12 Nov 2024 2:56 pm
Unfortunately, in court you have to go by the law...not use the definition you like in the Funk and Wagnalls dictionary. By the way, none of the jury award was related to rape. Which makes me wonder why Kaplan felt the need to lie about that portion of the case. Probably so idiots like you could use his lie for election spin. Man...that did a lot of good. Trump only won 58% of the vote.Blackvegetable » 12 Nov 2024, 3:41 pm » wrote: ↑ But for Team Grifty's motion, Kaplan would never have had cause to comment...
So why does this matter? It matters because Mr. Trump now contends that the jury’s
$2 million compensatory damages award for Ms. Carroll’s sexual assault claim was excessive
because the jury concluded that he had not “raped” Ms. Carroll.5
Its verdict, he says, could have
been based upon no more than “groping of [Ms. Carroll’s] breasts through clothing or similar
conduct, which is a far cry from rape.”6 And while Mr. Trump is right that a $2 million award for
such groping alone could well be regarded as excessive, that undermines rather than supports his
argument. His argument is entirely unpersuasive.
This jury did not award Ms. Carroll more than $2 million for groping her breasts
through her clothing, wrongful as that might have been. There was no evidence at all of such
behavior. Instead, the proof convincingly established, and the jury implicitly found, that Mr. Trump
deliberately and forcibly penetrated Ms. Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, causing immediate pain
and long lasting emotional and psychological harm. Mr. Trump’s argument therefore ignores the
bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury’s verdict, and mistakenly focuses on the New
York Penal Law definition of “rape” to the exclusion of the meaning of that word as it often is used
in everyday life and of the evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump.
There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s sexual assault damages