they way they did it was creative in that it sunsetted itself before it could be challenged. Does that make it moot?

IDK but it is something to consider, besides the very odd procedure of bifurcatng the liability and damages trials and holding the damages trial while the liability case is still on appeal.

Antoninus said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

A private citizen with a history of inventing a bunch of bull**** who made a serious allegation she cannot prove in the slightest other than she made it against an incredibly unpopular guy in a jurisdiction where his unpopularity peaks. Georgia would have liked to have seen Duke LAX hammered in civil court

---

The existence of a signed Judgment against him for $83mm tends to indicate that she did not have as much difficulty as you think in proving her allegations (by a preponderance of the evidence).

---

You keep relying on a weaponized, biased justice system to make your points, while completely ignoring the irregularities of how the signed Judgement came to pass.

Not too long ago, our Justice System could be relied upon to actually prove allegations by a preponderance of evidence. And people believed in it. Unfortunately, that good faith is being squandered. And as such, waving around a signed Judgement doesn't carry the weight it used to.

The integrity of a justice system only goes as far as those administering it. There's plenty of documentation about British tribunals in the 1700's that ruled for the Crown in all cases - regardless of the facts at hand.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Ags77 said:

---

Trump plays the victim role waaay to much

---

There's a reason for that.

---

And his followers believe it too much . Maybe that's the reason ?

---

Why change when he knows it works.

---

He can't change with the attack mode of the lib DOJ.

---

He was playing the victim with HIS DOJ.

---

I'm really not interested in trying to change your mind. I'm sure you see everything as justice.

---

No problem . You disagree that Trump was playing the victim with HIS DOJ ? He always plays the victim.

---

Something tells me you and Georgiag are gonna have a few more years to cry.

---

Wait until next week when the financial fraud case hits. $370M? Plus the $88 Million to E Jean. I also saw where Rudy listed Trumps unpaid legal fees as an asset in bankruptcy so now the trustee will be suing to recover those.

How long is Melania gonna stay with broke ass Trump? And this is just the appetizer for the main course criminal trials coming up.

I guess we can all throw in with Nikki to avoid a Biden repeat. Too bad MAGA ran off Ron. He would have been awesome.

---

And that will be another nail in the coffin of our justice system. Why do you think that with every unprecedented Judgement more people are drawn TO Trump rather than be repelled by him?

It doesn't take a legal mind to see when injustice is occurring. By the looks of this thread, some of our resident legal minds are more focused on how the law can be massaged to gain a perceived advantage against a candidate they don't like, while failing to see the damage their tactics are ultimately doing to their own profession.

No one ever said our Justice system couldn't destroy Trump financially. But one wonders why those in political opposition choose to do it? Selectively.

Im Gipper said:

---

There was no "guilty" verdict.

What is your basis for thinking punitive will be reduced, liberal judge and NY has no cap on punatuve damages and this was just 3.5X the compensatory award.

---

Edify me: What makes you call the judge "liberal?"

Scary and strange seeing college educated people happily erode their own freedoms just to stick it to someone they've never met all because they got caught up in the media hysteria and/or partisanship.

If highly educated people are this easily duped and manipulated, we don't stand a chance.

aggiehawg said:

---

For the other ladies here. I have a question.

Have you ever been able to take off pantyhose with one hand, from the front? I know I could not.

Not without a lot of wriggling to help.

Carroll claimed Trump used one hand to pull down her tights. Same as pantyhose.

---

So in other words...

If the tights fit, you must acquit.

aggiehawg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Not a lady, but Trump has superhuman strength and dexterity so why not? LOL.

---

Tights are called that because they fit tightly to the body. Not easy to put on nor take off and certainly not one handed. Not without her cooperation, anyway.

---

'Hang, because you are/were a lawyer, do you think you, or another highly-qualified lawyer, could have handled this case, at least in the courtroom better? What do you think could have been done to have gotten a better, even if still not favorable, outcome for Trump?

I ask because I've "known" you for almost two decades now and you've always had great insight into what happens in court.

---

TBH, since this was in federal court with no cameras in the court room and just an unofficial transcript from reporters in there, hard to really say. Could another lawyer have handled the case better? Certainly.

At this point I am unsure of who is really calling the shots on Team Trump. I watched an interview with former Trump attorney, Parletore. He quit not because of Trump and said he had zero problems with Trump himself but more with Boris Espsteyn (Sp?) micro managing and not allowing the lawyers to do their jobs.

Having said that, Judge Kaplan was not the model of non-biased judicial temperament from what I have read of the proceedings. And further, I think the result was pre-ordained from the moment they changed the law in NY state, solely to go after Trump. But they way they did it was creative in that it sunsetted itself before it could be challenged. Does that make it moot?

IDK but it is something to consider, besides the very odd procedure of bifurcatng the liability and damages trials and holding the damages trial while the liability case is still on appeal.

---

But they way they did it was creative in that it sunsetted itself before it could be challenged. Does that make it moot?

This is a very interesting take. Again, so convenient to have a law that opens, then closes a window in a very short period of time; and, have the plaintiff against Trump filing at midnight the day the law goes into effect.

How many cases were brought under this law? (Ultimately, over 3,000, many against institutions rather than individuals)

Could it be argued on appeal that the short window actually creates a sort of Bill of Attainder, since it was designed to open and close so quickly?

aggiehawg said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Not a lady, but Trump has superhuman strength and dexterity so why not? LOL.

---

Tights are called that because they fit tightly to the body. Not easy to put on nor take off and certainly not one handed. Not without her cooperation, anyway.

---

'Hang, because you are/were a lawyer, do you think you, or another highly-qualified lawyer, could have handled this case, at least in the courtroom better? What do you think could have been done to have gotten a better, even if still not favorable, outcome for Trump?

I ask because I've "known" you for almost two decades now and you've always had great insight into what happens in court.

---

TBH, since this was in federal court with no cameras in the court room and just an unofficial transcript from reporters in there, hard to really say. Could another lawyer have handled the case better? Certainly.

At this point I am unsure of who is really calling the shots on Team Trump. I watched an interview with former Trump attorney, Parletore. He quit not because of Trump and said he had zero problems with Trump himself but more with Boris Espsteyn (Sp?) micro managing and not allowing the lawyers to do their jobs.

Having said that, Judge Kaplan was not the model of non-biased judicial temperament from what I have read of the proceedings. And further, I think the result was pre-ordained from the moment they changed the law in NY state, solely to go after Trump. But they way they did it was creative in that it sunsetted itself before it could be challenged. Does that make it moot?

IDK but it is something to consider, besides the very odd procedure of bifurcatng the liability and damages trials and holding the damages trial while the liability case is still on appeal.

---

Thanks, I appreciate your thoughts like always.

For me, I thought it could have been handled at a higher level of "lawyering". Who knows why, but nothing can be done about that now.


Now to see how the appeals goes, I guess.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

There was no "guilty" verdict.

What is your basis for thinking punitive will be reduced, liberal judge and NY has no cap on punatuve damages and this was just 3.5X the compensatory award.

---

Edify me: What makes you call the judge "liberal?"

---

LOL

Quote:

---

For me, I thought it could have been handled at a higher level of "lawyering". Who knows why, but nothing can be done about that now.

---

Probably so. The coverage of the first trial with the liability portion resulting in the original 5 million for the assault and defamation claims was very spotty to assess what went wrong there. Trump never showed up and did not testify in that one. A big mistake in my view but don't know the reason that decision was made.

But for that matter, I am clueless as to why the judge did not allow defense experts to testify to rebut the Carroll expert on social media damages and costs for "reputational repair" being between 7 and 12 million dollars? Where did that number come from? Unclear.

It's the only item where an appeal might work and a good chance the court won't lesson it regardless.

was something called, the adult survivors law, passed just for this occasion, a law with a three year window?

that temporarily does away with the statute of limitations?

Texas velvet maestro said:

---

was something called, the adult survivors law, passed just for this occasion, a law with a three year window?

that temporarily does away with the statute of limitations?

---

One year window before it sunsetted itself. And yes, it abrogated the existing SOL for sexual abuse for that time period.

Carroll's lawer, Kaplan was so giddy about filing that lawsuit at 12:01 AM the day it went into effect.

agz win said:

---

It's the only item where an appeal might work and a good chance the court won't lesson it regardless.

---

On what basis is that a grounds for appeal??

A 3.5X multiplier is not going to be found to be excessive IMO. So can you explain?

From what I've read, Trump has some good apppellate points in what evidence was not admitted.

It made absolutely zero difference. They were nailing him no matter what he did or didn't do. The whole episode arose from something that never even happened.

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

VDH for the final word

83 million?

Donald Trump in furor stormed out of a New York courtroom for a while, in the defamation suit brought by author and dating/boyfriend/sex-advice columnist E. Jean Carroll.

It was just settled against Trump for $83.3 million! The Carroll suit was largely subsidized by…

— Victor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) January 27, 2024

---

Sad that VDH has joined the Trump cult. History will judge him poorly.

---

Sad that your TDS so dangerously obscures and distorts reality for you.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

For me, I thought it could have been handled at a higher level of "lawyering". Who knows why, but nothing can be done about that now.

---

Probably so. The coverage of the first trial with the liability portion resulting in the original 5 million for the assault and defamation claims was very spotty to assess what went wrong there. Trump never showed up and did not testify in that one. A big mistake in my view but don't know the reason that decision was made.

But for that matter, I am clueless as to why the judge did not allow defense experts to testify to rebut the Carroll expert on social media damages and costs for "reputational repair" being between 7 and 12 million dollars? Where did that number come from? Unclear.

---

Respectfully, there's no way you can be 'clueless' regarding why the judge did not allow defense experts to testify. The judge - by his own words and actions even before the trial - was biased. And the judge used that bias - and his unchecked power - to impair Trumps defense team. Never has the term, "lawfare" been more appropriate.

Eso si, Que es said:

---

Ag CPA said:

---

Who cares, F him.

---

And then they came for the Jews and I kept my mouth shut….

---

Here it is, a post comparing Donald Trump to Jews who died in the holocaust, with 322 stars.

The maga cult brainwash is real.

1939 said:

---

This Jean Carroll 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.

---

This was not a trial on the merits. It was a trial for damages only. He already had his day in court for defamation and lost. A jury of his peers found him liable.

The defendant's wealth can be considered in awarding punitive damages. And Trump did himself exactly zero favors throughout the trial when he went nuts on truth social and continued to defame EJC and the judge. On top of his inappropriate behavior inside the courtroom.

I don't even have an opinion on the merits of the case or the damages award. That dude has been tied up with a million legal issues his whole adult life, why would I care about one more thing? But he's not a victim. He's an idiot.

The judge was biased, and Trump tried to get a new expert a month before trial, long after discovery closed. That's what just about any judge wouid do.

So while this judge was biased as hell, Team Trump did him no favors in this case.

CSTXAg92 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

For me, I thought it could have been handled at a higher level of "lawyering". Who knows why, but nothing can be done about that now.

---

Probably so. The coverage of the first trial with the liability portion resulting in the original 5 million for the assault and defamation claims was very spotty to assess what went wrong there. Trump never showed up and did not testify in that one. A big mistake in my view but don't know the reason that decision was made.

But for that matter, I am clueless as to why the judge did not allow defense experts to testify to rebut the Carroll expert on social media damages and costs for "reputational repair" being between 7 and 12 million dollars? Where did that number come from? Unclear.

---

Respectfully, there's no way you can be 'clueless' regarding why the judge did not allow defense experts to testify. The judge - by his own words and actions even before the trial - was biased. And the judge used that bias - and his unchecked power - to impair Trumps defense team. Never has the term, "lawfare" been more appropriate.

---

Not disputing that at all. I haven't ever seen what justification the judge gave for not allowing those defense experts. What was his reasoning? That's what I meant.