202
submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a New York judge Friday to suspend an $83.3 million defamation verdict against the former president, saying there was a “strong probability” that it would be reduced on appeal, if not eliminated.

The lawyers made the request in Manhattan federal court, where a civil jury in late January awarded the sum to advice columnist E. Jean Carroll after a five-day trial that focused only on damages. A judge had ordered the jury to accept the findings of another jury that last year concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996 and defamed her in 2022.

The second jury focused only on statements Trump made in 2019 while he was president in a case long delayed by appeals.

top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 96 points 6 months ago
[-] Janoose@kbin.social 34 points 6 months ago

Motherfucker was defaming her again just last week at a rally in Michigan. 83m was obviously not punitive enough. Hope she sues him again.

[-] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

She, through her lawyer, already announced they intend to, but as of earlier this week her lawyer said there wasn't quite enough as of yet.

Trump obviously won't leave it alone, though, so knowing her lawyer is looking for it means the next lawsuit is pending.

[-] aidan@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago

Doesn't defamation require damages? At this point how does Trump saying anything damage her more or less?

[-] MisterD@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 months ago

She can't have a normal life. She can't even get groceries be herself without being attacked

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

She's also not a "public person". She has more privacy rights because of it.

And no, she isn't just a "public person" because of the periodic defamation. No court would rule that breaking the law more reduces damages. (Maybe in Alabama?)

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

83^2^ sounds about right. And if they keep going, it keeps getting squared.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago

As much as I want trump to hurt, don't increase it.

For it to stick permanently, based on supreme Court case law, the amount needs to stay below a particular percentage. (I don't remember the specifics, legal eagle has a good video on this)

So if you wanna hurt the Cheeto, hope it stays below that amount.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 48 points 6 months ago

Further, they don't have to increase it. Trump already opened his mouth again making disparaging remarks again after the verdict. He create grounds for a third civil suit. E. Jean Carroll can simply file suit for the third case and with a third verdict.

[-] toasteecup@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Best way to do it imo

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

whelp... now it's squared again.

(I realize... it'll never happen, but seriously. fuck this guy and his delaying tactics.)

[-] gregorum@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago

Isn’t she already suing him a third time?

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago

Her lawyers said "we're watching, we're listening" - so, knowing he who cannot keep his trap shut, we just need to wait.

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 34 points 6 months ago

is 'strong probability' a legal argument? kinda feels like nonsense

[-] roguetrick@kbin.social 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

They need to argue that to get them to suspend it pending appeal. They can't argue for a suspension otherwise. That will get denied, but they've gotta try.

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 31 points 6 months ago

I think this, just like his NY one, are desperate attempts because he doesn't have the money and cannot find anyone to cover a bond for him. He knows the next step is they start seizing assets, and that's when we find out how over leveraged he is on all his properties.

[-] Pofski@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Just a question as a ignorant European. From what I understand he is now a convicted rapist, right? Does that mean he is entered in the sexual offenders database that you have in the states?

[-] cubism_pitta@lemmy.world 30 points 6 months ago

No, he was not actually convicted of rape in a criminal court.

So even though a judge has called him a rapist he is not "legally" a rapist as he has not been found guilty of the crime of rape.

Criminal court is where you go when a DA is brining charges against you. Civil court is the place where you and I would go to settle a lawsuit.

[-] Pretzilla@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

He is legally a rapist now. Adjudicated by the court.

Just not criminally. (Yet)

He was close to getting nailed for child rape but he threatened and intimidated the victim out of testifying and she disappeared.

[-] Pofski@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Thank you for explaining it. I still find it weird how it works, but ok.

[-] MisterD@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago

He was sued CIVILLY. if he is convicted CRIMINALLY then he'll be registered as a sex offender

[-] just_ducky_in_NH@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

This is the U.S.A. Everything is weird.

[-] Steve@startrek.website 5 points 6 months ago

I believe this was all done in civil court, not criminal.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

Next week: Trump's lawyers say to judge, "Is defamation even really a crime? Can you stab someone with a defamation?"

[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 3 points 6 months ago

Yeah I get this one about bed time a lot, too.

this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
202 points (98.1% liked)

News

22890 readers
3015 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS