Trump open for possibly new defamation lawsuit by Carroll

[7thKeeper]

Just a little bit after having gotten a company to post his bond for the bit over 90 million to be able to appeal, it's possible that Trump managed to open himself up for a new lawsuit by Carroll for defamation. Not sure if it'll affect his appeal, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable about how it works can tell.

Donald Trump insults E. Jean Carroll again

The former president has claimed that allegations made against him by the writer were a "totally made-up story."

www.newsweek.com

At a rally, Trump complained about having to post 91 million bond for the appeal and called Carrolls words "a fake story, a totally made-up story." And while not in the link, on a clip from YouTube of the rally, I believe he called her a horseface and claimed again that he didn't know her. Claims that led him to the current 91 million judgement to begin with.

 

[Bradskii]

The gift that keeps on giving.

 

[Ophiolite]

The gift that keeps on giving.

For a moment I thought you had typed grift , but that was just a "by association" kind of thing.

 

[eleos1954]

Just a little bit after having gotten a company to post his bond for the bit over 90 million to be able to appeal, it's possible that Trump managed to open himself up for a new lawsuit by Carroll for defamation. Not sure if it'll affect his appeal, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable about how it works can tell.

Donald Trump insults E. Jean Carroll again

The former president has claimed that allegations made against him by the writer were a "totally made-up story."

www.newsweek.com

At a rally, Trump complained about having to post 91 million bond for the appeal and called Carrolls words "a fake story, a totally made-up story." And while not in the link, on a clip from YouTube of the rally, I believe he called her a horseface and claimed again that he didn't know her. Claims that led him to the current 91 million judgement to begin with.

It's hard to say how this will play out ... we have to wait and see.

However .... we should be very careful with this "name calling" and using it as a case for defamation within itself. Lots of name calling goes on in the world .... do we want to be sued for it every time it happens?

 

[sfs]

do we want to be sued for it every time it happens?

I'm perfectly willing to be sued every time I call someone a name whom I've previously sexually assaulted.

 

[Larniavc]

Just a little bit after having gotten a company to post his bond for the bit over 90 million to be able to appeal, it's possible that Trump managed to open himself up for a new lawsuit by Carroll for defamation. Not sure if it'll affect his appeal, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable about how it works can tell.

Donald Trump insults E. Jean Carroll again

The former president has claimed that allegations made against him by the writer were a "totally made-up story."

www.newsweek.com

At a rally, Trump complained about having to post 91 million bond for the appeal and called Carrolls words "a fake story, a totally made-up story." And while not in the link, on a clip from YouTube of the rally, I believe he called her a horseface and claimed again that he didn't know her. Claims that led him to the current 91 million judgement to begin with.

Who can trust a President who repeated makes the same stupid mistakes because he can’t keep his temper?

People have said the Mr Trump has the emotional capabilities of a toddler. Can there be any other explanation for his repeated, baffling behaviour?

 

[eleos1954]

I'm perfectly willing to be sued every time I call someone a name whom I've previously sexually assaulted.

It hasn't been settled yet. Even so ... Also cases of where a person was convicted of something and later found out they were innocent.

You missed the point about name calling ..... setting a precedence for ANY name calling

Judgement is up to the Lord ... thank God .... I leave all judgement up to Him.

 

[7thKeeper]

It's hard to say how this will play out ... we have to wait and see.

However .... we should be very careful with this "name calling" and using it as a case for defamation within itself. Lots of name calling goes on in the world .... do we want to be sued for it every time it happens?

It's not the name calling. He was found civilly liable for rape and defamation about the matter (calling Carroll a liar and her story a lie). The court found that she was correct and awarded first the 5 million. When Trump then kept saying that she was a liar (after he had been found liable), this crossed into defamation, as there was now a court decision to show that she was correct and hadn't been lying. That went to court and landed Trump with over 80 million to stop him from keeping defaming Carroll. And now he goes and does the same thing that cost him 80 million, again. And if it does go to court, he'll end up paying even more than 80 for this case to boot.

So no, this isn't about name calling.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's hard to say how this will play out ... we have to wait and see.

However .... we should be very careful with this "name calling" and using it as a case for defamation within itself. Lots of name calling goes on in the world .... do we want to be sued for it every time it happens?

I guess it would depend on whether or not the thing he's being sued for is just the ad-hoc name calling, or if it's part of a something that can actually be construed as defamation.

This is the description provided by a few law firms that appears to specialize in it:

What is Defamation?

Call (310) 270-6000 - The Syverson Law Firm is dedicated to providing our clients with legal services in Corporate and Business cases. What is Defamation? - California Corporate Lawyer

www.syversonlaw.com

The Difference Between Defamation and an Insult - Minc Law

The difference between defamation and an insult is that defamation contains a false statement communicated to a third party while an insult is a rude remark.

www.minclaw.com

These links explain what is, and isn't, defamation.

Boiled down in simplistic terms, it has to be something that was done for the specific intent of ruining someone's reputation or accusing them of something, and has to be done in a publicized way.

If I had to venture a guess in what the differentiating factor is in this situation, it's that he's basically accusing her of perjury, and doing so in very public settings. If she filed a lawsuit for something, presented sworn testimony, and won, him saying "she's telling a totally made-up story" after the fact is tantamount to accusing her of lying under oath. (which is a defamatory statement that's accusing someone of something illegal, and that could ruin a person's reputation)

Simple name calling won't meet the criteria for defamation.

He can make all the horse jokes he wants about her, but he can't keep running around in large public venues where the cameras are rolling, claiming that "she's telling a made up story" after the judicial system has already found her claims to be credible.

 

[SimplyMe]

It hasn't been settled yet. Even so ... Also cases of where a person was convicted of something and later found out they were innocent.

You missed the point about name calling ..... setting a precedence for ANY name calling

Judgement is up to the Lord ... thank God .... I leave all judgement up to Him.

It isn't "any" name calling. It is specifically his continual vitriol towards a woman who he was found to have assaulted -- and in particularly his celebrity status in doing it to a private individual.

Probably the best counter example is Nick Sandmann, conservatives felt Nick should get millions for being called names by "the media." I can't imagine how they'd feel, particularly since Sandmann lost every suit he filed (that weren't settled, likely as "nuisance" claims), if the media continued to "call him names" continually, particularly after each lawsuit ending? Can you explain how it would be different?

 

[eleos1954]

It's not the name calling. He was found civilly liable for rape and defamation about the matter (calling Carroll a liar and her story a lie). The court found that she was correct and awarded first the 5 million. When Trump then kept saying that she was a liar (after he had been found liable), this crossed into defamation, as there was now a court decision to show that she was correct and hadn't been lying. That went to court and landed Trump with over 80 million to stop him from keeping defaming Carroll. And now he goes and does the same thing that cost him 80 million, again. And if it does go to court, he'll end up paying even more than 80 for this case to boot.

So no, this isn't about name calling.

The why did you bring it up (calling her horse face)?

Do people lie? Yes Do people get away with it? Yes Are all lies exposed? No Do courts get things wrong sometimes? Yes

Gods absolute perfect judgement for all is coming .... what we may think about judgements by mankind really doesn't matter. Earthly things don't matter. I don't get worked up about them. I focus on the new earth to come.

I trust Him fully in all things.

 

[JustOneWay]

I understand when Trump is in such hot water by more than one woman.

The horse attacks (jokes) were against Stormy Daniels, the woman he performed adultery with.

Carroll was the woman Trump sexually abused, then defamed by Trump

 

[eleos1954]

It isn't "any" name calling. It is specifically his continual vitriol towards a woman who he was found to have assaulted -- and in particularly his celebrity status in doing it to a private individual.

Probably the best counter example is Nick Sandmann, conservatives felt Nick should get millions for being called names by "the media." I can't imagine how they'd feel, particularly since Sandmann lost every suit he filed (that weren't settled, likely as "nuisance" claims), if the media continued to "call him names" continually, particularly after each lawsuit ending? Can you explain how it would be different?

Court Cases set precedences .... if name calling is ... in this case (or other cases) is used as grounds for defamation ... then this is a very dangerous thing.

Freedom of speech shouldn't be taken lightly.

 

[7thKeeper]

The why did you bring it up (calling her horse face)?

Because he said it. It isn't related to any lawsuits, but just goes to show his character.

Do people lie? Yes Do people get away with it? Yes Are all lies exposed? No Do courts get things wrong sometimes? Yes

Gods absolute perfect judgement for all is coming .... what we may think about judgements by mankind really doesn't matter. Earthly things don't matter. I don't get worked up about them. I focus on the new earth to come.

I trust Him fully in all things.

And this has what to do with Trump defaming Carroll again?

 

[SimplyMe]

Court Cases set precedences .... if name calling is ... in this case (or other cases) is used as grounds for defamation ... then this is a very dangerous thing.

Freedom of speech shouldn't be taken lightly.

Then perhaps we should get rid of slander laws entirely. Seriously, that is exactly what slander is.

OTOH, you are missing the other key element -- someone who is a "public figure" making these comments about a "private person." The issue here is that the average person had no clue who Carroll was, prior to Trump's continually talking about her. For example, I suspect that Carroll has to hire private security, as she likely gets threats every time Trump mentions here -- so the lawsuits are, in major part, an attempt to recover the money she has lost in disruption to her life, the issues it may cause in her seeking a job, etc.

Now, if I call you names, neither of us are famous (at least that we know of) so you can't sue me since it really hasn't caused any financial damages or disruption to your life. When Trump called Stormy Daniels "horseface" then she couldn't sue, since they are both famous already and she couldn't really claim any financial loss. If I call Trump names, it doesn't hurt Trump at all as I don't have the platform where people would care greatly about my opinion. But, if Trump were to call me names, then I'd likely face financial losses -- such as having to get security to deal with the various threats I might receive -- and at that point I could sue.

It is much more nuanced then you are trying to claim.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I understand when Trump is in such hot water by more than one woman.

The horse attacks (jokes) were against Stormy Daniels, the woman he performed adultery with.

Carroll was the woman Trump sexually abused, then defamed by Trump

Well, either way lol...

I was just simply pointing out that it's not the shallow name-calling that's landing him in hot water with regards to the defamation lawsuits.

 

[eleos1954]

Then perhaps we should get rid of slander laws entirely. Seriously, that is exactly what slander is.

OTOH, you are missing the other key element -- someone who is a "public figure" making these comments about a "private person." The issue here is that the average person had no clue who Carroll was, prior to Trump's continually talking about her. For example, I suspect that Carroll has to hire private security, as she likely gets threats every time Trump mentions here -- so the lawsuits are, in major part, an attempt to recover the money she has lost in disruption to her life, the issues it may cause in her seeking a job, etc.

Now, if I call you names, neither of us are famous (at least that we know of) so you can't sue me since it really hasn't caused any financial damages or disruption to your life. When Trump called Stormy Daniels "horseface" then she couldn't sue, since they are both famous already and she couldn't really claim any financial loss. If I call Trump names, it doesn't hurt Trump at all as I don't have the platform where people would care greatly about my opinion. But, if Trump were to call me names, then I'd likely face financial losses -- such as having to get security to deal with the various threats I might receive -- and at that point I could sue.

It is much more nuanced then you are trying to claim.

I'm not going to discuss this any more here .... because earthly things don't matter. Its a waste of time.

I trust God fully and remain there. His judgements are the only ones that matter.

God Bless.

 

[JustOneWay]

Well, either way lol...

I was just simply pointing out that it's not the shallow name-calling that's landing him in hot water with regards to the defamation lawsuits.

Yes, the OP also made the comment. I do not believe Trump ever called Carroll a horse-face, although I could see him getting the women mixed up just like Biden is Obama. And yes, this petty name calling will not land him in legal water....but just think about a president openly calling a woman he had sex with while his young child and wife were at home, to be horse-face like the insult came out of a 10 year old's mouth. Was 'cooties' abandoned for being too mild of an insult? He chose to have relations with a woman he believes to look like a horse.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, the OP also made the comment. I do not believe Trump ever called Carroll a horse-face, although I could see him getting the women mixed up just like Biden is Obama. And yes, this petty name calling will not land him in legal water....but just think about a president openly calling a woman he had sex with while his young child and wife were at home, to be horse-face like the insult came out of a 10 year old's mouth. Was 'cooties' abandoned for being too mild of an insult? He chose to have relations with a woman he believes to look like a horse.

It's certainly not a good look.

I was hoping we'd have 2 different choices to pick from by 2024. If you'd have asked me if we'd be having a re-run of 2020 in 2024, I would've said "no way in the world".

Ideally, we need to get back where the level of civility and refinement matches that of a Bill Clinton v. Bob Dole election. Where both teams can have a dog in the fight that they don't have to "look the other way" on 2 dozen different things in order to stomach voting for them.

"Slurring geriatric who needs to be helped off the stage" vs. "career grifter/reality tv show blowhard who wears too much spray tan" (while both teams pretend that clearly obvious issues are "not a big issue") isn't exactly what I would consider to be ideal. Gun to my head, I'd have to grit my teeth and vote for the former again, but I'm not thrilled about it lol.


Hepatitis is worse than crabs, but that doesn't mean that I want crabs, nor should I have to pretend there's nothing wrong with crabs and any complaints about crabs are just an overreaction.

 

[loveofourlord]

Stupid question, from a legal point of view. If trump appealed the original case and was found not to have raped her by a later court, would that remove the defemation judgement?