Trump may have defamed E. Jean Carroll again, one day after posting a $91.6 million bond for last case
Trump may have defamed E. Jean Carroll again, one day after posting a $91.6 million bond for last case
Former President Donald J. Trump on Saturday stood by his 2019 statement that writer E. Jean Carroll made a "totally false accusation" against him.
Former President Donald Trump on Saturday stood by his 2019 statement that writer E. Jean Carroll made a “totally false accusation” against him, despite similar claims resulting in him losing a defamation case in January.
Campaigning at a rally in Rome, Georgia, Trump referenced the $91.6 million bond he posted on March 8, three days before his deadline to pay $83.3 million in damages to Carroll for defaming her in statements he made as president after denying her accusation that he’d raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.
Carroll first came forward in 2019 with sexual assault claims against Trump before another civil trial in May 2023, where a New York jury found that the former president sexually abused Carroll but didn’t rape her.
You're viewing a single thread.
I wonder if this is a legal strategy so he keeps getting sued in the hopes of finding a judge\jury that finds in his favor, then he can challenge the other cases based on the last case?
The first case was the finding of fact that he did, in fact, sexually assult E. Jean Carroll.
In order for that finding of fact to be overturned, an appeals court would need to rule on that for that first case. Appeals courts overturning a finding of fact is incredibly rare. I believe that, because that fact has been found, the burden of proof is now on the appellant (Trump) to prove that the finding was incorrect.
The additional defamation cases rely on the finding of fact, and Trump's big fat mouth. Unless and until that fact is overturned (Narrator: It won't be.), Trump will lose every one of them. Even if he doesn't, that wouldn't change anything about the remaining cases where he was found to be defamatory.
Defamation requires that a reasonable person would believe the claims he is making. At some point, it will be completely unreasonable for anyone to believe anything he says, at which point he can never defame anyone ever again.
I thought we were there when he ran against Hillary...
Edit: Below is a removed comment where I explained this distinction, with pertinent examples. It is available in the modlog.
Defamation requires that a reasonable person would believe the claims he is making
He still has crowds paying to hear him speak, while they wear hats and t-shirts with his name on them.
Of course there is the whole issue of determining if any of them can legally be considered "reasonable persons"...
Nope. It doesn't work like that. You can't just lie so much that you can say whatever you want because no one will believe you. Wtf lol
It does, actually.
For example, if I were to tell everyone in this community that Randomgal is a pedophile, that would constitute defamation. It is a false assertion presented as fact, and a reasonable person could believe it to be true. Randomgal's reputation would be damaged by such a statement.
If I tell everyone that Randomgal fucks three headed aliens from the planet Morgonne XII, that does not constitute defamation, because no reasonable person would consider that to be a true statement. Randomgal's reputation is not damaged by such a statement.
Some "reasonable person" has to believe Trump's claims for those claims to constitute defamation.
Bro, who hurt you?
A three-headed alien from Morgonne XII.
Exactly my point.