Sadly, won't go anywhere as long as NYT v. Sullivan stands.

more contributions going to the RNC for issues which affect every American!

keep it up patriots!

Trump should have filed this in the Fort Pierce Division!

Rapier108 said:

---

Sadly, won't go anywhere as long as NYT v. Sullivan stands.

---

It's time for the Court to reconsider this horrific ruling.

Sarah Palin has also targeted it.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sarah-palin-renews-challenge-of-landmark-precedent-as-obsolete-in-libel-case-against-new-york-times-that-justice-thomas-may-be-watching-closely/

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

The judge used the word "rape." This case is so dumb. It also just draws more attention to the verdict again in an election year.



Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

m
That's the judge being stupid trying to find her defamed her by denying rape. Read the literal first question:

Did she prove he raped her? Jury: NO.


So when Stephanopplous (or any other idiot) says a jury found he raped her, that is demonstrably 100% false.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html

---

go check any dictionary definition

Also, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

Quote:

---

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

---

This lawsuit is laughable from a legal perspective, but I'm sure his lawyers knew that. This is 100% for political purposes and perhaps an even more sinister objective as has already been mentioned in this thread -- to repeal laws protecting the media so when Mr. Authoritarian dictator gets elected he can dismantle the Fourth Estate.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

The judge used the word "rape." This case is so dumb. It also just draws more attention to the verdict again in an election year.



Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

m
That's the judge being stupid trying to find her defamed her by denying rape. Read the literal first question:

Did she prove he raped her? Jury: NO.


So when Stephanopplous (or any other idiot) says a jury found he raped her, that is demonstrably 100% false.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html

---

Not in the context of defamation. If your theory were true, OJ Simpson would be a billionaire. In this case, it's an opinion based on disclosed facts, and those aren't defamatory as a matter of law.

Reality Check said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

Wild times we live in. Someone who has zero witnesses to her ever having mentioned being raped by Donald Trump suddenly comes forward 30 years later -- with zero details (other than what was on "Law & Order") and persuades 12 Trump-hating jurors that she wasn't raped but was digitally penetrated and that she deserves $83.5 million because of it. Did I mention Trump not being allowed to testify that he has no idea who this woman is?

---

The way you fight that is through an appeal. Trump can say he maintains his innocence and disagrees with the verdict, but trying to sue someone for calling him a rapist is dumb.

A civil jury found that he digitally penetrated her against her will, which falls under the broader definition of "rape." So calling him a rapist is a true statement unless that is reversed. As the other poster pointed out, it's fine to call OJ Simpson a murderer even though he was criminally acquitted. A civil jury found he did it.

Jack Boyette said:

---

LMCane said:

---

more contributions going to the RNC for issues which affect every American!

keep it up patriots!

---

From the guy with so little awareness of the world around him, he votes for democrats.

Yeah..KEEP IT UP, Mensa. This moron is the worst president by every metric since Carter, and yet you have the nerve to insult people that voted for the best president since Reagan by those same metrics. Total buffoon.

---

More like LM CoCane! Amiright!

Quote:

---

Not in the context of defamation. If your theory were true, OJ Simpson would be a billionaire. In this case, it's an opinion based on disclosed facts, and those aren't defamatory as a matter of law.

---

I know this is legally accurate. But we really need to change the terminology regarding civil judgements. No "facts" were found by the jury. The jury decided to make a judgement for the plaintiff base solely on her testimony and her 2nd hand testimony thru her friends. No "facts" have been found, only decisions reached and not based on any facts.

Publicly disputing any verdict should never open someone up for defamation.

Mondemonium said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

Wild times we live in. Someone who has zero witnesses to her ever having mentioned being raped by Donald Trump suddenly comes forward 30 years later -- with zero details (other than what was on "Law & Order") and persuades 12 Trump-hating jurors that she wasn't raped but was digitally penetrated and that she deserves $83.5 million because of it. Did I mention Trump not being allowed to testify that he has no idea who this woman is?

---

The way you fight that is through an appeal. Trump can say he maintains his innocence and disagrees with the verdict, but trying to sue someone for calling him a rapist is dumb.

A civil jury found that he digitally penetrated her against her will, which falls under the broader definition of "rape." So calling him a rapist is a true statement unless that is reversed. As the other poster pointed out, it's fine to call OJ Simpson a murderer even though he was criminally acquitted. A civil jury found he did it.

---

I can't find the verdict form from the civil trial, but I suspect when the jury is asked yes or no to murder (probably worded as causing the death), they answered "yes" as opposed to "no." Which would be different than answering "no" when asked if Carroll proved he raped her. Just a little different at least.

Mondemonium said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

The judge used the word "rape." This case is so dumb. It also just draws more attention to the verdict again in an election year.



Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

m
That's the judge being stupid trying to find her defamed her by denying rape. Read the literal first question:

Did she prove he raped her? Jury: NO.


So when Stephanopplous (or any other idiot) says a jury found he raped her, that is demonstrably 100% false.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/09/nyregion/trump-liable-verdict-form-jury.html

---

go check any dictionary definition

Also, https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape

Quote:

---

"The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."

---

This lawsuit is laughable from a legal perspective, but I'm sure his lawyers knew that. This is 100% for political purposes and perhaps an even more sinister objective as has already been mentioned in this thread -- to repeal laws protecting the media so when Mr. Authoritarian dictator gets elected he can dismantle the Fourth Estate.

---

Oh goody. A beta Biden supporter has weighed in. As if you have any credibility. Now go drink your morning soy and pray no one ever falsely accuses you of anything.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

Wild times we live in. Someone who has zero witnesses to her ever having mentioned being raped by Donald Trump suddenly comes forward 30 years later -- with zero details (other than what was on "Law & Order") and persuades 12 Trump-hating jurors that she wasn't raped but was digitally penetrated and that she deserves $83.5 million because of it. Did I mention Trump not being allowed to testify that he has no idea who this woman is?

---

The way you fight that is through an appeal. Trump can say he maintains his innocence and disagrees with the verdict, but trying to sue someone for calling him a rapist is dumb.

A civil jury found that he digitally penetrated her against her will, which falls under the broader definition of "rape." So calling him a rapist is a true statement unless that is reversed. As the other poster pointed out, it's fine to call OJ Simpson a murderer even though he was criminally acquitted. A civil jury found he did it.

---

I can't find the verdict form from the civil trial, but I suspect when the jury is asked yes or no to murder (probably worded as causing the death), they answered "yes" as opposed to "no." Which would be different than answering "no" when asked if Carroll proved he raped her. Just a little different at least.

---

No, you are exactly right. The jury marked "no" under the question of rape for Trump, but given the broader definitions of the word rape and with Trump being a public figure, the case is dumb.

All Snuffleupagus has to say is he wasn't using the narrow NY statutory definition of rape but the broader definition of rape that is in dictionaries and in the AG definition, etc...

Mondemonium said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

Wild times we live in. Someone who has zero witnesses to her ever having mentioned being raped by Donald Trump suddenly comes forward 30 years later -- with zero details (other than what was on "Law & Order") and persuades 12 Trump-hating jurors that she wasn't raped but was digitally penetrated and that she deserves $83.5 million because of it. Did I mention Trump not being allowed to testify that he has no idea who this woman is?

---

The way you fight that is through an appeal. Trump can say he maintains his innocence and disagrees with the verdict, but trying to sue someone for calling him a rapist is dumb.

A civil jury found that he digitally penetrated her against her will, which falls under the broader definition of "rape." So calling him a rapist is a true statement unless that is reversed. As the other poster pointed out, it's fine to call OJ Simpson a murderer even though he was criminally acquitted. A civil jury found he did it.

---

Now do Biden who is accused of rape by one of his senate secretaries in the hallway under the senate chambers. The main socialist media snuffed out the story. The woman has now moved to Russia to get away from the death threats. Imagine,, having to move to Russia to get away from death threats! Wake Up CM's and Independent's!

I wonder if Stephanufflegis has stopped molesting young boys?

This is how it works, right?

Mondemonium said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

Wild times we live in. Someone who has zero witnesses to her ever having mentioned being raped by Donald Trump suddenly comes forward 30 years later -- with zero details (other than what was on "Law & Order") and persuades 12 Trump-hating jurors that she wasn't raped but was digitally penetrated and that she deserves $83.5 million because of it. Did I mention Trump not being allowed to testify that he has no idea who this woman is?

---

The way you fight that is through an appeal. Trump can say he maintains his innocence and disagrees with the verdict, but trying to sue someone for calling him a rapist is dumb.

A civil jury found that he digitally penetrated her against her will, which falls under the broader definition of "rape." So calling him a rapist is a true statement unless that is reversed. As the other poster pointed out, it's fine to call OJ Simpson a murderer even though he was criminally acquitted. A civil jury found he did it.

---

I can't find the verdict form from the civil trial, but I suspect when the jury is asked yes or no to murder (probably worded as causing the death), they answered "yes" as opposed to "no." Which would be different than answering "no" when asked if Carroll proved he raped her. Just a little different at least.

---

No, you are exactly right. The jury marked "no" under the question of rape for Trump, but given the broader definitions of the word rape and with Trump being a public figure, the case is dumb.

All Snuffleupagus has to say is he wasn't using the narrow NY statutory definition of rape but the broader definition of rape that is in dictionaries and in the AG definition, etc...

---

Except he was specifically saying "the jury" found him "liable for rape". The jury literally, not figuratively, found that she did not prove he raped her. They specifically found the opposite of what he is claiming.

Damn, real estate in the heads of leftists wasnt enough, this man is going to own ABC news soon.

It seems to me rather odd that a state can just up and "temporarily" change a statute of limitations. Why have statute of limitations if they can arbitrarily be changed? Especially after they had expired the first time.

Seems like somewhere some rights were violated? But I could be wrong.

Maybe this was already discussed and I missed it?

will25u said:

---

It seems to me rather odd that a state can just up and "temporarily" change a statute of limitations. Why have statute of limitations if they can arbitrarily be changed? Especially after they had expired the first time.

Seems like somewhere some rights were violated? But I could be wrong.

Maybe this was already discussed and I missed it?

---

It's because the prosecutor ran on "Getting Trump" and she won, so she changed the rules to "get him".

It's obvious to anyone with two braincells to rub together.

Unfortunately, in New York, that qualifier is lacking - especially among the types that are "fit" for jury duty.

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Reality Check said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Wild times we live in. Presidential candidate: "Forceable finger banging is not rape!"

---

Wild times we live in. Someone who has zero witnesses to her ever having mentioned being raped by Donald Trump suddenly comes forward 30 years later -- with zero details (other than what was on "Law & Order") and persuades 12 Trump-hating jurors that she wasn't raped but was digitally penetrated and that she deserves $83.5 million because of it. Did I mention Trump not being allowed to testify that he has no idea who this woman is?

---

The way you fight that is through an appeal. Trump can say he maintains his innocence and disagrees with the verdict, but trying to sue someone for calling him a rapist is dumb.

A civil jury found that he digitally penetrated her against her will, which falls under the broader definition of "rape." So calling him a rapist is a true statement unless that is reversed. As the other poster pointed out, it's fine to call OJ Simpson a murderer even though he was criminally acquitted. A civil jury found he did it.

---

I can't find the verdict form from the civil trial, but I suspect when the jury is asked yes or no to murder (probably worded as causing the death), they answered "yes" as opposed to "no." Which would be different than answering "no" when asked if Carroll proved he raped her. Just a little different at least.

---

No, you are exactly right. The jury marked "no" under the question of rape for Trump, but given the broader definitions of the word rape and with Trump being a public figure, the case is dumb.

All Snuffleupagus has to say is he wasn't using the narrow NY statutory definition of rape but the broader definition of rape that is in dictionaries and in the AG definition, etc...

---

Except he was specifically saying "the jury" found him "liable for rape". The jury literally, not figuratively, found that she did not prove he raped her. They specifically found the opposite of what he is claiming.

---

Yeah, I get what you are saying. What he said was factually "imprecise." I don't think that will carry the day in a lawsuit.

A civil jury found him not liable for [NY Statutory definition of] rape but liable for [broader, more modern and widely accepted definition of] rape. It's a misleading statement but is it defamatory?

Throw in the public figure aspect and it's dead in the water.


Is this a smart move, politically? It gets E Jean Carroll's accusations back out in the public discourse. Trump is a master of manipulating media focus so I think they have calculated this gives him some advantage.