Federal Jury Orders Donald Trump to Pay $83.3 Million in Defamation Case

[Chomper Higgot]

Next question.

 

Is any of the abuse and defamation brought to the second trial independent of the ruling from the first?

 

Or more precisely, does any of the myriad defamations uttered by Trump against Carroll stand as defamation in their own right?

 

 

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

LOL - it will be appealed and he will win - but the TDS woke liberals think this is a 'victory'.

As Don would say - 2024 is going to be yuuuuuuge !!  

Get that popcorn ready .........

[OneMoreFarang]

Slowly I understand why so many American people support Trump.

Obviously he is an a$hole, but that doesn't mean he did everything anyone accuses him of doing.

That woman doesn't even remember when that supposed rape supposedly happened. There is no evidence they even met in that store. But for whatever reason judges decide Trump is guilty.

And when he continues to proclaim his innocence (for that rape) he is prosecuted again. There is no proof that he raped her. Why is he not allowed to say exactly that?

Maybe Trumps opponent should concentrate on the important things which he did wrong, like the insurrection. Then maybe people would acknowledge that he is not unfairly targeted by the establishment. 

[ozimoron]

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Just keep sending your $

 

He didn't care about the amount because he just figures the useful patsies will donate and take care of it.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Slowly I understand why so many American people support Trump.

Obviously he is an a$hole, but that doesn't mean he did everything anyone accuses him of doing.

That woman doesn't even remember when that supposed rape supposedly happened. There is no evidence they even met in that store. But for whatever reason judges decide Trump is guilty.

And when he continues to proclaim his innocence (for that rape) he is prosecuted again. There is no proof that he raped her. Why is he not allowed to say exactly that?

Maybe Trumps opponent should concentrate on the important things which he did wrong, like the insurrection. Then maybe people would acknowledge that he is not unfairly targeted by the establishment. 

 

Odd that the supposed party of the rule of law doesn't actually give a toss about the rule of law.

[earlinclaifornia]

20 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

LOL - it will be appealed and he will win - but the TDS woke liberals think this is a 'victory'.

As Don would say - 2024 is going to be yuuuuuuge !!  

Get that popcorn ready .........

Trust me we have been digging into our popcorn with bigly pleasure. Here is hoping for you enjoying you day as well!

[ozimoron]

David Johnston, the author who penned the biography "The Making Of Donald Trump," suspects the $83.3 million a nine-member jury verdict in the second defamation trial brought by writer E. Jean Carroll against Donald Trump will force him to prove he has the coin.

"We may discover just how many smoke and mirrors [there are]," said Johnston during an appearance on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360."

[jerrymahoney]

55 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK so waiting for the first appeal ruling is not grounds to appeal the second.

You are getting now into rules of Federal Appellate Procedure so that may not be the case.

[ozimoron]

On whether Trump will pay damages: “I think he’s gonna have to pay – and whether it requires him to sell something or to put a lien on something to get a loan, that’s his problem, not ours. He’s gonna pay, and Judge (Lewis) Kaplan, through judgment-enforcement mechanisms, will make sure that he pays. And indeed, even to take the appeal, he’s going to have to at least put up a bond of 20% of the amount.”

 

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-trial-e-jean-carroll-01-26-24/index.html

[jerrymahoney]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Next question.

 

Is any of the abuse and defamation brought to the second trial independent of the ruling from the first?

 

Or more precisely, does any of the myriad defamations uttered by Trump against Carroll stand as defamation in their own right?

Before the second trial got underway, the judge ruled that Carroll was telling the truth about the assault, and that Trump's statements denying her claims were defamatory. The jury was tasked only with deciding what damages Carroll was entitled to receive. 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-e-jean-carroll-trial-closing-arguments-courtroom/

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

Before the second trial got underway, the judge ruled that Carroll was telling the truth about the assault, and that Trump's statements denying her claims were defamatory. The jury was tasked only with deciding what damages Carroll was entitled to receive. 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-e-jean-carroll-trial-closing-arguments-courtroom/

 

What is your point? The second trial was only ever about damages. Any attempt at a redo was inadmissible. Standard legal procedure.

[G_Money]

Another gold digger trying to fund her retirement because she’s way past her marketing years.  Quite common nowadays.

 

Why didn’t she bring the charges up 30 years ago?  She’s following the others doing the same exact tactics.

Civil, not criminal says it all.  All about $$$$.

 

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My coffee tastes unusually good this morning.

 

Reminds me of Apocalypse Now " I love the smell of napalm in the morning".

 

Lefties love it when the courts cripple their political rivals. 

 

Screw the ballot box, we can take care of this via the legal system. Eliminate the opposition via a kangaroo court. 

 

Democracy. Lib style.

 

 

 

[impulse]

1 hour ago, ozimoron said:

He didn't care about the amount because he just figures the useful patsies will donate and take care of it.

 

He does care, but he knows there will be an appeal and in the worst case, the plaintiff will negotiate down to a reasonable number rather than risk getting the big goose egg.

 

Just out of curiosity, if she can't even recall what year it happened, are you sure she remembers who did it?  It may have been a Cuomo or even Biden...

 

 

Edited January 27 by impulse

[ozimoron]

5 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

He does care, but he knows there will be an appeal and in the worst case, the plaintiff will negotiate down to a reasonable number rather than risk getting the big goose egg.

 

Just out of curiosity, if she can't even recall what year it happened, are you sure she remembers who did it?  It may have been a Cuomo or even Biden...

 

 

That ship has sailed.

[jerrymahoney]

37 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

What is your point? The second trial was only ever about damages. Any attempt at a redo was inadmissible. Standard legal procedure.

That if the first trial (the NY State Victims trial) is reversed on appeal, so will be the verdict arrived today.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That if the first trial (the NY State Victims trial) is reversed on appeal, so will be the verdict arrived today.

 

That's not my understanding. Trump is appealing the amount of damages in the first trial, not the actual guilty verdict. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that's the case then a victory on the damages awarded in the first trial will have no impact on the second.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

LOL - it will be appealed and he will win - but the TDS woke liberals think this is a 'victory'.

As Don would say - 2024 is going to be yuuuuuuge !!  

Get that popcorn ready .........

Is that the ‘Liquid Gold Popcorn’?

 

And don’t drop your crystal ball, you might shatter your delusions.

[Chomper Higgot]

42 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Reminds me of Apocalypse Now " I love the smell of napalm in the morning".

 

Lefties love it when the courts cripple their political rivals. 

 

Screw the ballot box, we can take care of this via the legal system. Eliminate the opposition via a kangaroo court. 

 

Democracy. Lib style.

 

 

 

Got a problem with the rule of law Jonny, or is just the bit where Trump gets held to account for his actions you don’t like?

 

 

Edited January 27 by Chomper Higgot

[jerrymahoney]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, jerrymahoney said:

That if the first trial (the NY State Victims trial) is reversed on appeal, so will be the verdict arrived today.

If.

 

In the meantime Trump has to stump up another $83.3Million.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

48 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Another gold digger trying to fund her retirement because she’s way past her marketing years.  Quite common nowadays.

 

Why didn’t she bring the charges up 30 years ago?  She’s following the others doing the same exact tactics.

Civil, not criminal says it all.  All about $$$$.

 

The kind of garbage that got Trump into court in the first place.

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, jerrymahoney said:

You are wrong.

 

You just got yourself on my ignore list for that little display of intellectual prowess.

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, impulse said:

he knows there will be an appeal and in the worst case, the plaintiff will negotiate down to a reasonable number rather than risk getting the big goose egg.

Care to provide the legal basis for that claim?

[jerrymahoney]

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

You just got yourself on my ignore list for that little display of intellectual prowess.

So if I said the appeal is based on rules of evidence and not the amount of damages that would have sufficed, huh?

[jerrymahoney]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If.

 

In the meantime Trump has to stump up another $83.3Million.

 

 

Yes. Cash or a bond.

[G_Money]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If.

 

In the meantime Trump has to stump up another $83.3Million.

 

 

Pocket change for Trump

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, BenStark said:

 

I know some that will cry themselves to sleep

But unlike so many Trump supporters, they still wouldn't be crying 3 years after the election.

[earlinclaifornia]

59 minutes ago, G_Money said:

Another gold digger trying to fund her retirement because she’s way past her marketing years.  Quite common nowadays.

 

Why didn’t she bring the charges up 30 years ago?  She’s following the others doing the same exact tactics.

Civil, not criminal says it all.  All about $$$$.

 

Let me introduce you to the truth by explaining how to use this thing called Google!

[G_Money]

11 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

 

You just got yourself on my ignore list for that little display of intellectual prowess.

Can’t take the heat?  Too much pressure?