Does it make a difference whether it is civil vs criminal in how you refer to someone who has lost their case? For example, would he become “convicted rapist Donald Trump”?
“More likely than not rapist: Donald Trump.”
OJ simpson is not referred to as a convicted murderer even though he was found guilty in a criminal case.
However, apparently punitive damages can be severe. Simpson has not been allowed any additional money besides his 401K and house, as i understand it.
No, the word “convicted” implies found guilty in a criminal case, so would not be correct if DJT loses this case.
OJ was not found “guilty” or murdering his ex and the other guy (bodyguard?) he was found to have liability. It would be the same for DJT.
Liable/ not liable for damages vs guilty/not guilty.
OJ has refused to pay the substantial judgement against him, and those sources of income are protected against seizure for payment of debt.
I am ok with Rapist Donald Trump, but not Convicted Rapist - is he a Civil Rapist?
2 Likes
Trump must shake couch cushions to find $5M.
Oh, and forever be known as a more than likely rapist.
Not sure of the significance of the jury finding him guilty of sexually assaulting her and forcibly touching her but not of raping her.
Does it mean that the preponderance of the evidence is that he did not rape her?
Based on what was discussed above, I’d think that it’s it’s not necessarily that he didn’t rape her, just that he’s not liable for raping her.
1 Like
Ah my bad.
He will forever be known as “more likely than not a sexual abuser” but more likely than not, “not a rapist”
1 Like
The not a rapist part only applies to this particular woman.
1 Like
I wonder how much he’s going to spend trying to avoid paying the $5m
I’d be shocked if he personally pays anything. Cult 45 will likely pay his appeal costs and any eventual judgment.
Billable hours or hours paid?
1 Like
Odd breakdown of damages. $2 million for sexual abuse, $20k punitive, then
The jury also found that Mr. Trump defamed Ms. Carroll and that she was injured as a result of his October 2022 Truth Social post about her. They decided that she should be paid $1 million for damages unrelated to a reputation repair program, and $1.7 million for a reputation repair program only.
The jury also found that Mr. Trump “acted maliciously, out of hatred, ill will, spite, or wanton, reckless, or willful disregard of the rights of another” and that Ms. Carroll should be paid $280,000.
I’m disappointed by the amount. They considered punitive damages, but only awarded $20k for an individual with a net worth of $2.5 billion. That would be 0.0008% of his net worth. Can’t even call that a slap on the wrist.
To be clear, the amounts you quoted are only for the defamation piece: $1M in damages, $1.7M in reputation repair, and $280k in punitive
They also awarded $2M in compensatory damages for the sexual battery plus $20k in punitives
No idea why the size of the punitives is small relative to the damages
1 Like
Looking at the verdict form, it looks like the jury was essentially asked the question:
Did Trump:
- rape;
- sexually abuse;
- forcibly touch; or
- none of the above?
The jury instructions, if they’re available, might provide a clue as to what the jury was getting at with (rape=no, sexual abuse=yes).
The Fox story has a headline “The verdict is a disgrace”.
Which is a quote from Trump in an interview with Fox News Digital. As always, Fox’s readers will get Trump’s side of the story.
This isn’t the top story right now. Their big story is about Hunter Biden’s former business partner.
My TV told me the issue is whether digital penetration is rape under NY law
i thought most punative fines have caps