Sir, I like how you think.
So if she does decide to sue again, how long till the case sees a courtroom and how long would the trial take?
The assault is now a matter of established fact right? So wouldnt need to be tried again?
And his comments are pretty unequivocal with no wiggle room?
In this sort of situation, how high could punitive damages go? If the previous award wasnt enough of a punishment, can they double or triple it?
If I were Carroll, I’d wait. The Orange Toddler has no self-control, and as he continues defaming Carroll, the devoted adulation of his sycophantic followers will embolden him to unleash his grievances even more bigly, as he always does with the predictability of a cuckoo clock. And when the defamatory harangues become indisputably egregious, Carroll should pounce!
With big settlements almost certainly coming her way, and lawyers probably happy to take her cases on contingency, she effectively has unlimited legal resources. And she did promise to use the funds for causes that Trump hates, and what better example of such a cause than to keep dragging the obstreperous toddler back into court for ever higher judgments? 
Can his latest comments be used against him in his apoeal?
No. Appeals are only for determining if something legalistic was wrong in the original case. Things like the judge making an improper ruling or some evidence was not admissible, things like that. You can’t introduce new evidence in an appeal.
That wouldn’t work for me. I understand that the bond posting requirement is to ensure that the judgement CAN be paid after an unsuccessful appeal, but given the America-hating fuckstick’s documented history of not paying his bills, the bond should ensure that he’s “good for it” (the amount due) both fiscally and behaviorally.
That’s the problem-the competent Evil people will just use him as a shield or barking dog as cover. They won’t make the same mistake again, and the inertia we see from the Republican senators and representatives will vanish.
Because if they declare it too soon, it gives the Democrats more time to campaign on the obvious threat to democracy.
These guys are an insurance company. Figuring out risks and probabilities of sometimes very complicated things is what they do, and they’ve done it well enough to stay in business for a long time.
So they’ve done the math on all this. Both the odds of Trump winning or losing the appeal, and probably of him winning or losing the election, and what that means for their prospects of being repaid in any given case. And they seem to have come down on the side of “We’ll get our money back”.
This gives me hope, actually, since the biggest risk to them, it seems to me, is Trump winning the election, and wielding his power to prevent them from collecting their money. If they’re willing to bet on him, it looks to me like they’re betting he’s going to lose the election.
And then there’s this asshole:
So, $83 million isn’t enough to shut him up. Are we taking bets on what the next award will be?
FWIW, Chubb Insurance Company of Russia is part of Chubb Insurance LLC.
Pure happenstance.
Can it be introduced as evidence that the original penalty was not excessive and should not be reduced?
Trump says that E. Jean Carroll created false stories about what he did to her. Does basically calling her a liar count as defamation?
Fairly sure not. The original penalty was based on the evidence presented in court at that time. Anything in the future of that is not applicable.
AIUI, a judgement (ruling or verdict) in a case is made in the first court of hearing. When you get to Appeals courts, you are no longer addressing the original question, you are addressing whether the first court ruled correctly. Hence, the only evidence you can offer is from the proceedings of the first court (or evidence that might impugn the impartiality of the first judge, I think). All the way to SCotUS, the appeals process is about the original hearing process and what was wrong with it, or, perhaps, how the last appeals court erred.
I believe that in very rare cases, the Appeals court has the ability to hear a case “de novo” (as new) and can actually take a look at the original evidence and essentially retry the case.
Hmm, sorry if I wasn’t clear, I’m imagining an exchange like this:
Trump, the judgment was excessive.
Carol, and yet it hasn’t changed defendants behavior.
Judge, yeah, judgement stands, bang.
Then current wife, yes.
Yes, but it depends on what he is saying she lied about as to whether it’s covered by the previous judgement or a new liability case. Lied about the rape, already proven in court. Lied about effects of the publicity from the rape, likely new suit.
The lawsuit is about behavior. Punitive damages are all about preventing future misbehavior. If Trump is claiming the punitive damages are excessive, shouldn’t his continued misbehavior be allowed for consideration? It goes directly to the claim being questioned.
In the deposition he referred to her as “my wife”, not “my ex-wife”. Perhaps he got Marla confused with “Mercedes”.