83 Million. I can’t remember that’s either what the Trump verdict was or it’s how much money Taylor Swift made this week by showing up to a football game.
Maybe the Great Pumpkin will at least stop defaming her and saying he didn’t rape her. Now that she’s won again, she’ll just keep suing him each time he repeats the lie. He also has to put $83 million in escrow while the appeal is pending, or buy a bond. Ouch.
Trump's net worth is estimated to be $2.6B, so the $83M award is 3.2% of his net worth. Given the principle that the fine should deter future similar behavior, what initially might seem like a crazy high amount is more understandable.
Hank Moody: "Maybe the Great Pumpkin will at least stop defaming her"
and you know she isn't defaming HIM?
Judge Kaplan and Carrell's attorney Roberta Kaplan worked together 30 years ago for several years when he was a Senior Partner and she was an associate. He was her mentor (they are NOT related) and his was never disclosed in court, and is a serious ethics violation.
Took her all these years to do a #MeToo charge? The Democrats are known for "if all else fails, Chapter 6 SEX CHARGES - The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch one of the sacred relics Brother Maynard carries with him. Brother Maynard! Bring up the Holy Hand Grenade! - just like the Russian Golden Showers, another "Hand Grenade".
My point is - we don't know anything about this case other than what the media has said. Was she really defamed "$83.9M" - that's a really big nut. Not like she spent 30 years in the Hotel Silly and she is "Doing MUCH better now" (like Buddy from "Night Court").
The amount is so high because the original judgement against Trump had found he defamed the plaintiff. So, most of it is punitive.
If Trump would simply put out a statement asking people to not harass of threaten anyone on his behalf, you'd have to wonder how many millions that would save him.
@mogul “My point is - we don't know anything about this case other than what the media has said.”
Just google it. There’s nothing about the case reporting that’s left in dispute. Opinions may differ as to whether the outcome was correct, but nothing about the reporting is remotely controversial.
Pres KFC did countersue Carroll for defaming him. The case was thrown out because the court found she was telling the truth and therefore wasn’t defaming him.
Working with a judge previously is not an ethical violation. You may want to check your receipt for your law degree. If it was, I’m sure Alina Habba will lodge a complaint. Any wonder why a former president hired a Mar A Lago lawyer with very little experience to represent him so publicly? It couldn’t be because she’s hot? Nah. He wouldn’t do that.
NY changed the assault law to extend the statute of limitations. Again, this is fact, no matter what your news source. She sued him for that, but the defamation claims are all present day. The $83 million is what happens when a jury punishes someone for making baseless claims that lead to death threats for someone who was not a public figure.
“Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.” ― Richard Nixon
Trump fans should take note that, for all his failings, Nixon did not reach Trump's level of depravity. He actively discouraged his supporters from using Klan-like violence and threats of violence.
“ Judge Kaplan and Carrell's attorney Roberta Kaplan worked together 30 years ago for several years when he was a Senior Partner and she was an associate. He was her mentor (they are NOT related) and his was never disclosed in court, and is a serious ethics violation.”
This thing fizzled. Habba wrote a letter to the judge accusing Roberta Kaplan of a conflict. Kaplan wrote her own letter saying she doesn’t remember meeting the judge when they overlapped for 2 years at a big firm. They were never mentor/ mentee. She threatened to request sanctions against Habba for her groundless accusations. Habba quickly backed down, writing a letter to the judge retracting the allegations and denying she accused Roberta Kaplan of anything. Indeed, the law Habba cited actually worked against her. The rule for a conflict is that the lawyer and the judge not only had to work together, it had to be while the lawyer was working on the same case that is currently before the court. So Habba was wrong on both the facts and the law. She may be worse lawyer than Sidney Powell.
Does no one have a problem with NY changing the law to allow this? Also, what did Trump actually say that was defaming? To paraphrase, the only thing I can find is something along the lines of "I never met her. She's lying. She's a whackjob. I never raped her. I never met her." Maybe I need to research more, but I have work to do. Regardless, is that really defamatory?
Additionally, as stated above, he filed a counter-claim for defamation. Now, in my book, someone accusing you of being a rapist is defamatory. Was his counter-suit really thrown out because it Carroll's comments are considered truthful? She can't even reasonably prove the underlying allegation. This is the ultimate he-said/she-said, and I'm sorry, this just doesn't cut it. She doesn't even seem harmed from it. The videos of her talking about it make me think she's on the train to crazy town.
Maybe Melania will hire Will Smith to slap Trump and tell him to get Carrell's name out of his mouth. Before Baron needs a Pell grant to go to college.
How is it NOT defamation to say someone is lying and crazy, unless you can prove they are.
@chief
Yes, you should do more research. Your questions have been asked and answered. To clarify a bit, NY changed the statute of limitations allowing civil suits to be brought for sexual assault in the wake of #metoo. I don’t think anyone disagrees that women have been assaulted and in a different era, it was harder to accuse their assaulters so they stayed quiet. They still need to prove assault in front of a jury. The NY jury found that Agent Orange raped Carroll (FIV). That finding is now an unarguable fact in the eyes of the law. The $ damages for that assault were relatively small when compared to the slander damages. He repeatedly denied it after the jury made the finding. It’s all present day actions that led to the $83 million award because he couldn’t shut his mouth. Since the $83 million award, he’s now stopped saying he didn’t do it and calling her a liar. And yes, calling someone a rapist after a jury determined he’s a rapist means it is not defamation, by law.
It was a civil trial. I explained the subtlety in the other thread on it. He was found liable for sexual assault (FIV) but not found liable on her allegations that he fucked her. She said after the trial that he raped her, so he countersued her for slander. The court said that FIV is rape and dismissed his countersuit.
21 comments