496
Start the clock... how long until he fucks up this ruling too?
this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
496 points (98.4% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4903 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's complete insanity that neither party is using this case against Trump during the primaries. Especially Haley, it's a gift wrapped opportunity for her to score points on Trump and she completely ignores it. Her campaign was a lost cause from the start but none of the Republican candidates have acted like they are even trying.
Let me get this straight: you think the
grab em by the pussy
crowd is gonna give a flying shit?!?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No surprise this being the result, it will be very hard to find anyone in NYC that would go easy on the person known for decades as the city's biggest douchebag.
Will he actually pay, though? There’s not a shred of honor in this guy, so I’m guessing the “check’s in the mail” until long after all the players are gone.
The sheer speed at which the jury came to this determination is a really good sign that everyone on the jury was like "fuck this dude in particular". Not only that, what I think was hilarious was that Trump's testimony about his valuation in his NY civil trail was submitted and accepted as evidence for the determination on this fine. Like literally some Loony Toons Wile E. Coyote exploding in your face kind of thing.
This was such a massive L for Trump's legal team that I believe the correct lawyer term is HA HA HA HAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA!!
I swear, I'm just waiting for what creative backhoing their graves Trump's team will be doing in the appeals.
What's that saying? "Speech is free. Lies are expensive."
"Speech is free. Lies are expensive."
I'm gonna go ahead and borrow this, and then save it for later.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
That's 41.5 presidential pardons
He wouldn't have to pay anything if he could have kept his little anus mouth shut.
I give it less than a day before he defames her again.
He probably already has, but I refuse to go to his sewer of a Twitter clone to see.
load more comments
(3 replies)
He'll pay as much as Alex Jones has. Jack shit. Unless the court can forcibly remove the funds from their accounts or put them in prison until they pay, these fucks will do nothing.
I want her to be able to put liens on all his properties. I doubt that can happen but it would be glorious.
Unless the court can forcibly remove the funds from their accounts
Yes, the courts can and absolutely will, though not in this case, because he's going to cough up the cash quickly (well as quickly as he can sell some stuff because there's no way he has that much in liquid assets).
Yeah, he's well-known as a deadbeat.
LO fucking L
She will never see a dime. He gets away with it again, and he will continue to until he is actually taken into custody.
This is different. All his properties in New York are under receivership. If and when they are forcibly sold to pay the judgement in the New York Civil fraud trial any remaining funds will go directly to E. Jean Carroll as she will be a lien holder on those assets.
Judgment creditors are last in line, the government is first. He won't have anything left over.
It won't matter he will just delay and appeal till he dies and then his kids will do the same thing and sue to keep it from ever happening
IIRC he has to put up a cash bond equal to the value of the judgement in order to appeal it. In other words he has to come up with $83.3 million in cash in order to appeal. I'm not sure he has that even if he raids the campaign fund.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Appeals are not an infinite process, and as we have already seem multiple times just this month the New York State Court of Appeals has either denied his requests for appeal or swiftly ruled against him. Sometimes the rock hard cock of the law does catch up with you.
As Martin Luther King Jr. said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
Edit: I changed my initial statement because I forgot this case was in federal court not state court.
What did MLK say about the “rock hard cock of the law?”
I think it was something about having a dream and then needing to change the sheets.
Trump's attorney Alina Habba contended that Carroll “had failed to show she is entitled to any damages at all” because she "actively sought the comments and the attention" she received.
Wow. They actually used the “she was asking for it” argument against a victim of sexual assault.
Also, he’s still not going to shut up about it and will land back in court under additional defamation charges.
Not exactly. It's far more insidious (and stupid). Her tact was to show that Carroll already received her financial reward by all the books and news appearances (i.e. the "comments and attention"). Basically, "Sure, she was raped, but look how well she profited from it!"
Too bad that kind of argument is only really relevant to the first trial. This one was punitive damages for failing to shut up after losing the first one, the purpose of which is to punish Trump so he thinks twice about doing it again, not award reparations to Ms. Carroll.
Alina Habba is truly the lawyer Trump deserves.
I agree, and my comment was intended as a reference not to the original rape but to the defense saying that she did not deserve any additional compensation due to Trump’s ongoing defamation because she wanted to profit off of it.
If I remember, one of his initial defenses against the allegations of rape was that the woman accusing him was too unattractive to rape, while other defenses were “they just let you do it.” I was thinking about the ironic application of the “asking for it” argument being applied to the additional judgement of defamation.
He’s going to triple down on this though, because he never thinks twice about anything. I don’t know if he is actually playing the game of “never admit to being wrong even when you are” or if he’s simply delusional enough to have reconstructed reality in his own brain, but I’d lay a wager that he’s not going to be able to shut up about this, even now. I don’t think it will even take a reporter triggering him by asking about it. I think it’s just going to pop out in one of his word salad campaign rambles.
I think it’s just going to pop out in one of his word salad campaign rambles.
And I can't wait for that to happen, because I'm sure a third jury will be so pleased (/s) he did it a third time.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Can't wait for someone to ask him about the case at a rally or something. He won't be able to help himself.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wow, 3x the money in punitive damage. Imagine how bad it'd be if this country did anything but fine rich people for being evil...
It’s a civil case, unfortunately, so jail time was never an option. At the time the incident occurred, there was a five year statute of limitations, so Trump has never been charged criminally in the matter.
There's something truly gross about a civil case being the only recourse for a heinous crime.
Waiting for the SCOTUS to (again) reduce punitive damage limits in order to protect their special boy.
Historically, they HATE punitive civil damages and look for cases to cut them back. That's where the current ~4x limit currently exists, which even in the State Farm decision was clearly flagged as toeing the line.
Just look at how little actual damage Exxon ever paid for the Valdez spill. Or McDonalds for the hot coffee. These punitive damages always have a habit of just evaporating after the headlines. Leaving the victim little better off than before.
I doubt that will happen. This is round two of defaming her; it's already been established that he raped and defamed her, and it is glaringly obvious that he did it again (even before this verdict). His team will have to first appeal to the New York Court of Appeals, and it's very unlikely that they'll even hear it.
SCOTUS isn't likely to do him a favor but virtue of the highest court in NY not hearing it and this being a very obvious case of repeat offense. They suck right now, and they've made some really awful arguments and rulings, but they haven't exactly been a rubber stamp for Trump or Conservatives, either.
Thanks for the sanity check. I'm not lover of the current Court, but no, they're not partisan (ruling for the GOP or Trump).
Been collecting cases to show this. Only been going a week so far:
I overshot the damages award in a previous comment I made. I thought it was going to be closer to $150 million, but $83 million is still substantial. Plus there is a strong likelihood E. Jean Carroll and Robbie Kaplan could sue Donald Trump for defamation again for all the things he posted during this trial.
Well he a billionaire so $83 million is a drop in the bucket. He’s probably got that much as change in the couch /s
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'd just love to see this snowball into an avalanche.
It's already happening. He's probably defaming her on Truth Social right now while OD'ing on McDonald's.
He couldn't shut up if his life depended on being quiet. I hope this drains his pockets until there's nothing left.
load more comments
(1 replies)