I’m amazed that he can fit through a revolving door.
Update -
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/22/politics/e-jean-carroll-damages-trump-cnn-town-hall/index.html
Carroll’s attorneys said Trump’s defamatory statements repeated during the town hall earlier this month go directly to the issue of punitive damages, which are intended to punish the person found liable.
Updating both threads, as it is an amendment request to the prior case, but may well be a new case if the request is denied.
I don’t understand how that could possibly work as an amendment to the case where damages have already been determined.
I’m under the impression that damages have not been determined in the first case, only the second.
Ah, right. This is some convoluted stuff.
Actually, not really. She sued him for saying stuff in 2019 when he was President, so it got tangled up in the courts because suing the POTUS is a no-no, but then he said similar stuff when he was no longer POTUS so she sued him for that and she won.
So now that the first case has finally surfaced, on account of he’s no longer POTUS, she’s looking to add the new evidence that happened after the verdict of him saying stuff again to the case.
If that’s not allowed, then she’ll have to start a third case to deal with that newer evidence.
Simple version is he keeps saying stuff, faster than she can include it in her court filings.
(My bold)
In the most pedantic tradition of the Dope…
It’s actually ok to sue the president (the Bill Clinton/Paula Jones case established that precedent).
But, the president has immunity for being sued for things he said while acting as president.
So, that was the issue being debated - could he be sued for defamation if he said something potentially defamatory during the scope of his job as Chief Executive.
This ended up on appeal, and while that was being litigated, he repeated the slander after having left office, leading to the second lawsuit (which just ended with a verdict adverse to donald).
The reason the second case surfaced isn’t because he’s no longer president, but because the appellate court finally made its ruling: whether donald’s comments were made within the scope of his job as president (and therefore not the basis for a claim of defamation) is a factual question to be decided by the jury.
So, the first case is now back in the trial court, awaiting either a settlement by the parties or another jury trial.
If it goes to trial, the jury will be asked to decide, in addition to whether donald slandered Ms. Carroll, whether the statements were made as part of the job of president.
You mean “no-no” isn’t a legal term?
in this case the no-no was a yes-yes. the no-no at this time is criminally charging a sitting president.
It can’t be, because Latin didn’t have a distinct “no” in the language.
So we may be looking at a third trial here soon. I’d ask if Trump would ever learn his lesson but that’s clearly rhetorical at this point,
I wonder if eventually they might not be able to get a jury pool together for all his criminal activity. He sure is all over the news, daily!
“Yes, I swear to faithfully carry out my duties as a juror, with no bias whatsoever, Your Honor!”
It’s funny how things work out (not in a HA HA way but a NO SHIT way). Hearing about all the criminal activity tends to bias your opinion.
As I recall, one of the jurors in the Carroll case was a MAGA type. Didn’t stop him from doing his duty. Certainly the common folk take their oaths as jurors more seriously than Republican Senators did in the last two impeachment trials. McConnell said something to his caucus like “This isn’t about T - - - p, it’s about our Senate majority”.
U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan said the civil trial will commence on Jan. 15.
I wonder if Trump will offer any defense this time.
“Le twit, c’est moi?”
Good!
Has E. Jean Carroll collected on the first $5,000,000.00 she was awarded?
Hell is still toasty today.