American Politics XIV: The Dawning of the Age of the Pumpkin

[Platoon of Peace]

Is that information valuable in a case? If we're determining if this is defamation because he called her a liar about being assaulted, the only reason that would matter is if they could prove that she was in fact sexually assaulted.

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

As Norv stated (thanks this stuff can be kind of confusing!) can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump made a false statement that caused damage to Ms. Carroll? Because as far as I know, this can't be proven yet.

[Reverend Norv]

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

As Norv stated (thanks this stuff can be kind of confusing!) can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump made a false statement that caused damage to Ms. Carroll? Because as far as I know, this can't be proven yet.

A quick note: absolutely nothing in law has to be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Even a criminal case only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is quite different: some doubt remains in most successful prosecutions, but it's the sort of doubt that a reasonable person would reject as irrational.

Ms. Carroll's suit, however, is not even a criminal case: it is a civil action. As such, it requires proof of each element only by a preponderance of the evidence - which is any level of certainty over 50 percent. Basically, if the jury thinks that it is more likely than not that Mr. Trump's statement was false, then it can find that the first element of defamation was satisfied.

[El Lazaro]

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

As Norv stated (thanks this stuff can be kind of confusing!) can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump made a false statement that caused damage to Ms. Carroll? Because as far as I know, this can't be proven yet.

The burden of proof is lower for civil cases than criminal cases (ex. OJ being sued but not convicted), so it’s possible that she could win the case without having the proof needed to book him on rape charges.

[Yerachmeal]

Welp, thank me, because my quote is the only trace of him left.

Why would we thank you for quoting a spammer and making it much harder for the Mods to clean up after them?

Because I think the sammer was funny!

[Ifreann]

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

As Norv stated (thanks this stuff can be kind of confusing!) can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump made a false statement that caused damage to Ms. Carroll? Because as far as I know, this can't be proven yet.

My point is that there is a case for Trump to answer. Proving it will be a matter for Carroll and her lawyers, and maybe they will not be able to. But it will not be a simple, open and shut matter of "Calling someone a liar isn't defamation".

[Necroghastia]

Why would we thank you for quoting a spammer and making it much harder for the Mods to clean up after them?

Because I think the sammer was funny!

Ah, yes, typing slurs in allcaps. The height of humor.

[Platoon of Peace]

As Norv stated (thanks this stuff can be kind of confusing!) can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump made a false statement that caused damage to Ms. Carroll? Because as far as I know, this can't be proven yet.

A quick note: absolutely nothing in law has to be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Even a criminal case only requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is quite different: some doubt remains in most successful prosecutions, but it's the sort of doubt that a reasonable person would reject as irrational.

Ms. Carroll's suit, however, is not even a criminal case: it is a civil action. As such, it requires proof of each element only by a preponderance of the evidence - which is any level of certainty over 50 percent. Basically, if the jury thinks that it is more likely than not that Mr. Trump's statement was false, then it can find that the first element of defamation was satisfied.

Ok. Thank you for clarifying. That makes sense.

As Norv stated (thanks this stuff can be kind of confusing!) can you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Trump made a false statement that caused damage to Ms. Carroll? Because as far as I know, this can't be proven yet.

The burden of proof is lower for civil cases than criminal cases (ex. OJ being sued but not convicted), so it’s possible that she could win the case without having the proof needed to book him on rape charges.

That's true. I forgot about that

[The Black Forrest]

Oh you know certain “proud” republicans will gladly give him money.

Its gonna take a long time to make a billion bucks from making ads for emergency food and tinfoil hats.

At the moment we can only speculate. The parent company of his businesses had previously declared bankruptcy and his financial records are locked at the moment.

He can be worth a great deal; he can have little. Still; the verdict will hurt him and follow him to the end and beyond…..

[Elwher]

Is that information valuable in a case? If we're determining if this is defamation because he called her a liar about being assaulted, the only reason that would matter is if they could prove that she was in fact sexually assaulted.

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

In effect, anyone who pleads 'not guilty to a criminal charge where the victim identified the accused is calling that person a liar, so are they open to defamation charges?

[Ifreann]

It matters because such an accusation is defamatory, which is relevant because some posters seem to think that there is no defamation for Trump to answer for.

In effect, anyone who pleads 'not guilty to a criminal charge where the victim identified the accused is calling that person a liar,

No they aren't.

[Yerachmeal]

In effect, anyone who pleads 'not guilty to a criminal charge where the victim identified the accused is calling that person a liar, so are they open to defamation charges?

It's self defense, and they are claiming the person was mistaking, not neccessarily lying.

[Shrillland]

Final 1/6 Commission meeting before Midterms going, NBC says they'll vote to subpoena Trump later today

[Reverend Norv]

In effect, anyone who pleads 'not guilty to a criminal charge where the victim identified the accused is calling that person a liar,

No they aren't.

This. A plea of not guilty asserts nothing more than that you maintain your innocence, and that you require the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It involves no assertion about the truth or falsity of any piece of evidence, including statements that the victim may or may not have given.

[Ifreann]

No they aren't.

This. A plea of not guilty asserts nothing more than that you maintain your innocence, and that you require the state to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It involves no assertion about the truth or falsity of any piece of evidence, including statements that the victim may or may not have given.

Further, even directly disputing the account of a witness or victim is not in effect calling that person a liar. I would think that regular posters on NSG would be well aware that it is possible for people to be wrong.

Further, Trump did not claim innocence nor enter a plea not guilty, he called Carroll a liar. Not "in effect", he directly and explicitly said that her story is made up, a hoax, and a lie. This defamation suit going ahead would not be some kind of terrible precedent that would land all of us in financial trouble.

[The Jamesian Republic]

Final 1/6 Commission meeting before Midterms going, NBC says they'll vote to subpoena Trump later today

Hope?

[Major-Tom]

From the Arizona Republic - Kari Lake has the momentum.

Here in AZ, we're seeing an increasing likelihood that our Senate seat will stay blue, whereas our Governor's race will stay red. This is despite the fact that both GOP candidates are extreme, far-right election deniers and provocateurs. It's infuriating to see the AZ Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by allowing their gubernatorial candidate to make every strategic blunder possible.

[Zilam]

I see both the Democratic Party supports and Republican Party supporters claiming early victories in several states. From what I understand there is a lot of discussion of polling of registered voters (which seems to give Dems an advantage) an polling of likely voters (which seems to give GOP an advantage).

Anyone has some reasonable discourse on registered vs likely voter polling, and if it actually matters?

[Shrillland]

From the Arizona Republic - Kari Lake has the momentum.

Here in AZ, we're seeing an increasing likelihood that our Senate seat will stay blue, whereas our Governor's race will stay red. This is despite the fact that both GOP candidates are extreme, far-right election deniers and provocateurs. It's infuriating to see the AZ Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by allowing their gubernatorial candidate to make every strategic blunder possible.

We're seeing this in several states, Nevada and Oregon are in similar situations.

[Platoon of Peace]

It's shaping out to be a close race between Ron Johnson and Mandela Barnes here in Wisconsin. I expect this election to get some of the biggest national press nationwide considering how Johnson is a major member of the Trump Team. A loss for Johnson would likely be awful for Trump.

[Shrillland]

The Commission just voted unanimously to subpoena Trump.

[Corrian]

From the Arizona Republic - Kari Lake has the momentum.

Here in AZ, we're seeing an increasing likelihood that our Senate seat will stay blue, whereas our Governor's race will stay red. This is despite the fact that both GOP candidates are extreme, far-right election deniers and provocateurs. It's infuriating to see the AZ Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by allowing their gubernatorial candidate to make every strategic blunder possible.

That's so weird to me because both Masters and Lake are awful on like the same level but Lake might actually win? Lake winning would be a huge dampen on Kelly winning reelection though because Lake is gonna be terrible. I just don't get how you elect one nutjob statewide but defeat the other.

[Corrian]

From the Arizona Republic - Kari Lake has the momentum.

Here in AZ, we're seeing an increasing likelihood that our Senate seat will stay blue, whereas our Governor's race will stay red. This is despite the fact that both GOP candidates are extreme, far-right election deniers and provocateurs. It's infuriating to see the AZ Dems snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by allowing their gubernatorial candidate to make every strategic blunder possible.

We're seeing this in several states, Nevada and Oregon are in similar situations.

If Oregon gets a Republican governor its literally because there's a candidate splitting the vote there and they're just gonna replace one unpopular governor with another.

Edit: Looks like some maybe moderates that supported Johnson went to the Republican candidate or something. God I can't believe that's happening there.

[Ifreann]

The Commission just voted unanimously to subpoena Trump.

Retailers are warning of an unprecedented rush on popcorn.

[Zurkerx]

Final 1/6 Commission meeting before Midterms going, NBC says they'll vote to subpoena Trump later today

I'm surprised they are: they don't really have much time left and I suspect Trump can drag out the process long enough as a new Republican House will can it.

That said, if they're willing to subpoena him, they will likely recommend charges against him then.

Speaking of Trump, Supreme Court rejected his request to intervene in Mar-a-Lago documents fight.

[The Jamesian Republic]

The Commission just voted unanimously to subpoena Trump.

Patriots in control.