Jury finds Trump assaulted, defamed E. Jean Carroll... awards roughly $5M

Plus his deposition- he buried himself with that little stunt. What it showed was his narcissism is so rampant that he had to admit “that if they are a star they let you do it” and that he himself was a star

 

You could just say that there's no evidence that's been presented publicly that anyone is aware of. But maybe I'm wrong and here's your chance to shut me up about it and present the evidence

 

If Trump had made that admission he did on the Access Hollywood tape here in Australia we would have charged him with sexual assault then and there. Hate to break it to you but grabby a woman by the crotch is sexual assault

 

Right? Amazing isnt it.

 

Oh so you didn't use the words that I listed at all?

"did not have the cajones to show up" is saying he didn't have the balls, IE: he was afraid, scared. That is an emotionalist argument.
"narcissistic and arrogant"...well that speaks for itself since its based on a self perceived view point based on your own feelings of how you feel about Trump and is not objective fact. IE: Emotionalist argument.

 

No statute of limitations on this kind of thing in NYC?

 

So Australia charges people based on words alone? Hope you don't claim to have Free Speech then. In case you didn't know...making a claim, and that claim actually happening the way it sounds are often two different things.

 

25 women have accused Trump of inappropriate sexual predation and behaviour. He is on record with boasting about going into women’s dressing rooms “because they let you do it”. He was accused of going into the teens dressing rooms

 

They passed a law that allows victims to sue people even if the statute of limitations has passed for a criminal charge to happen. It was passed specifically to allow this case to proceed.

 

Gee! An anti-Trump jury and judge find Trump liable. I'm shocked...lol

 

None of that amounts to actual evidence.
Allegations anecdotes and hearsay. Damn good thing it wasn't a criminal trial because it would have been laughed out of a court of law.

I have a feeling Trump's lawyers are going to have a field day with the appeals

 

Where's the proof that any of those things actually happened? The difference between you and me, I demand factual evidence. Not accusations being used as evidence.

 

By your standard, Bill Clinton is guilty, too.

 

None of that amounts to actual evidence. If you drag enough $100 bills through a trailer park you can find all kind of witnesses.... Seems I've heard that before and it's true.

 

Showing up is not emotionalism, it is a fact of life. The point is that the jury looks to see who shows up at trial, especially a civil trial. If the respondent does not show up, then the jury sees that as a negative. That is the jury's perception, not emotionalism. It was that and the deposition that swayed them to the verdict for the plaintiff.

Showing up does not mean he testifies, it means he has a vested interest in the proceedings, showing respect to said proceedings, offering suggestions or questions to counsel to said proceedings. Instead, he acted like a child, an insolent child. And not showing up means he didn't care, didn't take this seriously, did not want to offer the best defense that he could like most rationale adults will do. Good god man, even OJ Simpson showed up at the wrongful death lawsuit even after he was found not guilty of the murders of his ex-wife and another person.

 

We're you there?

 

Bill Clinton is an adulter much like DJT. It is just that DJT slept with more women than William Jefferson Clinton did. Trump has had more marriages and divorces than William Jefferson Clinton. And yet, you would invite DJT to your own daughter's 15 slumber party but not William Jefferson Clinton pretty much says it all.

 

What a slimy thing to accuse someone of. How deplorable

Did Bill Clinton and Donald Trump both tell you exactly how many women they have slept with in their life?

 

It was within the statute of limitations for defamation. The reason for the defemation was she claimed she was raped by DJT. DJT made derogatory statements towards her, mostly on Truth social in the last couple of years.

 

So, what's the limit?

 

Both relevant and both lawfully admitted in to evidence.....as is self evident!

 

See, you can't get away from the emotionalism. And its no doubt the same mind frame, perception, those jurors had. So all you've done is prove that this case was not about facts, but emotionalism.

 

So is it true they changed the laws just so this case could proceed?

 

Both would have been thrown out in a criminal case as irrelevant and not pertaining to the case. We both know this. But I'm sure you would never admit such.

 

And let the wallpapering begin....