And yet there was the Trump Tax Reform Plan which cut corporate taxes permanently and individual rates temporarily.
"The law cut corporate tax rates permanently and individual tax rates temporarily. It permanently removed the individual mandate—a key provision of the Affordable Care Act—which was likely to raise insurance premiums and significantly reduce the number of people with coverage.8 The highest earners were expected to benefit most from the law, while the lowest earners were believed to pay more in taxes once most individual tax provisions expire after 2025."
And
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the measure (Personal Exemption and Heathcare Mandate) is likely to reduce federal deficits by around $338 billion from 2018 to 2027, but lead 13 million more people to live without insurance at the end of that period, pushing premiums up by an average of around 10%."
I remember using a lovely, shiny, brass thrupenny bit on the bus to school in 1972 just before we decimalised. I still grieve for their magic and beauty, such was that little treasure's impact upon my unclouded mind.
The case to a large extent was demonstrated via two other women independently describing s*xual assaults by Trump.
The accounts were so strikingly similar to each other and Carroll's independent account that the 'similar fact evidence' lead to a jury finding Trump liable for s*xual assault.
The jury did not find Trump liable for s*xual battery (as you erroneously claim above) on the technical point that whilst the other two women had been sexually assaulted by Trump, they managed to get away from him and had not been raped.
It was Judge Lewis Kaplan who clarified that Carroll's testimony, having been so accurately corroborated by the other two witnesses was found to be reliable and resolved that Carroll was indeed raped by Trump in the common understanding of the word. He was quite clear for Trump not to misunderstand full extent of his s*xual assault liability.
And yes, liability is based upon a lower bar, not because the rape didn't happen, but because the defendent cannot lose their liberty via a civil suit as you quite rightly pointed out. The proponderance of evidence from this civil suit indicates that Trump is a sex offender many times over.
This is the man you support, make excuses for and deem kind-hearted and decent. Perhaps it's your bar that needs to be raised.
By the way, it was Alina Habba who failed to provide a DNA sample from Trump in time for the dress to be submitted into evidence, much like she didn't check the box for a jury trial in the civil fraud case and then whined about the unfairness of a bench trial when Judge Arthur Engoron made his summary judgement. That doesn't come from msm, it comes from assessments by trial lawyers who have been tracking the paperwork, including Habba's/Trump's defense choices. All the relevant papers filed are in the public domain, so you can put your strong and forceful mind to checking that for yourself.
The dress was a double-edged sword at the time, anyway. Given the passage of time, DNA from the dress may have degraded. Had Trump provided a sample, but his DNA wasn't found on the dress, that would have helped him enormously.
On the other hand, if his DNA was found on the dress it would have been absolutely damning. The dress and DNA evidence was a risk for both of them, but it was team Trump who chose not to take that risk.
"Donald Trump has been ordered by a judge to pay $2m in damages for illegally using funds intended for charity to boost his 2016 presidential election campaign.
The US president admitted to personally misusing the money, according to New York’s attorney general, despite having previously denied any wrongdoing.
The humiliating fine adds to Trump’s woes that include several investigations into allegations that he is using public office for self-enrichment, as well as an impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives.
The attorney general in New York filed a lawsuit last year alleging Trump and his three eldest children - Don Jr, Ivanka and Eric - broke campaign finance laws in 2016 by using the Donald J Trump Foundation’s tax-exempt status “as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr Trump’s business and political interests”.
There was “a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation – including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more,” the suit argued."
There is no righteousness in supporting someone found legally liable for rape.
It's about as righteous as claiming you can grab women by the pu**y, or calling a female attorney a c*nt.
And I don't give a thruppeny bit if that's ridiculing your egregious and sickening attitude, especially on a dating website. It doesn't get more ridiculous than that.
Even if many Trump's supporters are happy for him to use donations any which way he pleases, the law stipulates that funds raised for a specific purpose must be used for that purpose.
It's so you can't raise funds for orphans and then use the money to buy yourself a Rolls Royce. That would be fraudulent and that should be patently obvious.
On that note, I think there's trouble brewing for Trump for possibly using a fund raised for his election fraud allegations to instead pay for lawyers in the cases against himself.
If that's the case, Trump trying to claim the civil and criminal cases against him are all part of the same conspiracy as his claims of election fraud, are unlikely to impress any judge, jury, or appellate panel. The rule of law is not like the court of public opinion, in as much as it requires evidence.
Habba was sanctioned nearly $1M in one case and some $400,000 in another under Rule 11. The former was an alleged election fraud filing and the latter, some allegation against Hillary Clinton, I think.
In other words, on behalf of Trump, Habba filed frivolous allegations without adequate investigation, or factual basis. As baseless suits squander finite resources and therefore disrupt genuine legal proceedings, civil Rule 11 breaches are sanctionable.
When Habba recently accused Judge Lewis Kaplan and prosecutor Robbie Kaplan of having an 'insane' and 'incestuous' mentor/mentee relationship, she relied on an anonymous 'informer' in a 'news' article. She did not trouble herself to ask either Kaplan, not did she research the claim before petitioning the court and causing a public stink.
Robbie Kaplan responded pointing out that whilst they both worked for the same very large law firm for under two years, they did not ever work together and to her best recollection, never met. Habba back-tracked pdq, likely because Robbie Kaplan suggested her allegations were breaches of Rule 11 and therefore sanctionable. Not only might Habba face yet more financial loss, she was also at risk of being referred to the bar for repeated Rule 11 breaches.
The political goal has likely been achieved, however. The idea of an incestuous relationship and subsequent bias in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case has been said out loud and will become concrete in the hearts and minds of Trump supporters.
Trump has used the same technique many times, including when he made various suggestions during his presidency that he may remain in office for more that two terms, even for life. It wasn't a 'thing' until he spoke it out loud, after which it became 'something' that was being discussed.
Once 'something' is being discussed, it's up for discussion. This is how Trump has insidiously placed himself in the position where the rules of democracy don't apply to him; he can attempt to hold on to power and if he regains power, he has already established that being a dictator on day one is up for discussion and even already accepted by his supporters.
I'm reading that it is possible to appeal, that is Trump is within his rights to appeal, but that's different from appealing his case with merit.
Having merit to appeal hasn't stopped Trump as yet, even up to the Supreme Court.
At which stage the appeal is rejected is a different matter: if my memory serves me correctly, in the sixty or so cases of election fraud Trump appealed to the Supreme Court, they refused to review every single, meritless one.
He might throw Habba under the bus claiming ineffective counsel, but the question remains whether effective counsel could have altered the outcome. With other cases and costs arriving all at once like a No.13 bus, perhaps flogging the dead horse of the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit(s) isn't going to serve him well.
Losing the 'Teflon Don' invincibility image (or Donald Von Schitzenpanz as Michael Cohen has taken to calling him) is bad enough - it's maybe best if this monumental defeat isn't affirmed in six months, or a year's time when Trump is in the thick of his criminal trials and the election. Especially if he's going to lose the $83.3M + interest + appeal costs anyway.
It will also funnel personnel resources away from his other trials. Lawyers may be hard to come by as he appears to naturally haemorrhage them before he can fire them.
The only advantage for Trump that I can see in having the award held on bond while he appeals, is to torment Carroll for as long as possible as punishment for not being grateful that he raped her. As she's 80 years old, he may hope his malice outlives her.
On the other hand, Habba likes to bark loudly in Trump's campaign favour and re-election is likely his only hope to avoid abject ruin. Perhaps his best strategy is to keep Habba cacophonously appealing to his supporters from her unique vantage point.
So, $5.2M + 10% is being held in the court registry from the first trial pending the appeal. If, or when Trump loses that appeal Carroll will receive that money. That will take 1-2 years to work it's way through the appellate court.
If Trump doesn't appeal this second trial, payment of the $83.3M can be enforced straight away from Trump's bank accounts. Because the Trump organisation is under the monitor of Barbara Jones, his bank accounts are known.
If Trump wants to appeal the second case, he could either stump up the full $83.3 +10% to be held in the court registry, or try and post a 10% bond (about $10M) through a bonding company.
He would have to provide accurate financial documents for a bonding company to accept liability for the remaining 90%. That is perhaps unlikely given Trump has been found liable for persistent fraud in the NY civil suit against him and Barbara Jones has flagged errors and misstatements in the last year+ since the trial began.
Any financial actions have to be approved by Barabara Jones, whether that's securing the award pending appeal, or presumably, filing for bankruptcy.
Trump's only hope is if the three appellate judges in the DC circuit court, or ultimately the Supreme Court rules that a president and/or ex-president has immunity from any criminal, or civil litigation. In that very unlikely event, both verdicts in Carroll's favour would be vacated.
Carroll will receive $18.3M, $11M of which is to fund a reputational repair campaign and $7.3M to compensate her for the emotional harm caused her by Trump's defamatory statements.
I've just dug deeper and it seems the punitive damages are also awarded to Carroll. They are awarded to deter the liable party from repeating their egregious behaviour, but are also put in place to cover medical, or other costs incurred as a result of the defendent's behaviour.
The punitive damages are awarded according to detailed criteria and are typically capped at no more than four times compensatory damages. They are taxable as 'other income', however.
Habba has 30 days to file to Judge Kaplan for remittitur (to reduce the size of the award), or vacatur (to set aside, or vacate the jury judement), but under those circumstances the judge could also increase the award.
To appeal the case, Trump must put up $83.3M plus interest in bond (or possibly 10% of that), just as he's handed over the $5M+ in order to appeal the first case. If a part of that appeal strategy is to claim Judge Kaplan had a vested interest in the size of the award it would surely have to be demonstrated that he manipulated the jury outside of the state's compensatory and punitive damages criteria and that he would somehow directly benefit from Carroll's tax bill.
In that interview Tim Palatore falsely claimed that the original $5M awarded to Carroll was for the rape alone and that Trump would be considering the disparity between the lower award for rape and $83.3 for defamation. He implied that the court ruled defamation to be worse than rape.
That's not what happened.
The original $5M award was for s*xual abuse and Trump defaming his rape victim afterwards when she spoke out about it.
The $83.3 award included a $65M punitive element for Trump continuing to defame his rape victim after the first case and during the second. The punitive damages are meant to send the message that the defendent, whether Trump, Giuliani, or anyone else, cannot continue to defame those they have, and are victimising without consequence.
Presumably the punitive award goes back into the court coffers. Having a second defamation case because Trump continued to flout the law shouldn't be at the expense of US citizens.
Palatore also tried to sew the seed of blame on Habba for Trump's behaviour: he tried to make out that it was a possibility that Habba hadn't told Trump how to behave in court, and possibly by extension, not to continue defaming Carroll in, and outside of court. This is yet more of the MAGA tactic where Trump is framed as the victim and blame is deflected onto someone else.
If Trump can't work out for himself how to behave in court, or not to continue defaming someone after he's been found liable for defamation of that person, the implication is that he's intellectually challenged. Various judges have also told Trump how to behave inside and outside of court in various cases, including Judge Lewis Kaplan reportedly bellowing at him to sit down and be quiet.
Blaming Trump's behaviour on Habba is not going to hold traction in the appellate courts, but it does provide a scapegoat for Trump's supporters. Palatore's analysis wasn't a legal one, it was a Trump campaign spin just as Habba's approach is. They are choosing this tactic because they have no effective legal recourse.
It had crossed my mind that ineffective counsel might be grounds for appeal, but all this bending over backwards to accommodate Trump's presidential campaign, tolerating his early-teenage antics in court, coaching Habba in proper procedure, etc. may offset anything he tries to pull at a later date.
So far, team Trump's attempts to delay, get a mistrial, get Trump removed from court, or detained, etc. for the benefit of his campaign/grifting haven't worked terribly well except for the federal presidential immunity appeal delaying the March 4th trial date in Washington.
I recently heard someone say (it might have been Ben Meiselas) that whilst Jack Smith is playing a sophisticated game of chess, team Trump is playing hide and seek. I think that's perhaps true for all those involved in holding Trump to account given the apparant care to manage Trump and to avoid appealable pitfalls.
What I've found most interesting are reports of Judge Kaplan demanding Trump's conformity and Trump obeying. That speaks volumes.
On this side of the pond, not all debts are discharged under bankruptcy and any assets may have to be sold to pay outstanding debts.
As I understand it, the $5M awarded to E. Jean Carroll from the first trial had to be secured before Trump could appeal the verdict according to NY law.
With this $83M award plus the predicted $370M disgorgement from his NY fraud trial, that will more than wipe out the $400M ready cash Trump claimed he had for the purposes of trial(s).
With him potentially losing his NY businesses, licenses, assets and ready cash, he may qualify for bankruptcy, but I doubt that means he gets to keep everything and pay nothing under NY law.
Besides, it doesn't really matter if Trump can pay it all, or not. The point is to vindicate Carroll and to stop Trump and his supporters from perpetually victimising his rape victim. The $65M punitive element of the award says STFU with your abuse, or you will be financialy ruined.
That's all he had to do, the STFU thing.
I guess he knows his trajectory is financial ruin and the rest of his natural life incarcerated. His only hope is being re-elected and becoming a dictator so he can dictate his own fate. Persistently defaming Carroll impresses his core supporters, as would going to prison. I imagine it's one of the reasons why he hasn't had his pre-trial release revoked in the DC conspiracy case, or hasn't been held in contempt for acting out like a child in the defamation case. It's all a strategic balancing act with everyone trying to get their best outcome.
And yet the moment Meatball Ron endorsed him, Trump said, “I just want to thank Ron and congratulate him on doing a very good job. He was very gracious, and he endorsed me. I appreciate that, and I also look forward to working with Ron.”
Trump can't resist affirmation and adoration no matter who it's from, so there's no permanent ban for anyone.
online today!jac_the_gripper Blog Comments (2,997)
RE: Trump Haters
And yet there was the Trump Tax Reform Plan which cut corporate taxes permanently and individual rates temporarily."The law cut corporate tax rates permanently and individual tax rates temporarily. It permanently removed the individual mandate—a key provision of the Affordable Care Act—which was likely to raise insurance premiums and significantly reduce the number of people with coverage.8 The highest earners were expected to benefit most from the law, while the lowest earners were believed to pay more in taxes once most individual tax provisions expire after 2025."
And
"According to the Congressional Budget Office, repealing the measure (Personal Exemption and Heathcare Mandate) is likely to reduce federal deficits by around $338 billion from 2018 to 2027, but lead 13 million more people to live without insurance at the end of that period, pushing premiums up by an average of around 10%."