She just repeated ABC's mistake of calling Trump a rapist, which forced ABC to fork over $15 million to Trump.

link

Quote:

---

"Wow who would have thought that electing a rapist would have complicated the release of the Epstein Files?" Ocasio-Cortez posted to X on Friday. She appeared to be referencing the 2023 civil trial leveled against Trump by writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found Trump liable of sexual assault, but not of rape, which critics of Ocasio-Cortez repeatedly cited in their condemnation of her use of the word "rapist."

---

Quote:

---

"Even under the ridiculously lenient standards of NY Times v. Sullivan, you've managed to incur defamation liability Wow," Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee posted to X in response.

---

She probably wants that so she can claim Trump is "weaponizing the justice system to go after political opponents."

Take her to court and let her try.

Like every Democrat, she loves lawfare.

She should get to experience it firsthand. I would love to see Trump slam dunking on her.

it still amazes me that a jury found crazy nut bar E Jean Carrol's hazy partial recollection of an event 30 years prior as "liable".

...yet no one anywhere has found Tara Reade's allegations credible at all.

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

He wasn't convicted of rape. He was found liable by a jury of New Yorkers for a crotch grab in the 90's, correct? I don't recall there being any concrete evidence submitted. Zero witnesses. Just the pathetically hazy recollections of one woman that made up the whole thing because of his "***** grab" comment. Now every lib goes around claiming Trump is a rapist.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying "you can" women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

I agree with AOC. His successes are raping the Democrat's reputation .

non criminal civil liability of sexual assault .....after the statute of limitations was tolled via special legislation

Quote:

---

The ASA created a one-year lookback window, allowing adult survivors of sexual assault to file civil lawsuits even if the statute of limitations had otherwise expired. This meant that individuals who had been unable to seek legal recourse due to the passage of time could now pursue civil claims against their alleged abusers.

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

He wasn't convicted of rape. He was found liable by a jury of New Yorkers for a crotch grab in the 90's, correct? I don't recall there being any concrete evidence submitted. Zero witnesses. Just the pathetically hazy recollections of one woman that made up the whole thing because of his "***** grab" comment. Now every lib goes around claiming Trump is a rapist.

---

After voting for the dimwit who actually raped his staffer.

goijg to be a huge hit to AOC's hay budget.

American Hardwood said:

---

Take her to court and let her try.

---

He won't.



She's judgment proof. No money!

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Did ABC not get the memo?

akm91 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Did ABC not get the memo?

---

Very different case. In the ABC News case, George Stephanopoulos said that Trump "was convicted of rape." That's a statement of fact that can be defamatory if it's false (it was false, because Trump was not convicted of rape). The case got past a motion to dismiss because of that determination, and ABC later settled.

Saying someone is a rapist based on disclosed facts is an opinion. Those aren't defamatory in 99.9999% of cases, this one included. No different than calling OJ Simpson a murderer.

plus, I think congress is somewhat shielded anyway using the speech and debate clause from a lot of this

pacecar02 said:

---

plus, I think congress is somewhat shielded anyway using the speech and debate clause from a lot of this

---

From a Tweet? Nope!

Next step should just a letter in the background sent by Trump's attorney demanding a public retraction and apology. She would probably take the bait and play victim, then have to pay her own lawyers to defend her from a defamation lawsuit.

If his attorneys are dumb enough to send that letter, the appropriate response would be a Cleveland Browns letter.

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Nope. He never said he did that. It ranks right up there with saying Nazis are good people and Koigate as Trump urban legends.

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Nope. He never said he did that. It ranks right up there with saying Nazis are good people and Koigate as Trump urban legends.

---

It's a recording. He said it. The inference is that he did it. That alone would probably be enough but you add the E Jean Carroll civil verdict and all the other stuff and it's not "false". Add the public figure requirement of actual malice and it's a frivolous lawsuit. He'd have to pay her attorney fees.

pacecar02 said:

---

plus, I think congress is somewhat shielded anyway using the speech and debate clause from a lot of this

---

Not on twitter

GeorgiAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Nope. He never said he did that. It ranks right up there with saying Nazis are good people and Koigate as Trump urban legends.

---

It's a recording. He said it. That alone would probably be enough but you add the E Jean Carroll civil verdict and all the other stuff and it's not "false". Add the public figure requirement of actual malice and it's a frivolous lawsuit. He'd have to pay her attorney fees.

---

No he didn't, you're just lying

Here's the transcript

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595321.amp

pacecar02 said:

---

plus, I think congress is somewhat shielded anyway using the speech and debate clause from a lot of this

---

That only applies when speaking on the House floor

GeorgiAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Nope. He never said he did that. It ranks right up there with saying Nazis are good people and Koigate as Trump urban legends.

---

It's a recording. He said it. The inference is that he did it. That alone would probably be enough but you add the E Jean Carroll civil verdict and all the other stuff and it's not "false". Add the public figure requirement of actual malice and it's a frivolous lawsuit. He'd have to pay her attorney fees.

---

He said you "could/can". Not the same. Odd that none of them said he did. Was E. Jean Carroll a contestant?

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

When did Trump say that he grabs women? Can you find that quote for us.

GeorgiAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Nope. He never said he did that. It ranks right up there with saying Nazis are good people and Koigate as Trump urban legends.

---

It's a recording. He said it. The inference is that he did it. That alone would probably be enough but you add the E Jean Carroll civil verdict and all the other stuff and it's not "false". Add the public figure requirement of actual malice and it's a frivolous lawsuit. He'd have to pay her attorney fees.

---

He actually never said that he did it.

GeorgiAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

Nope. He never said he did that. It ranks right up there with saying Nazis are good people and Koigate as Trump urban legends.

---

It's a recording. He said it. The inference is that he did it. That alone would probably be enough but you add the E Jean Carroll civil verdict and all the other stuff and it's not "false". Add the public figure requirement of actual malice and it's a frivolous lawsuit. He'd have to pay her attorney fees.

---

P grabbing isn't rape. It's not in the same ballpark. It's not even the same effing sport /Jules. The E Jean Carroll verdict proves that nothing is off the table when it comes to frivolous lawsuits succeeding.

You guys are conflating two or three totally different things. AOC doesn't have to prove he's a rapist to a beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance standard. She just can't say things out of the blue or that she KNOWS is false.

Say there is a guy who starts talking about molesting kids and great ways to download kiddie porn. No evidence he actually did it. Then there's an accusation but not enough to be criminally convicted and he's never criminally convicted. Later there is a judicial determination in a civil case linked to him being a pedophile. (Lower preponderance of evidence standard.)

"He was a convicted pedo" ---> defamatory (never a criminal conviction)
"He was an adjudicated pedo." ---> not defamatory (true because there was a civil determination.)
"He is a pedo" --> not defamatory. (enough stuff to draw a conclusion and make a statement)

This is 1st Amendment stuff. Also there is a much higher standard for a public figure, and Trump is a public figure.

GeorgiAg said:

---

You guys are conflating two or three totally different things. AOC doesn't have to prove he's a rapist to a beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance standard. She just can't say things out of the blue or that she KNOWS is false.

Say there is a guy who starts talking about molesting kids and great ways to download kiddie porn. No evidence he actually did it. Then there's an accusation but not enough to be criminally convicted and he's never criminally convicted. Later there is a judicial determination in a civil case linked to him being a pedophile. (Lower preponderance of evidence standard.)

"He was a convicted pedo" ---> defamatory (never a criminal conviction)
"He was an adjudicated pedo." ---> not defamatory (true because there was a civil determination.)
"He is a pedo" --> not defamatory. (enough stuff to draw a conclusion and make a statement)

This is 1st Amendment stuff. Also there is a much higher standard for a public figure, and Trump is a public figure.

---

A better analogy is 20 years ago Trump said he liked to smoke MJ every now and then and based on that comment AOC called him a drug dealer. But I get your point and Trump should probably not pursue a defamation case.

GeorgiAg said:

---

You guys are conflating two or three totally different things. AOC doesn't have to prove he's a rapist to a beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance standard. She just can't say things out of the blue or that she KNOWS is false.

Say there is a guy who starts talking about molesting kids and great ways to download kiddie porn. No evidence he actually did it. Then there's an accusation but not enough to be criminally convicted and he's never criminally convicted. Later there is a judicial determination in a civil case linked to him being a pedophile. (Lower preponderance of evidence standard.)

"He was a convicted pedo" ---> defamatory (never a criminal conviction)
"He was an adjudicated pedo." ---> not defamatory (true because there was a civil determination.)
"He is a pedo" --> not defamatory. (enough stuff to draw a conclusion and make a statement)

This is 1st Amendment stuff. Also there is a much higher standard for a public figure, and Trump is a public figure.

---

Is that you Dan Rather?

GeorgiAg said:

---

You guys are conflating two or three totally different things. AOC doesn't have to prove he's a rapist to a beyond a reasonable doubt or even a preponderance standard. She just can't say things out of the blue or that she KNOWS is false.

Say there is a guy who starts talking about molesting kids and great ways to download kiddie porn. No evidence he actually did it. Then there's an accusation but not enough to be criminally convicted and he's never criminally convicted. Later there is a judicial determination in a civil case linked to him being a pedophile. (Lower preponderance of evidence standard.)

"He was a convicted pedo" ---> defamatory (never a criminal conviction)
"He was an adjudicated pedo." ---> not defamatory (true because there was a civil determination.)
"He is a pedo" --> not defamatory. (enough stuff to draw a conclusion and make a statement)

This is 1st Amendment stuff. Also there is a much higher standard for a public figure, and Trump is a public figure.

---

OK. But you said Trump's [color=#333333]on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals.

[/color]He didn't say that.

What's with the:

Quote:

---

color=#33333

---

Have been seeing that on a lot of quotes.

I'll bet the horse faced bartender thinks Bill Clinton is quite a gentleman.

aginlakeway said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Calling someone a rapist and saying someone was convicted of rape are two very, very different things. He could sue, but it would be very stupid of him to do so.

---

Agree.

He's a public figure and he's on tape saying he grabs women by their genitals. E Jean Carroll, too. The case would never get to a jury

---

When did Trump say that he grabs women? Can you find that quote for us.

---

He never did, he was engaging in braggadocious "locker room talk" and making the point of how easy it is to get women when you are rich and famous. Every liberal dimwit would know this deep down, if they were capable of filtering out their intense hatred of Trump and being honest with themselves.

It doesn't make it right....but only a child, or a hate fueled brainwashed dem, would actually think he was saying you can just walk up and grab ladies by their privates, or that he has done so.

But ultimately, they are complete hypocrites either way...Bill Clinton sexually assaulted a young INTERN in the Oval Office, which is orders of magnitude worse than Trump's cocky locker room jokes...and the liberal freaks are dead silent. What Clinton did gets you banished in corporate America, yet I have never heard a single libiot criticize him over this...which is much worse than anything Trump has ever done. Can you imagine their reaction to Trump being caught banging an intern in the Oval Office? LOLOL...childish hypocritic freaks.