E. Jean Carroll is a rich woman.

After trying to burn down America for everyone else first of course!

 

Yes on all points.

I'm just curious what his argument will be - what will be the basis for his request to lower the judgement.

Trump has done real and lasting damage to her life, done knowingly and willingly and against the demands of the rape case settlement.

Is he going to plead poverty? Is he going to plead that Carroll's life isn't worth that much?

Also, we'll see if Trump can stop his assaults long enough to appeal. One might note that he said nothing about Carroll after the judgement!!

 

This recent large judgement has to do with Trump's attacks AFTER the original trial.

The trial judge was explicit about that throughout the trial, including directing the jury not to base their decision on that previous verdict.

 

This last case is a civil case brought by Carroll due to Trump's continuing attacks on her.

As for your views concerning Trump, I'd point out that he has worked hard to defeat democracy through numerous criminal acts and is currently fighting for the right of presidents to be totally above the law.

If YOU prefer to end democracy, what form of decision making do you want as a replacement?

Are you actually promoting dictatorship?

 

As for the basis of appeal ...

Sooner or later Trump could well decide to `appeal on the basis of the unbelievably weak and sometimes even illegal defense representation he has had in ALL his cases.

If he could make some % of $80M by throwing Habba under the bus, would he do that?

Would he hold off until he knows the outcome of his numerous other cases?

 

Right. But he's going to appeal the original verdict. Which means that the second trial for defamation will be nullified when he wins.

And he will win because she has literally no evidence of her claims.

 

And you know "she has literally no evidence of her claims" because you were on the jury? You were in the courtroom?

 

Won't answer the question, will ya?

What's that like? Following a political ideology that is so partisan, you can't even be honest with yourself?

 

I'm about to get pendantic on you so I apologize

There were two cases filed against Trump by E. Jean Carroll. Both cases involved claims of defamation and sexual assault.

The FIRST case was brought for statements Trump made WHILE President. This case was put on hold while Trump was President and then while his claims of Presidential Immunity wound their way through the courts. This case has been referred to as E. Jean Carroll One (I)

After he lost in 2020 Carroll brought a second case against Trump for statements made AFTER he was President. This case was resolved and resulted in a 5 million dollar judgement against Trump. I've heard this referred to as E. Jean Carroll Two (II)

So while case TWO was brought AFTER case ONE. It was case TWO that was decided first, since there was no "immunity" claims to slow down the process.

It is case ONE that was just decided. The judge had ruled that since in case TWO it had already been found that Trump was liable for the assault and liable for the defamatory statements (that were essentially repeated after Trump left office and were the basis for case TWO) that Carrolls lawyers did not need to prove those in case ONE, it was simply a trial over the damages. After the jury said that Trump needed to pay damages in ONE but before the damages were decided, Trump (ever the idiot) went out and repeated the SAME defamatory statements. So Carrolls lawyers went to the judge and said "We want to add these defamatory statements to the case so the jury can consider those when calculating damages") and the judge agreed.

So, in summary. In case TWO (which was decided first) Carroll was awarded 5 million. In case ONE the jury was deciding on the damages while Trump went out and made MORE defamatory statements which were then added to the calculation for damages in case ONE

 

He is appealing the original jury verdict that he sexually abused Carroll. If that verdict is vacated I assume the defamation damages would be nullified. If the verdict holds he could still get a reduction in the amount of damages. On the positive side, even if he is re-elected, because this is a civil matter, he can't have the whole thing thrown out as he will the cases Jack Smith is prosecuting.

 

This last trial was a totally separate issue, NOT dependent on the previous trial.

Even if he thinks that previous verdict was in error, it doesn't confer to him the right to treat Carroll in the way he did - which is the only issue of the second trial.

 

The judge in the defamation case was meticulous about separating that case from the rape case. The rape case was barred from arguments by council and the jurors were given instructions more than once.

Even if he thinks the rape case was invalid, it doesn't give him the right to do to Jean Carroll what he very clearly did.

Those who are innocent but found guilty don't get a free pass to assault claimant. They DO get to appeal, which is what is provided as a legal way of addressing the problem.

 

Sorry dude - but an appeal does not re-litigate the original evidence. It looks at whether there was any improper conduct by judge or jury. The
case isn't going to be a "do over" on evidence.

 

He still must post 111% of the verdict while case is appealed.

 

One direction he could take is claiming incompetent defense.

Surely at some point he's going to throw Habba under the bus, as she has just been totally incompetent.

But, he also might save that bullet for appealing other of his cases.

 

Absurd that a man would be falsely accused of a rape 28 years ago, and his denials are actionable as slander. Women can make up out of thin air 20 year old rape allegations and if the man denies the accusations, he can be sued for millions.

AND the jury didnt buy her rape allegations. The "rape" case was invalid according to the jury.

 

The creepy crawlies have always been under logs, Trump just kicked the logs over and decided to become their champion.

I suspect her lawyers will advise her to file for injunctive relief. Why would she go through another trial, she's got money now, and an injunction violation would put Trump in jail, or a mega fine, no trial needed.

 

The slander was slander.

If he wins his appeal on the rape case, he may get his $5M back - plus whatever else he could be owed, depending on state law.

 

Truth is a defense to slander

The Jury already rejected the "rape" allegation.

 

Sorry - I find it reasonably believable that Trump assaulted a woman and slander her given his history, so I'm really not surprised that TWO juries, when presented evidence, would find the same thing ...

 

Woops.

In a civil case one can't base an appeal on incompetent defense.

 

I said- "AND the jury didnt buy her rape allegations. The "rape" case was invalid according to the jury." AND only one jury was allowed to see the "evidence" consisting purely of testimony of an assault by the alleged victim and 2 people she told about the allegation.

 

And Jean was 52 years old when she alleges she was raped by Trump.

 

“Wheels of justice grind slow but grind fine.”
― Sun Tzu

 

And I did not say rape - I said sexually assaulted, and the jury DID find Trump liable for that. In our legal system, the jury has to be convinced - not every
Tom, Dick and Harry on the internet. Is what it is. Trump owes the victim a lot of money. If he doesn't learn to control his verbal vomit, he'll owe
her a lot more.