I do agree with one thing: Trump probably could have prevailed or avoided this simply by being more tactful in his speech, but that's not who he is.

I still dislike the obvious bias in the system and process against the man himself. Just about anyone else would have been treated less aggressively or harshly by the legal process even with the same behaviors, and it is that type of political/personal bias I find objectionable.

Then why did author of bill tag her on twitter when it passed?

I think Trump got screwed over, but you are wrong here:

Quote:

---

Just about anyone else would have been treated less aggressively or harshly by the legal process even with the same behaviors

---

The judge let him get away with much more than you or I could have done.

Im Gipper said:

---

I feel like Trump really wanted this huge verdict against him in this case. He kept saying things about her, knowing it would make it worse.


The travesty is that New York change the statute of limitations to let this weirdo sue him for the sexual assault. I had to think that it flipped on appeal.

---

What is the advantage to having a big judgment against you?

Kansas Kid said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The case with the verdict yesterday was based on statements made in 2019. It was filed in 2020, no change to law was needed

It's the sexual assault case from May that NY change the law on. I don't care how many republicans voted for it, it's still garbage

---

I agree but the change wasn't done as others have said specifically for Trump as many people parrot on here.

---

I was specifically responding to your comment about Reade not bringing an action against Biden, and pointing out that she could not as the alleged assault occurred in D.C.

I'll also add that the $83m judgement would never have occurred without the 2022 law change allowing her to air the old allegation.

As for the foundations of the 2022 law, we'll never know. You cannot prove either way. VDH's outline of the "coincidences" are interesting, though.

Quote:

---

the (statutory) change wasn't done as others have said specifically for Trump as many people parrot on here.

---

TMS***


***Trump Martyrdom Syndrome

Duh said:

---

As for the foundations of the 2022 law, we'll never know. You cannot prove either way. VDH's outline of the "coincidences" are interesting, though.

---

As I recall, there is extensive legislative history tying it to the broader "Me Too" movement.

always remember the maxim… Bad facts make bad law

Tex100 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

I feel like Trump really wanted this huge verdict against him in this case. He kept saying things about her, knowing it would make it worse.


The travesty is that New York change the statute of limitations to let this weirdo sue him for the sexual assault. I had to think that it flipped on appeal.

---

What is the advantage to having a big judgment against you?

---

Consider it a campaign donation to himself.

You know, something that they'll find a way to sue him for again.

Maybe in court, but that might have been bait for the jury by the judge. Let Trump sink himself by letting him run amok by courtroom standards.

Trump was playing to his audience, and it wasn't the jury. 83 million dollars may be small change if that judgement is part of what is required to boost him into the Oval Office again.

If you don't think the effects on Trump weren't weighted subtlety into the calculations, regardless of other matters, you don't understand Democrats.

You think people are going to flood Trump with donations? I think he really will lose this time. He will get my unenthusiastic vote but not others.

Antoninus said:

---

Duh said:

---

As for the foundations of the 2022 law, we'll never know. You cannot prove either way. VDH's outline of the "coincidences" are interesting, though.

---

As I recall, there is extensive legislative history tying it to the broader "Me Too" movement.

always remember the maxim… Bad facts make bad law

---

Never Forget

Trump accuser Jean Carroll admits on CNN she *helped* New York Dems pass the new law in 2022 that extended statute of limitations for sexual assault civil lawsuits beyond 20 years, which allowed her to sue Trump in a 1 year window

Her lawyer says they filed their… pic.twitter.com/dEHfWyBoF2

— DC_Draino (@DC_Draino) January 26, 2024

jrdaustin said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The case with the verdict yesterday was based on statements made in 2019. It was filed in 2020, no change to law was needed

It's the sexual assault case from May that NY change the law on. I don't care how many republicans voted for it, it's still garbage

---

I agree but the change wasn't done as others have said specifically for Trump as many people parrot on here.

---

I was specifically responding to your comment about Reade not bringing an action against Biden, and pointing out that she could not as the alleged assault occurred in D.C.

I'll also add that the $83m judgement would never have occurred without the 2022 law change allowing her to air the old allegation.

As for the foundations of the 2022 law, we'll never know. You cannot prove either way. VDH's outline of the "coincidences" are interesting, though.

---

I agree Reade couldn't bring a civil case by the time she was going after Biden because the incident is said to have happened in DC and state and local laws dictate.

While no one can say why each senator and house member in NY voted for it, the fact that all but 3 voted for the change says it had broad bipartisan support. If it was done solely to get Trump, that is saying all but 3 Republicans out of around 60 wanted to "Get Trump". Name any time in history where something targeting one politician or one party had broad bipartisan support.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Then why did author of bill tag her on twitter when it passed?

---

Because it's 100% not a political clown show at all. Pure honor and justice. Completely professional with no agenda.

Kansas Kid said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The case with the verdict yesterday was based on statements made in 2019. It was filed in 2020, no change to law was needed

It's the sexual assault case from May that NY change the law on. I don't care how many republicans voted for it, it's still garbage

---

I agree but the change wasn't done as others have said specifically for Trump as many people parrot on here.

---

I was specifically responding to your comment about Reade not bringing an action against Biden, and pointing out that she could not as the alleged assault occurred in D.C.

I'll also add that the $83m judgement would never have occurred without the 2022 law change allowing her to air the old allegation.

As for the foundations of the 2022 law, we'll never know. You cannot prove either way. VDH's outline of the "coincidences" are interesting, though.

---

I agree Reade couldn't bring a civil case by the time she was going after Biden because the incident is said to have happened in DC and state and local laws dictate.

While no one can say why each senator and house member in NY voted for it, the fact that all but 3 voted for the change says it had broad bipartisan support. If it was done solely to get Trump, that is saying all but 3 Republicans out of around 60 wanted to "Get Trump". Name any time in history where something targeting one politician or one party had broad bipartisan support.

---

Your fallacy is trying to conclude that NY Republicans in a heavy blue state represent all Republicans. Most either hated Trump or knew their jobs would be at stake if they went against it.

There is nothing "bipartisan" about one of the bluest states in the country.

Keep your eyes on the border..

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.

---

Forget politics, this is a sad day for MEN.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

Keep your eyes on the border..

---

Classic democrat crap... distract and destroy.

Interesting if true.

UNBELIEVABLE—SDNY Judge Lewis Kaplan who infamously dismissed Prince Andrew's s•xual assault claims made by one of Jeffery Epstein’s human tr•fficking victims—is the SAME judge that presided over E. Jean Carrol vs. Trump’s defamation case—as well as the now infamous SBF/FTX… pic.twitter.com/5eVyzSQhaP

— Te𝕏asLindsay™ (@TexasLindsay_) January 27, 2024

Unsure how it’s possible to “defame” this lunatic

pic.twitter.com/oiisV0nSIl

— ALX 🇺🇸 (@alx) January 26, 2024

I am not an arborist, but painting the trunk of a tree cannot be beneficial to the tree's health.

Upon further reflection EJC does qualify to proudly wear the nasty woman moniker.

Quote:

---

I am not an arborist, but painting the trunk of a tree cannot be beneficial to the tree's health.

---

Do you play one on TV?

Supposedly helps prevent sunscald in some species. Fairly common practice. My grandmother painted a lot of her trees.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Say what you want about the first case. This case was about Trump openly thumbing his nose at the U.S. legal system. He dared the jury to do this. Well, to quote the movie, Cool Hand Luke,

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.

---

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.

Orange Moron went out and defamed her over and over and over again. Blatantly thumbing his nose.

Then he hires a moron to defend him, thumbs his nose the entire time at the judge, the process and the jury. Trump is the biggest idiot on the planet..

Anyone who supports him makes me seriously question their competency.

---

Oh good lord, this is rich coming from you. You literally supported the walking poster child for incompetence, and I have zero doubt you will happily do it again.

Hear directly from Trump's attorney how the court judge steered the proceedings against Trump and stacked the case so Trump could not win.

Alina is working on the appeal as we post.
😎👇https://t.co/lI2Ytc1g8T

— myangels7 (@BeeLeever7) January 27, 2024

Quote:

---

don't laugh at my ignorance. As a non-lawyer, I would like to know why, after initially seeking $10 million but increasing it to $24 million during closing arguments, the jury awarded Carroll over $83 million. How does it work? I'm confused.

---

Yes, Simon, clearly you are.

Ask someone you trust to explain the difference between compensatory damages and punitive damages.

Quote:

---

Supposedly helps prevent sunscald in some species. Fairly common practice. My grandmother painted a lot of her trees.

---

I understand that painting young fruit trees with white latex paint can prevent sunscald, but painting random trees with blue paint is not something that a sane person would normally do.

Oh, BTW would you enthusiastically watch the TV show featuring the man that raped you?

Get ready for non-stop accusations/charges over the next 9 months. This man has some baggage. Can't believe that we can't field a better candidate than this doofus.

Kansas Kid said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

The case with the verdict yesterday was based on statements made in 2019. It was filed in 2020, no change to law was needed

It's the sexual assault case from May that NY change the law on. I don't care how many republicans voted for it, it's still garbage

---

I agree but the change wasn't done as others have said specifically for Trump as many people parrot on here.

---

I was specifically responding to your comment about Reade not bringing an action against Biden, and pointing out that she could not as the alleged assault occurred in D.C.

I'll also add that the $83m judgement would never have occurred without the 2022 law change allowing her to air the old allegation.

As for the foundations of the 2022 law, we'll never know. You cannot prove either way. VDH's outline of the "coincidences" are interesting, though.

---

I agree Reade couldn't bring a civil case by the time she was going after Biden because the incident is said to have happened in DC and state and local laws dictate.

While no one can say why each senator and house member in NY voted for it, the fact that all but 3 voted for the change says it had broad bipartisan support. If it was done solely to get Trump, that is saying all but 3 Republicans out of around 60 wanted to "Get Trump". Name any time in history where something targeting one politician or one party had broad bipartisan support.

---

Hint. It wouldn't be the first time that the originators of a bill had an objective in mind, but sold the bill on a convenient, unrelated issue in other to get it passed

I find it entirely possible that the bill writers had Trump in mind as they wrote the bill, but convinced Republicans that the motivation was Me Too. Remember "Never let a crisis go to waste"? Position the bill as Me Too, and anyone that does not support it can easily be painted as anti-woman.

We need only look as far back as the Deficit Reduction Act being sold on its title rather than the climate bill it actually was to see the playbook in use.

Again, there's no proof that that's what happened, but to dismiss the possibility outright is willful blindness.

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.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Say what you want about the first case. This case was about Trump openly thumbing his nose at the U.S. legal system. He dared the jury to do this. Well, to quote the movie, Cool Hand Luke,

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.

---

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.

Orange Moron went out and defamed her over and over and over again. Blatantly thumbing his nose.

Then he hires a moron to defend him, thumbs his nose the entire time at the judge, the process and the jury. Trump is the biggest idiot on the planet..

Anyone who supports him makes me seriously question their competency.

---

Everyone should read this "explanation " and understand why lawyers are despised.

Trump should have the right to thumb his nose at that quackery. That's judge and your explanation are q mockery of our legal system.

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.

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 ?

Imagine if some crazy person falsely accuses you of a heinous crime, and a lot of rich judges and lawyers financially support this person in their quest of ruining you, both financially and socially.

Would you just sit quietly and not speak badly about the crazy accuser?

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.

---

New York city jury. What else would you expect?

VaultingChemist said:

---

Imagine if some crazy person falsely accuses you of a heinous crime, and a lot of rich judges and lawyers financially support this person in their quest of ruining you, both financially and socially.

Would you just sit quietly and not speak badly about the crazy accuser?

---

First, i would not give them a reason to even suspect me of a heinous crime. But I concede the point that anyone can falsely claim an innocent person.

Secondly, I would not slander and lie about my accuser. I would instead prove my innocence by the lack of evidence.

Trump did the former and he was unable to do the latter , likely because of his past words and deeds. I fortunately have neither of those problems, PTL.