It would likely take new laws, but this is ridiculous.

Oh, did I say cash? I meant secrets. Careful, P01135809, secrets like you're peddling have a half-life of four years or less, and I figure you don't get the good stuff in your briefings like you used to. I hope Putin has to play Skorzeny some day.

He hasn't got that many years till he kicks off (hope the hell it's soon) and he's got zero plans to spend it in a prison cell. Hell...I'd chip in for gas if he NEVER comes back.

Hungary or Saudis likely.

he'll go anywhere. He is addicted to the fools that send him money.

Define the assult as rape

More than once.

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2024, 04:12 PM - Edit history (2)

The issue arises because George said that the "jury" found Trump liable for rape and the jury expressly declined to find Trump had committed "rape" as that term is narrowly defined in New York law. That doesn't mean Trump will necessarily win, but it's why this case is being allowed to move forward.

Sounds like mincing words.

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2024, 02:51 PM - Edit history (1)

to the common understanding, rather than the narrower legal definition of what constitutes "rape" under NY law.

said the Trumpster, who’s a thief
“There is so much confusion
I can’t get no relief “

Now that’s playing in my mind. With THOSE lyrics of YOURS.

with the walls closing in. Those days are rapidly
approaching.

He’s not sleeping well, I suspect, unless heavily medicated.

He’s NOT in good shape, he doesn’t exercise, I’m surprised that he didn’t get around inside the White House except by golf cart.

when TSF loses

What the heck does that mean?

"The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes a party from relitigating an issue which has previously been decided against him in a proceeding in which he had a fair opportunity to fully litigate the point.”

So he will either drop the case and wind up in contempt for perjury.

The issue in the case is whether George Stephanopoulos defamed Trump by stating that a jury found Trump liable for rape. How is Trump testimony relevant to the factual question in issue: what the jury found Trump liable for. The jury expressly answered no to the question of whether Trump was liable for rape, as that term is defined in New York law. The judge, however, in discussing Trump's liability concluded that while Trump didn't commit rape as defined in New York law, he did commit rape as that term is commonly understood and used.

If Trump wants to prove his point in the suit, the defendant has the right to question his accuser.

The issue is what Stephanopolous said and what the jury did. End of story.

How many cases have you tried?

Dementia don's argument is that he was defamed from abc saying that a *judge* found him *liable* for *rape* when in fact a judge found that the *sexual assault* that the *jury* found him liable for *amounted to rape*

That's a tiny hole in the needle to thread a defamation claim through.

His image was oh so damaged because there's such a mountainous difference between rape and sexual assault that amounts to rape?

How is he going to prove any kind of damages are due to that subtle distinction? He lost a massive business deal because someone refused to do business him because they heard he was an adjudicated rapist under New York law, but they would have done the deal if they knew he was merely an adjudicated sexual assaulter under New York law but what he did most people would call rape anyway?

Seriously, how do you show damages from the subtle distinction, especially when most people have to go through it a few times before they even follow the distinction he's trying to make?


Imagine a serial killer suing because a reporter said he killed 17 people and hey hey hey, I only killed 16! My reputation is damaged thanks to your faulty reporting!

In a defamation per se suit, damages are presumed. Admittedly, without any further showing, the amount of compensatory damages awarded might be nominal, but might be bolstered by an award of punitive damages. Given that the complaint doesn't specify a particular amount of damages, my guess is that he is mostly looking for a ruling that he was defamed by the big bad media, and doesn't care about getting any "compensatory" damages, but would love to get an award of punitive damages.

I'd say mostly he's just looking for hey I have to make these people pay for giving me bad press. If all he does is make them spend time and money on lawyers then he wins.

Working the ref, basically. It inhibits them from talking smack about Donnie if they know he'll sue at the drop of a hat.


I hear you and yeah the statement does look like the sort of statement that might be defamatory per se, like calling someone a murderer when they just aren't at all, that certainly can be presumed to damage them without needing them to show damage. But if they already are a known murderer and you just got the body count wrong? Or hey hey hey, it was aggravated homicide! Not murder!

Can we presume damages there?

I don't know. Maybe this is the sort of case when if he wins, the award is $1.

Well anyway, I rather suspect the case goes nowhere on its merits. Certain hard to prove abc has malicious intent in obscuring the subtle distinctions between judge va jury and rape vs sexual assault amounting to rape.