Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a New York judge Friday to suspend an $83.3 million defamation verdict against the former president, saying there was a “strong probability” that it would be reduced on appeal, if not eliminated.

The lawyers made the request in Manhattan federal court, where a civil jury in late January awarded the sum to advice columnist E. Jean Carroll after a five-day trial that focused only on damages. A judge had ordered the jury to accept the findings of another jury that last year concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996 and defamed her in 2022.

The second jury focused only on statements Trump made in 2019 while he was president in a case long delayed by appeals.

    • Janoose
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Motherfucker was defaming her again just last week at a rally in Michigan. 83m was obviously not punitive enough. Hope she sues him again.

      • Khanzarate
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        She, through her lawyer, already announced they intend to, but as of earlier this week her lawyer said there wasn’t quite enough as of yet.

        Trump obviously won’t leave it alone, though, so knowing her lawyer is looking for it means the next lawsuit is pending.

        • aidan
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Doesn’t defamation require damages? At this point how does Trump saying anything damage her more or less?

          • MisterD
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            0
            ·
            8 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            She can’t have a normal life. She can’t even get groceries be herself without being attacked

            • KevonLooney
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              0
              ·
              8 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              She’s also not a “public person”. She has more privacy rights because of it.

              And no, she isn’t just a “public person” because of the periodic defamation. No court would rule that breaking the law more reduces damages. (Maybe in Alabama?)

    • FuglyDuckEnglish
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      832 sounds about right. And if they keep going, it keeps getting squared.

      • toasteecupEnglish
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        As much as I want trump to hurt, don’t increase it.

        For it to stick permanently, based on supreme Court case law, the amount needs to stay below a particular percentage. (I don’t remember the specifics, legal eagle has a good video on this)

        So if you wanna hurt the Cheeto, hope it stays below that amount.

        • partial_accumen
          arrow-up
          52
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Further, they don’t have to increase it. Trump already opened his mouth again making disparaging remarks again after the verdict. He create grounds for a third civil suit. E. Jean Carroll can simply file suit for the third case and with a third verdict.

        • FuglyDuckEnglish
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          whelp now it’s squared again.

          (I realize it’ll never happen, but seriously. fuck this guy and his delaying tactics.)

    • gregorumEnglish
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Isn’t she already suing him a third time?

      • SpaceNoodle
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Her lawyers said “we’re watching, we’re listening” - so, knowing he who cannot keep his trap shut, we just need to wait.

  • originalucifer
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    is ‘strong probability’ a legal argument? kinda feels like nonsense

    • roguetrick
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      edit-2
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      They need to argue that to get them to suspend it pending appeal. They can’t argue for a suspension otherwise. That will get denied, but they’ve gotta try.

  • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    I think this, just like his NY one, are desperate attempts because he doesn’t have the money and cannot find anyone to cover a bond for him. He knows the next step is they start seizing assets, and that’s when we find out how over leveraged he is on all his properties.

  • Flying Squid
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Next week: Trump’s lawyers say to judge, “Is defamation even really a crime? Can you stab someone with a defamation?

  • Pofski
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    0
    ·
    8 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Just a question as a ignorant European. From what I understand he is now a convicted rapist, right? Does that mean he is entered in the sexual offenders database that you have in the states?

    • cubism_pittaEnglish
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      No, he was not actually convicted of rape in a criminal court.

      So even though a judge has called him a rapist he is not “legally” a rapist as he has not been found guilty of the crime of rape.

      Criminal court is where you go when a DA is brining charges against you. Civil court is the place where you and I would go to settle a lawsuit.

      • Pretzilla
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago
        edit-2
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        He is legally a rapist now. Adjudicated by the court.

        Just not criminally. (Yet)

        He was close to getting nailed for child rape but he threatened and intimidated the victim out of testifying and she disappeared.

      • Pofski
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        8 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Thank you for explaining it. I still find it weird how it works, but ok.

        • MisterD
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          8 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          He was sued CIVILLY. if he is convicted CRIMINALLY then he’ll be registered as a sex offender

    • Steve
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      8 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      I believe this was all done in civil court, not criminal.