Quote:

---

New York does not, but I have seen some case law in which Federal courts sitting in New York have limited exemplaries to 3x compensatories.

---

Have a link or cite?

Antoninus said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Trial 1 already found Carroll defamed and compensated. How can someone be defamed again with same set of facts? Res Judicata.

---

If you continue to defame someone after a trial which you lose, you should be free to defame them in whatever way you wish from then on? Is the continued defamation not actionable?

---

Honestly, if we're discussing damages, and assuming arguendo that defamation actually took place, once someone has been defamed, how can you defame them MORE? If the first defamation was cured by a $5 million verdict, how can a second statement defame to the tune of $18.3 Million?

At what point do words said do no damage, but are simply the ramblings of one who lost? Never? Each consecutive time he says something, the damage is WORSE?

---

Were they different, more-hurtful words? Were the words disseminated more-widely? Did more people hear them? Lots of variables.

---

I'm sorry, you can continue to try to argue this and attempt to sound as if you're not predjudiced, but please realize that this incredibly narrow needle you're trying to thread does nothing but continue to destroy faith in our judicial system.

You are so intent on massaging law for this one specific case so that one specific individual is destroyed, that you're ignoring the ethics - or lack thereof - that are supposed to drive our legal system in the first place.

As Trump would say... Sad.

The summary judgment you are quoting relates to a counterclaim filed by Trump. That's not the same collateral estoppel ruling that led to the $83 million verdict we just saw.

The jury in the first trial found Trump defamed Carroll. Her defamation claim wasn't that he denied "raping" her, but he denied that anything at all happened and she made the story up for money. They determined he sexually abused her and that (basically, it's slightly more complicated) means he defamed her.

I don't know if Trump can or will challenge the dismissal of his counterclaim at this point, but Trump isn't getting the defamation ruling against him overturned because the jury found he didn't legally "rape" her. That wasn't really the question.

Antoninus said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Trial 1 already found Carroll defamed and compensated. How can someone be defamed again with same set of facts? Res Judicata.

---

If you continue to defame someone after a trial which you lose, you should be free to defame them in whatever way you wish from then on? Is the continued defamation not actionable?

---

Honestly, if we're discussing damages, and assuming arguendo that defamation actually took place, once someone has been defamed, how can you defame them MORE? If the first defamation was cured by a $5 million verdict, how can a second statement defame to the tune of $18.3 Million?

At what point do words said do no damage, but are simply the ramblings of one who lost? Never? Each consecutive time he says something, the damage is WORSE?

---

Were they different, more-hurtful words? Were the words disseminated more-widely? Did more people hear them? Lots of variables.

---

Even if he said the exact same words again, it was surely yet another defaming.

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.

---

The answer is easy. IF the story involved Obama, would you post the same outrage? If you would, I am with you. If it's selective outrage, than just politics.

eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

Were they different, more-hurtful words? Were the words disseminated more-widely? Did more people hear them? Lots of variables.

---

Even if he said the exact same words again, it was surely yet another defaming.

---

True, but would the same words give rise to the same damages or to additional damages?

Again, lots of variables.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The question of whether or not he assaulted her was decided in the first trial. He had no right to litigate it again in the second trial.

---

Here's the problem though. Jury did not find he had raped her. But after that verdict she went on CNN and claimed again that he had raped her. Trump then countersues in June 2023 for defamation for her untruthful statements. But the judge dismisses it and the reason why is a doozy.

Quote:

---

Trump and his legal team claimed that the former magazine writer defamed him when she said that he raped her on CNN.

Carroll made these comments during an interview after she won one of her lawsuits against the former president in May. The jury in that case found Trump liable for battery and defamation. Jurors found he did sexually abuse the writer and defamed her when he denied her allegation. Carroll was awarded $5 million in damages.

---

Quote:

---

When Carroll was asked by CNN about the verdict finding Trump didn't rape her as defined under New York law she responded, "Oh, yes he did."

For that, Trump sued the writer back in June.

---

Quote:

---

And on Monday, federal Judge Lewis Kaplan said Carroll's statements repeating the claim that Trump had raped her were "substantially true" given the jury's verdict in that case.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Kaplan wrote in his dismissal that the jury in May established that "Mr. Trump 'raped her,' albeit digitally rather than with his *****."

"In fact, both acts constitute 'rape' in common parlance, its definition in some dictionaries, in some federal and state criminal statutes, and elsewhere," he wrote.

---

LINK

Other states' criminal statutes? What do they have to do with NY law?

Quote:

---

At the end of the two-week trial in Carroll II, on May 9, 2023, the jury deliberated for approximately two and a half hours. On the first count of battery, the jury was asked to evaluate whether Trump had, by a preponderance of the evidence, committed an ASA predicate sex offense, thereby reviving Carroll's claim. See C.P.L.R. 214-j. Consistent with the parties' proposals, the jury was presented with three possible ASA predicates under New York's criminal code: rape, sexual abuse, and forcible touching. Carroll II, ECF 174. The Court instructed the jury to address each predicate in that order until they found that Trump's conduct fit one of those offenses, if at all. Id. The jury answered "no" on rape and "yes" on sexual abuseand it awarded Carroll a total of $2.02 million in damages on that claim.

---

Quote:

---

As the Court instructed the Carroll II jury, under the New York Penal Law, rape requires proof that the defendant engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Carroll II Trial Tr. at 1416. "Sexual intercourse" is defined as "any penetration, however slight, of the ***** into the vaginal opening." Id. at 1417. Sexual abuse, by contrast, similarly requires proof that the defendant subjected the victim to sexual contact and did so without the victim's consent by the use of forcible compulsion. Id. at 1418. "Sexual contact" is defined as "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person for the purpose of gratifying the sexual desire of either person." Id. "Sexual part" is defined as "an organ of human reproduction." Id.; see People v. Blodgett, 37 A.D.2d 1035, 1036 (3d Dep't 1971).

---

Those are from Carroll's own memorandum of law in support of her motion to dismiss his counterclaim.

LINK

There is a distinction between rape using a male sexual organ and using fingers which is sexual contact under the sexual abuse. See those words "by contrast"? That means there is a difference between the two under NY law.

Another bone of contention was that Carroll was somehow defamed when Trump called her a "Democratic operative." Now calling a staunch conservative Republican a "Democrat" might be offensive but is it really defamatory? Especially if it is true? Can there even be a question of her political agenda here? After her shaemless comments post the current verdict?

Her testimony and public statements were that she was not going to sue Trump. But then a meeting was set up by Erica Jong's daughter* and George Conway and he arrived armed with a power point presentation, the name of lawyer already on board and the financing by Reid Hoffman.

Yet the judge refused to allow evidence (even Reid's own tweet admitting he was funding her lawsuit specifically) to be presented on this disputed fact. That was in the trial that Tacopina tried. Was not allowed.

Lastly, the procedure ordered by the court to bifurcate the proceeding in order to set an issue preclusion a/k/a collateral estoppel for the second trial is shall we unusual. Liability and damages, if any, are almost always tried in the same civil case, particularly tort cases which is what defamation is, a tort. As is a claim under the Adult Survivors Act. Personal injury, i.e. a tort.

This was a set up from the get go. After Team Mueller was unsuccessful in baiting Trump into an obstruction charge, the Trump haters changed tactics and used a different approach and boy did it work. Just like clockwork almost like it was planned, didn't?

*Erica Jong was a soft porn writer in the early 70s. And I am not talking about bodice ripping romance novels, nor a Jackie Collins or Danielle Steel level of writer. And she and Carroll tended to write in same genre and are long term friends.

---

If there are further damages after the first trial, then the defendant should not be able to take that to trial?

By the way, I remember Erica Jong from the 70s. I tried reading her Fear of Flying but put it down within a few pages and never tried again.

eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Trial 1 already found Carroll defamed and compensated. How can someone be defamed again with same set of facts? Res Judicata.

---

If you continue to defame someone after a trial which you lose, you should be free to defame them in whatever way you wish from then on? Is the continued defamation not actionable?

---

Honestly, if we're discussing damages, and assuming arguendo that defamation actually took place, once someone has been defamed, how can you defame them MORE? If the first defamation was cured by a $5 million verdict, how can a second statement defame to the tune of $18.3 Million?

At what point do words said do no damage, but are simply the ramblings of one who lost? Never? Each consecutive time he says something, the damage is WORSE?

---

Were they different, more-hurtful words? Were the words disseminated more-widely? Did more people hear them? Lots of variables.

---

Even if he said the exact same words again, it was surely yet another defaming.

---

Right. It's much like the Breakfast Club when Bender keeps talking and keeps getting more and more detention.

E. Jean really turned on the waterworks, oppenly sobbling on the stand that when he said, "I was not his type, he was calling me ugly! Waaaaaahhh!"

An 80 year old woman being so damaged and affected because someone called her ugly? And he didn't even say that, just that she wasn't his type.

Men and women for that matter do have certain types that they find more attractive. Leg guy, boob guy, butt guy, very thin, very voluptuous, etc.

A review including excerpts from her book.

Quote:

---

This is in part a road book but our protagonists, instead of Thelma and Louise, are Carroll and Lewis, her poodle. Carroll lives alone in an upstate New York house painted white with black stripes. She left her cat, Vagina T Fireball, behind with a friend. Her car, a Prius bought secondhand for $6,000 and hand-painted with blue polka dots and green frogs, is named Miss Bingley, for the mean girl in Pride and Prejudice. Are you getting a sense of Auntie E's special eccentricities?

Carroll had planned to write about driving around the US, visiting towns named for women Bonnieville, Kentucky; Pocahontas, Missouri; Tallulah, Louisiana and asking a satirical question: "Ladies! What do we need men for?"

The premise derived from Carroll's observation, after 25 years writing her column, that most female correspondents' problems were caused by "lads" and "chaps".

"The whole female sex seems to agree that men are becoming a nuisance with their lying, cheating, robbing, perjuring, assaulting, murdering, voting debauchers on to the supreme court, threatening one another with intercontinental ballistic nuclear warheads, and so on," Carroll pronounces on page one in the first of many flamboyant adjectival lists.

---

The Supreme Court?

This is rich.

Quote:

---

"I don't know how many apertures and openings you possess, Ladies, but Moonves, with his arms squirming and poking and goosing and scooping and *****ing and pulling and prodding and jabbing, is looking for fissures I don't even know I own, and by God! I am not certain that even if I pull off one of his arms, it won't crawl after me and attack me in my hotel bed. Hell, I am thrilled I escape before he expels his ink!"

If Carroll had a tattoo for every time she was insulted, fondled or attacked by a "chap", she would look like a Maori warrior.

---

LINK

TXAggie2011 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Trial 1 already found Carroll defamed and compensated. How can someone be defamed again with same set of facts? Res Judicata.

---

If you continue to defame someone after a trial which you lose, you should be free to defame them in whatever way you wish from then on? Is the continued defamation not actionable?

---

Honestly, if we're discussing damages, and assuming arguendo that defamation actually took place, once someone has been defamed, how can you defame them MORE? If the first defamation was cured by a $5 million verdict, how can a second statement defame to the tune of $18.3 Million?

At what point do words said do no damage, but are simply the ramblings of one who lost? Never? Each consecutive time he says something, the damage is WORSE?

---

Were they different, more-hurtful words? Were the words disseminated more-widely? Did more people hear them? Lots of variables.

---

Even if he said the exact same words again, it was surely yet another defaming.

---

Right. It's much like the Breakfast Club when Bender keeps talking and keeps getting more and more detention.

---

Did you come up with that on your own or did you read it somewhere? Impressive and I laughed.

Giver her credit. Crazy ol E Jean sure got Trump's goat. So we'll see.

Name somebody that got got worse than Trump got got here.

Might have AI turn this case into a script for Gone Girl 2.

Man…David Robinson sure has fallen a long way.

Sad to see.

Fat Black Swan said:

---

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s lawyer in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’ https://t.co/5T706F8XjB pic.twitter.com/rYMTA1U0AZ

— New York Post (@nypost) January 28, 2024

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's lawyers will use an "insane" and previously unknown "conflict of interest" between E. Jean Carroll's lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan's "mentor.

During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton.

Zak Sawyer, a rep for Roberta Kaplan, insisted no conflict exists.

"They overlapped for less than two years in the early 1990s at a large law firm when he was a senior partner and she was a junior associate and she never worked for him," said Sawyer, who declined to provide further comment.

But a former Paul Weiss partner who asked not to be named said like all associates at the firm, Roberta Kaplan did her best to distinguish herself before partners, including Lewis Kaplan.

"Lew was like her mentor," claimed the former partner.

Messages left with Judge Kaplan's chambers and a rep for Paul Weiss were not returned Saturday.

---

---

Way to stick to your guns and fight Alina!

Update

Trump's lawyer Alina Habba says, in short, that she was just asking questions about the New York Post article.

After Carroll's lawyer rejected it—and threatened to seek sanctions—Habba says the matter seems "resolved."

Background, @TheMessenger https://t.co/GnAJ79DAWp pic.twitter.com/ti9lgG5SJl

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) January 30, 2024

As aggiehawg said immediately after this was posted, "weak"

Im Gipper said:

---

Fat Black Swan said:

---

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s lawyer in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’ https://t.co/5T706F8XjB pic.twitter.com/rYMTA1U0AZ

— New York Post (@nypost) January 28, 2024

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's lawyers will use an "insane" and previously unknown "conflict of interest" between E. Jean Carroll's lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan's "mentor.

During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton.

Zak Sawyer, a rep for Roberta Kaplan, insisted no conflict exists.

"They overlapped for less than two years in the early 1990s at a large law firm when he was a senior partner and she was a junior associate and she never worked for him," said Sawyer, who declined to provide further comment.

But a former Paul Weiss partner who asked not to be named said like all associates at the firm, Roberta Kaplan did her best to distinguish herself before partners, including Lewis Kaplan.

"Lew was like her mentor," claimed the former partner.

Messages left with Judge Kaplan's chambers and a rep for Paul Weiss were not returned Saturday.

---

---

Way to stick to your guns and fight Alina!

Update

Trump's lawyer Alina Habba says, in short, that she was just asking questions about the New York Post article.

After Carroll's lawyer rejected it—and threatened to seek sanctions—Habba says the matter seems "resolved."

Background, @TheMessenger https://t.co/GnAJ79DAWp pic.twitter.com/ti9lgG5SJl

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) January 30, 2024

As aggiehawg said immediately after this was posted, "weak"

---

Can you point to where Aggiehawg said it was weak, I missed that. I pointed out these conflicts yesterday and I don't recall her saying it was weak. Some others did but I took them with a grain of salt.

The very first post after this "conflict" was raised. Page 12.

Quote:

---

Can you point to where Aggiehawg said it was weak, I missed that. I pointed out these conflicts yesterday and I don't recall her saying it was weak. Some others did but I took them with a grain of salt.

---

Story came out before Alina was aware of it and sent that letter. Working at the same huge law firm for a couple years thirty years ago is too far in time without much else to be true conflict requiring recusal. Hence I opined that was a weak argument.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you point to where Aggiehawg said it was weak, I missed that. I pointed out these conflicts yesterday and I don't recall her saying it was weak. Some others did but I took them with a grain of salt.

---

Story came out before Alina was aware of it and sent that letter. Working at the same huge law firm for a couple years thirty years ago is too far in time without much else to be true conflict requiring recusal. Hence I opined that was a weak argument.

---

Thanks there are two attorney's on here who's opinion I value more than others, you and the BMW guy or whatever his handle is. always very measured and even keeled.

Foreverconservative said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Can you point to where Aggiehawg said it was weak, I missed that. I pointed out these conflicts yesterday and I don't recall her saying it was weak. Some others did but I took them with a grain of salt.

---

Story came out before Alina was aware of it and sent that letter. Working at the same huge law firm for a couple years thirty years ago is too far in time without much else to be true conflict requiring recusal. Hence I opined that was a weak argument.

---

Thanks there are two attorney's on here who's opinion I value more than others, you and the BMW guy or whatever his handle is. always very measured and even keeled.

---

LOL. And not surprisingly being lawyers (or in my case retired lawyer) BMX and I don't always agree.

agz win said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Antoninus said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

eric76 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Trial 1 already found Carroll defamed and compensated. How can someone be defamed again with same set of facts? Res Judicata.

---

If you continue to defame someone after a trial which you lose, you should be free to defame them in whatever way you wish from then on? Is the continued defamation not actionable?

---

Honestly, if we're discussing damages, and assuming arguendo that defamation actually took place, once someone has been defamed, how can you defame them MORE? If the first defamation was cured by a $5 million verdict, how can a second statement defame to the tune of $18.3 Million?

At what point do words said do no damage, but are simply the ramblings of one who lost? Never? Each consecutive time he says something, the damage is WORSE?

---

Were they different, more-hurtful words? Were the words disseminated more-widely? Did more people hear them? Lots of variables.

---

Even if he said the exact same words again, it was surely yet another defaming.

---

Right. It's much like the Breakfast Club when Bender keeps talking and keeps getting more and more detention.

---

Did you come up with that on your own or did you read it somewhere? Impressive and I laughed.

---

All by myself

Ol E Jean tries to go J.G. Wentworth on Trump's ass!

E Jean say 'where the gold at? ... we want the gold!'

Court denies staying collection.

JUST IN: Judge Kaplan has *denied* Donald Trump's motion for a stay of the civil verdict against him in the Carroll case.

"Mr. Trump's current situation is a result of his own dilatory actions," he writes.
https://t.co/siv6RjqmSs pic.twitter.com/uzB4F4cLRv

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) March 7, 2024

Trump was able to secure a bond on this one through Chubb.

You can see it on X. The leftist are going nuts.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Trump was able to secure a bond on this one through Chubb.

You can see it on X. The leftist are going nuts.

---

obviously, you know this, but many do not:

This was not a cash deposit by Trump. It was not a cash deposit by anyone on his behalf.

It is a "surety bond," by which a financial institution (here, Chubb) promises to pay that sum, if Trump loses his appeal and then fails to do so. Chubb is not "out of pocket" any money at this point, except perhaps some filing fees and whatever attorney fees it paid to prepare the documentation. they probably made Trump pay those.

to secure such a bond, Trump probably (a) paid Chubb an out of pocket fee of some sort (the amount varies, but is usually 10-25% of the principal) and (b) provided some sort of collateral to Chubb, usually with the value approximately twice the amount of the principal.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Giver her credit. Crazy ol E Jean sure got Trump's goat. So we'll see.

Name somebody that got got worse than Trump got got here.

---

This background sure brings some questions into E Jean's character and motivations.

No surprise, no objection in the bond

NEW: E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers have notified Judge Kaplan that they don’t oppose Trump’s proposed $91.63 million bond because Trump & his insurer have modified a provision that suggested Carroll could wait 60 days or more after an appellate victory to get paid. pic.twitter.com/tiMLi0mjWi

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) March 11, 2024

While the twitter internet lawyers may have been up in arms, the real lawyers are glad as it's much easier to collect if they win on appeal

BMX Bandit said:

---

No surprise, no objection in the bond

---

of course not. No reasonable lawyer would object to Chubb as a surety.

I would be fascinated to know the terms of the contract between Trump and Chubb, but I doubt we will ever know the fee. Chubb almost certainly took some property as collateral, and I suspect that local sleuths will be scouring property records in search of deeds of trust.

Who was "up in arms" and on what basis?

Here is the right thread...

NEW: Insurance giant Chubb issues letter to customers defending $91.6 bond for Trump to facilitate his appeal in Carroll libel case. Company calls itself 'part of the justice system plumbing' & says bond 'fully collateralized' if verdict is upheld. Stmt: https://t.co/mhK8jOBUH6

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) March 13, 2024

will25u said:

---

Here is the right thread...

NEW: Insurance giant Chubb issues letter to customers defending $91.6 bond for Trump to facilitate his appeal in Carroll libel case. Company calls itself 'part of the justice system plumbing' & says bond 'fully collateralized' if verdict is upheld. Stmt: https://t.co/mhK8jOBUH6

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) March 13, 2024

---

It is sad that Chubb felt it necessary to explain this basic premise of the legal system.

Whistle Pig said:

---

It seems being a pathological liar is a liability in a "he said she said" civil case.

---

Take comfort in knowing Biden is a prolific truth teller. You can always vote for him.

Quote:

---

I suspect that local sleuths will be scouring property records in search of deeds of trust.

---

Are those required to be filed before there is actually a debt to be paid? Chubb has not fronted any money here. It is a surety bond, not a loan.

Under notice theory and maintaining priority position, sure but without an actual final debt? We are more into Article Nine of the UCC than real estate law. I ask because I don't know how NY law applies here. Can they perfect a security interest in other manners than a Deed of Trust? You are up north and likley know the answr quicker than I would down here in Texas.

Filing a debt against real property without an actual debt is slander of title down here. One can file a lis pendens notice but only if there is actually a connection to a filed lawsuit. For instance, people embezzle money, are sued but in an attempt to convert the embezzled money, use it to buy a new homestead. File a lis pendens against the property. (I did that in a case that I was the bloodhound on. I was so nipping at their heels that the lis pendens was filed, complete with a detailed property description from the survey, within two hours of closing.)

I would think a subrogation agreement with existing lenders on the real property would suffice for a bond?

UCC filing says a brokerage account is the collateral.

The record — a Uniform Commercial Code filing dated March 7, 2024 — was filed by Chubb’s outside counsel, Akerman LLP, and lists two debtors: the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust (into which Trump’s assets roll up) and Donald J. Trump, Jr., one of the trustees. 2/

— Lisa Rubin (@lawofruby) March 19, 2024

Antoninus said:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

---

And it's bull***** You hear her talk? She's a ****ing wacko.

It's just not Trump, it's anyone who was close to him, these Marxist *******s are starting a war they will not win and will regret. Just yesterday that idiot John Roberts denied Peter Navarro's appeal to stay out on appeal bond while he pursues his appeal of the J6 contempt BS. The Biden regime is sending Peter Navarro, one of Trump's top advisors with a PhD from Harvard, to prison for defying a subpoena from the illegitimate J6 Committee, even after the recent release of the wormholed exculpatory evidence showing the J6 hacks actually obstructed justice by withholding anything that killed their case.

I do have one question? How is Bannon still free pending appeal for the exact same conviction?

Democrats might be cheering, but I hope they realize the Pandora's box they've opened

The pendulum will swing back…

FJB