[Tom Bishop]

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. Its the second definition here. The term sentence is only more often used in reference to criminal matters.

[Dual1ty]

Let's see... if Trump's net worth is $2.5 billion according to Forbes April 2023, what % of that is $5 million?

5000000 / 2500000000 = 0.002
0.002 * 100 = 0.2 %

Ahahaha!


If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

[markjo]

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.

Tom, you really should read up on the many differences between criminal law and civil law.  Trump was involved in a civil trial.  Citing criminal law doesn't do anything to strengthen your case.

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

[honk]

I'll grant that the term may be used to describe a judgment in a civil trial, but it's still clear that the website Tom cited was talking about criminal trials. You can't overturn the results of a lawsuit on the grounds of "The jury shouldn't have found the plaintiff's testimony convincing and my testimony unconvincing," which is essentially what this case came down to. There is no computer that we can plug the components of a trial into and have the "objective" results be printed out for us. Any justice system in the end will come down to human judgment.

Let's see... if Trump's net worth is $2.5 billion according to Forbes April 2023, what % of that is $5 million?

5000000 / 2500000000 = 0.002
0.002 * 100 = 0.2 %

Ahahaha!


If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Why is it relevant what percentage of Trump's net worth the verdict came out to, and why does a sum this supposedly low indicate fraud?

[Action80]

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.

Tom, you really should read up on the many differences between criminal law and civil law.  Trump was involved in a civil trial.  Citing criminal law doesn't do anything to strengthen your case.

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

Any ruling handed down by any criminal or civil court judge is a sentence.

[Dual1ty]

Let's see... if Trump's net worth is $2.5 billion according to Forbes April 2023, what % of that is $5 million?

5000000 / 2500000000 = 0.002
0.002 * 100 = 0.2 %

Ahahaha!


If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Why is it relevant what percentage of Trump's net worth the verdict came out to, and why does a sum this supposedly low indicate fraud?

A common traffic fine is 5000% more than 0.2% of a regular person's income. The argument is that he sexually abused her and it only costs him 0.2%? Ok. I guess traffic infractions are way more important to the crazy "justice" system than sexual abuse, then.

Again: If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

[Lord Dave]

Why is anyone arguing sentence vs judgement? Tom's post made it clear that while both are technically correct for civil and criminal cases, sentence usually is used for criminal cases and judgement for civil cases.

[Action80]

Why is anyone arguing sentence vs judgement? Tom's post made it clear that while both are technically correct for civil and criminal cases, sentence usually is used for criminal cases and judgement for civil cases.

You could be more specific and clearly label the ones arguing...even when presented clear evidence they are wrong. But that is what BS artists do.

[Tom Bishop]

We're not talking about sentences, either.

Being ordered to pay an amount of money is a sentence. Look at a legal dictionary. The term sentence is only more often used in reference criminal matters.

Tom, you really should read up on the many differences between criminal law and civil law.  Trump was involved in a civil trial.  Citing criminal law doesn't do anything to strengthen your case.

Civil law and criminal law are two broad and separate entities of law with separate sets of laws and punishments.

This is clearly how appeals courts operate, civil or criminal. If you did doubt it and thought that there were different rules in your favor then it would easily searchable and you wouldn't have to speculate that there are separate civil appeals rules that don't look at substantial evidence. You have no evidence at all that civil appeals don't have substantial evidence review.

See this document on Civil Appeals in California:

https://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/lrg-appeals-starting-your-civil-appeal.pdf

Starting Your Civil Appeal

...

The appellate court may only decide if there were errors of law serious enough to prevent a party from having a fair trial, or if there was insufficient evidence at trial to support the lower court’s decision. If the trial judge properly applied the laws, and the decision was supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court will not overturn the trial court’s decision.

...

Substantial evidence. When reviewing factual findings, the appellate court will determine if there
was sufficient evidence to support the lower court’s findings. In these types of review, the appellate
court will generally defer to the lower court’s factual conclusions, because the trial judge or jury is in a
better position to observe the witnesses and evidence, and assess their credibility. The appellate
review will generally be limited to whether or not the facts, as determined by the lower court,
constitute sufficient evidence to support the judgment or ruling.

[garygreen]

why on earth would he appeal? this judgement is a huge win for trump.

[honk]

A common traffic fine is 5000% more than 0.2% of a regular person's income. The argument is that he sexually abused her and it only costs him 0.2%? Ok. I guess traffic infractions are way more important to the crazy "justice" system than sexual abuse, then.

I can only assume that you're fortunate enough to have never received a traffic fine. They aren't based on your income, and anyone poor enough for it to be a significant percentage of their income probably couldn't afford a car to begin with. Also, in your previous post you were talking about Trump's net worth, not his income.

Again: If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Five million plus is an awful lot to be settling for out of court. Besides, how does this even follow? Why does a "low" figure like five million indicate fraud? The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.

[Dual1ty]

A common traffic fine is 5000% more than 0.2% of a regular person's income. The argument is that he sexually abused her and it only costs him 0.2%? Ok. I guess traffic infractions are way more important to the crazy "justice" system than sexual abuse, then.

I can only assume that you're fortunate enough to have never received a traffic fine. They aren't based on your income, and anyone poor enough for it to be a significant percentage of their income probably couldn't afford a car to begin with. Also, in your previous post you were talking about Trump's net worth, not his income.

Again: If this was real and there was any evidence, she easily could've gotten way more than that by not going to the the courts or the media. Years ago.

Five million plus is an awful lot to be settling for out of court. Besides, how does this even follow? Why does a "low" figure like five million indicate fraud? The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.

You think I don't know that, smarty-pants? What I said stands as an argument - the exact numbers of specific fines vs specific incomes are neither here nor there.

"The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.". Of course they did. If you put globe Earth on trial, the jury would conclude that the Earth is a ball. It's a big joke.

[Pete Svarrior]

why on earth would he appeal? this judgement is a huge win for trump.

Because he could win again - don't forget, the goal is to make us tired of winning.

[honk]

You think I don't know that, smarty-pants? What I said stands as an argument - the exact numbers of specific fines vs specific incomes are neither here nor there.

Your argument is based on the wildly-incorrect assertion that people pay a significant percentage of their income and/or net worth for a traffic ticket, and therefore the money awarded in this trial should have been a lot more. No, your argument doesn't stand,  and even if it did, it still wouldn't automatically support your conclusion that the case was therefore fraudulent.

"The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.". Of course they did. If you put globe Earth on trial, the jury would conclude that the Earth is a ball. It's a big joke.

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

[Rushy]

Trump 55, DeSantis 17, Pence 6, Haley 4, Ramaswamy 4, T. Scott 2, Elder 1, Christie 0, Hutchinson 1, Sununu 0

You CANNOT stump the Trump. You WILL enjoy a Trump vs Biden 2024 election cycle.

[Dual1ty]

You think I don't know that, smarty-pants? What I said stands as an argument - the exact numbers of specific fines vs specific incomes are neither here nor there.

Your argument is based on the wildly-incorrect assertion that people pay a significant percentage of their income and/or net worth for a traffic ticket, and therefore the money awarded in this trial should have been a lot more. No, your argument doesn't stand,  and even if it did, it still wouldn't automatically support your conclusion that the case was therefore fraudulent.

"The jury found Trump liable. They gave Carroll the money she was asking for.". Of course they did. If you put globe Earth on trial, the jury would conclude that the Earth is a ball. It's a big joke.

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

It was an approximation. If that's not how you understood it that's not my problem.

You're asking me to prove that the narrative is fraudulent? How can I prove the unprovable? They chose that scenario very carefully because it can't possibly be proven or disproven, but they knew that the jury would convict, because of course they would convict Public Enemy #1 if given the opportunity. Pretending that you can prove what happened in a dressing room in the 90s after a chance encounter? Give me a break. It's a joke, that's all it is. Personally, I find it quite funny.

[juner]

glad the russia hoax was confirmed finally

[honk]

You're asking me to prove that the narrative is fraudulent?

No. This is what I'm asking you:

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

Your argument is that the verdict ought to have been higher - which seems to have been the point of your odd analogy about traffic tickets, too - and the fact that it wasn't somehow indicates that the case was itself fraudulent. How does that logically follow? You've acknowledged that the jury believed Carroll and ruled in her favor, so why would they lowball her?

[Dual1ty]

You're asking me to prove that the narrative is fraudulent?

No. This is what I'm asking you:

Then why does the verdict being relatively low indicate that the case was fraudulent?

Your argument is that the verdict ought to have been higher - which seems to have been the point of your odd analogy about traffic tickets, too - and the fact that it wasn't somehow indicates that the case was itself fraudulent. How does that logically follow? You've acknowledged that the jury believed Carroll and ruled in her favor, so why would they lowball her?

No, I didn't say that it "ought to have been higher", just that it seems unreasonably low TO ME.

Ok, maybe I should've said that instead of saying that it was an argument, but my real argument is what I explained in my previous post.

That said, I don't care about the current thing enough that my arguments have to be flawless. I only got involved in this because most of you seem to prefer the current thing to the FE subject (after 10438 posts of Trump I think I'm right  ).

[Rushy]

I think the biggest takeaway from the lawsuit are Trump's poll numbers. I don't think this lawsuit actually changed anyone's mind. Either you liked Trump before it or you didn't. Anyone fence sitting at this point probably doesn't like either candidate regardless.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general-election-trump-vs-biden-7383.html