[Puffer Fish]

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.

[Puffer Fish]

If someone publicly accuses you of doing something bad to them, and you respond by publicly accusing them of being a liar, I do not think they should be able to get any money for defamation unless they can prove that what you said was not true.

That should require a higher burden of proof than just a jury finding you liable for doing that thing. Otherwise, we are going to start criminalizing accusations when it's very possible those accusations might be true.

To draw an analogy, it would be like throwing every woman into prison who files a report that a man raped her, if that man ends up being found not guilty in court.

[Rancid]

If anyone believes that they can trust a jury to decide the truth of a case

Better to be judged by 12 than by 1.


Aside from that, you are full of shit.

[Potemkin]

Another quality thread from @Puffer Fish. Keep ‘em coming, Puffer!

[Puffer Fish]

Some might suggest maybe Trump should sue her for defamation.
Of course, an individual should not be subject to defamation liability for accusing someone else of raping them, not unless evidence exists that there is an extremely high probability they are lying.

(Now of course normally in lawsuits, the plaintiff only has to show a preponderance of evidence that the defendant is lying, what is sometimes considered to be just over 50% probability, but for obvious reasons that should not be the case in defamation lawsuits involving direct personal witness accusations. Because then it would punish someone for speaking up as a personal witness making an accusation unless they had plenty of additional evidence to back them up, and women would be unable to tell the media that a particular man had raped them)

But likewise, an individual who publicly accuses another individual of lying when that individual publicly accuses them of rape should also not be subject to liability. Because to do so would be unbalanced and unfair, clearly setting a double standard. The person being accused was also a witness to the alleged rape (or rather its lack of existing) and so they should also be able to tell their account to the public and accuse the accuser.

There do not exist any specific laws about this, but this is just common sense. I would think it would be a common law understanding.
But in this specific clown case, they have thrown common sense out the window, come up with a novel theory of defamation liability, which of course is only going to get applied one way, against Trump, and not against his accuser. To make the injustice worse, even if Trump were successful in a defamation case against her, they would award her a lot more money from Trump than they would award from her to Trump, because Trump is rich while she does not have any assets.
The idea of "damages" in lawsuits were never originally intended to be about how wealthy the plaintiff is, but in progressive areas they are commonly using that as a prime factor to decide the damage amount, making it more about "punishment" and redistribution of wealth than just actual just compensation for real equivalent damages.

I think everything I just stated is obvious, to anyone using common sense, but sadly this all has to be stated at length, because there are many people so enthusiastic about going after Trump that they are willing to argue to defend this, trying to use logic to defend and justify the absurd.

[ingliz]

@Puffer Fish

Trump raped her and then defamed her.

She deserves every penny of the award.

If I were a member of the jury, I would have bankrupted the little shit.

[Tainari88]

@Puffer Fish

Trump raped her and then defamed her.

She deserves every penny of the award.

If I were a member of the jury, I would have bankrupted the little shit.

Is he going to pull a fast one on her though? Transfer all his funds to one of his children and claim he has nothing to give her? Lol.

[MistyTiger]

@Puffer Fish always objects to plaintiffs winning big money. Well, it's not a picnic. The plaintiff deserves the win and award and then some. Trump is one of the biggest criminals in the world. He should be locked up in a cold prison in Siberia without any internet and phone access. He is a menace to society. He is like a cancer.

[late]

logic and common sense

uh huh...