The inconsistent philosophy in today's law system.

Actually contemporaneous discussions with friends IS "corroborating testimony"

It is up to the jury to decide how convincing that testimony is. Apparently they found it convincing.

 

Honestly, yeah(although I will note that there is a legal distinction between being found liable and being found criminally responsible) but in lieu of cases like this, I do think it might actually be abusive of the court system: "Hey, we lack the evidence to convict but there IS enough evidence to enforce financial penalties"

One can make the argument that a civil trial following a criminal trial is a form of double jeopardy(I do not know if the argument has been made before, I'm just noting it philosophically in my view)

 

"Hey guys, I found big foot!"(crowd of friends agrees they found big foot). Like, dear mother of lord not only has law lost philosophy, but it's also lost reasoning as well? There's many reasons not to commit a crime, but I think the biggest is that logic has been thrown out the court room.

 

Yes there is a distinction.

It is not a form of double jeopardy.

The double jeopardy prohibition from the US Constitution says "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;"

You do not risk any kind of imprisonment from a civil trial thus are not "put in jeopardy of life or limb"

 

And your friends saying that you found bigfoot IS corroborating testimony.

If no one else offers any kind of testimony/evidence to the contrary then, in a civil trial, it might result in a favorable ruling.

And there's your problem, there was no opposing testimony in this case.

 

To me, it is up to the litigant to prove a case, not necessarily for the defendant to prove his innocence. Were this a criminal trial, the obvious questions asked of these 'witnesses' would be "What did you see and hear? If you didn't see or hear anything, did you know someone who did?"

Instead, we're like "Yeah, we believe you due to Access Hollywood". Did Trump do this to himself? Sure, but the lowering of standards affects all of us, down the line.

 

There was no "lowering of the standards".

This was a CIVIL trial, not a criminal trial. If it had been a criminal trial, from what I've seen, Trump would not have been found guilty.

But it wasn't a criminal trial. The standards used here are the same standards used in EVERY civil trial.

 

Perhaps you should read up on EJC and her illustrious career before your determination that she is not a public figure. Her name and her writings are well known and her career has been long.

 

Damn, I hadn't been on the TV in a decade to be honest but I still don't know her lol.

 

Trump refuses to bow to their unjust demands that he submit to their tyrannical demands that violate ALL of our free speech rights.

And they are not confident that they can rig two elections in a row, so that are trying to win the election with lawyers rather than voters, and, it's not going too well for them.

Bribed Joe, the author of the deadly Kabul Bugout, is now nearly 9 points behind last cycle.

 

Why would you need to be 'on the TV' to know the works of a journalist?

 

The jury believed otherwise, they believed there was a 'preponderance of the evidence' not to mention Trump's belligerent and disrespectful actions in court betrayed him.

https://law.temple.edu/aer/2023/05/15/evidence-advocacy-and-carroll-v-trump/

 

What kind of works has she done that haven't involved her public spat? If she's a journalist, that shows what the journalist industry is these days.

 

A jury of 7 men and 2 women believed her, and not him, and this was about damages, not about the facts of the case.

How do you get a billionaire to stop? $5 million didn't work, but apparently $83 million does.

Getting him to stop defaming her is what this is about, and his defamations are done in public.

So, there is your evidence.

 

Testimony is not normally a preponderance of the evidence. Especially third hand testimony(we can't even call it second hand) with no physically establishing evidence. There's actually nothing to preponder here. Both litigant and the defandant failed to make their case.

Obviously the jury felt otherwise. We are neither law nor duty bound to uphold the jury's beliefs. It will have to be the NY District Court, that will have to defend its decision. Starting with following the actual definition of defamation.

 

preponderance is whatever the lawyers persuade the jury it is, it's based on a number of things, it's a who believes who kind of thing, which includes the demeanor and conduct of the accused and Carroll, herself.

Add it all up, and they believed Carroll, and not Trump.

That's the system, deal with it.

The only way this verdict gets overturned on appeal is if the judges find errors in the proceedings that could have changed the outcome. The award might get trimmed, but that’s about it.

If Trump does not pay the $88 million award, the plaintiff can execute a writ to seize assets to satisfy the judgement. Trump can also post a bond, but he would still have to put up 20% of the bond amount and collateral to a value greater than the award. If the bondsman is forced to liquidate the collateral to collect, there’s always a chance the collateral doesn’t bring in as much as the award, so they are going to want collateral that is worth substantially more than the judgement.

The least expensive thing for Trump to do is just put up the cash for the appeal. But, if he loses the appeal, she gets the dough, unless it is trimmed, then she'll get what remains, minus her Attorney's commission (1/3, usually).

 

Trying to rig the election through lawfare seems to be pissing off the voters.



Trump carries a plurality of critical Independent vote.

RFK's numbers are clearly good enough to be in the presidential debates.

If Bribed Joe is to scared to vote, RFK and Trump should debate without him.

The double legal standard being applied against Republicans and for Democrats isn't impressing the voters who see right through it.

 

I was commenting to inconsistencies in law, not the Trump case and I see it in newspaper articles covering sentencing routinely "showed no remorse"

 

I'm perfectly fine with the fact that you have no interest in who she is and what she's accomplished well prior to her 'public spat'.