On January 26, 2024, Trump was awarded $83.3 million in damages for defamation.
This case is actually very nonsensical, because the defamation itself may not exist at all.
The crux of the defamation case is all about another case: sexual assault.
If the sexual assault case is established, then the defamation case is established, and if the sexual assault case is not established, the defamation case is not established.
The most paradoxical point is that there is not enough evidence in the sexual assault case, and according to the law, there should be no doubt about the crime.
But the United States did not judge according to the law, he sentenced according to the vote:
Elect a dozen of them, get together to discuss, discuss, and vote. In the end, the vote was held that Trump was guilty of sexual assault, and the whole case was over.
Trump gave less than 100 million dollars, so he gave it away.
But the direction of things was unexpected again, although he lost more than 80 million, but Trump was sympathized with, and his approval rating soared.
Sexual assault and defamation
On May 9, 2023, Trump's sexual assault case finally came to an end.
The final verdict in the case was that Trump was responsible for sexually assaulting Carroll.
In addition to being prosecuted for sexual assault, Trump has also been prosecuted for defamation.
Trump is asking Carroll $5 million in compensation.
But he didn't have to sit in jail for a day.
The most striking aspect of this case is that Carlo did not have any evidence in court to conclusively show that he had been raped.
So why was it sentenced in the end?
Because the jury of the case, after voting, unanimously agreed that Trump is responsible for sexually assaulting Carroll.
Note that the jury did not say that they believed Trump raped Carroll.
There is no evidence for this.
But they just think that even if you Trump didn't rape, you're responsible!
That's what really happened, and it's the ex-president of his own country.
Why is it so bizarre?
Prosecution without evidence
There are two main characters in this case.
One is Trump, a wealthy American businessman, plus a former president, who is now in his 70s.
One is Carroll, an unknown novelist who is now in her 80s.
In 2019, Carroll had suggested that Trump had raped him.
In 2022, she brought it up again.
After filing the lawsuit for the second time, the U.S. court finally made a final decision in May 2023.
Let's start with Carroll's description of the rape.
Carroll said:
In the mid-90s, Trump raped her in a women's fitting room at a mall.
Specific details include that when he was in the mall, Carroll met Trump, who was choosing a gift, and after the two met, Trump asked Carroll to help him make suggestions. Then Trump raped her in the locker room.
When Trump raped her, both men were in a standing position.
Among them, Carroll can only name a certain year when the case occurred in the mid-90s, and she can't say the specific year, let alone the specific month, date, or even time.
Here's the first piece of evidence: the temporal evidence.
If there is no specific time, it is equivalent to no evidence.
Since it's in a shopping mall, it must be full of people.
But there was not a single eyewitness.
Carol recounted that after being raped, she came out of the mall and left the mall.
However, during this period, no one saw her.
Whether it is a customer who comes to visit the mall or a waiter in the mall, there is no one.
And this mall is called "Goodman", good man, is a famous shopping mall for the rich, and when customers enter, there will be waiters who follow you all the time to help you.
On the other hand, no one heard the screams that Carol made when she was raped.
This is the second piece of evidence, there are no eyewitnesses.
Third, Carroll did not have any other evidence, including physical evidence, human witnesses, or anything.
Because after being raped, according to her, she did not call the police, did not go to the doctor, and did not speak to anyone.
So naturally there is no DNA or anything like that, and there is no identification like a medical report.
Carol only spoke to one of her friends.
This friend was the only witness.
But her friend couldn't say anything, and she could only say that it happened in the mid-90s.
For such a major event as being raped, the person concerned himself does not remember the time, and even his friends do not remember it.
Judging from Carroll's testimony, there is no testimony, no evidence, and everything is based on one mouth.
It is not possible to determine whether rape actually took place.
Trump's defense
After learning that he had been charged with rape, Trump's reaction was peculiar to him, I didn't, it was fake, I didn't know her, "fake new".
But Mr. Trump's reaction was a normal one, though one that was characteristic of him: a series of denials.
But someone found a photo.
The first back on the left is Trump, the second on the left Carol, and the bottom left is Trump's ex-wife
There are Trump and Carol in the photo, and it can be seen from the photo that the two know each other and are still talking to each other.
Among them, the first place on the left of the photo, only the back is Trump, and next to him is Carol.
In his defense, Trump said that he did not know Carroll, who was ugly and not his favorite type.
But when the photo was taken out, Trump responded that the woman in the photo was his ex-wife.
That's a bit far-fetched, isn't it?
Can his wife admit her mistake casually?
All, the jury unanimously agreed that Trump lied and that he knew Carroll.
Jury vote
Let's start with U.S. law.
In U.S. law, there are two types of litigation. One is criminal proceedings, which require evidence to be conclusive.
One is civil litigation, which mainly looks at the jury, and as long as the jury finds guilty, then guilty.
Carroll initially filed a criminal case against Trump, but could not produce conclusive evidence.
As a result, a civil lawsuit was filed.
In the civil lawsuit, the jury held Trump responsible for "sexually assaulting Carroll."
Why would a jury find Trump guilty in the absence of conclusive evidence?
There are two reasons for this.
One of them is Trump's lying above.
The second is the issue of Trump's own style.
We know that before running for president, Trump was a very wealthy businessman in the United States, who often went in and out of high society and knew many celebrities.
Wealthy businessmen, and celebrities, are prone to have special bonds: unspoken rules.
Whether Trump has unspoken rules against them or not, Trump has made some inappropriate remarks.
He once publicly stated that he could do anything to these stars, and he behaved very "playboy" as a whole person.
The first reason led the jury to believe that Trump had lied, and since Trump could recognize Carroll as his ex-wife, it meant that Carroll was attractive to him, and he could have raped Carroll.
The second reason led the jury to believe that there was something wrong with Trump's own style.
The two reasons add up, and when you think about them together, it is easy to have some adverse reactions.
So, in the end, the jury found Trump responsible for Carroll's sexual assault.
不准反驳
After being convicted of rape, Carroll sued him for rape for nothing, as Trump repeatedly claimed.
As a result, Carroll considered this a slander against herself.
It is also high in the Trump defamation case.
However, in this case, because the rape case has already been sentenced, the judge asked that Trump not say anything about "not raping" Carroll, not even to provide evidence.
This would be tantamount to not letting Trump defend himself.
Even, in the end, the judge also banned Trump from appearing in court, and the case was directly sentenced.
Among them, Trump needs to pay $2 million for rape and $3 million for defamation.
However, because it is a civil lawsuit, Trump only needs to lose money and not go to jail.
Is it still good for Trump?
In U.S. law, there is no provision that a person who has committed a crime cannot run for president.
So it's perfectly fine for Trump to run for president.
While it was clearly unfair for Trump to be convicted of rape without any evidence, it helped him run for president and won him a large number of votes from neutral voters.
Here's what these neutral voters think:
See, Trump was able to be found guilty without evidence.
Then they, ordinary people, can also be convicted in this way.
That is, what happened to Trump is likely to repeat itself in them.
On the one hand, they support Trump because they sympathize with him, and on the other hand, they also support him out of anger at the law.
The purpose of the law is to be fair and impartial, but now that only a few people need to vote to determine whether a person is guilty or not, what is the fairness of American law?
I wonder if this point of American law will eventually be improved?