It won't be long before the TDS crowd starts crowing about how Trump was found guilty of "sexual harassment" and defamation. But, is that what really happened?
Not exactly. Trump was found "liable" for "sexual harassment" and "defamation" and fined $5 million dollars. This was NOT in criminal court, but CIVIL court, and the burden of proof in civil court is significantly lower than in criminal court. But this should put a dent in the "Trump is a rapist" crowd, although it's likely it won't.
I want to focus on a few of aspects of this case.
1. The plaintiff was unable to remember what year the alleged rape took place. She also claimed that Les Moonves raped her, but is also unable to remember what year that happened. Contrast that with Kathleen Willey who was able to provide many specific details about her rape by Bill Clinton, yet somehow has never gotten her day in court and Clinton remains unpunished.
2. Trump is an idiot. It is highly likely that he could have settled this case long ago and negotiated as part of the agreement that neither side could comment on the details. But he chose to go to court. Now that he's lost the civil suit, he could choose to simply pay the $5 million, and move on. It's bad enough that he's handed this gift to his political opponents, but he's likely to make this the gift that keeps on giving by appealing. It seems clear that he has no one in his circle who he will listen to regarding his public perception and how it affects his candidacy.
3. I'm not saying that he's right to do so, in fact it's one of the reasons I can't support him, but Trump defames everyone who disagrees with him. It's stupid, petty, childish, and the like, but it's how he rolls. In this case, he likely defamed the plaintiff by publicly denying that he raped her, and other protestations of his innocence. I'm not saying he's correct to do so, but it seems like to publicly dispute the nature of charges brought against him is to be expected. I get that the nature of proclaiming one's "innocence" is to tacitly accuse the plaintiff of lying, but in the absence of more detail, I'm thinking that this liability was as much a way to punish Trump for being an asshole, than an acknowledgement of any actual defamation.
Anyway, ignore anyone who claims that Trump has been found guilty of any crime, and who doesn't note the differences in the burden of proof in civil court.
4 comments:
1. Tara Reid is another who seems to recall important details about her abuse by Biden, but she's ignored as well.
2. Trump's not an idiot for fighting against what he insists is a false charge against him. Would you "settle" with someone you insist is lying against you? Do you not see how that could set a precedent for others to follow in order to enrich themselves at your expense? And how well did settling with Stormy Daniels with an NDA attached work out? It's not lost on my that your comments suggest you believe he raped this woman. Perhaps he did, though saying so doesn't make it so. We know that from Dan alone.
3. Few politicians fail to "defame" opponents. Most do not do it in such an obvious and sophomoric manner as Trump. Many of us find it extremely entertaining as opposed to a big deal...almost refreshing to some degree. I would suggest that had his primary opponents the first time around did themselves in in some way by their inability to handle it.
And since when is denying one's guilt defamation against a false accuser? Again, it seems you've judged him guilty without proof. Then it seems you aren't. I'm confused. And yeah, the judgement against him for "defamation" was clearly and beyond any doubt a purely partisan attack.
I've seen a number of rape victims coming out with their stories and how they vividly remember virtually every detail of the experience.
Trump may not be an idiot for fighting this, had he settled this months ago with an NDA it wouldn't be getting this much coverage. Further, it wouldn't be dragging this into the upcoming election. There isn't a blanket answer about settling, but I absolutely can see where settling a civil suit quietly is the most attractive option. Yes, I do. Unfortunately it happens all the time. Settling with Davis got some coverage when it happened, and it pretty much went away. The problem is, that given Trump's track record, he's always going to have some of these following him around. I have absolutely no idea whether or not Trump raped her or not, given the absolute lack of actual evidence, it's safe to say none else does either. Hell, they changed the law, and teed this up as a way to go after Trump. It has always been a politically motivated attack, the problem is that Trump is more open to these types of attacks because of his track record.
Obviously if you (as they did) redefine "defame" to mean disagree with, this becomes True. But that was my point, disagreeing/defending yourself/etc are not "defamation", but the TDS crowd had to come up with something.
I know that you and Dan sometimes struggle with it anytime I look at both sides of an issue or event. My personal opinion is that he probably didn't rape this woman, but given his histroy it wouldn't shock me if he had at some point.
Again, I know it's hard to understand, but I can acknowledge that this was a political witch hunt aimed at preventing Trump from running in '24. They were forced to go the civil route because they new the had no chance of meeting the burden of proof to make the criminal charges stick. It's entirely logical to understand that this particular civil case was bogus, but that Trump's prior actions have made him more vulnerable to these accusations.
"Trump may not be an idiot for fighting this, had he settled this months ago with an NDA it wouldn't be getting this much coverage."
Dude. Stormy freakin' Daniels! She received a settlement with the promise to STFU about her allegations. How well did that turn out? And what steps did this woman take to compel such an arrangement in her case? And what kind of jackass accepts money to pretend they weren't raped? No. This sounds to me like just another case of someone looking for a payday. And frankly, if Trump insists he is innocent of these charges, I give him more respect for NOT allowing himself to be exploited and extorted in this manner.
I'm happy to see that we're on the same page as regards defamation. But this crap can't be allowed to stand without push back, and I applaud Trump for doing so. If he did it and she can't prove it, that's way too bad. But until she can prove it, he's as innocent as an Apostle of such a crime.
Art,
I understand your reflexive desire to frame any criticism of Trump as TDS, but seriously dude, calm down.
I get it, if you think that Trump potentially losing the appeal he says he's going to file in early Nov of 2024 (if he's the nominee), is going to help his election that's absolutely fine. But don't think that the left leaning judges that hear the appeals aren't going to do their best to drop the potential loss when it'll hurt Trump the most.
I don't understand the logic, but if you really think that the GOP wouldn't be better off with a candidate without all this negative baggage in 2024, I guess that's your choice. Some of us might prefer a candidate without the negative baggage, but you do you.
Post a Comment