U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled last fall that Trump defamed Carroll by saying in 2019 that he had never met her and that her book, in which she accused him of having raped her in the dressing room of a luxury department store in the mid-1990s, “should be sold in the fiction section.”
www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...
Friend, you should read the filings. Whack job isn't one of the claims sought as defamation.
That's not a claim for defamation in the lawsuit. It would help if you actually read the filings.
www.pbs.org/newshour/nat...
Frankly would save us all a lot of time if you read what you posted. The articles are bad legal reporting it nowhere near as bad as your understanding.
It’s PBS!!!!! He said the f*cking words! It’s scary the loyalty you have to such a monster.
The loyalty here is solely to understanding the law and freedom of speech. You're the one who wants Trump to be able to sue people for calling him dumb.
It's bad reporting. My loyalty is to truth. He was sued for his Oct 12 2022 statement for Caroll 2, which did not mention whack jobs. But you don't know that because you refuse to read your own very bad sources.
That is not the complaint try again. The complaint is the basis of the lawsuit. There were 2 of them.
It was!! Read for once in your life!
We can. Please tell me where on the Carol 1 or Carol 2 complaint it lost Whack Job as a cause of defamation.
She won 83 million dollar defamation because he continued to attack her reputation!! Read the article!!! It’s all right there!
That's not accurate. Which claim in the lawsuit was over being called a "whack job"? Please give the specific number from the filing.
That's not from the filing. Would you like to try again? Do you know what a Court filing is?
Again "continued to attack her reputation" is a meaninglessly vague statement. You need to understand the particulars of how he did so. What specific statements were at issue in the cases?
That's not from the lawsuit, friend.
That's not a statement by Trump which is at issue. Try again.
Well, the jury awarded her 83 million
Yes, and? Again, you keep citing irrelevant and tangential facts as though they somehow prove the point you're trying to make. They don't. It's not even clear to me that you know what the point you're trying to make is anymore. Maybe take some time to stop and think and re-draft.
Yes. Because the jury found his statement met the 4 elements of defamation. Do you know what they are?
...you say read the article... You actually have to READ THE COURT FILINGS. At no point in any of those was "whack job" one of the statements she claimed was defamatory. Know why? Because Roberta Kaplan is A DAMN GOOD LAWYER and knew that would be a frivolous claim.
It was in the freaking deposition!! He discredited her as a journalist!
So?
Buddy...people say a lot of irrelevant and inadmissible things in depositions. Look at the actual COMPLAINTS and then the jury instructions etc. Most stuff that gets said in a deposition never actually comes into evidence.
She's not saying that he defamed her by calling her a "whack job." Nor would any smart lawyer bring such a defamation claim as "whack job" would be either opinion or rhetorical hyperbole and not defamation. Hell, what definable things would be demonstrated to prove someone isn't a whack job?
During the exchange, Trump falsely stated that he did not sexually abuse Carroll, that he has no idea who Carroll was, and that Carroll’s now-proven accusation was a 'fake'
www.pbs.org/newshour/nat...
Sorry, where in that screenshot does it say Carroll successfully sued Trump because he called her dumb, an idiot, stupid, or similar? Stop lying to our faces Robby.
Not a claim for defamation In the kawsuit. It would help if you read the lawsuit.
He’s a bills fan, what on earth leads you to believe he can read?
www.pbs.org/newshour/nat...
You already posted this once. It hasn’t magically changed to support your position in the last 5 minutes.
bsky.app/profile/schw... Beat me to it
www.pbs.org/newshour/amp...
bsky.app/profile/schw...
www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcn...
Friend, you should read the filings. "Whack job" isn't one of the claims sought as defamation.
So that is again, claiming her claim was false. Not whack job. Which cannot be defamatory. Which is why it wasn't in the complaint. Have you read the 2 complaints?