Gotcha, fat guy

Trump: "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy."

E. Jean Carroll's trial verdict responds loudly: "Oh, really?"

Love it.

The verdict stunned me, judging by how powerful Trump is, and he's a Former President. I wonder if Trump will spend any time behind bars for this. I remember thinking Lori Loughlin wouldn't spend any time behind bars for the College Admissions Scandal and assumed she'd just get Community Service and Probation at the most. Trump is MUCH more powerful than Lori Loughlin ever was, so I do wonder if he will spend any time behind bars.

Quote: Riverjordan

The verdict stunned me, judging by how powerful Trump is, and he's a Former President. I wonder if Trump will spend any time behind bars for this. I remember thinking Lori Loughlin wouldn't spend any time behind bars for the College Admissions Scandal and assumed she'd just get Community Service and Probation at the most. Trump is MUCH more powerful than Lori Loughlin ever was, so I do wonder if he will spend any time behind bars.

Deep understanding of our criminal Justice system there? He was not convicted of any crime. So why would he be ‘behind bars’? You do know you have to be convicted of a crime to be sentenced to prison? He was found liable in a civil court. It’s just $$$ (and maybe humiliation?).

Quote: missedhervee

Trump: "I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy."

E. Jean Carroll's trial verdict responds loudly: "Oh, really?"

Love it.

That's certainly not the result I would have expected. I might review transcripts and such, eventually. From what I heard, though most are biased one way or another, she couldn't even really demonstrate the two even being in the same place. I want to say that the two being demonstrably in the same place, at a minimum, would be necessary for me to find in favor of the Plaintiff even on a preponderance standard.

Quote: Mission146

That's certainly not the result I would have expected. I might review transcripts and such, eventually. From what I heard, though most are biased one way or another, she couldn't even really demonstrate the two even being in the same place. I want to say that the two being demonstrably in the same place, at a minimum, would be necessary for me to find in favor of the Plaintiff even on a preponderance standard.

Couldn’t find any post interviews with jury where they sometimes reveal the thought process.’

The things I heard that hurt Trump are 1) failure to appear in person at the trial. 2) his own words about groping 3) 2 other women testifying in person about similar abuse.

Trump claims he never met this woman has no idea who she is. They were not allowed in court to mention the fact that the same woman accused Les Moonves, the president of CBS, years ago of raping her in an elevator and it was total baloney. She claims that she was raped by Trump but doesn't know what day it was or what time it was or can give any details about it. She's obviously a nut job but if it's Trump they're accusing in New York of course he's guilty.

Quote: rxwine

Couldn’t find any post interviews with jury where they sometimes reveal the thought process.’

The things I heard that hurt Trump are 1) failure to appear in person at the trial. 2) his own words about groping 3) 2 other women testifying in person about similar abuse.

I'd be surprised if you did find such an interview.

If what I have read can be believed, but multiple sources report it, the judge determined that the jury of nine would be anonymous given various comments Trump has made in his time against law enforcement, judges, jurors, etc. The judge also expressed concern about Trump supporters going after the jurors, if the jurors were to become known, in the event that Trump's supporters did not like the result.

Of course, you could never have that had this been a criminal case...and it seems highly unusual for a civil case, but I think the judge's reasoning is valid. Would I put it past certain Trump supporters to go kill a man or woman over what amounts to a few million bucks that's not even their money? Nope, not in the slightest.

If the sources I've read can be believed, Trump not only refused to testify, but oddly enough, followed that up by claiming he was being, 'Silenced,' and would only speak about the matter after the conclusion of the trial. I expect many Trump supporters to take him at face value and either not know, or willfully ignore, that he had an absolute right to testify in his own defense that no judge could ever have denied him.

If the legal experts are suggesting that not testifying hurt him, well, they're legal experts and I am most certainly not, but who knows what Trump might have said on the stand? I can't imagine that anything he would have said, had he appeared in court, would have been helpful to him.  I don't think that he could help but be combative with the judge and with Plaintiff's attorney, and that's if he didn't go all the way to directly insulting the Plaintiff.

I can understand where his words about groping could be taken as circumstantial evidence that points to character, and perhaps, a cavalier attitude towards women and their rights. That being said, it still does nothing to demonstrate that Carroll and Trump were ever even at the location of the alleged incident at the same time. The original allegation might have offered a specific date and time; I might look that up later.

The Plaintiff offering a specific date and time, if indeed she did, would at least be something. My main problem with Blasey-Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh is that she couldn't even offer a specific date or location---so her claims couldn't be proven wrong even in theory.

On the other hand, if the Plaintiff did offer a specific date and time, then it could be just that she knew Trump was in the area, at that time, by virtue of seeing him in some other context.

Other than her allegations and account, Plaintiff's other evidence seems to consist mainly of the testimony of two friends of the Plaintiff who said that the Plaintiff told them about the incident---one within days after and the other a few weeks later.

One of these individuals suggested that Plaintiff go to police and the other individual suggested the opposite.

Of course, that these people are friends of the Plaintiff wouldn't be lost on me. Crucially, Plaintiff does not seem to have any witnesses that could even put she and Trump in this location simultaneously.

Plaintiff also testifies that she has only met Trump twice, with the second of the two instances being the subject matter of her allegation and the other time beinf a decade prior to that.

Other women can testify about whatever they want to. If I were on the jury, the civil suit in question is about whether or not this incident occurred between Trump and the Plaintiff. I will say that, even though it's Trump, it would be terrifying to imagine a jury convicting if this were a criminal case...but it's civil, so the standard is preponderance of the evidence, "More likely than not."

Ultimately, the jury agreed that Trump did not rape her, but did commit some sort of sexual harassment, whether or not anything was, "Forcible," the jury seems to have declined to answer.

Interestingly enough, in terms of monetary findings, the jury awards more for defamation than they do for the alleged assault itself.

Honestly, if Trump hadn't bad-mouthed Carroll publicly, I think the jury might have decided that there wasn't enough there to find in her favor. In terms of evidence, just in my opinion, she has almost nothing.

"WILL TRUMP APPEAL THE VERDICT?
Yes. Trump’s lawyer Joe Tacopina said he will challenge what he said were unfair rulings by U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan.
To prevail, Trump would have to show Kaplan incorrectly applied the law in various rulings and that this deprived him of a fair trial." Reuters

Trump will win this on appeal, it was rigged from top to bottom. Just like the election.

EvenBob is correct that a location was specified, but Plaintiff's civil complaint gives roughly a nine month window during which the alleged event occurred.

Nope, not flying with me. You can't even remember what month the most traumatic event of your life happened in? You didn't want to write that down somewhere in case you decided to pursue the matter legally in the future?

I mean, Carroll is literally a journalist. How does a journalist not make a record of the day something of this nature happens?

With great guilt and regret, I'd have found in favor of the Defendant.

Here's the civil complaint:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23317687-e-jean-carroll-v-donald-trump-112422

Trump says she has a cat named vagina and that she refers to her African-American ex-husband as an ape, and none of that was allowed to be mentioned in court among a ton of other things. But anything and everything she wanted to say was allowed. That's why this will get thrown out in appeal the judge was obviously fixed. Trump claims he wanted to testify but his lawyers told him don't bother it will do no good and it would be a total waste of time that they would just appeal it which is what's going to happen.