That conviction and award, was the biggest grift in history. That laughing hyena, Carrol, needs to be placed in a sanitarium.
E Jean Carrol case stands! Appeal denied.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Perhaps you should be. Trump was given all the opportunities to prove his case that anyone else would have. Actually, more because he had a staff of high-priced lawyers that few others could afford.
The case started with a grand jury. Then a trial in which the judge gave him so many breaks. She says she will give the 5 million away to womens causes when she gets it.
When we look at the actual suit we see that your statement is false.
Trump published his October 12, 2022 statement containing numerous defamatory
claims on Truth Social, to members of the media, and to his supporters.
129. His statement identified—and was “of or concerning”—Carroll.
130. His statement contained numerous falsehoods about Carroll, whether on its face
and/or by virtue of a clear implication affirmatively intended by Trump.
Trump wasn't sued for calling her a liar. He was sued for making false claims about Carrroll.
Repeating your false claim doesn't make it true. The claim in the suit shows it wasn't filed simply because Trump denied raping her.
You still haven't identified who made the false statement and who the false statement harmed.
It seems you can't read.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress only refers to the federal legislative branch. States are not Congress.
ROFLMAO. The problem is with defamation is the statement has to be proven false and then you have to prove harm. Was Trump harmed because he won the election? Trump's own statements show he was a predator. Then what harm did her statement create. Finally, the defamation suit has to be filed in the proper venue. Neither Trump of Harris live in Alabama. Trump was not harmed in Alabama. Carroll filed in NY because she lives in NY and NY is where she lost her job.Fine, Alabaman jury finds that when Kamala said that Trump was a predator who abused women:
Kamala Harris says she knows Trump's type: 'Predators who abused women'
"I was a courtroom prosecutor. In those roles I took on perpetrators of all kinds," she said in a speech in Delaware.www.newsweek.com
She defamed Trump and award him $100,000,000,000,000.
It seems to be you not following the law since you keep ignoring the actual Constitutional language and making up hypotheticals that can't be filed under any law.
Except the facts are not what you keep claiming. Lying to a court is perjury. Your lies told here would likely get you sanctioned or charged with perjury if told in a court of law.
Once again, the appeals court upheld the lower court ruling and the jury's decision because there was not miscarriage of justice. Trump had the opportunity to defend himself and the facts didn't support his defense.
No judge found they were "subhuman." Your continued factual untruths are getting tiring. If you can't argue the facts then we really have nothing to discuss. Your arguments would not even be allowed in a courtroom because they have no factual basis and are simply lies.
Which court ruling after the 14th amendment was passed found black people not eligible to be citizens? Dred was decided in 1857. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868.
A state of the Union is not Congress. A private person is not the government. If you don't understand that then you are ignorant. If you continue to not understand that then you are stupid.
So your hypothetical is that the Constitution doesn't exist and that all courts make up whatever they want based on their personal opinion. I guess we have nothing to talk about since you have shown yourself to be delusional and out of touch with reality.
Your thought experiment is ridiculous. Repeating the same ridiculous hypothetical over and over only shows you to be delusional.
Let's imagine that you are intelligent. Nah... that seems to be ridiculous too.
1. You lie about what is in the complaint against Trump.
2. You lie about the jury decision
3. You lie about the appeals court decision.
4. You lie about what is in the Constitution.
5. You make ridiculous hypotheticals that could never occur based on the US Constitution.
No Grand jury in the Carroll case. It was a civil trial, not a criminal trial.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
The burden of proof was not his, and no rhetoric will hide or diminish that truth in my eyes or the eyes of those like of me.
Nah. The biggest grift in history is probably Trump's meme coin. It has earned him over a billion dollars by selling something that ultimately has no value.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Your lies are transparent, if you cared about the truth you would read your own sources:
TRUMP AGAIN DENIES RAPING CARROLL AND MAKES A SLEW OF FALSE,
INSULTING CLAIMS ABOUT HER
91. Three years after the June 2019 defamatory statements, Trump—at this point, no
longer President—once again made false and insulting claims about Carroll.
92. More specifically, on October 12, 2022, Trump posted the following:
“This ‘Ms. Bergdorf Goodman case’ is a complete con job, and our legal system in
this Country, but especially in New York State (just look at Peekaboo James), is a
broken disgrace. You have to fight for years, and spend a fortune, in order to get
your reputation back from liars, cheaters, and hacks. This decision is from the Judge
who was just overturned on my same case. I don’t know this woman, have no idea
who she is, other than it seems she got a picture of me many years ago, with her
husband, shaking my hand on a reception line at a celebrity charity event. She
completely made up a story that I met her at the doors of this crowded New York
City Department Store and, within minutes, ‘swooned’ her. It is a Hoax and a lie,
just like all the other Hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years.
And, while I am not supposed to say it, I will. This woman is not my type! She has
no idea what day, what week, what month, what year, or what decade this so-called
‘event’ supposedly took place. The reason she doesn’t know is because it never
happened, and she doesn’t want to get caught up with details or facts that can be
proven wrong. If you watch Anderson Cooper’s interview with her, where she was
promoting a really crummy book, you will see that it is a complete Scam. She
changed her story from beginning to end, after the commercial break, to suit the
purposes of CNN and Andy Cooper. Our Justice System is broken along with
almost everything else in our Country.”
He then continued:
“In the meantime, and for the record, E. Jean Carroll is not telling the truth, is a
woman who I had nothing to do with, didn’t know, and would have no interest in
knowing her if I ever had the chance. Now all I have to do is go through years more
of legal nonsense in order to clear my name of her and her lawyer’s phony attacks
on me. This can only happen to ‘Trump’!”17
93. This statement appeared on Trump’s personal account on Truth Social, a social
media platform created by Trump and operated by Trump Media & Technology Group, one of
Trump’s many businesses. As Trump has explained, he created Truth Social after he was banned
17 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (Oct. 12, 2022, 10:38 PM),
Case 1:22-cv-10016-LAK Document 1 Filed 11/24/22 Page 18 of 29
Truth Social
Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.truthsocial.com
-19-
from Twitter to build a platform through which he could disseminate his message broadly,
including into New York, and to profit from such dissemination: “[Y]our favorite American
President has been silenced. This is unacceptable.”18
94. Trump published the October 12 statement to his more than four million followers
on Truth Social. Around the same time, Trump had his statement distributed to reporters, including
reporters at publications headquartered in New York such as Fox News and the New York Times,
and emailed to a listserv of supporters.19
95. Not surprisingly, Trump’s October 12 statement was widely reported in the press,
There it is, in all caps, this is the claim of the plaintiff:
You said:
Your lie is exposed.
Maybe that didn't sink in, twice more for emphasis:
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Am I emotional? Yes, direct assaults on the presumption of innocence and blatant lies meant to ruin people for no other reason than political speech make me emotional, you got me.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
No, under your theory a jury just has to say it was proven false and that harm existed.
I am asking whether 6 people in rural Alabama can take $100,000,000,000,000 from Kamala Harris without violating the constitution.
Trump once walked in Alabama. Kamala Harris's words were heard in Alabama.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
In that fake court, likely true, which is why it is an enemy of the people as you are for lying in its defense. I would not throw myself at the mercy of fascists demagogues though. I would resist by all means possible.
See where this goes, better to cut out the wound than let it fester.
It doesn't matter if the pope and the dali lama agree, the moon is not made of cheese and the earth is not flat.
Every court that revolts against the rule of law does nothing to undo the truth and the meaning of the law.
They only convict themselves.
So states can violate the 1st amendment?
My hypothetical is that the constitution is ignored.
...So if a jury decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, is that a legal fact?
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
Your lie is exposed.
TRUMP AGAIN DENIES RAPING CARROLL AND MAKES A SLEW OF FALSE,
INSULTING CLAIMS ABOUT HER.
It seems you don't even know how to read a sentence. False, insulting claims about her are the defamation.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Then why mention "denies raping Carroll"?
"Trump again drinks diet pepsi and makes a slew of false and insulting claims about Carroll"
Why?
Your hypothetical is such that an appeals court would quickly overturn such a ruling because the Constitution was ignored.
Juries can't decide Constitutional questions. Juries decide questions of evidence. There is no way for this hypothetical to even occur since a jury would never get such a question. If a judge did allow such a question to go to the jury, a writ of mandamus appeal would be filed and the judge would be ordered to not give that to the jury by the appeals court. It would likely result in an instant mistrial.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
What if it didn't? Would it be legal fact?
Why mention Trump?
The circumstances of when the defamation occurs are important even if they are not defamatory. The denial is not defamatory. The attacks on her are. The fact that the sexual attack occurred does show intent to defame in the personal attacks.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Evasion.
Answer the question lying enemy of the people:
Why include something irrelevant in a court filing?
If it didn't then the Constitution wouldn't exist.
The Constitution says this -
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The Constitution says slaves are persons. When enslaved persons are freed they become free persons.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
...So if a jury decided black people aren't citizens due to their race, answering a question put to them by a judge, and no appeals court reversed the result, is it a legal fact that black people aren't citizens due to their race?
Why ignore my explanation?
While denying the sexual assault, Trump defamed Carroll by calling her names.
While drinking diet Coke, Trump defamed Carroll by calling her names.
While posting on Truth Social, Trump defamed Carroll by calling her names.
Maybe you should actually read the complaint instead of making up what you think she claimed was defamatory.
106. In October 2022, Trump knew it was false to state that he had never raped Carroll.
107. In October 2022, Trump’s defamatory claim that Carroll had “completely made up
a story” and thus fabricated the rape accusation to promote her book rested on the express or
deliberately-implied premise that Carroll’s underlying accusation was false. Because Trump knew
that the accusation was true, he also knew that his claim about Carroll’s motive was false.
108. Moreover, Trump lacked any factual basis for his statement implying that Carroll
had revealed to the public that he raped her at Bergdorf Goodman to promote “a really crummy
book.” And since his statement about Carroll was made to impute motives for lying, when in fact
he knew that Carroll had spoken the truth, Trump had strong reason to doubt the veracity of his
own insulting claims. Trump thus published his statement with reckless disregard for the truth
109. Trump’s false, insulting, and defamatory October 12 statement about Carroll—and
his actual malice in making that statement—is fully consistent with his tried-and-true playbook for
responding to credible public reports that he sexually assaulted women
The complaint lists 3 times that Trump denied raping Carroll but only cites one of those statements by Trump as defamatory, the one on Oct 12 where he accuses her of making up the story to sell her book. She argues that Trump knew that it was false for Trump to state he never raped her but she doesn't accuse him of defamation for that denial. Trump denying the rape is the reason for him to make other statements about her that are defamatory.
Now you have decided to just be stupid.
No. It is not a legal fact because the reason the appeals court overturned it is because it is not something a jury can decide. The legal result is the jury never made such a ruling.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
I think that brings us to the point where all honest rational observers concede your dishonesty. I am satisfied.
If name calling = defamation, you owe me $100,000,000,000,000,000, lying enemy of the people.
Take your own advise, lying enemy of the people:
In October 2022, Trump’s defamatory claim that Carroll had “completely made up
a story"
It is difficult to keep lies consistent isn't it:
“Regarding the ‘story’ by E. Jean Carroll, claiming she once encountered me at
Bergdorf Goodman 23 years ago. I’ve never met this person in my life. She is trying
to sell a new book—that should indicate her motivation. It should be sold in the
fiction section.
Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for
themselves, or sell a book, or carry out a political agenda—like Julie Swetnick who
falsely accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh. It’s just as bad for people to believe it,
particularly when there is zero evidence. Worse still for a dying publication to try
to prop itself up by peddling fake news—it’s an epidemic.
Ms. Carroll & New York Magazine: No pictures? No surveillance? No video? No
reports? No sales attendants around?? I would like to thank Bergdorf Goodman for
confirming they have no video footage of any such incident, because it never
happened.
False accusations diminish the severity of real assault. All should condemn false
accusations and any actual assault in the strongest possible terms.
If anyone has information that the Democratic Party is working with Ms. Carroll or
New York Magazine, please notify us as soon as possible. The world should know
what’s really going on. It is a disgrace and people should pay dearly for such false
accusations." - Trump, June 21st 2019
It's only defamatory to deny a crime if you have a theory of the motivation of the accuser?
Your lie remains exposed, these absurd claims make it more likely that people will correctly see the poison you represent, please continue.
I would say educate yourself, but you are too far gone. This is for the interested reader: https://studicata.com/case-briefs/case/davis-v-alaska/
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Your 'law' is not law, and applies to no one.