What will E Jean Carroll do next, if the $83 million judgement doesn't stop Trump's defamation?

Kaplan obviously has a visceral hatred for Trump. All the judges in the Southern District of New York tend to be completely batshit crazy and have no problem putting their partisanship on display. But a lot of his decisions during the trial were pretty nutty, even for the SDNY. For example, not postponing a day for Trump to attend the funeral of Melania's mother was extremely out of the ordinary. And then in a post-covid world he forced his defense counsel to attend despite having a fever when most courts would have rescheduled.

Then when they were in session he lost his temper throughout and couldn't hold himself together at all. It's also interesting that Carroll admitted that she never told anyone about the Trump rape and that George Conway helped set this up. She also claims to have deleted and emptied the trash bin of the emails that showed the alleged abuse she received and wanted compensation for. The entire case is just wild. The initial allegation was completely baseless and literally facilitated by the anti-Trump DNC machine. The woman is clearly mentally unwell and living in her own delusions for a very long time. She doesn't pass the sniff test of being remotely credible.

 

Trump wasn't required to attend - and he didn't - so claiming that it was "out of the ordinary" not to postpone the trail is bull crap.
And the judge DID postpone the trail for the Covid situation - yet Habba went out in public and to a rally with hundreds of people after claiming
she didn't feel well - so that was bullcrap as well.

 

And Trump should sue her for slander for accusing him of a rape that never provably happened. It is a travesty of justice that you can tell lies about some and them sue them for complaining about the lies you told.

 

That case is over. The jury found Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation. End of story. There may be changes in the award through
appeal, but the Appellate Court rarely overturns the guilt/innocence finding of a jury.
And as Trump appears to have continued to defame Carroll AFTER the filing
of the last case, Carroll could sue him AGAIN and add even more money on
top of the $83 million.

 

The appeals are yet to come. Calling a liar a liar is not defamation,

 

You have a right to attend a hearing when someone is suing you for ~$100M. Your presence can help your attorneys when it comes to questioning witnesses and challenging allegations. The idea that you would say "his presence wasn't required" tells us a lot about what you think of our judiciary system. This isn't a banana republic despite some people wishing it was. The choice to attend is usually on the defendant and judges don't usually make you choose between a funeral of a close relative and your hearing. It wasn't like the defense didn't tell the judge about the funeral with plenty of notice. One day recess for a funeral is not "bull crap," it is the common reaponse. The judge granted a recess when a juror was sick because that's what you do. But when a defense attorney was sick it was denied, again you'd probably say they weren't "required" to be there since they could have had the hearing with empty chairs on the defense after all. I'm sure you would have preferred that. What would have happened if Carroll's attorney was ill? Would she have had to represented herself in your perception of how our courts are supposed to operate? Or, as I suspect, do you have special rules for defendants you dislike... as we see in banana republics? The entire point of the blindfold Lady Liberty is wearing is because we are supposed to treat everyone equally in the courts.

 

Actually, once the jury voted to hold Trump liable for lying about the accusations - then any further comments by Trump
calling her a liar IS Defamation ... see $83 million in defamation award as proof. Is what it is - not what you want it to be.

 

Trump didn't attend ANY of the first trial - so for Trump to suddenly freak out about it is pure hyperbolic bull crap. And as it turned out, Habba was probably lying
about being "ill" as she showed up the next day at a very crowded event. Why should the Judge take anything Trump and Co. say as truth at this point as he has caught them in so many lies?

Oh. And if Trump were truly being treated "equally" he would have been fined and probably be in jail for contempt. The judges in his cases have cut him
incredible slack.

 

so claiming innocence is illegal in your world? Typical

 

I can picture him talking more smack and getting charged 166 million next time around, then double of that. When is he going to jail? Ya'll been saying this for years and instead of seeing him behind bars all I see are SKYROCKETING poll numbers

 

He did. He lost.

https://www.npr.org/2023/08/07/1192526887/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation-lawsuit-dismissed

A judge tossed out Trump's countersuit to E. Jean Carroll. What does this mean?

 

Well, since the 83.3 M addition verdict, he's avoided actually defaming Carroll. he's instead whine about the case and is trying to blame Joe Biden . Let's see is he can keep that up in an interview.

 

He can claim innocence as long as he wants. What he can't do is say things like this:

"She's a whack job"

“What kind of a woman meets somebody and brings them up and within minutes you’re playing hanky panky in a dressing room?”

That shouldn't be so hard to understand. Now, let's see if he can keep his mouth shut. My guess: $83 million is a pretty good incentive, even for him.

 

He can legally say both of those things. Insults are not defamation.

 

Trump hate rather than an understanding of tort law, is what fuels this sort of silliness. This case never should have reached a jury

 

Ok.. another fake outrage post by an anti Trumper confirming that if Trump was a liberal Democrat ... I think you get the point (think Bill Clinton.. just mentioning his name makes the point)

 

So, the jury were all Trump haters? If so, why didn't his legal team challenge the jury composition?

You know, of course, where this is going: A total distrust in our legal system. After trust in the political system is already close to zero, this is just the next step in dismantling our institutions. And for what? So that Trump can satisfy his ego.

 

Yes, and they did their best. Even MSNBC (I think) had a legal analyst there during the jury selection and commented on how crazy it was to see everyone on the pool lying to try to get on the case.

I believe @Turtledude was commenting on the confusion between insults and defamation. You are always allowed to express a negative opinion of someone. That is not defamation. The First Amendment protects insults and hurting someone's feelings. This is America. Defamation is a step beyond sharing a negative opinion of someone else.

Your examples:
1. Saying someone is a "whack job." That is a clearly expressed opinion and is not a statement of fact.
2. Carroll claimed she met someone in a clothing store and then went back to a dressing room hoping to have a sexual encounter, she just didn't want it to go as far as she claims it did. Trump simply asked what kind of person does what she has publicly claimed she did. That is another insult and not a statement of fact.

Neither of these statements are defamation. You erred in picking quotes that are clearly protected by the First Amendment.

 

Yes, the jury in this case needs to consort a dictionary as well as the legal definition of defamatory, and so for purposes of this post, I'll link us to that.

https://mullenlawfirm.com/grounds-for-defamation-lawsuit/

First, since there's no conclusive proof on either side of this spat, by NY's own defamation laws, her accusations against Trump are equally defamatory. You can't just say one's comments injured one, and the other didn't. Secondly, one has to determine whether Trump's comments actually constitute a 'defamation' of character.

If the jury actually allows the accusations to stand by, then they cannot also claim that 'liar' and 'crazy' defame Carroll. It's not necessarily in this case a matter of whether its true or not(since Trump's comments are opinionated, they are not a statement of fact.). Further, the type of injury required by defamation is not a feeling of personal insult, but actual damages to the litigant.

Litigant has not shown such damages. This case very basically is a misapplication of NY's own defamation laws, as well as running in the face of Trump's own defamation defeat with regard to the Hitler canard. If Trump could not claim defamation by that, then there's no way litigant is entitled to any relief.

 

It means empirical evidence(which neither side has in this case) is no longer the golden standard. Even the judge in this case said "probably" true, which actually he would really love to say 'maybe' true. Nothing here has reached the level of probability, and all sides know that for a fact.

What does it mean for the rest of us? Write your conversations on notepad, have security camera's in your bedrooms, etc. Your smart phones. Record absolutely everything and no you're not being paranoid, you're obliging by the court's lowered standard in 2024.

 

Trump had publicly said before this trial began that he did not attend the first trial based on the advice of counsel not to give credibility to her completely baseless claims. After he lost that trial, he decided he wanted to attend and publicly planned to attend each day this trial was in session despite campaigning. Your opinion on Trump electing not to attend one trial or hearing doesn't mean violating his rights on future trials and hearings is acceptable. This argument doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever and is completely fallacious. Again, this demonstrates a banana republic mentality toward our judicial system.

More speculation and fallacious arguments. I highly doubt Habba was lying, considering it would have been illegal and was in Trump's best interest for the hearing to occur that day. I also notice that you're diverting from the unethical decisions of the judge by making baseless accusations against an attorney who has been representing Trump in a lot of his cases and has never lied about being ill for the sole purpose of defending your fascist opinions of our judicial system. The only benefit of her lying would be to validate your fallacious argument. You've provided no other justification for it.

See the comments above about promoting a banana republic. They continue to be applicable.

The judge can't unilaterally fine him. Nor can he jail him for comments made while there was no active case or court order against him. See the comments above about promoting a banana republic. They continue to be applicable.

America is not a fascist nation with a fascist court system. You need to work within the confines of our law. You cannot jail your political opposition simply because they said something mean about a crazy lady. North Korea or China might be more your speed if this is the type of nation you want to live in.

 

And why hasn't he sued her for false accusation?

Because he knows damn well he did the deed.

You know, the thing he openly declared that, as a 'star, he could grab women by the p*ssy'?

That, during a deposition, asked to clarify that point, he said, 'Historically, that's true with stars, unfortunately or FORTUNATELY' ? Hmmm?

Not to mention he has been accused of same by 25 different women.

Not to mention friends of hers testified that she told them of the assault back when it happened, it's called 'contemporaneous evidence.'

And Trump had the gall to say 'she's not my type', as if that kind of statement would prove he is innocent, totally ignorant of the fact that people who rape do not do it for 'looks' they do it for power over women, which goes to the issue of his ignorance and arrogance, that this is the very type of ****** that would do such a thing. This is how ****ing stupid Trump is.

People say she is 'homely' , actually, for an 80 year old woman she's amazingly beautiful and when she was much younger, she was, indeed, very beautiful, the very kind of woman Trump typically has assaulted in the past.

 

Trump changed party affiliations 5 times.

He is not anything, he is whatever the occasion demands for his own benefit.

When he had celeb apprentice, given that most celebs are liberal, he was a democrat. He was a dem because he wanted to curry favor with celebs.

In 2000, before his show, he ran for prez in the reform party.

When he ran for prez in 2016, his show no longer, he knew that dems wouldn't elect a billionaire, so, all of the sudden, he's a republican, 'cause they will believe a billionaire.

In fact, he's an empty suit, he has no convictions, none. Well, except one:

Money.

It's called 'con man' 'flim flam man', etc. ,of which he is one, and their motto is always......

'You can't fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool some of the people some of the time, and it's just enough to make a good living' --W.C. Fields


PDS

 

Dude - a jury DETERMINED that Trump was liable. End of story. That's how the law works. It's been the basis of court system for hundreds
of years. I'm sorry you don't seem to understand this. It's not a perfect system. It never was. But it's what agreed to all those years ago. If you want to
change the system so that, "I read about it on the internet, so here's my vote," then you are welcome to introduce legislation to do so. But until
then - the jury system is what we have - and the jury made the determination that Trump was liable.

 

You know the answer to that as well as I do. It is all but impossible to win a defamation case as a famous or infamous person.