- 26 Jan 2024 23:24
#15303021
A jury in New York has ordered former U.S. President Trump to pay a woman $83 million because he called her a liar, after she claimed he raped her.
This is absolutely ridiculous, seems to defy all logic and common sense, and just goes to show how much bias can exist in the jury system.
Although Trump came from the New York City area, most of the people there very much loathe him.
(New York City is a political Democratic Party bastion, and Trump was the rival Republican Party nominee and successfully won the election for President)
E. Jean Carroll sued Donald Trump for defamation.
This was separate from and after she had already sued him for allegedly raping her.
Jury Orders Trump to Pay E. Jean Carroll $83 Million for Defamation, Corinne Ramey, The Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2024
related thread: Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape (posted in North America section, on 10 May 2023 )
Practically the only evidence is the woman said it happened.
And lots of progressives on the Left seem to think a woman should be given tons of money if she says she was a victim... no matter how long ago it supposedly was.
So if you're a politician and some woman claims you raped her, with no evidence, and you publicly call her a liar, she can sue you for defamation, for ruining her reputation?
Everyone who is willing to be honest with themselves knows that sort of logic is absurd.
For one thing, there are obvious double standards being applied in these two cases. In one case, the burden is on Trump to prove it did not happen or he is found guilty. The court automatically believes the accuser but not the person being accused. Trump was being required to prove that the other person was not telling the truth.
But then in this other case, the burden is on Trump to prove that he is telling the truth.
If anything, we should expect the jury should have to award Trump money for her damaging his reputation.
It's like right has become wrong, and wrong has become right, everything turned upside down in a crazy clown world, a kangaroo court.
This aside from the obvious fact that $83 million is a ridiculously absurd amount for defamation damages. The alleged "victim" Jean Carroll is not worth anywhere near that amount. The jury only decided this amount because everyone knows Trump is very rich.
If anyone believes that they can trust a jury to decide the truth of a case, this story absolutely proves that is not always true.
This is absolutely ridiculous, seems to defy all logic and common sense, and just goes to show how much bias can exist in the jury system.
Although Trump came from the New York City area, most of the people there very much loathe him.
(New York City is a political Democratic Party bastion, and Trump was the rival Republican Party nominee and successfully won the election for President)
E. Jean Carroll sued Donald Trump for defamation.
This was separate from and after she had already sued him for allegedly raping her.
Jury Orders Trump to Pay E. Jean Carroll $83 Million for Defamation, Corinne Ramey, The Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2024
related thread: Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape (posted in North America section, on 10 May 2023 )
Practically the only evidence is the woman said it happened.
And lots of progressives on the Left seem to think a woman should be given tons of money if she says she was a victim... no matter how long ago it supposedly was.
So if you're a politician and some woman claims you raped her, with no evidence, and you publicly call her a liar, she can sue you for defamation, for ruining her reputation?
Everyone who is willing to be honest with themselves knows that sort of logic is absurd.
For one thing, there are obvious double standards being applied in these two cases. In one case, the burden is on Trump to prove it did not happen or he is found guilty. The court automatically believes the accuser but not the person being accused. Trump was being required to prove that the other person was not telling the truth.
But then in this other case, the burden is on Trump to prove that he is telling the truth.
If anything, we should expect the jury should have to award Trump money for her damaging his reputation.
It's like right has become wrong, and wrong has become right, everything turned upside down in a crazy clown world, a kangaroo court.
This aside from the obvious fact that $83 million is a ridiculously absurd amount for defamation damages. The alleged "victim" Jean Carroll is not worth anywhere near that amount. The jury only decided this amount because everyone knows Trump is very rich.
If anyone believes that they can trust a jury to decide the truth of a case, this story absolutely proves that is not always true.