A great thing about this case: Carroll's already been awarded $5 million of her rapist's money, and because he's too damn stupid to keep his mouth shut about it she's suing him AGAIN for defamation, and is likely to be awarded a whole lot more. Of course, it might be difficult to actually collect from a bankrupt prisoner.
funny you brought this one up because why didn't trump claim that he had a first amendment right to defame Carroll? How did that jury make him pay up 5 million if he could have simply given them the old, FREE SPEECH argument?
i would in fact argue that trump had the first amendment right to maintain his innocence is your position that if i claim i wasnt speeding, that i should be sued for claiming i wasnt speeding? defaming my accuser? even if i have never been proven to be speeding in criminal court? and the year i was supposedly speeding is unknown?
correct. until the jury saw all the evidence and agreed that he defamed Ms. Carroll by lying about her and that he owed her 5 million for that and finger banging her without her consent. You have talked yourself in a circle pal....if Trump's argument is correct then he should have been able to say whatever he wanted about E Jean Carroll without ramifications. But his argument is, of course, incorrect because free speech isn't unlimited. You are free to yell Fire in a crowded theater but once you are arrested and brought before the court you will pay the penalty under the law, your free speech will not matter anymore because it is in the furtherance of a crime.
well her claim was not limited to finger banging but penis banging. i guess the jury wasnt buying that. they said no to rape.
trying to move on from your freedom of speech argument huh? free speech doesn't sound too free when it costs you 5 million. and like you said, he didn't rape her, right? so they just gave that woman all that money for him lying about her? doesn't sound like free speech to me.
no i still maintain my freedom of speech point. its not that i said he didnt rape her, its that the jury found "no" on that count. i can post the image again if you like. did you see the jury form that said no? what do you think they were saying no to?
then why did he have to pay her 5 million? had to be some reason, right? according to you and Trump he shouldn't have had to pay her for lying about her, right? That's free speech isn't it?
correct i believe the court was wrong and just hates trump. to me it is absurd to not give a person a chance to present an alibi by not even telling them what year the event occurred.
