Trump Sexual Abuse/Defamation Case

[PAF]

With any jury.

If you don't really even try to defend yourself in a fight, no one has any business being surprised when you get punched in the face.

That's as true in Manhattan as it is anywhere else (which is not to say that Trump would have won with a Manhattan jury even if he had put on a strong defense - but he couldn't be bothered to try, so ... *shrug*).

He has no integrity.

Even for something so minor:

“I felt that acquiescing to a false claim compromised my integrity,” Paltrow said in a statement.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

With any jury.

If you don't really even try to defend yourself in a fight, no one has any business being upset or disappointed when you get punched in the face.

That's as true in Manhattan as it is anywhere else (which is not to say that Trump would have won with a Manhattan jury even if he had put on a strong defense - but apparently, he couldn't be bothered to try, so ... *shrug*).

If he lost after putting on a formidable defense he would look worse in the public eye.

And, we all know what happens when Trump settles and pays out and has person sign non disclosure agreement.

[Occam's Banana]

The PLAINTIFF had no significant or substantive evidence...

What you are saying is completely insane and is what directly leads to this type of abuse in courts.

By mere default, the plaintiff had a much more significant and substantive case than the defense did. Trump's failure to make any serious attempt to adequately defend himself is what leads to this type of result. It is not an "abuse" - it is exactly and entirely what is to be expected. (If anything here is "completely insane", it is expecting that anything else might have happened under those circumstances.)

I repeat:

If you don't really even try to defend yourself in a fight, no one has any business being upset or disappointed when you get punched in the face.

If you really don't understand this, then I don't know what to tell you (and I'm not going to waste any more time trying).

[Occam's Banana]

If he lost after putting on a formidable defense he would look worse in the public eye.

Maybe so. And maybe that's why he didn't put up a defense.

But given that - for whatever reason - he did not put up a defense (let alone a "formidable" one), it is simply ridiculous to expect him to have had much of a chance of winning (regardless of what one thinks of the quality of the plaintiff's case).

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Maybe so. And maybe that's why he didn't put up a defense.

But given that - for whatever reason - he did not put up a defense (let alone a "formidable" one), it is simply ridiculous to expect him to have had much of a chance of winning (regardless of what one thinks of the quality of the plaintiff's case).

Do you agree that if he settled they would portray him as guilty? And, non disclosures are worthless with Trump?

[Occam's Banana]

Do you agree that if he settled they would portray him as guilty?

Sure, why not?

But they'd likely have done that in any case:

- settlement = "guilty!"
- finding for plaintiff = "guilty!"
- finding for defendant = "guilty - and he got away with it!"

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Sure, why not?

But they'd likely have done that in any case:

- settlement = "guilty!"
- finding for plaintiff = "guilty!"
- finding for defendant = "guilty - and he got away with it!"

So with that in mind it would have been a waste to do anything other than he did.

[Occam's Banana]

So with that in mind it would have been a waste to do anything other than he did.

I haven't said otherwise (though I could argue, among other things, that it is never a "waste" to fight for and defend one's honor and dignity if one is able to do so [1]).

My only point has been that there is no reason to be upset or disappointed that he lost after he didn't bother defending himself (for whatever reason). That some people would have thought him "guilty" regardless of the outcome is irrelevant to that point.



[1] If he cares so little for his honor and dignity (if nothing else), then why should I care about them any more than he does? And that's assuming he didn't do what he was accused of doing. Frankly, though, given his philandering and "grab 'em by the pussy" and so on, I would not be even the least bit surprised if he really did do it.

[Sonny Tufts]

Any time a rich/wealthy person is accused of something like this and the person is seeking monetary damages, there should be a VERY high standard for whether the events actually took place. It is very common for people to make up stories about wealthy people and seek money in a lawsuit.

The jurors are either really dumb, or just want to get back at Trump for something the media told them about him, which also never happened.

I'll tell you who's dumb: someone who thinks a plaintiff's burden of proof should be higher where the defendant is a rich/wealthy person.

The PLAINTIFF had no significant or substantive evidence...

She testified, and her attorneys put on other witnesses. You weren't in the courtroom to hear the testimony and observe the demeanor of the witnesses, so you have absolutely no basis to opine about the quality of the evidence. The jury heard and saw everything. And you think your uninformed knee-jerk reaction is better?

[tebowlives]

Careful with language... you remember every single person you've ever met? Now multiply that by 1,000, that's how many people Trump has met. For that to be a lie, you would have to prove that he remembered meeting her.

Also, it looks like they "met" in the late 80s... she claims this happened in the mid 90s.

1000 might be an understatement.
Maybe if they put Trump on the stand something they didn't want to come out might have? Even if it wasn't related to the case.

[jmdrake]

Careful with language... you remember every single person you've ever met? Now multiply that by 1,000, that's how many people Trump has met. For that to be a lie, you would have to prove that he remembered meeting her.

Also, it looks like they "met" in the late 80s... she claims this happened in the mid 90s.

I'm not the one that just lost a 5 million dollar case. And after Trump's memory was refreshed with the picture he had the chance to correct his statement and didn't. Also you're the one being sloppy with language. Meeting someone in the 1980s doesn't mean you can't the same person again in the 1990s.

[jmdrake]

He said/she said doesn't hold up in court, especially not in a $5 million settlement..

I know the standard of proof is lower in a civil case, but it's not THAT low...

1) You got your law degree....where?

2) Obviously it did stand up in court which is why Trump is out of 5 million dollars.

3) Witness testimony is direct evidence. That includes evidence of the victim. At the end of the day the fact finder (in this case the jury) has to decide who is more credible.

Trump fumbled in his deposition and didn't testify at all at trial. You are clearly biased, which is not surprising. You're a Trump fan. I don't like the guy. A neutral party that didn't know anything about Trump one way or another likely would have found the woman more credible under these circumstance. I know you won't agree with that because, again, you're biased.

[jmdrake]

That happens when you have a bias court.

It happens when you have a jackass for a client.

[dannno]

1) You got your law degree....where?

2) Obviously it did stand up in court which is why Trump is out of 5 million dollars.

3) Witness testimony is direct evidence. That includes evidence of the victim. At the end of the day the fact finder (in this case the jury) has to decide who is more credible.

Trump fumbled in his deposition and didn't testify at all at trial. You are clearly biased, which is not surprising. You're a Trump fan. I don't like the guy. A neutral party that didn't know anything about Trump one way or another likely would have found the woman more credible under these circumstance. I know you won't agree with that because, again, you're biased.

You are wrong, I would apply the same standards to Trump as to Biden... or anybody for that matter.

However, Biden actually had a credible sexual assault levied against him in the past. Trump has not. Not to mention all of the videos and pictures of Biden fondling children. I would also take that into consideration.

If there was ANY credible evidence of a sexual assault by Trump, it would have come out by now.... He's been under a microscope by a lying media for over a half a decade.

2) This is NY city and has been explained at least a half a dozen times in this thread. 90%+ of people in NY hate Trump. You can't find an unbiased jury. It's even worse in DC. They have a bias against Trump because the media keeps pretending there are credible allegations against him. Excluding that, there are also countless lies perpetrated against Trump that people believe because the media lies.

Lastly - it was not a logical finding. She claimed he raped her. The jury said they didn't believe he raped her.. it was in a changing stall afterall.. If he didn't rape her, that is defamation. He should be getting the money.

[vita3]

Still excusing danno, that’s loyalty.

[dannno]

Still excusing danno, that’s loyalty.

I'm not excusing anything.. there is literally zero evidence he did anything wrong.

[acptulsa]

However, Biden actually had a credible sexual assault levied against him in the past. Trump has not. Not to mention all of the videos and pictures of Biden fondling children. I would also take that into consideration.

And then your fellow jurors complain to the judge. Then the judge pulls you off the case and possibly finds you in contempt, because he or she instructed you over and over and over again that prior incidents are irrelevant to the present case.

I'm not excusing anything.. there is literally zero evidence he did anything wrong.

Literally. Zero. No excuses.

The comedy continues.

[jmdrake]

I'm not excusing anything.. there is literally zero evidence he did anything wrong.

Witness testimony is evidence. Photographic evidence that you claim, without submitting the photo, is "blurry" is evidence. You have not clue what evidence even means. If you ever find yourself in legal trouble be sure and higher a competent lawyer. That lawyer will explain to you that "he said/she said" is by definition evidence under the law. If your 6 your old child came to you and said "Daddy, that man put his hands down my pants" would you say "Well that's just he said/she said so I'm not going to pursue it?" Say if that man had publicly said "I like to put my hands down little girls pants" but claimed he was only joking? Because that's essentially what we have here. A victim who said she was sexually assaulted and an accused who publicly joked about sexually assaulting women. Now, Trump didn't joke about raping women and the jury didn't find him liable for rape. The jury followed the evidence. You are biased so you are not following the evidence.

[nobody's_hero]

Man they really don't want this guy to run again.

[acptulsa]

Man they really don't want this guy to run again.

Sure they do. Of course they do.

Leftists pretend to be victims so their tyrants can come save them. Right wing politicians pretend to be victims so conservatives will want to take them in along with the shelter dog.

Why do any of us still take anything they say at face value? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But the only evidence you have that this cigar is a cigar comes from CNN. That's no cigar.

[nobody's_hero]

Sure they do. Of course they do.

Leftists pretend to be victims so their tyrants can come save them. Right wing politicians pretend to be victims so conservatives will want to take them in along with the shelter dog.

Why do any of us still take anything they say at face value? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. But the only evidence you have that this cigar is a cigar comes from CNN. That's no cigar.

I mean I don't watch CNN. I'm just going by the standard MO of the deep state, which has been character assassination, for the last few decades at least. ('sexual harrassment' claims by woemans that happened 30 years ago and just now come forward is almost stereotypical at this point)

Don't get too famous and uppity, or any woman you've ever looked at gets dusted off and brought out of the archives.

EDIT: I'm calling it now, RFK, jr. is going to get accused of sexual harrassment before the next election.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not excusing anything.. there is literally zero evidence he did anything wrong.

[acptulsa]

I mean I don't watch CNN. I'm just going by the standard MO of the deep state, which has been character assassination, for the last few decades at least. ('sexual harrassment' claims by woemans that happened 30 years ago and just now come forward is almost stereotypical at this point)

Don't get too famous and uppity, or any woman you've ever looked at gets dusted off and brought out of the archives.

See, I knew you understood. A credible accusation would chase Republican primary voters away from him. But a business as usual bull$#@! accusation just makes Republicans feel sorry for him, private jet, sleek imported trophy wife, gold toilet and all.

[donnay]

Maybe so. And maybe that's why he didn't put up a defense.

But given that - for whatever reason - he did not put up a defense (let alone a "formidable" one), it is simply ridiculous to expect him to have had much of a chance of winning (regardless of what one thinks of the quality of the plaintiff's case).

Not if the case is setting the precedence of "guilty until proven innocent," which is exactly how it is set up currently. No different than the Salem Witch Trials, really.

[acptulsa]

Not if the case is setting the precedence of "guilty until proven innocent," which is exactly how it is set up currently. No different than the Salem Witch Trials, really.

Except that this is a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply, and never has. The plaintiff presented something. The defense presented nothing. The jury was therefore a pawn in this game. Their hands were tied.

That and the fact that it's only money are why they're doing it. And when I say "they", I include the person who presented a pitiful defense. Do you really think he would have been so lackadaisical if they were prosecuting him for one of his crimes, and prison was a threat?

[donnay]

Except that this is a civil suit, not a criminal trial. So "beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply, and never has. The plaintiff presented something. The defense presented nothing. The jury was therefore a pawn in this game. Their hands were tied.

That and the fact that it's only money are why they're doing it. And when I say "they", I include the person who presented a pitiful defense. Do you really think he would have been so lackadaisical if they were prosecuting him for one of his crimes, and prison was a threat?

Sounds like you would be a great juror for one of "his" crimes--just proving my point..."guilty until proven innocent." You and Nancy Pelosi agree.

“The Grand Jury has acted upon the facts and the law. No one is above the law, and everyone has the right to a trial to prove innocence. Hopefully, the former President will peacefully respect the system, which grants him that right.” ~Nancy Pelosi

[dannno]

All you TDS infected folks are literally doing nothing except participating in psychotic behavior.

Several here have said that he presented no case. That is pure bull$#@!. There was zero evidence he did it, he said he didn't do it and the judge prevented his attorneys from presenting exculpatory evidence.

Do you know what that is called? Lying by omission. You can't say that Trump presented no evidence without also saying that the judge prevented him from doing so without being completely dishonest.

You are all participating in the algorithmic decay of our country, siding with the psychotic death cult. Our country is acting retarded and you are playing right along with it. Sad.

[tebowlives]

I mean I don't watch CNN. I'm just going by the standard MO of the deep state, which has been character assassination, for the last few decades at least. ('sexual harrassment' claims by woemans that happened 30 years ago and just now come forward is almost stereotypical at this point)

Don't get too famous and uppity, or any woman you've ever looked at gets dusted off and brought out of the archives.

EDIT: I'm calling it now, RFK, jr. is going to get accused of sexual harrassment before the next election.

And I believe NY just changed the law on this recently as to how far back one could go and press charges. Trump got screwed imo. He has to win the appeal doesn't he?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

There wasn't one when I posted, just TV coverage. But here are a couple:

What a slacker! Do your boss know about your laziness?

[Aratus]

See, I knew you understood. A credible accusation would chase Republican primary voters away from him. But a business as usual bull$#@! accusation just makes Republicans feel sorry for him, private jet, sleek imported trophy wife, gold toilet and all.

i still think he got off with just a slap on the wrist.... even if he ends up paying the poor woman 5 million dollars.