[Puffer Fish]

Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M (wtae.com)

A jury has awarded $5 million to a woman who accused Trump of raping her in a lawsuit.

There was no evidence that this rape happened, other than the woman claims that it happened.

The jury was in New York City.

Trump is, of course, the former U.S. President and is very rich.

Trump comes from New York City, but most everyone there developed a loathing hatred for him after he emerged as the Republican Party candidate for President and won the election. Women aligned with the feminist cause especially seemed to hate him.

The woman who's accusing him, Elizabeth Jean Carrol, is a New York journalist and former advice column writer.

Her first accusations against Trump appeared in June 2019 in an article she wrote for New York magazine. She claimed that the rape happened in late 1995 or early 1996. (Apparently she couldn't remember exactly when)
At the same time she released a book titled What Do We Need Men For?: A Modest Proposal. In the book she gave further details of that encounter, and alleged that another very wealthy media executive, Leslie Roy Moonves, had also raped her.

Trump publicly called her a liar. In response she tried to sue him for defamation.

On November 24, 2022, Carroll sued Trump for battery in New York under the Adult Survivors Act, a state law passed in May that same year, which allows sexual assault victims to file civil suits regardless of expired statutes of limitations. Some have suspicions this law may have been passed specifically to go after Trump.
(see thread: New York eliminates statute of limitations for sexual crimes )

So she was suing him, trying to get money, over a sexual assault that she alleges happened 24 years ago.

The jury, consisting of 6 men and 3 women, found Trump liable for sexual assault, battery and defamation against Carroll. However they declined to find him liable for rape.

Some may recall Trump's off-the-record conversation with Access Hollywood television host Billy Bush, which was recorded without Trump's knowledge.
The judge allowed these past comments Trump made as "evidence" in this lawsuit.

"I'm automatically attracted to beautiful women... I just start kissing them, it's like a magnet... Just kiss... I don't even wait... And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."
Billy Bush responding: "... whatever you want."
"Grab 'em by the p(*)(*)(*)y..."

[ingliz]

@Puffer Fish

The jury found him guilty. When less than 1% of sexual assaults lead to felony convictions in the US, and you get a unanimous guilty verdict brought quickly, the evidence must have been compelling.

[Fasces]

There was no evidence that this rape happened, other than the woman claims that it happened.

There is male DNA on her dress. Trump refuses to provide a DNA sample to compare it.

Carroll’s lawyers have sought Trump’s DNA for three years to compare it with stains found on the dress Carroll wore the day she says Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in late 1995 or early 1996. Analysis of DNA on the dress concluded it did contain traces of an unknown man’s DNA.

Why did Trump refuse to provide a DNA sample that would exonerate him?

[Puffer Fish]

The jury found him guilty. When less than 1% of sexual assaults lead to felony convictions in the US, and you get a unanimous guilty verdict brought quickly, the evidence must have been compelling.

The evidence was anything but compelling. There was NO EVIDENCE, in my opinion.

The circumstances of this lawsuit are absurd. The outcome of this lawsuit is even more absurd.

I suspect bias may be at work. People in NYC really hate Trump.

The idea of giving a woman millions of dollars because she claims a rape happened is even more absurd, in my opinion, than just putting the man in prison for a few years.
Paying women to accuse men. What could go wrong?

[Puffer Fish]

Why did Trump refuse to provide a DNA sample that would exonerate him?

Because any evidence he gives could be used against him, even if he is not guilty.

He may not trust the authorities in New York.

There could also be a small risk the woman (or others the accuser is working with) figured out a way to obtain his DNA to be able to use as evidence against him.

Trump, or any criminal suspect, is under no obligation to have to submit DNA, unless there is adequate evidence against them.

[Fasces]

You can only gather evidence once you have enough evidence? You really think that's how it works?

[Puffer Fish]

:lol:

You can only gather evidence once you have enough evidence? You really think that's how it works?

It actually is.

The evidence necessary to gather more evidence doesn't need to be enough for a conviction of course, but still needs to be strong enough for strong probable cause.

With a lawsuit (civil case) it gets more complicated.

And actually I would say that it is probably uncharted territory what the burden of evidence to get a search warrant should be in a civil case that deals with a sexual assault where the entire case is based on only testimony from the accuser.


Even if (hypothetically) the accuser did have the man's DNA, in my opinion that would still not necessarily prove things to a high enough level that the accuser should be awarded money.
The sex could have been consensual, or in this type of high-profile case the DNA could have been given to the accuser by another woman who had slept with the accused.

[Rich]

This trial is absolute disgrace. America should be utterly ashamed of itself.

This is an abomination and goes totally against the principle of the rule of criminal law. And before any Liberal cretins start accusing me of political bias I took exactly the same attitude to the civil trial of O.J. Simpson. I don't doubt for a moment OJs guilt. Of course he was only able to be acquitted in the criminal trial, because he was a "Black" man accused of murdering a "White" woman and a "White" man. But Civil courts should never be used to resolve criminal matters.

If the Criminal Law system needs fixing then fix it, but it is an essential part of the rule of Law that sometimes guilty people will escape justice. Sexual abuse and rape can not be completely eliminated, but what would have gone a long way to reducing it was the abolition or at least the severe restriction of libel and slander laws. It is libel and slander laws that have enabled so much abuse to go on for so long.

Civil Courts should not be used to resolve criminal matters. All compensation to victims of crime should be resolved through the criminal justice system.

[Puffer Fish]

This trial is absolute disgrace. America should be utterly ashamed of itself.

Well, not "America", but New York City, and the U.S. state of New York.

[Fasces]

The evidence necessary to gather more evidence doesn't need to be enough for a conviction of course, but still needs to be strong enough for strong probable cause.

A witness statement is reasonable probable cause in any jurisdiction.

[Rich]

Society, people are deeply uncomfortable with uncertainty. Sexual relations are messy and inherently prone to abuse, manipulation and misunderstanding. In the past women, children, adults who wished to claim they had been abused as children as well as male victims of homosexual rapists and abusers were silenced. The messiness, the uncertainty were hidden through silence, silence enforced through legal , libel and slander laws and non legal means.

The impulse that says all women must be believed, is just the mirror image of the one that says all women must be silenced. It is the same desire to live in a neat world,

[Rugoz]

A witness statement is reasonable probable cause in any jurisdiction.

Obviously, wtf are these 2 jerks smoking?

[late]

Obviously, wtf are these 2 jerks smoking?

Trump admitted he'd done it during questioning. That was when he said it's always been like that, "fortunately or unfortunately".

As if that wasn't enough, his lies and other comments didn't exactly help his case. There's enough there that you could lose half and still win...

Right wing extremists have never had much interest in reality

[ingliz]

@Puffer Fish

'A preponderance of the evidence' is the evidentiary standard in civil cases.

If the plaintiff's lawyers can show there is a pattern of behavior, the defendant is stuffed.

Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 26 women.

[Steve_American]

@Puffer Fish

'A preponderance of the evidence' is the evidentiary standard in civil cases.

If the plaintiff's lawyers can show there is a pattern of behavior, the defendant is stuffed.

Trump has been accused of sexual misconduct by at least 26 women.

You are exactly right.

Trump didn't offer any defense. AFAIK this means he could not win. This is because some evidence vs no evidence means the some evidence always wins in a civil case.

AFAIK the evicence was pretty strong.

Trump will appeal.

.

[Godstud]

@Steve_American It's a civil case. Remember what happened with OJ Simpson?

You have to have grounds for an appeal. I doubt there is any.

Some evidence is STILL evidence.

[Pants-of-dog]

Trump does not need (or probably even want) to appeal.

He will portray this as the Establishment or Democratic elites manipulating the justice system for their own evil ends, and please send contributions for the defense fund to Trump.

[wat0n]

Indeed, textbook demagogue tactic. I wonder how many will buy it.

[Steve_American]

Trump does not need (or probably even want) to appeal.

He will portray this as the Establishment or Democratic elites manipulating the justice system for their own evil ends, and please send contributions for the defense fund to Trump.

He will appeal, to delay paying the $5 M.

He will lose because there are no grounds to win, but the amount likely will be reduced, @Godstud,

[wat0n]

He could abstain from appealing so this will go away for now, allowing him to bring it up when convenient framed as @Pants-of-dog said.