Capitalism and lobbying is the problem. Money matters to consevatives more than people, and it is legal for corporations to bribe politicians with money.
@@funfungerman8401a woman got liken2 million dollars after years of fighting with mcdonals because they melted her skin with coffee that was to hot, they absolutely do not have this level of fine put on them for something as irrelevant as words, even if you wanted to argue that the words were as bad as melting your skin together and that inflation since then makes 2 million equal to 40 million, it still isn't even half the reward against a company that is far more wealthy
It makes sense, banks in the past haven't changed their illegal practices because the eventual fines they got years later when the cases were finally decided were not even a significant percentage of the money they were getting from breaking the law. Penalties have to be tied to wealth of the defendant or its not really a penalty at all just a light tap on the wrist.
@@Peter-jo3wt Witch hunt? The guy literally defamed her on stage after getting this punishment. He can say whatever the fuck he wants about public figures, but Carrol stopped being a public figure and he kept spreading lies publicly. That’s illegal.
@@Gowidafloman You are mistaken. He was not found guilty. The Judge found him culpable. This is not the same as guilty. Guilt infers a criminal act. Civil acts are never criminal, and criminal acts are never civil.
This makes so much sense. 20 years ago, when I was a poor college student, I got a ticket for making a wide right turn. It was only $900, but I simply didn't have the money. The cost was too great and I couldn't pay within the appointed timeframe, so I lost my right to drive. Because I was in an area with an inadequate bus system, I had to drop out of college and I couldn't get to work to try to chip away at the fine. So, I switched jobs to one where I was paid much less, but I could catch a ride to work with a friend everyday. It was either that or no job. This made paying off the ticket take much, much longer. This whole incident stole years from off of my life.
@@NotSure416 No, I didn't. I had dropped my friend off and, according the the officer, I made a wide right turn. It was especially terrible because the road was the very end of a dead end and was completely empty.
@@supervivens3402 I did ask for a lower fee which was denied. When I first went, nobody told me there was an option for community service that would put $15 toward my fee per hour (which was three times the minimum wage at the time, btw, and twice the wage I earned from my job). When I learned about this option, I went back to ask for it, but the judge denied me. He said they stopped doing that program, but I later learned they were planning to do the program, but it was still in effect. I asked him if he would still let me do the program since it was still enacted during my initial court hearing, and he said no. I went back numerous times over the years to tell the judge that the charge was an unnecessary burden, and he didn't care. I even asked if I could have a reserved license where I could only drive to and from work, and he denied me that, too. I couldn't go to school. I couldn't get a better job. I couldn't move because I had no money. I had serious problems even getting groceries. I was literally stuck for five years trying to pay off this exorbitant fee.
The country of Finland does that with speeding tickets. They calculate them based on how fast you were going, and how much money you have. There is at least one case of a rich guy in a fast Italian car paying a million dollar speeding ticket!
A parking fine is a minor inconvenience or possibly the cheaper option to the extremely rich. So how do we as a society interpret "everyone should be treated the same" by the law? Surely a fine or penalty should have the same impact on the defendant.
We'll talk about things not being equal you guys also have to pay more for gas and more for insurance and more for food and more for a car and more for toilet paper based upon income does the poor person get a roll of toilet paper for 50 cents and a rich person have to pay $50 that's the case all rich people just leave
Wow, that's actually kind of evil. If justice is to be blind, and applied equally, that's kind of evil. And that's coming form a very poor man. My rent and my internet are the majority of my paycheck.
This is how speeding tickets should be. A rich person gets a $100 speeding ticket, literally doesnt matter. A poor person gets a $100 speeding ticket and they cant pay rent that month.
@@cisium1184ughhhh that’s not what equal protection means lol and if you believe that giving a different punishment for the same crime is unconstitutional, then you might wanna have a look at the 100k+ people who are currently serving 10+ year sentences for minor crimes while other people get probation for far worse. My point is that our justice system is biased, and it should be. There has to be nuance in the justice system. I’m not sure you understand how incredibly important that is.
without proportional penalties, fines are just the cost of doing something illegal for a rich person. if the ticket for parking in a handicapped spot isn’t noticeable when compared to the money you have because you’re obscenely wealthy, it just costs that much to park in a handicapped spot.
@@MikeRafiLawyer Serious question: Could her lawyers ask for a 72-hour psych evaluation? This would be the third trial at at some point you have to ask if he is not mentally capable of telling the truth.
@@BrotherAlpha you seriously believed that he defamed her when it was her who falsely accused her of rape. In fact, the court found Trump not guilty of rape, but "liable of sexual battery." Trump was not allowed to enter any evidence to defend himself as the judge found him guilty before he was even given the chance to defend himself. Trump never did anything sexual to that ugly racist hag.
The dumbass can't keep his mouth shut so he may get sued again. Just like with his fraud trail. He was angry about the ruling and said he didn't commit fraud infact he undervalued his properties. I just sat there reading it thinking WTF are you doing?! You literally just admitted to fraud by saying that. I don't think you understand any of this. How his lawyers haven't slapped and just shouted at him like that is perplexing. The sad excuse for a man deserves all the charges he's going to get
Problem being that a secondary award cannot be so much more than an initial award. She sued him and won $5 million, then sued him again for claiming he was innocent, calling that "defamation". The whole case is ridiculous.
the point is the whole system is corrupt and we need Law Abiding Citizens to take extreme measures to instill fear of justice, it seems to be the only way they learn
This is why I think finest should always be levied proportional to the assets. Cuz if the fine is so low, as that, it doesn't even warrant a second thought from the perpetrator, then they'll just continue doing it and acceptable cash... What makes it worse is when individuals or corporations are able to write off their finest as expenses in their taxes... When am I going to be able to write off my speeding tickets?! If I was able to, you would guarantee I'd be speeding a lot more!!!
Moral of the story, if you're going to get defamed make sure they're rich! The amount should definitely scale based on wealth but the majority of a large payout shouldn't go to the victim but instead to a charity that helps all victims.
Would not matter if Trump had the best lawyer in the world in NY if the name is Trump you are automatically guilty until proven innocent , If you notice it's all far left Democrat judges, If you are a Republican you are guilty in NY .
To be fair, not having good lawyers falls under 'not helping himself' He has a strong reputation for just... not paying people. And being a terrible client that doesn"t actually listen to his attorney. So no decent lawyer will get within arm's reach of him lol
@@bertdog2119the damage that he shamelessly did to HUNDREDS of families is worth much, much more than $1 billion. Plus, you’re acting like he’ll ever have to actually pay that. Bankruptcy exists for a reason. And, he deserves to be bankrupt so he can’t spew that hatred and those lies for profit anymore. He doesn’t deserve to have a platform, and he doesn’t deserve access to any of the money he “earned” from intentionally harassing, defaming, berating, and destroying all of those people’s lives and wellbeing. I weep no tears for Alex Jones. In addition to platforming and being buddies with actual neo-n*zis, he’s an antisemitic, racist, misogynistic, Islamophobic, homophobic, greedy, lying, slimy sack of garbage. If you can listen to what he said about those children at that school and still feel morally justified in defending him in ANY way…. I hope you learn something, someday, that changes your mind. He’s an animal. He’s scum. He’s vile and hateful. He deserved worse.
@bertdog2119 he mocked, derided, and defamed the parents of kids who were killed in their school. He riled up groups of people to harass them to the point they had to move. He said that they were liars and their kids weren't real. Now times that across each family. And keep in mind he did all that to gain money. He sold their suffering and pain to enrich himself.
If that is defaming someone, none of us are safe. Honestly, she should be sued for defamation of Trump. The incident she bases her claims on never happened in real life.
I think we can all objectively agree that Donald Trump is not afraid to sue. If he had any grounds to sue her for defamation, I am confident that he would have.
Didn’t the state of New York write legislation that changed the definition of defamation to make this lawsuit possible and included in language of the bill a sunset period of like six months?
Nah, he's definitely a shameless dickhead, he was literally making defamatory statements online while sitting in court, being a jerk and lying about your wealth definitely has consequences 🤷
it wasn’t specifically for this case, they previously had very outdated legislation that allowed rapists to go free if the statute of limitations expired. Which obviously there shouldnt be a statute of limitations for serious felonies like rape or murder. cant say about the defamation part though im not familiar.
@@yepimhere5413oh yes they just so happened to extend the statute of limitation right before an election year and right as someone planned to sue trump over nothing
Saying "I didn't do it" and "she's crazy" (when she doesn't even know what year it happened) is defamation? This whole thing is going to be thrown out on appeal. It's 80+ million because its NYC! Has nothing to do with "fair!"
@@timothy098-b4f LMFAO, some introspection, how is it that most left believing crazies project what they're doing onto those who see what they're doing, even Gov. orgs and MSM's. Stay blind, ignore US LAW, go along with the current movement until your caught up the swift tide it brings which historically ends in misery. LMFAO "I'm in a cult" LMFAO I'm a DEM. LMFAO I'm in a cult lol
@@timothy098-b4f She doesn't even know what year this so-called crime happened, did YOU watch any of the trial? No evidence of anything "0" they changed the statue of limitations for 1 years just for this case, who's in a cult? I used to be Dem, now how could anyone be!
@@timothy098-b4fYou realize it is you in a fascist cult right? E Jean carol could not give any evidence on when anything happened. It was she who defamed Trump.
Read the transcript from the closing arguments. The plaintiff lawyer was amazing. She explained the values they were asking for as compensatory damages, gave good reasons for the numbers. Then for punitive damages she just said "well, he says he's a billionaire", and the jury did the rest.
@@robertdouglas8895 She didn't need to prove it happened. She had told people about it when it happened, and they all testified. This was not a criminal trial, it was a civil trial. most of the damages were defamation anyway. Trump was obsessed with her.
Why is there no mention of how this woman's past is littered with fraudulent accusations similar to this one she used for attention to sell a book she otherwise wouldn't of sold because she has no actual character worth reading into.
It should also be noted that a no one talking crap in an office is not even compatible to the damage someone with not only a national platform, but an international platform doing much much more damage.
Also, the government taxes a cut from damages and settlements, except in discrimination claims and physical injuries. The more they can award in damages, the more they get !
@@MikeRafiLawyer I've read on the IRS website that "with the enactment of SBJPA, Public Law 104 -188, Section 1605(a) in 1996, Congress made it clear in IRC § 104(a)(2) that punitive damages are taxable, regardless of the nature of the underlying claim". Would that not apply here ?
Two points. First, the civil trial was a bench trial, so it wasn't a jury deciding, it was the judge who decided that, despite the jury (point 2) in the actual r*pe/sexual assault case saying Trump didn't r*pe (or at least there wasn't enough evidence to convict) her, the jury actually meant "yes he did" and decided that he defamed her.
1. You’re confusing trials, which is easy to do since there are so many. 2. This was a jury trial. 3. The burden of proof in a criminal case is higher than a civil one - an example of this would be OJ not guilty in his criminal case but civilly liable in the wrongful death civil case.
@@MikeRafiLawyercan you name a single witness to Trump sexually assaulting Jean Carroll besides Jean Carroll? Should be easy since he raped her in a public building
1. there was no jurry because trumps lawyers did not ASK for one...excewpt there was a jurry because that was A DIFFERNT TRIAL...he's just committed alot of crimes and your mixing up wich trial this was.. and 2. it wasnt the big R word because in new york shoving your fingers inside someone elses genitals without their consent isn't considered the big r word. its considered sexual assault. wich is what he was convicted of. legally speaking he did not R word her. colloquially speaking he absolutely r@ped her.
Interesting that NY insists he doesn't have the wealth that this court used to justify this obnoxious judgement It's one or the other, it can't be both.
OK. But the jury said there was no proof he did what she accused him of. So if I get falsely accused, why can I not say horrible things about the person lying. It makes no sense
He couldnt. Cuz he is a public person. So people can say what they will about him. And he cant really Sue for deformation. I Mean he can, but he need to prove that the accuzatiom was bring said with true malice. Which is a hight standart that next to inposdible to prove.
She accused him on some thing. He said "no i didnt". She said she could prove it and brought the supposed dress that was worn. But the dress style wasnt in production until years after. But now she gets to sue for defamation? She lied.... She got caught.... Now she gets money for being a bad person?
@@JustmekpcNo, you didn't. She produced not one bit of verifiable, credible evidence. Exculpatory evidence was not allowed. Trump got convicted solely on the word of a nutjob who accused 6 other men of rape in her lifetime. It's people like you that are destroying our justice system. People so filled with hate they don't care about evidence. You support tyranny, but you are so filled with liberal propaganda you don't realize what monsters you have all become
Actually instead of saying “I didnt rape her, I wouldnt rape anybody” he said “I wouldnt rape her because I dont find her presently attractive enough to rape.” And then proceeded to defame her enough as to be awarded damages. And he keeps running his mouth defaming her.
The award should also be determined by CREDIBLE EVIDENCE… which was sadly lacking in this case. A liberal jury in a liberal state found Trump guilty, not on he crime itself because there was no evidence, but on the fact that he is Donald Trump and, therefore, must be guilty of something.
Trump’s own testimony is what got him. First he said E. Jean Carroll was “not his type.” Then, he confused a picture of her with his ex-wife Marla Maples. 😂
@@scottb6124 Regardless, proclaiming your innocence, even to the extent of calling your accuser a liar should not be defamation. Same for goes for petty schoolyard insults like stating someone is too ugly for you to want to "sleep with" (sexually assault). The issue is he was fined so much for what amounts to denying an allegation against himself and saying she wasn't good enough looking for him. This isn't the Alex Jones case (though that one is excessive due to being several times his estimated net worth). This is $88M for what amounts to a denial and a subjective assessment of the plaintiff's appearance.
@scottb6124 I imagine you didn't follow the trial closely, so I'll summarize it for you. -her story changed several times -her story was the plot of a TV show episode -she couldn't provide any witnesses -she has dementia -she publicly fantasizes about rape -the dress she claimed to have been wearing didn't exist yet -she never told anyone about it -there was no CCTV footage of it to corroborate In other terms, it was a "she said" and the "she" is unreliable. -the Judge is a biased partisan Democrat who frequently donates to Democrat campaigns and who had posted many times on social media about their disdain for Trump. -the Judge refused to take any amount of counter evidence from Trumps legal team -the Judge just shy of actually instructing the Jury to find him Liable told then to do so -the Judge told the jury to count a European greeting, pecking the air next to a person's cheek, as Sexual Assault. -The Judge told the Jury to basically ignore Carroll's story and to consider of they believed it was possible for Trumps to have given her a European greeting in passing while she worked at that place. TLDR The Biased Judge instructed the jury to find him liable with 0 evidence.
@@georgestweeter *Citation needed. The fact that people like you believe any of that without any sources to back it up is proof enough that Trump's defamation was successful. Now post a source.
$88.3 million dollars ....$ 5 million first trial......$83.3 million in second trial....for a total $88.3 million dollars.......you don't have your facts straight.......
@@mikevignola4213 Not ignoring that. Also not ignoring that he's now back on his talking points again after the second trial, too. I did mean that $5 million wasn't enough to get him to stop defaming her.
Person 1: “person 2 crimed me decades ago” Person 2: “no I didn’t, person 1 is lying” Courts: “well, person 1 has zero evidence and can’t even remember critical details from their own allegations……….” Also courts: “make person 2 pay person 1 a gazillion dollars for saying they didn’t do the thing there is no evidence of”
@@vibecheck3572 Lol, you can cry all you want :) Back in reality, Donnie was found guilty and now he's got to pay 83.3M. If he's halfway intelligent he'll STFU about it from now on, but he can't, so he'll get sued again....
His son in law made 2 billion for working with the Saudi government right after leaving a job in Trump’s cabinet with Saudi Arabia as his focus. Trump crime family is always on the grift. How much do you think trump got for the classified information he stole and now can’t find on Russia? FBI raided his home knowing he had those documents and never found them. Trump needs to go to court and you need to wake up. Your candidate is a traitor and a thief.
For what record? Why was the reason Trump hid his Tax Returns for so long? Donald reported making more than $1.6 billion in outside revenue and income during his four years. When Trump failed to separate himself from his businesses-and in fact used the presidency to increase his business earnings-he made it clear that his top priority was his personal profits.. You buy his golden $ 399 sneakers to show your wisdom?
He made up not taking that salary with hotel reservations and selling our nations good will and secrets. His son in law got 2 billion from the Saudis after working in the white house with a focus on Saudi Arabia. Trump needs court. We have evidence he needs to hear and answer for.
What are you talking about? 5 million wasn’t enough to deter him, but after the 83 million he hasn’t made a single peep attacking Carol or calling her a liar, it did work!
@@TommyRaines oh I’m sorry, you are right, I missed that he attacked her in Michigan yesterday, I guess he held on for longer than last time, but he can’t help himself, she should sue again.
The bigger Q is, why was she awarded anything? In the initial case, she charged him w/rape & claimed he penetrated her with his p3nis. The jury specifically answered no to whether she proved rape, didn't find him guilty of SA & only found him guilty of s3x abuse which, in NY, basically means unwanted touching. So when he later said she made up the story, r3pe didn't happen, he didn't defame her per they jury. The award amount is an attempt to squash 1A rights as her attorneys stated they wanted an award that would make him stop saying he never met her & didn't assault her. I don't like Trump, but that should frighten everyone! He has a right to disagree w/the verdict & does that. This whole case should frighten everyone!
The 8 AMENDMENT of the US CONSTITUTION says EXCESSIVE BAIL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL or UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT INFLICTED.
If Trump is truly a billionaire, as he claims to be, $83M is not a big fucking deal. At all. If you had a thousand dollars, and made a hundred a year, would losing $83 really ruin your life? This fine is far from excessive.
He was found liable of sexual assault. Plus when you blabber on and on about how you’ve never met and there are pics of you with said person it’s not very convincing. Especially when you’re a stable genius who claims to have the best memory of probably anybody! lol, the clown can’t shut his mouth, that’s how you’re found guilty and that’s how he will be found guilty in every trial he faces. Give your cult leader some money on his books so he can get them SOUPS. How long before trump gets his commissary stolen?lol
He has literally bragged in court, in front of the jury that his properties were worth $5-6 billion & that he has $400 million cash. Meanwhile he defamed her 36 time during jury selection. He did this to himself.
The first 5 million case was a judge decision because that is what trump wanted. The 83.3 million came from a jury of his peers. They had to withhold the identity of that jury because giving protection to 14 jurors and their families is expensive and dangerous. Death threats are real. Trump is a thug.
It’s not a problem; Trump was found liable for defamation in the first round of jury verdicts issued back on May 9, 2023. Trump *requested* the separate damages trial, he wanted this.
They decided he defamed her in the first trial she won. When he went out on the Courthouse steps and immediately repeated that defamation following the first trial, it made the 2nd trial much simpler.
thats what happens when you repeat offend, the judges usually arent as generous as to deter you. Trump has by all accounts gotten massive favoritism from the legal system. Compare his punishment vs the Jan 6 insurrectionists. He then goes and complains and says he’s being targeted when he hasnt faced a single punishment up to this point lol.
Itw not unreasonable when the $5m fine stopped him from defaming his rape victim for about 1 hour. Thats how it works, the fine needs to be a deterrent
@yepimhere5413 I mean, it was very specifically stated on the jury sheet that they did not find him guilty of SA. They said he was guilty of defamation. Because while being accused of grape he was less than polite about calling her out on her lying about him.
I don't think you know what defamation is and he did more than just that... You should maybe educate yourself on the topic before you embarrass yourself again in the future
@godlygamer911 ooo please do go on. Can you show me where he did knowingly and willfully maliciously lie about Carol and in what way it caused her actual damages.
@@erikwulfrik1934 I don't know why this has to be explained to you. But if you have a cult following of millions that were literally willing to attack the capital building in your name, if you constantly harass and defame a person, those cult followers are going to do the same. And then hopefully you can understand from there how that would lead to a mass loss of wages. Do you know what she used to do? Maybe you'll now understand it further. I'm glad I could educate a trumper, you guys typically don't do well when it comes to education. It's why he says he loves you
*"The wearing of clerical dress or of a religious habit on the part of lay folk, ...., is liable to the same penalty on the part of the State as the misuse of military uniform." Article 10, Concordat of 1933
exaclty. all the people complaining are forgetting this is literally the SECOND defamation suit for the same types of actions and the first time didnt get him to stop.
She's a lying 304 that said it was a rape fantasy she enjoyed during an interview. The only person defaming her is her. After this Biden and Clinton's victims should all write books and then sue when they deny the accusations.
All trump did was defend himself from false accusations... how would you feel if some woman said you raped her 30 years ago and you will be sued for anything you say in your defense
They could fine me that much money too because I don't have any money either. The only difference between me and drumpf is that I don't tell fibs about how much I have.
@@godlygamer911 Then Trump miss identified her as his Ex-wife. So apparently she was his type. Shit my mouth another Trump lie?? Who would believe honest Donnie J would be disingenuous?
@@godlygamer911 Thats the same mindset as "Trump didn't denounce white supremacy in the debates" when the same man asked the same question 3-4 years before on the same stage(2016 election debate).
@@bokhans You should pay proportional to your asset wealth, the country Finland has a really good implementation; where a speeding ticket is a base fine + 1 to 7 days net income equivalent based on speed over the limit. The more egregious the crime the higher the penalty. Makes it bad/impactful for both poor people and rich people.
@@bokhansIf you only have $100 to your name, losing even $10 is going to be pretty noticeable when it may be the difference in eating or not. Proportional fines still affect the poor, whereas the current system rarely affects the rich.
