Carroll v. Trump ($88 million judgment for Carroll)

[newyorkvol]

Give something other than your opinion that the law was created for and applies solely to Trump.

I gave three facts….
Law was to give opportunity for civil suit outside of criminal statute of limitations.
Law was campaigned for by Carroll’s lawyer.
Carrolls suit was filed at midnight law went into effect.

 

[loggervol]

So he should only be tried in Trump voting County? What actual evidence do have that the jury was biased?

Not what I said. He should be allowed a fair trial. Everyone should be allowed a fair trial. Do you disagree?

 

[clarksvol00]

It isn't necessarily the jury..it is the judge.

What decisions did the judge make that prejudiced Trump?

 

[clarksvol00]

Not what I said. He should be allowed a fair trial. Everyone should be allowed a fair trial. Do you disagree?

I don't disagree. I don't have any evidence that he was not allowed a fair trial.

 

[OrangeBoro]

I don't disagree. I don't have any evidence that he was not allowed a fair trial.

Be honest, you don’t care if he is given a fair trial as long as it reaches the conclusion you want

 

[clarksvol00]

I gave three facts….
Law was to give opportunity for civil suit outside of criminal statute of limitations.
Law was campaigned for by Carroll’s lawyer.
Carrolls suit was filed at midnight law went into effect.

So far you have implicated the plaintiffs lawyer (without sourcing), but have not implicated the new york state legislature or governor in going after Trump specifically.

 

[loggervol]

What decisions did the judge make that prejudiced Trump?

He didn’t move the trial even though he knew Trump would more than likely not get a fair trial

 

[newyorkvol]

Judge Kaplan to the jury….
“Anything from a gentle but unwanted peck on the cheek to stabbing somebody with a knife could be battery for purposes of a civil case like this one.”

 

[newyorkvol]

So far you have implicated the plaintiffs lawyer (without sourcing), but have not implicated the new york state legislature or governor in going after Trump specifically.

Seriously??

 

[clarksvol00]

Be honest, you don’t care if he is given a fair trial as long as it reaches the conclusion you want

That is not the case. And I also question your impartiality on the issue.

 

[clarksvol00]

He didn’t move the trial even though he knew Trump would more than likely not get a fair trial

First, explain to me the evidence that the jurors were biased. Second, explain why trumps own lawyer argued that political persuasion is no reason to remove a juror.

 

[OrangeBoro]

That is not the case. And I also question your impartiality on the issue.

Can’t remember when, case tossed

 

[clarksvol00]

Seriously??

Seriously.

 

[newyorkvol]

Seriously.

You honestly believe that the nys governor and legislature wouldn’t create an opportunity to impugn Trump?

 

[loggervol]

First, explain to me the evidence that the jurors were biased. Second, explain why trumps own lawyer argued that political persuasion is no reason to remove a juror.

Yeah, because the Judge is part of the problem. When this becomes the norm and everyone is suing everyone, Because this just want happen to Trump. Political persecution can happen front both sides and it will.

Please don’t complain.

 

[clarksvol00]

Yeah, because the Judge is part of the problem. When this becomes the norm and everyone is suing everyone, Because this just want happen to Trump. Political persecution can happen front both sides and it will.

Please don’t complain.

Please explain what the judge did incorrectly that was a problem for Trump and then cite the legal basis for his error.

Edit: helluva a non-answer by the way.

 

[loggervol]

First, explain to me the evidence that the jurors were biased. Second, explain why trumps own lawyer argued that political persuasion is no reason to remove a juror.

First, there wasn’t any evidence. She couldn’t remember when or what year it happened. It was her word against his and she can’t remember. Please…????

The Judge should have thrown it out before it went to trial.

 

[clarksvol00]

First, there wasn’t any evidence. She couldn’t remember when or what year it happened. It was her word against his and she can’t remember. Please…????

He didn't put on a defense, so it wasn't her word against his. It was her word against nothing.

 

[loggervol]

He didn't put on a defense, so it wasn't her word against his. It was her word against nothing.

She couldn’t remember. How is anything she said, evidence.

 

[clarksvol00]

She couldn’t remember. How is anything she said, evidence.

"He assaulted me," is evidence. "He assaulted me on March 4, 1993," is better evidence. Both are evidence. One is less convincing than the other, but when the other party doesn't even show up to deny it, you may have a problem.

 

[loggervol]

"He assaulted me," is evidence. "He assaulted me on March 4, 1993," is better evidence. Both are evidence. One is less convincing than the other, but when the other party doesn't even show up to deny it, you may have a problem.

Would you call any witness, reliable, that can’t remember the most important issue of a case? Summer, spring, fall or winter? 1995-1996?

 

[Orangeburst]

Why isn't Cuomo being charged?

 

[TheDeeble]

I can’t see how anyone can believe a 5 million dollar payout with nothing more than she said/he said as the basis is justified.

How can you prove a negative? How can one prove you didn’t do something especially when there’s no date for the assault so you can’t even say I wasn’t there that day and have receipts or something proving that?

And then because he publicly denied that he assaulted her after she publicly claimed he raped her she can claim that as defamation?

Trump is a dumbass I wish would disappear from politics forever, but this is a joke imo.

 

[RockyTop85]

Would you call any witness, reliable, that can’t remember the most important issue of a case? Summer, spring, fall or winter? 1995-1996?

Would you call the opinion of someone who didn’t hear the proof reliable?

The people who watched her testify, including one person that Trump’s lawyer fought to keep from getting thrown off the jury for political bias, thought she was reliable.

You honestly believe that the nys governor and legislature wouldn’t create an opportunity to impugn Trump?

The question isn’t “would they” that’s a lazy attempt to paper over a lack of anything substantive.

A few years ago, after Carroll’s allegations were public, NY extended the statute of limitations for these types of cases. Clearly the state has taken an interest in expanding access to courts for people who have been sexually assaulted. However, even if that change had been retroactive, it didn’t go back far enough to cover this case. Once people realized that the change didn’t apply retroactively, there was a call to allow victims whose SOL had run more time to sue.

Clearly, E. Jean Carroll benefitted from the law, but just as clearly passage of the statute was about more than Donald Trump. If that’s all it was, they could have just stretched the statute of limitations back farther and told courts to apply the change retroactively.

Judge Kaplan to the jury….
“Anything from a gentle but unwanted peck on the cheek to stabbing somebody with a knife could be battery for purposes of a civil case like this one.”

This is more than likely an accurate statement of law, I’m not certain of the relationship between sexual abuse and battery in New York tort claims but clearly there were some additional elements involved, and the size of the verdict suggests that they didn’t find merely an “unwanted peck on the cheek.”

 

[loggervol]

Would you call the opinion of someone who didn’t hear the proof reliable?

The people who watched her testify, including one person that Trump’s lawyer fought to keep from getting thrown off the jury for political bias, thought she was reliable.



The question isn’t “would they” that’s a lazy attempt to paper over a lack of anything substantive.

A few years ago, after Carroll’s allegations were public, NY extended the statute of limitations for these types of cases. Clearly the state has taken an interest in expanding access to courts for people who have been sexually assaulted. However, even if that change had been retroactive, it didn’t go back far enough to cover this case. Once people realized that the change didn’t apply retroactively, there was a call to allow victims whose SOL had run more time to sue.

Clearly, E. Jean Carroll benefitted from the law, but just as clearly passage of the statute was about more than Donald Trump. If that’s all it was, they could have just stretched the statute of limitations back farther and told courts to apply the change retroactively.


This is more than likely an accurate statement of law, I’m not certain of the relationship between sexual abuse and battery in New York tort claims but clearly there were some additional elements involved, and the size of the verdict suggests that they didn’t find merely an “unwanted peck on the cheek.”

If a person is being accused of murder, that person better have an account of where he was, who he was with, and what time he was there. Do you agree?