$83.3 Million

[eddiememphis]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-trial-e-jean-carroll-01-26-24/index.html
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/andrew-weissmann-on-trump-s-bombshell-83-million-verdict-really-bad-sign-for-trump-203041861807
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4432467-trump-e-jean-carroll-defamation-read-verdict/

A jury of nine New Yorkers handed down an $83.3 million verdict against former President Trump on Friday for defaming columnist E. Jean Carroll.

How will this affect his Presidential campaign?

[Bailey Guns]

I'll be honest. I don't have a clue what this trial was really about because I haven't paid attention. I'm not a huge Trump fan. But for me all the accusations against him reek of his enemies just throwing s**t against the wall to see what will stick. Everybody and their dog is going after him for something it seems. I just don't care any more. If the media went after others who've committed wrongs regardless of their political leanings, it might matter to me. But they continue to apply their glaring double standards to the point you'd think Trump was the only person who ever committed some sort of offense.

F 'em... I just don't care any longer.

[TEAMRICO]

And not one person on the Epstein list has been investigated.

[Ah Pook]

I was listening to a podcast yesterday and they were explaining this case. I couldn't figure it out.

The "shiat against the wall" analogy seems spot on.

[theGinsue]

Yes, they're throwing as much shit against the wall to see what will stick and to keep too busy fighting the legal battles to be a contender in the next election. The bottom line is that "the establishment" (both Democrats and Republicans in office) know that people or sick of the BS they're giving us and that Trump has a very good chance of being elected by the citizens if he can make it to the general election. If elected and takes office, they're afraid Trump will derail their agenda since they know he can't be controlled by the cabal.

As to this specific case, E. Jean Carrol came out of the woodwork when Trump was President and claimed that decades ago Trump raped her.
(Always be weary of sexual assault claims that come up decades after a supposed action took place - particularly when they come along with an onslaught of other claims/attacks to discredit an individual. These tend to be false flag claims.)

In typical Trump fashion, he ran his mouth and made disparaging remarks against Carroll. This opened the door for the defamation suit, particularly after a court found him liable for sexual abuse against Ms. Carroll. (In my personal opinion, while found liable, the evidence against him was questionable and circumstantial. No "hard evidence" was presented.)

So, with a negative verdict against him for sexual abuse, and his comments after the accusations were made, he was ripe for a verdict against him for defamation. The jury found that $83.3 million was fair compensation to Carroll for the "harm" Trump had caused her by his comments.


My take is this: When a group that we know doesn't have our best interest in mind takes such a strong interest in taking down someone who threatens their agenda, without equally applying the attacks to others who've done the same - or worse, you have to question the motives behind their actions.

[TRnCO]

^^^^^what he said^^^^^^

[DDT951]

Don’t leave out NY changed laws (retroactively) removing statute of limitations so she could do this…

[Clint45]

Now it is coming out that her attorney was "mentored" by the judge while they worked at the same law firm, so by law he was mandated to have recused himself... you get disbarred for ethics violations of that sort.

Very peculiar this clearly unstable woman was able to win this case when she cannot even recall the date it occurred, let alone the year, and the only "evidence" she presented was her testimony, supported by a colleague who was not a witness who claimed only that she "told her about it" and was a "truthteller." No video of Trump in that store, no credit card receipts, no evidence he ever shopped there. This never would've been prosecuted criminally. Crazy.

[theGinsue]

The judge in this case was clearly biased and for so many reasons, he should be disbarred.

Trumps defense team was explicitly barred by the judge from presenting expert testimony from at least to 2 individuals as well as barred from presenting a great deal of exculpatory evidence.

The whole case was nothing but a pretense of legal proceeding with the singular goal of making some of the sh!t stick to Trump to help bring him down. The whole world knows it was a farce and would never have been allowed if we truly had a JUSTICE system, vice whatever it is we're dealing with now.

Just for helping run this site, and being vocal about my opposition to the party currently in charge, I am waiting to find out I'm being charged with something, anything, that there is no evidence to support but would destroy my reputation and drain me of my "wealth" (I'm FAR from even being "well off", but probably have just enough to retire on by the time I turn 60 in a year and a half). This is the MO (modus operandi) of the Left.