[Tom Bishop]

The verdict needs to be uniform here. Something like "We believe the part where Trump slapped you on the rear end, but not the part where he penetrated and raped you" is ridiculous, as it suggests that the jury is questioning her story and primary claim. This isn't going anywhere.

[juner]

trump gets to pay the patrick price

im sure that will happen since djt always pays his bills

[markjo]

This is a win for Trump. This secondary verdict will be appealed and squashed then that will be it for this case.

I'm not sure how being found guilty on 8 of 10 charges could be considered a win, but whatever.

Here is a link to the text of the verdict:
https://www.scribd.com/document/644110955/gov-uscourts-nysd-590045-174-0-1#

[Tom Bishop]

From that document apparently the jury believes that Trump did not rape her, but they believe that he sexually abused her.

Other other items in that list appear to be talking about things that happened in the present, such as Trump defaming her. The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

[honk]

The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

Yes, that must be it. Because calling someone unattractive is totally considered sexual abuse under the law and definitely something you can sue and win millions for.

[Tom Bishop]

The sexual abuse checkbox looks like could be talking about something in the present, such as Trump calling her undesirable and someone he wouldn't associate with sexually.

Yes, that must be it. Because calling someone unattractive is totally considered sexual abuse under the law and definitely something you can sue and win millions for.

No millions were awarded for that sexual abuse item. The document Markjo posted above lists out how much is awarded for which item. The items she was awarded millions for was whether she was injured as result of a October 2022 publication and his conduct.

[Rushy]

Looks like you can accuse someone of doing something decades ago and when they deny it, then call you a liar, that counts as defaming them lmao.

[honk]

If the jury believes you, then yes. That's how it works.

[Lord Dave]

I'm shocked.

Defermation has a high bar.  As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

[AATW]

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

[Action80]

Fake fucking news strikes again...LOL!!!

2 mill for sexual abuse?

20k for willful and wanton conduct?

LMMFAO!!!

You guys eat this shit up as if it is real!!!

[Tom Bishop]

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it. If the jury isn't believing her on her primary claim of rape and aren't trusting the words that are coming out of her mouth, it is difficult to believe that these rape claims or 'sexual abuse' claims are going anywhere.

By association there is a good chance the defamation charges will be dropped too, considering that the jury rejected her rape claim and the sheer ridiculousness of 'defamation' when claiming that someone is lying about the rape allegation against you.

[Roundy]

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it.

It's ok that you're so confused, I was at first too. They did not toss her department store rape story. The issue was that what she accused him of doing isn't legally rape in New York (even though it is just about everywhere else). They decided that her story holds up, but it's considered sexual assault, not rape. They didn't "toss" anything.

[AATW]

Did you bother to read those points you are championing?

I'm not championing anything. I'm talking about you and the way you think. Calling this a win for Trump. Talking about an "activist court or judge".
Dude, come on. The judge allowed other women to testify in this case, one of whom made a similar allegation, the other recounted a phonecall made to her by the alleged victim right after the incident. Then you've got the whole Stormy Daniels thing, the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape, his own admission about his behaviour when he owned Miss Teen USA, his comments about his own daughter ffs.
You can still think he was a good President if you like, you might agree with his politics. But this pathological need to defend everything he does no matter what is ludicrous.

[Action80]

It's looking more like an activist court or judge was making the case more about things that happened in the present than the actual rape.

Dude. Take a breath.
If Trump had been completely exonerated you'd be championing it as a proof of the vindication of an innocent man.
He's lost 8 out of 10 counts and it's an "activist court or judge".
Maybe it's time to consider that Trump might not be the messiah and may in fact be a very naughty boy.

Did you bother to read those points you are championing? They don't work towards the rapist narrative. Seven of them are clearly talking about things that took place in the present, such as things that were published in 2022. It's debatable on whether the one about sexual abuse is talking about the present or past.

The main point in contention on the rape claim was rape, not the seven points of defamation and injury to reputation. The jury has decided that Trump is absolved of the rape accusations. They listened to her department store rape story and tossed it.

It's ok that you're so confused, I was at first too. They did not toss her department store rape story. The issue was that what she accused him of doing isn't legally rape in New York (even though it is just about everywhere else). They decided that her story holds up, but it's considered sexual assault, not rape. They didn't "toss" anything.

It seems you still may be confused.

[Rushy]

If the jury believes you, then yes. That's how it works.

Of course it's how it works. There's a difference between understanding how something works versus criticizing it for working that way. This was a modern day Salem witch trial, except instead of "she's a witch!" it's "Trump touched me!".

It's both embarrassing and hilarious. The American civil court system is a disgrace.

I'm shocked.

Defermation has a high bar.  As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

You're thinking of criminal defamation. This was a civil case. As honk has already stated, it's a matter of convincing a small group of morons. It's not a high bar at all, as made obvious by this case.

[AATW]

This was a modern day Salem witch trial, except instead of "she's a witch!" it's "Trump touched me!".

Yeah. Trump.
The man who said he’d be trying to bang his own daughter were she not his daughter.
The man who boasted about going into Miss Teen USA dressing rooms unannounced when the teenage girls were undressed.
Then there’s the “grab ‘em by the pussy” tape.
The Stormy Daniel’s stuff.
And the woman here has a two witnesses, one who she made a phone call to right after the incident, another who says Trump did a similar thing to her.

And Trump’s defence is basically “nuh uh” and “3/10, would not bang”. Although when shown a photo of the lady from the time he apparently mistook her for his ex wife.

I’m not sure he could be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but is her allegation plausible given Trump’s clear pattern of behaviour? Absolutely.

[Pete Svarrior]

It is perfectly possible that Trump is a despicable person and a serial abuser, and that the American justice system is nonsensical at the same time. Countering Rushy's point of "the system is insane" with "but Trump bad" is not really addressing what he's saying.

AATW - your proposed system has a critical flaw. If we accept that Trump has grossly misconducted himself around women in the past, and that that is sufficient evidence for future accusations, then any woman aged 40 and up should be able to accuse him of rape and get, say, $10-$20k automatically per accusation. After all, he's done bad things before, so why would we doubt every single accusation?

Which, ngl, is kinda based from my radical anti-capitalist perspective, but I'm not sure I'm brave enough to propose it publicly as you did. I suspect it would cause any proponent not to be taken very seriously.

[honk]

As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

Outside of one utterly batshit ruling from a court in Massachusetts some years ago, truth is universally recognized as an absolute defense to defamation in the United States.

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

No, because that would be an opinion. You can't sue someone for expressing a negative opinion.

[Lord Dave]

As I understand it, defermation requires you to prove the defendant intentionally tried to damage the person's character with statements that are either untrue, or have no business being stated even if factual.

So like, if I say you're gay in an attempt to destroy your career, it doesn't matter if you are gay or not, just that I wanted to destroy your career.

Outside of one utterly batshit ruling from a court in Massachusetts some years ago, truth is universally recognized as an absolute defense to defamation in the United States.

I'm not verse on what Trump said about her but if he decides to hold a press conference and state how ugly she is, that might count.

No, because that would be an opinion. You can't sue someone for expressing a negative opinion.

Good to know.