this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
613 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4174 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

An attorney representing E. Jean Carroll has indicated the journalist could sue Donald Trump for a third time, as the former president continues to speak about her client publicly.

Speaking on MSNBC's Inside With Jen Psaki on Monday night, Shawn Crowley, an attorney for Carroll, responded to the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination telling supporters at a Michigan rally on Saturday that he had not done anything wrong to Carroll, whom he claimed he did not know, and that lawsuits against him were "unfair."

In January, a New York City jury ordered that the former president must pay $83.3 million in damages to the former Elle columnist, for statements made in 2019. He said she was lying about allegations that he sexually assaulted her inside a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s. That amount includes $7.3 million in compensatory damages, $11 million for reputational repair, and $65 million in punitive damages. He has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal the verdict.

Trump was previously ordered to pay Carroll $5 million in damages in May in another civil defamation trial stemming from a denial he made about her claims in 2022. He is appealing that decision and has set aside $5.55 million with the Manhattan Court as part of that process. Newsweek contacted a representative for Trump by email to comment on this story.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 286 points 8 months ago (11 children)

Carroll found an IRL infinite money glitch

[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Hard to get blood from a turnip.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Naw, he's working on hooking up an IV drip from the RNC doners as we speak.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 8 months ago

In this case I don't think so. Trump has low liquidity but many assets. Even if he dies she can get paid from his estate.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not really? Trump uses banks, and banks will freeze assets to a court order and turn them over.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (2 children)

That only applies to people who aren't rich. Trump is going to use the Alex Jones playbook of bankruptcy, shell companies, and "but I can't survive on anything less than 80k a month"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

He has already posted the bond for the first order. He has to post the second to appeal. Which he will. He’s not getting out of this. Each bond is above the initial is in the article.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 8 months ago

No? Alex Jones's assets were not public, so they were easier to hide. Trump has many public assets, and the Trump Org is a very public (although privately held) company.

There's already a judge in control of the Trump Org, so they can't move any money without approval. The State of NY is literally holding him by the balls, whether he pays up or not.

Banks do not help people whose assets are already frozen. It would be obvious and they would get a massive fine, and the recipient bank would send the money back (if they're in the US). Plus whichever bank employee made the transfer would be fired.

load more comments (7 replies)