Trump ordered to pay $83.3 million to E Jean Caroll

[emailking]

Jury awards E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million from Trump for 2019 defamatory statements

Former President Donald Trump should pay $83.3 million to writer E. Jean Carroll for public statements he made in 2019 disparaging Carroll and denying her rape allegations, a Manhattan federal jury determined Friday.

The jury found Trump should pay Carroll compensatory damages of $18.3 million — $11 million to fund a reputational repair campaign and $7.3 million for the emotional harm caused by Trump’s 2019 public statements.

Trump should also pay $65 million in punitive damages for acting maliciously in making the statements about Carroll, the jury found.

The total is more than eight times what Carroll asked for in her initial lawsuit.

Last May, a separate Manhattan federal jury awarded Carroll a total of $5 million in damages — including nearly $3 million for defamation — after they found that Trump sexually abused Carroll and then defamed her in 2022 for public statements he made disparaging her and denying the allegations.

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

[emailking]

Apparently he has to pay this, now, as a bond while it is appealed. Because punitive is less than 10 times compensatory it's not likely to be knocked down significantly.

[emailking]

How is that possible when her attorneys were seeking 10 million?

65M of the 83M is punitive damages, which jurors can award to any amount they choose (depending on laws in their jurisdiction).

Whatever someone thinks of Trump that is a ridiculous amount in punitive damages. How do you come to that number and with what calculation?

Can you appeal that?

The jury is allowed to consider trump's net worth and give an amount in punitive that would meaningfully hurt him and make him stop the defamation. yes it can be appealed but as I just posted, it's not likely to be kocked down much (unless he wins on the question of whether or not he assaulted her).

[emailking]

How is that possible when her attorneys were seeking 10 million?

65M of the 83M is punitive damages, which jurors can award to any amount they choose (depending on laws in their jurisdiction).

Whatever someone thinks of Trump that is a ridiculous amount in punitive damages. How do you come to that number and with what calculation?

Can you appeal that?

The jury is allowed to consider trump's net worth and give an amount in punitive that would meaningfully hurt him and make him stop the defamation. yes it can be appealed but as I just posted, it's not likely to be kocked down much (unless he wins on the question of whether or not he assaulted her).

What proof did the jury even have that he assaulted her considering it was 27 years ago?

The judge ruled that the question was already settled from the other trial. So the jury was only determining whether she was owed damages for his statements and how much. They did not hear any evidence that he assaulted her because it was taken as a given for this trial. However if he wins his appeal in the first case where the jury found him liable for sexual assault that could impact this case.

[emailking]

The biggest actual impact is money spent on all his legal problems is less money he (and Rs) will have to actually campaign

Blatant election interference

It's not, but either way Republican primary voters have a choice to not choose the guy with mounting legal problems and debt.

Sounds like a mafia threat. The thing about opening pandora's box is that lawfare will be used on your people too

This is why he's winning by such an overwhelming margin, btw. If Dems weren't such authoritarians then Rs would be looking at a lot of other factors in the primary, but this stuff just galvanizes people for Trump

If Biden raped anybody they're welcome to sue him for it too in an election year. Hasn't happened.

[emailking]

There wasn't evidence. Civil cases are decided based on if you think there's a 51% chance he did it and the jury of NY democrats decided no evidence is good enough to find him liable

Seriously, I'm open to changing my mind if you have any evidence. I don't think the election was stolen. I like data. So please provide one piece of evidence that this happened. You can't, because it doesn't exist

Her testimony under oath is evidence. It might not be convincing to you but it doesn't matter, legally it's evidence. So there. There was evidence.

[emailking]

There wasn't evidence. Civil cases are decided based on if you think there's a 51% chance he did it and the jury of NY democrats decided no evidence is good enough to find him liable

Seriously, I'm open to changing my mind if you have any evidence. I don't think the election was stolen. I like data. So please provide one piece of evidence that this happened. You can't, because it doesn't exist

Her testimony under oath is evidence. It might not be convincing to you but it doesn't matter, legally it's evidence. So there. There was evidence.

What assurance do you have to know she didn't lie under oath?

None and I don't need any for it to be evidence.

[emailking]

There wasn't evidence. Civil cases are decided based on if you think there's a 51% chance he did it and the jury of NY democrats decided no evidence is good enough to find him liable

Seriously, I'm open to changing my mind if you have any evidence. I don't think the election was stolen. I like data. So please provide one piece of evidence that this happened. You can't, because it doesn't exist

Her testimony under oath is evidence. It might not be convincing to you but it doesn't matter, legally it's evidence. So there. There was evidence.

What a laughable argument. The accusation is the proof? Gotta do better than that bud

You didn't say proof, you said evidence, namely one piece of it.

[emailking]

Yeah I should also note her testimony under oath is not just evidence (whether she's lying or not) but it's sufficient evidence to find him liable for sexual assault if the jury finds it credible and does not find her credibility impugned by other evidence. It could even be sufficient for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal trial, however, that doesn't usually work out in practice without some corroborating evidence. Other evidence in this case though is her friend that she told about the assault contemporaneously and who testified to that in the first trial.

[emailking]

geez and I just supported your sentiment in the other thread. uggh

[emailking]

They are going to appeal.

We don't know that actually. He needs to put up 83.3 million in cash, now, in order to appeal, and pay interest on that in the meantime, for an appeal that's not likely to succeed. Another possibility is the lawyers try to make a deal to pay some fraction of the amount owed.

[emailking]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

It's allowed, but if you're guilty it's probably not a good idea.

[emailking]

Yes, if he had stayed quiet - the $5 million verdict would have been it. You can’t say he didn’t bring this one on himself

E Jean Carroll is clearly lying, and the $5 million award is bad. But he didn’t have to make it worse on himself

So asserting your innocence is not allowed as a candidate for office? Assert innocence = pay $83m, this is some banana republic sh*t..

False generalization.  If Trump had limited himself to asserting his innocence and defending himself in court, there never would have been a defamation case.  But Trump didn't do that, and instead continually and viciously attacked her -- even after he had been found liable for sexually assaulting her.

So if a women makes a public accusation accuses a man of sexual assault (regardless of If true or not) the man has no right to defend himself publically? I’m not trying to be a smart ass, just genially asking? If so, I don’t understand how that can be fair an allowed. The man’s reputation could take a huge hit even if he is found innocent. If someone accused me of rape publically, I think it’s a pretty common reaction to want to come out and defend yourself pubcally so I can’t understand how that is defaming someone.

Saying he's innocent is not defamation. Calling her a whack job, for example, could be though.

[emailking]

Trump had a Memorial Day message for the judge today.

Happy Memorial Day to All, including the Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country, & to the Radical Left, Trump Hating Federal Judge in New York that presided over, get this, TWO separate trials, that awarded a woman, who I never met before (a quick handshake at a celebrity event, 25 years ago, doesn’t count!), 91 MILLION DOLLARS for “DEFAMATION.” She didn’t know when the so-called event took place - sometime in the 1990’s - never filed a police report, didn’t have to produce the “dress” that she threatened me with (it showed negative!), & sung my praises in the first half of her CNN Interview with Alison Cooper, but changed her tune in the second half - Gee, I wonder why (UNDER APPEAL!)? The Rape charge was dropped by a jury! Or Arthur Engoron, the N.Y. State Wacko Judge who fined me almost 500 Million Dollars (UNDER APPEAL) for DOING NOTHING WRONG, used a Statute that has never been used before, gave me NO JURY, Mar-a-Lago at $18,000,000 - Now for Merchan!