Yes, I was thinking the same. Railing on social media is one thing, but he’s clearly continuing to influence crowds against EJC, and has conveniently just done so on camera.
I would wonder aloud – knowing the cast of characters deeply loyal to TFG – at what point “I was in fear for my life” is a credible argument for Ms. Carroll to make, and what recompense it may make available to her.
Similar claims were made by a few Georgia election officials and by Dominion employees.
I don’t know if any individuals litigated for Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, for example.
Ah. It looks like that was, at one point, in the consideration set for Ms. Carroll:
Sept. 20, 2022 - Carroll says she plans to sue Trump a second time for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, citing New York state’s new Adult Survivors Act. The law gives adults a one-year window starting on Nov. 24 to sue their alleged attackers, even if statutes of limitations have long since expired.
So … maybe?
I am not sure I agree with him either. It would be like me suing you for breaking my window. I win in court and you pay and then you go and break another window. Of course I can sue you again for the most recent action.
This was half of the just decided lawsuit (defamation was the other half), not something still to come.
Wasn’t this Defamation and Sexual Battery?
Carroll alleges two causes of action: sexual battery under New York’s Adult Survivors Act and defamation over a Truth Social post that Trump posted late last year.
That’s an interesting point. DJTs lawyer may very well been so quick to close off without any Trump testimony because he may have found out for sure Trump was guilty.
He wouldn’t have cared about that; he was trying to salvage what he could out of a loser of a case, and his client’s culpability was irrelevant, other than to factor into his choices of how to pursue the defense.
Trump honestly doesn’t know what slander is. That’s why he keeps doing it, mostly with impunity.
Forget about just losing this defamation suit. If Trump ever testifies under oath at any trial, you know he’s going to commit perjury. I don’t think he’s capable of speaking without lying. And perjury’s a criminal charge.
It seems like an oversight in law that, after a successful defamation suit, you have to start a whole new suit to prosecute any new defamatory statements. It seems like the judge should be able to pop in and increase the payout, until the defendant learns to control themselves.
Those exact statements have already been rolled defamatory. You shouldn’t have to go through the same rigamarole.
nm didn’t read the whole thing
(I was going to say a million-to-one ratio of punitive damages would be unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court ruling has an exception for when “a particularly egregious act has resulted in only a small amount of economic damages.”)
Well, it’s not just statements in isolation. You have to show it was published or uttered to a third person, and that it damaged your reputation, and how much, in dollars, it damaged your reputation.
Those elements will potentially all be different for each defamatory statement.
And so the judge asks the plaintiff and the defendant for their arguments and rules on it.
I put this in another thread, but it could also belong here.
If you’re responding to my post, the parties have a right to a jury trial on the elements. The plaintiff almost certainly wants a jury deciding damages. The defendant probably wants to argue to the jury that no one could take Trump as making a factual statement at this point.
Not if the law says otherwise. And I was saying that there should be such a law that says otherwise.
If someone’s out of jail on parole, you don’t need to go through a whole court case again to put them back in jail when they’re caught shoplifting. There is still a process - a hearing with the parole board - but it’s an abbreviated one.
OK. But you’d have to change the constitution to make that law. But I get what you’re saying now.
I’m just spitballing but I imagine that the constitutionality of parole is based on something like the idea that your punishment is at level X. You’re trading down to a level 0.5X by contracting away your due process rights. So, clearly, if you structure it correctly there’s a way to get this result. E.g. you give the defendant a choice between a larger financial punishment or a smaller one with a targeted gag order.
But really it’s just a matter of saying that an on-going gag order is a type of punishment. Just like we can say that you’re not allowed to go near a person or try to contact them, we can say that you’re not allowed to say mean things about them in public venues. It would make sense for that to be part of the standard punishment for a defamation case.
I was talking about the actual case, and the legal change you were advocating. The civil judgment against Trump is not a criminal judgement. He’s not on parole. The First Amendment protection against prior restraint is a pretty high bar. A gag order during a trial is a limited prior restraint to temporarily take steps to ensure a fair trial for both sides. And a gag order is hard to get.
An injunction against defaming someone again isn’t going to fly.
4:30 a.m. here and my day is already bright owing to seeing this headline just now:
E. Jean Carroll may sue Trump for defamation again after CNN town hall: What we know
Funny thing, I thought the 'pubbies condemned the court’s “revolving doors”. Looks like their hero is caught in one.