E Jean Carroll verdict is in.

[WorldWatcher]

.
Dear FPOTUS#45,

Hiring a lawyer for $2.5 million who costs you $88.3 Million in punitive damages is not a smart business move.

Remember next time, hire lawyers for their brains and who understand Evidence 101, not their bra size.

Just say'n.

WW
.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I doubt Judge Kaplan will be lowering the punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to be - well - be punitive. In the first case punitive damages were $3,000,000 and that didn't seem to have any impact.

So now the jury awarded $65,000,000.
.
.
.
.
.
Let's put that in perspective with an assumed net worth of $3,000,000,000 (3 Billion).

For someone facing punitive damages of $3M and $65M who is worth $3 Billion, if someone were worth $100,000 then the equivalent punitive award would be $100 (for the $3M) and $2,167 (for the $65M).

Fell free to check my numbers the math is pretty simple. Calculate the percentage of each award against $3B, then apply that percentage to $100,000.
.
.
.
.
So the question becomes is applying punitive damages of 0.1% (for $3M) and 2.16% (for $65M) out of equitable range.

Remember "punitive damages" are punishment for bad behavior and are intended to hurt as a motivation NOT to repeat the bad behavior. Punitive damages are not there to "reward" the person or to "make them whole" those are "compensatory damages", punitive damages are an attempt to ensure that the cause of the damages is not repeated.

WW

 

[bripat9643]

And his cult still adores him. How can women do that? How can real Christians do that?

Inexplicable.

Mac1985 Dictionary:
==========================================
Adores Trump - don't hate him with every fiber of your being.

 

[bripat9643]

.
Dear FPOTUS#45,

Hiring a lawyer for $2.5 million who costs you $88.3 Million in punitive damages is not a smart business move.

Remember next time, hire lawyers for their brains and who understand Evidence 101, not their bra size.

Just say'n.

WW
.

The decision was made before the trial even started, dumbass.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The decision was made before the trial even started, dumbass.

How did the jury decide the matter before the trial even started?

WW

 

[Dragonlady]

She claimed Trump raped her (penis in vagina rape). She testified Trump raped her (penis in vagina rape). Jury found that Trump did not rape her (penis in vagina rape)

For obvious reasons, you don't want to admit the jury found she was lying when she claimed Trump raped her (penis in vagina rape)


I think those word are completely irrelevant to Ms. Carroll's claim that Trump raped her (penis in vagina rape) and the jury didn't believe her (since saying that she lied upsets you so terribly).

Your defence of this criminal rapist is touching, but your revisionist version of her testimony is just flat out bullshit.

Ms. Caroll testified that Trump penetrated her vagina but she couldn’t tell if it was his finger or his penis. Imagine having a penis so small she couldn’t tell whether it was his penis or his finger!

So please don’t pretend that Trump didn’t rape her either digitally or with his tiny little penis.

What is pathetic is that you’re prepared to defend his behaviour towards women. You’re prepared to participate in the raping humiliation of his victims.

My question is what are you getting out of it?

 

[Dragonlady]

The decision was made before the trial even started, dumbass.

Hey, dumbass! The decision was made by a jury, and not by the judge, or anyone else. Had the jury’s decision been contrary to the evidence, the judge could have overturned it, but he didn’t.

Once again, you refuse to believe the fox and the truth about your rapist hero, Donald Trump.

Trump openly admits he rapes women. Why do you deny his own words?

 

[John09]

He could have had the worlds best lawyers, it wouldn’t have changed this because all they needed was preponderance of evidence which is an extremely low bar to meet. The judge, on a couple of occasions, apparently intervened on behalf of Carroll

There was no way this was going to end any other way.

You forgot the dog eating the evidence that would have conclusively proven Trump's innocence.

 

[OldFlame]

Irrelevant.

It's normal for people to despise such an awful person.

You just can't for the life of you even consider that any of this is the orange slob's fault.

Thanks for proving my point with your hateful words, you can't help yourself. There's no way you could ever be an unbiased juror in a Trump trial, and there are millions of you.

 

[OldFlame]

No, that was a statement from the judge. Trump raped Carroll.

Yet when a white woman would claim a black man raped her and he wea found guilty on no other 'evidence' than her word, the jury convicting him would be a bunch of racists.

You have zero clue what happened, and as a matter of fact, the odds are not in your favor. Trump has had women throwing themselves at him all of his life purely for his money, he hardly needed to force anyone. You would only be able to understand that if you didn't have severe TDS, here's another one that would be completely incapable of being an unbiased jurist.

 

[OldFlame]

"I’m trying to figure out how her reputation was damaged? What reputation? And what it was that trump said that did the damage"

To which I replied you don't know anything about the case. An observation proven by the ignorance of your statement. The answers to your questions are readily available from media sources had you bothered to look for them. Do some homework.

It would have been much easier for you to just say 'I don't know'.

 

[Care4all]

Yet when a white woman would claim a black man raped her and he wea found guilty on no other 'evidence' than her word, the jury convicting him would be a bunch of racists.

You have zero clue what happened, and as a matter of fact, the odds are not in your favor. Trump has had women throwing themselves at him all of his life purely for his money, he hardly needed to force anyone. You would only be able to understand that if you didn't have severe TDS, here's another one that would be completely incapable of being an unbiased jurist.

When a man thinks that his stardom and money, makes all women throw themselves at him and let him do whatever he wants, including grabbing their pussies, and getting away with it....

How do you think he'd act when a woman says no, or fights his actions?

Do you think he'd accept the woman's rejection, or do you think he'd think she was just playing a game and really wanted the sexual advance of his?

 

[OldFlame]

Ok, first off, thank you, you’re the first one that has responded with some kind of statement of what he said.

Now, calling her a whack job is not defamation…it’s rude and childish but it’s not defamation. She accused him, he claims he doesn’t know her and called her a whack job.

Defamation is what SHE did, accusing him of something that she couldn’t prove.

At the end of the day, SHE set HERSELF up for this, by dragging this out in public and not being able to bring evidence.

And no, I’m not laughing, I think this whole thing is a travesty, for trump and for our legal system, and for the American people. All this is going to do is further divide the people.

There is no talking reason or logic to a bunch of hate filled whackjobs, which is exactly what they are. Maybe they can sue me for defamation now.

 

[OldFlame]

How did the jury decide the matter before the trial even started?

WW

Just like you and your fellow TDS whackjobs think he's guilty of everything the 'media' tells you he's guilty of, without question. You're yet another than could never sit as a jurist on a Trump trial and give an unbiased verdict, you're incapable of it. Every single leftie posting in here would find him guilty out of spite and hate and wouldn't give one damn about doing the right thing. You're all the very proof that there was no fair trial, it's beyond amusing how you keep insisting that he did.

 

[dudmuck]

Just like you and your fellow TDS whackjobs think he's guilty of everything the 'media' tells you he's guilty of, without question. You're yet another than could never sit as a jurist on a Trump trial and give an unbiased verdict, you're incapable of it. Every single leftie posting in here would find him guilty out of spite and hate and wouldn't give one damn about doing the right thing. You're all the very proof that there was no fair trial, it's beyond amusing how you keep insisting that he did.

did you forget how our justice system works? Jury of peers, defense lawyers, and appeals, etc?

 

[j-mac]

This is a lie.

There are no ‘hit jobs,’ political or otherwise – no one is ‘out to get’ Trump.

Trump is being lawfully and appropriately prosecuted for his crimes.

And in civil court Trump is being held accountable for his harmful acts and lies about the people he’s harmed.

Again, Trump has only himself to blame; Trump is alone responsible for what's happening to him.

Trump is a repellant degenerate and reprehensible human being.

So, I gather you agree with weaponizing the justice system against Trump, and won’t be voting for him…

Dont cry then when this type of law fare comes after liberals.

 

[j-mac]

.
Dear FPOTUS#45,

Hiring a lawyer for $2.5 million who costs you $88.3 Million in punitive damages is not a smart business move.

Remember next time, hire lawyers for their brains and who understand Evidence 101, not their bra size.

Just say'n.

WW
.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[j-mac]

You assume this because it's exactly the sort of slimy thing you would do.

Nothing more.

So, you agree that what libs and Biden are doing now against Trump, is “slimy”? Thanks for your candor

 

[BULLDOG]

So, I gather you agree with weaponizing the justice system against Trump, and won’t be voting for him…

Dont cry then when this type of law fare comes after liberals.

Please define lawfare

 

[j-mac]

Please define lawfare

What’s happening with Trump right now, Supported by reprobates that have hurt feelings over his words. Like you.