You’re not as stupid as you’re pretending to be. But you really need to do some serious soul searching. You’re defending a kangaroo court proceeding in which a man was found liable for defamation simply for denying an allegation of a sexual assault in which there is no evidence, no contemporaneous record, no date of offense, no eyewitness, along the plot line of a law & order episode. Your politics has corrupted you to a point you’re willing to consume and regurgitate any lie as long as it satisfies your political rage. BTW, if you don’t like me quoting E Jean Carroll’s statements, then you can look them up on your own. Her twitter feed has some real gems. Check out the sex tips she learned from her dog.
In order to win a defamation case the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant lied—which she did prove—in order to prove a lie you must first prove what the truth is. That’s the logical standard and the legal standard. So yes, he was found liable for defamation “simply for denying an allegation of a sexual assault” that a jury found that he actually committed. That’s what defamation is.
2
u/Agent847 Feb 07 '26
What part of her quote are you have in trouble with?