I’ve asked this question before, in the “DJT v. EJC” thread, but maybe it’s too much of a hijack there, so:
'splain me why DJT isn’t risking certain damages in a second (or third?) defamation trial by repeating that which he got found liable of committing defamation in the first trial?
I was expecting him to be slippery, to ALMOST repeat his previous defamations, or to go into “You can probably guess what I think of her” mode, but he appears to me (a non-lawyer) to be taunting her to sue him again, a case I can’t imagine her not prevailing in again.
To me it seems like he’s handing her a 5 million dollar check again, every time he repeats his defaming remarks, but he obviously feels safe from another lawsuit. It’s as if he can claim, the day after the verdict, “Oops, I forgot that was considered a defamatory remark–sorry” is it?
The alternative to his being forbidden to defame her repeatedly is that he’s free to defame her all he likes because he’s already been found liable and the damages have been assessed, which is crazy.
I am not a lawyer either, but I would think he’d have to be actually quoting from the court record to do so or at least indicate that he was intending to do so at the time.
As I recall, there’s a concept in the law that says that some people can’t be defamed - essentially, their reputation is so poor or tarnished that no slander could render them damaged.
Is it possible that Trump is the inverse of this? He’s such a bloviating bastard that anything he says is bullshit, and nobody’s reputation is really affected by anything he says.
I realize the contrary argument- he has a legion of fans who rely on his every word for their worldview. And that is a very valid point. But I think a person who is seeking to sue for new defamation against Trump would have to show some nexus between this new slight and some new loss.
This principle frees Trump from any liability against defaming her after 3 PM on Tuesday, doesn’t it? He can call her a whore, a psychotic, a malodorous baboon, and then claim “I already ruined her reputation, so now she has no reputation to be ruined.”
But defamation law doesn’t protect a person from rude or insulting comments. At its essence, it protects a person against lying.
It’s wasn’t defamatory to say she wasn’t his type. It was defamatory to say that he never met her, and that she was lying.
Calling her misogynistic things isn’t actionable. Even saying “I don’t know this woman” isn’t actionable (note the present tense). Trump can, for better or for worse, question her motives and even harangue her reputation. But I doubt that Trump will make declaratory statements about their encounter in Bergdorf Goodman (or, at least, he shouldn’t, but he is donald after all).
Thanks for starting this thread. I have the same question and was considering starting something in Factual Questions. I hope we get some factual answers here.
This was the essential defense strategy that Alex Jones deployed in the Sandy Hook defamation case.
Of course, that didn’t work out for him so then he had to declare bankruptcy. But Trump would never declare himself to be fiscal….
Those aren’t the only two options. Defamation is reputational harm that you do by saying things that aren’t true. Anytime he does that, he can be sued for it. It is fully possible for him to get sued tomorrow for what he said yesterday, and lose again.
As with lots of grievances that are potentially actionable, the real questions are about practicality and strategy, which gets to what Moriarty was saying. How much new reputational harm did he do with his series of statements after the trial, how are they going to prove that, and would it be worth it to do so? Trump is definitely, absolutely, not free to continue defaming her. But it might be true at any given time that the fact that there’s already been a verdict means that it isn’t worth E. Jean Carroll’s time or money anymore to litigate it. If she wanted to prove a point she could sue him again and not worry at all about the possibility that damages would be minimal.
Maybe she has her lawyers write him a letter quoting him and saying “FYI this is still defamatory and if you keep it up we’ll sue again,” and maybe he keeps it up, and maybe she does sue again. Maybe it’s only for $1, or maybe they hope for punitive damages because he’s so contemptuous. Nothing preventing that except the ROI calculus.
It’s worth noting, too, that Carroll’s 2019 defamation suit is still out there. There actually is already a sword hanging over his head on top of the $5 mil hit he just took.
If $5 million isn’t a deterrent, why would $1 million more suffice? It should probably double each time – $10 million for the first “re-defamation,” $20 million for the next, etc. Eventually you’d get the idiot’s attention.
The simple answer is that he can get away with it because he’s used to getting away with a multitude of bad actions with, so far, little or no consequence. He’s been sued hundreds (thousands?) of times. What’s Carroll going to do, sue him for slander again? Say she does and wins again. So he owes her say, $10 million instead of $5 million. What does he care? He appeals and puts it off and refuses to pay until if and when he absolutely has to.
The only consequence he’s ever faced so far for doing wrong is by losing money, either through fines or failed business deals. he’s already failed and been fined so often, and lost so much money in the process, that he just shrugs it off and figures out a way to grift himself up more money.
I’m pretty sure that if you win at trial for something like defamation, there’s some sort of implied or even explicit injunction-type thing saying NOT to keep doing it.
I would think if you kept it up, you’d be in some sort of trouble for not complying with the court’s decision, and they’re pretty cranky about that from what I can tell.
EDIT: Apparently I’m wrong; there isn’t any sort of injunction or anything automatically attached to the decision. She’ll have to sue him again, and maybe ask for an injunction as part of that suit, if he keeps it up. Of course, it’ll be easier the second time around I suspect.
I wonder if the way the laws are written are that defamation is a point-in-time sort of thing, i.e. you’re suing for specific defamation events at discrete times, not for generalized defamation.
I don’t think defamation laws apply to insults. Saying a person is a “whack job” is an insult, especially considering the circumstances. Here’s a page differentiating them.
I am not a lawyer but I would interpret his response as an emotional outburst in response to someone bringing up a sore subject, and not an “assertion of fact”.
Yeah, he IDed a picture of the two of them together as him and Marla Maples, so apparently he doesn’t know who she is. It does suggest something about him saying she’s not his type, though.
The answer to the OP question is that he will or won’t get away with continuing to defame her based on whether she wants to sue him again.
Defamation is based on specific instances, and the statute of limitations begins from that instance. So, she could just collect instances for two years (I think that’s typically the statute of limitations for defamation) and then file a defamation suit. Repeat every two years as he continues to speak.
Because his base is so rabid and so credulous, I think she’ll always be able to show some damages.
That would be “prior restraint”, a clear violation of the first amendment. Free speech is the right that defamation tests the limits of, so it’s always going to be a close call when somebody wants to express themselves.
Yes, exactly. Defamation can either be spoken (slander) or written (libel), but not only must a person prove that the comment was made, they must also prove that it was told to a 3rd party (that is, “published”) who understood the comment (the classic bar exam question asks about a person making a statement in front of a group of foreigners who don’t speak the language). And, absent certain types of defamation, you also have to prove how it damaged your reputation,
I heard him say that he didn’t “know her”, which I think is different than saying he hadn’t met her. But I’m trying to avoid hearing him speak, and I’m sure he might have said what you’re quoting.
No, he won’t get an injunction. There’s a very strong First Amendment right against “prior restraint.” If he doesn’t learn his lesson, she can keep suing him, and potentially getting more and more punitive damages.
At some point, he might be so obviously senile that she won’t be able to get punitive damages. But I hope she keeps filing suit every 2 years as long as he keeps it up. Which will be for as long as the press keeps putting microphones in front of him…