2nd E. Jean Carroll defamation case (1 Viewer)

[zztop]

From the article, while he was in the courthouse, he was making disparaging social media posts against Carroll and the judge. The judge went so far as to instruct the jury not to use their real names, but pseudonyms. I can't imagine what it would be like to suffer from having someone send their army of online minions/zealots to enact retribution..

Trump goes back to court as E. Jean Carroll’s defamation trial begins

Between winning Iowa and flying to New Hampshire, Trump came to court for jury selection.

www.politico.com

It is Trump’s second trial against the writer E. Jean Carroll, who won her first case against the former president last year when a jury found him liable for sexually abusing her in the 1990s and then defaming her in 2022. That jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million in damages.

The current trial concerns separate comments that Trump made about Carroll in 2019, while Trump was president. The jury’s job is to determine not whether Trump defamed Carroll in those comments — U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has already ruled that he did — but simply how much Trump should pay her in damages. (Any award would come on top of the $5 million awarded in the 2023 trial.)

 

[Lapaz]

Alina Habba is working pro bono because Donny isn’t going to pay her.

He will have even less money to pay her after this verdict. Is he paying, or is he getting the money from his donors?

 

[superchuck500]

I expected Trump to lose in the civil case due to the lower standard of proof required, but just 1 Trumpist can ruin a criminal case. I think it will be hard to avoid a Trumpist slipping onto each of the juries to nullify when he has brainwashed 3 out of 10 Americans.

Fair point

 

[fooferdoggie]

She’s so comically bad. I’m 100% certain that a substantial part of this result is owed to her being absolutely terrible.

its all that's left trump has fcuked so many layers in so many ways. he is stuck with the bottom of the barrel. I really get a kick out of it now he is stuck with Yes men. So instead of layers that are good fighters he has lawyers who are great suckers.

 

[fooferdoggie]

He will have even less money to pay her after this verdict. Is he paying, or is he getting the money from his donors?

trump never pays he own bills. that's why he is stuck with this loser lawyer. she has thrown her career away and I am so happy about that.

 

[nolaspe]

 

[MT15]

Yeah, he threw Habba under the bus….

 

[fooferdoggie]

Yeah, he threw Habba under the bus….

he did not choose he was stuck with her the only idiot Lawyer willing to work with him. her has no choice anymore since he burned so many bridges in the legal field.

 

[MT15]

Well, crud, this was fake. Shoulda known better

 

[DaveXA]

Well, crud, this was fake. Shoulda known better

Yeah, it didn't really read like a garden variety Trump post.

 

[Booker]

Brian Manookian

@BrianManookian

Let me ruin the suspense for everyone. Trump doesn't have an appeal.

I know the talking heads on TV (who have never tried a case or appealed a jury verdict) have to mention it. Here's why it isn't going to fly.

To have a meritorious appeal, you have to preserve a reversible error at the trial level. This is why you hire competent counsel. You need someone who actually knows the rules of evidence and procedure.

Alina Habba had no clue what was occurring throughout the trial. She not only failed to preserve any remote grounds for appeal, like a moron, she repeatedly and unintentionally waived them over and over.

For example, she kept saying "no objection" as exhibits were entered into evidence.

It appeared to me that she was saying that because she that's something she had heard real lawyers say before.

Unfortunately for Mr. Trump, what she was doing over and over was waiving his ability to appeal over those evidentiary issues. Because she is a moron who would rather *play* lawyer than do the research to *be* a lawyer.

There's no appeal here. And because people have asked me in the past, no, there is no such thing as an incompetent counsel defense in civil cases. That's for criminal matters.

Take this verdict to the bank.

 

[efil4]

 

[Optimus Prime]

On Tuesday, New Hampshire Republican primary voters put Donald Trump on a glide path to the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, leading high-ranking Republicans to declare the race effectively over.

Three days later, those GOP officials got a taste of what they will be forced to account for over the next nine months. And it reinforced how difficult that’s going to be.

A jury ruled Friday that Trump must pay E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million for defaming her in the aftermath of her public claim that he sexually assaulted her in the mid-1990s. The judgment comes on top of a $5 million verdict in May, when Trump was found liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll. The more recent judgment, unlike its predecessor, dealt with comments Trump made as president. The judge in the cases has said Trump was effectively found liable for rape.

Republicans have now begun to face the kinds of questions they are likely to encounter for months to come, amid Trump’s many other legal problems. And if the early evidence is any indication, they will attempt a whole lot of deflecting.

The few big-name Republicans who were forced to weigh in over the weekend — even his one remaining 2024 primary opponent, Nikki Haley — generally declined to address the merits of the case or cast moral judgment on Trump.

Perhaps most notably, even when they did gesture at Trump’s claims that he is being targeted by the legal system, they kept that allegation somewhat at arm’s length.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) was asked on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” whether the verdict gave him any pause about Trump’s returning to office. “It doesn’t,” he said.

“It’s been interesting the number of legal cases that have come up against President Trump and then have failed and have been dropped or have been kicked out of the courts on it,” Lankford said. “This one … actually went through. He’s already said he’s going to challenge it. So let the courts actually make their decisions, and let the American people make their decisions.”

Lankford has not yet endorsed Trump, but Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) has.
Appearing on ABC News’s “This Week,” Scott was twice asked a similar question and avoided a direct answer. He instead suggested that other issues were more important:

MARTHA RADDATZ: Does that give you any pause in your support?
SCOTT: You know, myself and all the voters that support Donald Trump supports a return to normalcy, as it relates to what affects their kitchen table. The average person in our country, Martha, isn’t — they’re not talking about lawsuits. As a matter of fact, what I have seen, however, is that the perception that the legal system is being weaponized against Donald Trump is actually increasing his poll numbers.
RADDATZ: I understand that, but this was — they were jury trials. They were jury trials. They started when Donald Trump was president. Does that gives you no pause whatsoever?
SCOTT: I don’t have a — the Democrats don’t pause when they think about Hunter Biden and the challenges that he brings to his father. The one thing I think the electorate is thinking about most often is how in the world will the next president impact my quality of life? How will America regain its standing in this world? They were better off under Trump, and they’re looking for four more years of low inflation, low crime, low unemployment and high enthusiasm for our country. We haven’t had that in the last four years.

What you might notice about both of these responses is that neither of them is truly vouching for Trump’s actions or claims of persecution. Lankford mentions that Trump is facing lots of legal cases but says we should wait for an appeal to render judgment; Scott merely cites “the perception that the legal system is being weaponized” without saying that’s what has happened in this case.

The one Republican who did lean in on the idea that Trump did something wrong was Haley. But even for her, it involved a dance. She mostly focused on the idea that this was a distraction that showed why the party should nominate her instead of Trump.............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/29/gop-struggles-trump-verdicts/

 

[Optimus Prime]

E Jean Carroll intends to spend the $83m awarded to her in her defamation trial against Donald Trump on something the former president “hates”, she revealed just days after the judgment.

On Friday, the jury in Carroll’s case decided that she should receive $18.3m in compensatory damages and $65m punitive retribution in the case pitting her against Trump. Of the $18.3m, Trump was told to pay Carroll $11m to fund a reputational repair campaign and $7.3m for the emotional harm caused by statements he made against her in 2019.

Carroll and her legal team did not speak to reporters as they left court but broke their public silence on Monday in an interview with Good Morning America.


Alongside her lawyer Roberta Kaplan, Carroll told host George Stephanopoulos that Friday’s win had left her overcome with “elation”.

“It filled me up … It was almost painful,” she said, adding: “Today, I’m very happy.

Stephanopoulos asked her to give the public an idea as to how she planned to spend the millions of dollars she has won, and Carroll provided a clear outline.

“I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates,” Carroll said. “If it’ll cause him pain for me to give money to certain things, that’s my intent.”

Carroll also said that she would perhaps explore giving to “a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump”……..

E Jean Carroll aims to give defamation money ‘to something Trump hates’

Former Elle columnist tells Good Morning America: ‘If it’ll cause him pain for me to give money to certain things, that’s my intent’

www.theguardian.com

 

[MT15]

Habba actually filed a brief based on a NY Post article that claimed Judge Kaplan had mentored Carroll’s lawyer 30 years ago when they both worked for the same huge law firm for 2 years.

Needless to say, the NYP was wrong about the mentoring. Habba says “never mind”. lol.

 

[Booker]

Trump says he’s interviewing new lawyers for Carroll case appeal, attacks judge

Former President Trump suggested late Tuesday night he may be shopping for new lawyers to represent him in an imminent appeal of the damages verdict in the case brought against him by writer E. Jean Carroll. A New York City jury last week ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million for defaming...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Booker]

Trump must still cough up at least $90M in E. Jean Carroll verdict — and soon — even though an appeal means she has to wait for it

Trump can appeal his E. Jean Carroll verdict, but he still must hand over damages, plus interest, within 30 days of the judge's written judgment.

www.yahoo.com

Here's an added wrinkle.

Within days, a Manhattan judge is set to issue a verdict in the New York attorney general's nearly five-year effort to hold Trump accountable for business fraud at the Trump Organization.

The judge has already ruled that Trump exaggerated his net worth by $2 billion or more a year in a decade's worth of annual financial statements he issued to banks.

Among the penalties the attorney general is hoping for in the upcoming verdict are a payment of $370 million and a five-year ban on Trump applying for loans from any New York-registered financial institution.

A costly AG verdict and a ban on borrowing would limit Trump's options when it comes to setting aside Carroll's damages. He may have to rely on the cash he has on hand to cover both massive verdicts — or even start selling assets.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Trump says he’s interviewing new lawyers for Carroll case appeal, attacks judge

Former President Trump suggested late Tuesday night he may be shopping for new lawyers to represent him in an imminent appeal of the damages verdict in the case brought against him by writer E. Jean Carroll. A New York City jury last week ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million for defaming...

www.yahoo.com

what he is looking for a ambulance chaser? there is nothing left he already hit the bottom of the barrel.
listening to Rachel maddow there are no grounds for appeal since his lawyer forked up so bad.