All right. Say three, maybe three and a half weeks before any actual news breaks. Thanks.
I believe we were at t= 22 yesterday. That is what I remember hearing on one of the news shows.
Wow…this guy simply cannot learn. The level of stupid is stunning.
What the article doesn’t mention (and it’s the only thing that’s relevant) is what he said. He can talk about her and mock her all he wants as long as he doesn’t defame her anymore. He can say he can’t stand her and she’s a nasty woman, or say that the case was unjust. He just can’t call her a liar or anything else the case covered without putting himself back in legal jeopardy yet again.
Now, do I believe he would defame her? Of course, he’s like the scorpion in the “scorpion and the frog” story. I’m just wondering if he actually did.
Certainly Trump can still say things about Carroll and not get in trouble at all. Free speech still applies. If he says he thinks she is a bitch he can say that.
But, he has already lost two defamation cases to her and almost $90 million. Trump cannot be counted on to restrain what he says so he needs to STFU as regards Carroll (at least in public). If I were his friend or family that’s what I would advise. I imagine his attorneys would tell him the same.
That said, I hope he steps on that Carroll defamation landmine again. He has only himself to blame.
Got you covered.
So yes, he’s absolutely repeating the “I never met her” lie.
Well that’s a sure way to win your appeal - just keep up with the defamation. Brilliant strategy sir!
Eh, I think he can get away with this one.
He’s saying “who the hell is she?” Not “I never met her”
It’s an admission of his failing memory, not a lie about what previously happened.
ETA: I notice his also never mentions Carroll by name. I bet that comes from lawyerly advice.
Maybe? I realize this may just be talk:
An attorney representing E. Jean Carroll has indicated the journalist could sue Donald Trump for a third time, as the former president continues to speak about her client publicly.
Speaking on MSNBC’s Inside With Jen Psaki on Monday night, Shawn Crowley, an attorney for Carroll, responded to the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination telling supporters at a Michigan rally on Saturday that he had not done anything wrong to Carroll, whom he claimed he did not know, and that lawsuits against him were “unfair.”
Questions, if she winds up going forward:
-
Is there any existing precedent in defamation-related caselaw for a respondent being so completely unable to shut up that he gets hit with repeated escalating judgments? If so, how did the damages scale up over time?
-
Is there any amount of money that will convince Trump that he needs to button his yap? I know this is necessarily speculative but I just don’t see “take your lumps and go home” in his wiring; on the other hand he does love money. A real Sophie’s Choice for him there.
-
How far down into the dregs of shitty attorneys with no prospects or self-esteem will he have to delve to find representation in a matter where he’s indisputably the chief problem with the case?
I doubt his comments in Michigan crossed the line, but if in the future he decides to say her name when disparaging the judgement I gleefully look forward to him getting out his checkbook once again.
I kind of hate to ask, but: putting aside how much he owes her, how much money has she actually gotten from him?
Since it’s on appeal, none so far. My understanding is for him to appeal he must post a bond. So at least the money isn’t in his pocket while out on appeal. In the end in order to collect anything Carrol will likely have to chase down the money. And that would mean doing things like putting liens on his property.
But assuming she wins the appeal, the money goes directly from escrow to her, right?
Earlier in the thread I suggested it would be better for her if he did appeal. On the assumption that the appeal won’t change anything, it means she’ll get the money when the case is over instead of having to try to collect it later. But I don’t know if that’s actually the case.
Yes, it will.
So, wouldn’t this be a whole new grounds for a defamation lawsuit? Now, he’s not just saying she was lying about the rape, he’s accusing her of being complicit in a plot to affect the US presidential election. If this case was nothing more than an “unfair” persecution for political reasons, wouldn’t she have to be a central part of that?
I believe that he has already put up a $5M deposit when he appealed the first decision. If he wants to appeal the second decision he needs to put up another what, $80M. So if he dosn’t appeal within a couple of weeks she automaticlly gets the $5M.
Putting up an additional bond seems like a bad idea for Trump, which means he will most likely do it. At least I hope so.
If it plays out that way, I’ll bet he gets his base whipped into a frenzy when he convinces them that he “already paid” her, while ignoring the remaining $80m.
The $5M was for the first judgment, which I believe he has appealed. That money is locked up and safe until that appeal is over. So, if he doesn’t appeal the second judgment, she could start trying to collect the $80+ million, but not the first $5M.
I think you’re saying that the $5M is a Trump asset that she could grab to satisfy the second judgment. I don’t believe that is true, but it would be fun if it was.
No, I’m thinking that the $5M is money that Trump actually put up in order to file an appeal, and if doesn’t appeal the second one that $5M should go to her. It isn’t an asset, but a promise to pay if he loses or fails to appeal the second verdict. Isn’t that the point in him putting up the $5M? She gets at least $5M without have to try collecting on anything.