The Tiny Scandals and Trials

[Owendonovan]

I don't want a settlement.

[ponchi101]

I'll accept a settlement if there is an admission.
(Not that I have a say in this).

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Jury sides with Carroll in Trump case
E. Jean Carroll awarded $5 million in damages; jurors conclude Trump sexually abused, defamed her


E. Jean Carroll, center, exits the Manhattan Federal Court following the verdict. (Reuters)

A Manhattan jury has found that Trump sexually abused and defamed E. Jean Carroll, and awarded $5 million in damages. Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her during a chance encounter at a Manhattan department store. He has denied her allegations, calling her a liar. Carroll sued him last year for battery and defamation.

Here’s what to know

Carroll first publicly accused Trump in 2019, during his presidency, writing in a memoir the same year that they bumped into each other at Bergdorf Goodman, the department store. She said Trump violently attacked her in a dressing room.
Trump has assailed Carroll and accused her of making up the story to sell books. His attorneys argued during the trial that her story was not believable.
Carroll testified in graphic detail during the trial about the alleged attack. Trump, who was under no obligation to appear, did not testify or attend the proceedings.

Explaining the verdict and the $5 million in damages

By Mark Berman
The jurors in this civil case in Manhattan were tasked with weighing whether to find former president Donald Trump liable on two claims that writer E. Jean Carroll included in her lawsuit: battery and defamation.

After two weeks of testimony, the jurors deliberated for a little under three hours before siding with Carroll on both claims.

The jurors did not find that Trump had raped Carroll, which she has contended for nearly four years.

But the jurors concluded that Trump sexually abused her and that she was injured as a result. They awarded Carroll $2 million in compensation for those injuries, along with $20,000 in punitive damages after also concluding that Trump’s actions were reckless.

The jurors were also asked to consider whether Carroll generally convinced them that Trump defamed her with a statement he posted to social media last year, assailing her as a liar. Jurors agreed that Trump did so, awarding Carroll $1.7 million in damages for “reputational repair” and $1 million for other damages. They added another $280,000 in punitive damages after concluding that Trump acted recklessly here too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... l-verdict/

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
E. Jean Carroll and her attorney have released the following statements.

“This victory is not just for me but for every woman who has suffered because she was not believed,” Carroll said.

[Owendonovan]

So a sexual abuser, as a jury of his peers has found him to be, leads the second largest political party in the US. How does anyone find respect for someone who follows him as their leader given what they know about him? What kind of person can overlook this behavior? Is it possible to overcome the extreme distaste of him and his followers somehow?

[ti-amie]

All valid questions Owen, and none of them have easy answers. The people who generate pictures of him as some kind of avenger with abs to die for and flowing hair don't see the real man. They have this image of them in their heads that has nothing to do with reality and no amount of truth will change their minds.

[ponchi101]

The only answer is: it is a cult. It is no longer a political party.

[Owendonovan]

The only answer is: it is a cult. It is no longer a political party.

It certainly reads that way. I just don't know how to operate in a cult setting. I wonder what chink in peoples psychological make-up allow for them to follow?

[ponchi101]

Needless to say, I have no professional expertise on this. I can only compare with what happened in Venezuela with Chavez.
People got hooked on the guy and from then on, every and all biases kick in. Confirmation bias kicks in and every "positive" sign is taken as a sign of greatness by the leader. Every negative sign is a plot from "the others". Recency bias is dialed to the max: no historical assessment (meaning the track record by the leader) is analyzed.
It is truly a limbic response. When you point out the faults of the leader, the followers get angry and simply label you a traitor. A detractor that is fixated on bringing the leader down. NO amount of data o evidence can be analyzed in front of them, because the response is violent and automatic.
How it starts? I always wonder about that too.