Former President Donald Trump on Saturday stood by his 2019 statement that writer E. Jean Carroll made a “totally false accusation” against him, despite similar claims resulting in him losing a defamation case in January.

Campaigning at a rally in Rome, Georgia, Trump referenced the $91.6 million bond he posted on March 8, three days before his deadline to pay $83.3 million in damages to Carroll for defaming her in statements he made as president after denying her accusation that he’d raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.

Carroll first came forward in 2019 with sexual assault claims against Trump before another civil trial in May 2023, where a New York jury found that the former president sexually abused Carroll but didn’t rape her.

  • TooManyFoods@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    If I was his lawyer I may try arguing his mental state prevents him from understanding the words he says. I’m not a lawyer, but that’s the only explanation I can think of as to why he keeps this up. There’s a lot to say about his base, but honestly they can ignore things as they do with the rulings. He’s got plenty of other people he can go after, plenty of hate he could spend time on. He just keeps sticking his hand in this piranha bowel. He’s an idiot.

  • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The irony of the GOP going bankrupt because they have to donate all their money to women’s charities after selling the party out to this buffoon is so think I could choke on it.

  • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    “I just posted a $91 million bond, $91 million on a fake story, totally made-up story,” Trump said, adding that the judgment was, “based on false accusations made about me by a woman that I knew nothing about, didn’t know, never heard of, I know nothing about her.”

    What a dumbass.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    FWIW the New York jury found that she didn’t prove he forced his penis inside of her. They found he did force his fingers inside of her vagina. In New York state law, that is sexual assault but not rape. It is rape according to federal law, and most colloquial uses of the term “rape.” Donald Trump raped E. Jean Carroll, that is what was proven in court.

    He wasn’t charged with rape in either state or federal court, because the statute of limitations had expired when she went public with her story.

    So it’s important to be clear, the jury did not find him innocent of rape. They found he did commit an act that is widely considered rape. It’s inaccurate to say that they found he didn’t rape her. They found that the act that had been proven did not meet the narrow New York state law standard for rape.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Juries never find you innocent of anything. They find you not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a big difference.

      Anyone who claims that a court found them innocent is lying.

    • meco03211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      They found he did force his fingers inside of her vagina.

      I thought it was that he put something inside her, but she was unable to clarify if it was his penis or finger.

    • MagicShel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      He probably got some decent collateral for the effort. That may not have been that dumb of a move. For everything Trump has done, I think it will be wonderful if the thing that destroys him isn’t the fraud or the insurrection, but his inability to shut the fuck up over what was originally a minor financial inconvenience to him. I just hope he keeps spending RNC money faster than it can be donated.

      • Hoomod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Court records filed Friday show that the bond was guaranteed by the Chubb Corporation, an insurance group. In 2018, Trump appointed Chubb’s CEO Evan Greenberg to a White House advisory committee for trade policy and negotiations.

  • HighElfMage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The year is 2065. E. Jean Carroll is the richest human alive. She rules a business empire that stretches across the globe and even to Mars. This empire does not charge for services, sell products or even take investor funding.

    Its only source of revenue is suing the immortal cyborg that is Donald Trump, who even after 40 years of taking Ls is still pathologically unable to keep his fucking mouth shut.

  • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Love it. Every time he can’t help himself, he’ll get a larger and larger financial slap. Next ones gonna be pretty big.

  • Bob Robertson IX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I wonder if this is a legal strategy so he keeps getting sued in the hopes of finding a judge\jury that finds in his favor, then he can challenge the other cases based on the last case?

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The first case was the finding of fact that he did, in fact, sexually assult E. Jean Carroll.

      In order for that finding of fact to be overturned, an appeals court would need to rule on that for that first case. Appeals courts overturning a finding of fact is incredibly rare. I believe that, because that fact has been found, the burden of proof is now on the appellant (Trump) to prove that the finding was incorrect.

      The additional defamation cases rely on the finding of fact, and Trump’s big fat mouth. Unless and until that fact is overturned (Narrator: It won’t be.), Trump will lose every one of them. Even if he doesn’t, that wouldn’t change anything about the remaining cases where he was found to be defamatory.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Defamation requires that a reasonable person would believe the claims he is making. At some point, it will be completely unreasonable for anyone to believe anything he says, at which point he can never defame anyone ever again.

        I thought we were there when he ran against Hillary…

        • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Defamation requires that a reasonable person would believe the claims he is making

          Ke stoll has crowds paying to hear him speak, while they wear hats and t-shirts with his name on them.

          Of course there is the whole issue of determining if any of them can legally be considered “reasonable persons”…

        • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Nope. It doesn’t work like that. You can’t just lie so much that you can say whatever you want because no one will believe you. Wtf lol

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            It does, actually.

            For example, if I were to tell everyone in this community that Randomgal is a pedophile, that would constitute defamation. It is a false assertion presented as fact, and a reasonable person could believe it to be true. Randomgal’s reputation would be damaged by such a statement.

            If I tell everyone that Randomgal fucks three headed aliens from the planet Morgonne XII, that does not constitute defamation, because no reasonable person would consider that to be a true statement. Randomgal’s reputation is not damaged by such a statement.

            Some “reasonable person” has to believe Trump’s claims for those claims to constitute defamation.