NY – Ex POTUS Donald Trump, sued by E. Jean Carroll for defamation, Trial 15 Jan 2024

I wonder if his large number of legal representatives know they are not going to get paid for any of this.

The court judgement will get there first and he's got $454 million in one case and $83 million in this one.

Trump's tab so far is $537,000,000

Does E Jean Caroll get the first monies as her case closed first?
 
From an interview with Roberta Kaplan.


Kaplan: “Uh, I’ve got one more topic to cover, and then how about if we take a break for lunch?” And he said something like, “Why do we have to break for lunch? This a waste of my time. Let’s just go straight through. I don’t wanna break.”

And I said, “Look, if it were up to me, that would be fine. But there’s a court reporter, there’s a videographer, they’re entitled to a lunch break, and we have to have a lunch break.”

And then you could kind of see his brain, like, the gears in his brain turning. And he said to me, “Well, you’re here at Mar-a-Lago. Where do you think you’re gonna get lunch?”

And I said — I have to admit, I kinda knew this was coming, I kind of enjoyed this — I said to him, “Well, I actually spoke to your counsel about this yesterday, and they very graciously offered to provide us with lunch.” At which point, he was so pissed off that — there was a huge pile of business documents in front of him, and he basically threw the documents across the table

Swisher: Wow.

Kaplan: And then he started screaming at his lawyers. And I’m not gonna repeat what he said, but it wasn’t pleasant.

Ultimately they did provide us with lunch, and so everything went on fine. But it was — you know, our son is now almost 18 — and I haven’t seen him do anything like that for many years. I mean, it was really like a toddler.

Swisher: Yeah.

Kaplan: Then at the end of the day, we probably ended the deposition around four o’clock in the afternoon. And he said something like … We came back in the room. Usually, at every deposition, you give each side a chance to see if they wanna do anything else on the record. And we came back in, and we said we’re done.

And they immediately said, “Off the record, off the record.” You could tell that they kind of had a joke about it. Um, and he looked up at me and said, “See you next Tuesday.”

For this, I am incredibly grateful for my utter ignorance.

Swisher: Yeah.

Kaplan: I had literally no idea what that meant. And so I said to him, “What are you talking about? I’m coming back on Wednesday.” Which was when the Carroll deposition was. And then I didn’t know anything until we got in the car, and my colleague — who is much younger and hipper — said to me, “Robbie, you know what that means?” And I said “no.” They told me, and I said, “Oh my God. I’m so glad.” Because I would not have kept my equanimity.

Swisher: I’m gonna say it. It’s C-U-N-T, which is . He called you a “,” essentially. Which is his way. That’s the perfect insult that he would think is really devastating to you.
 

From the pleading:

Almost one month after the jury returned its verdict in this case, Defendant Donald J.Trump filed yet another motion for a stay—this time, to stay enforcement of the judgment withouta bond or any other security that would ensure that Plaintiff E. Jean Carroll’s will be able to collectthe $83.3 million that Trump now owes her. The reasoning Trump offers in seeking thisextraordinary relief boils down to nothing more than “trust me.” He doesn’t offer any informationabout his finances or the nature and location of his assets. He doesn’t specify what percentage ofhis assets are liquid or explain how Carroll might go about collecting. He doesn’t evenacknowledge the risks that now accompany his financial situation, from a half billion-dollarjudgment obtained by the New York Attorney General to the 91 felony charges that might end hiscareer as a businessman permanently. He simply asks the Court to “trust me” and offers, in a casewith an $83.3 million judgment against him, the court filing equivalent of a paper napkin; signedby the least trustworthy of borrowers.
 
In a longshot bid, former President Donald Trump is asking the judge overseeing E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against him to significantly reduce the US$83.3 million jury award or grant a new trial.

Trump argued that Judge Lewis Kaplan wrongly prohibited him from defending himself during his brief testimony and that warrants a new trial.

Carroll opposed Trump's attempt to lower the awards, calling one of his arguments "laughable" and saying the evidence showed that Trump's defamation of Carroll increased after the 2023 verdict as he continued to repeat the defamatory comments.

Trump asks judge to cut the penalty in E. Jean Carroll case or grant him a new trial
 
In a longshot bid, former President Donald Trump is asking the judge overseeing E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against him to significantly reduce the US$83.3 million jury award or grant a new trial.

Trump argued that Judge Lewis Kaplan wrongly prohibited him from defending himself during his brief testimony and that warrants a new trial.

Carroll opposed Trump's attempt to lower the awards, calling one of his arguments "laughable" and saying the evidence showed that Trump's defamation of Carroll increased after the 2023 verdict as he continued to repeat the defamatory comments.

Trump asks judge to cut the penalty in E. Jean Carroll case or grant him a new trial
Oh please!! He was asked over and over again to stick to talking about the case during his testimony. His bloviating is his fault and his fault alone. MOO
 
: Judge Kaplan has yet to decide whether Trump can stay enforcement of the $83.3 million E. Jean Carroll case. But he ruled tonight that he won’t grant even a “temporary administrative stay” because Trump’s “current situation is a result of his own dilatory action.”

 

Attachments

  • IMG_1747.jpeg
    IMG_1747.jpeg
    175 KB · Views: 2
Trump is saying he knew "nothing about" E. Jean Carroll and attacking the $91 million verdict. Says when he said it was false, "I got sued for defamation."

Trump says Judge Kaplan "treated me like a common criminal."

"This woman is not a believable person," Trump says

BBM. For once, I agree with Trump. Judge Kaplan didn't treat Trump like a defendant. I was shocked that the Judge mugged for the cameras.

Instead, Judge Kaplan allowed EJC and her attorneys to weaponize the court process. I don't believe her and neither did the jury because they didn't find Trump guilty of rape. Anyone in America should have the freedom to say an allegation isn't true. JMO <modsnip: not victim friendly and off topic>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BBM. For once, I agree with Trump. Judge Kaplan didn't treat Trump like a defendant. I was shocked that the Judge mugged for the cameras.

Instead, Judge Kaplan allowed EJC and her attorneys to weaponize the court process. I don't believe her and neither did the jury because they didn't find Trump guilty of rape. Anyone in America should have the freedom to say an allegation isn't true. JMO <modsnip: not victim friendly and off topic>

During a trial everything that is said must be based on tested evidence and sworn testimony. No one is allowed to go off on a rant in an attempt to thwart the evidence or sworn testimony.
 
BBM. For once, I agree with Trump. Judge Kaplan didn't treat Trump like a defendant. I was shocked that the Judge mugged for the cameras.

Instead, Judge Kaplan allowed EJC and her attorneys to weaponize the court process. I don't believe her and neither did the jury because they didn't find Trump guilty of rape. Anyone in America should have the freedom to say an allegation isn't true. JMO <modsnip: not victim friendly and off topic>
I agree with Trump here as well -- yes, the judge treated him like a common criminal. And that is because, within the context of this case, Trump IS a common criminal.

Yes, @MyBelle, anyone in America has the freedom to say an allegation isn't true. Even if it IS true, and they are lying, it's legal to claim otherwise (except when under oath and other similar specific situations).

What is NOT legal is to defame someone, and especially in such a way that harms their livelihood and reputation.

I know it's a somewhat subtle distinction, especially for Trump who seems to think it's always acceptable to insult others. In most situations, insults are merely tactless and childish and show his own poor character. In other situations, when it rises to the level of defamation, it's illegal. I bet he still doesn't understand, though, since he's so busy calling it persecution. I wonder how frustrated his legal team gets in trying to explain the actual legal issues to him...

MOO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
4,071
Total visitors
4,155

Forum statistics

Threads
593,284
Messages
17,983,740
Members
229,075
Latest member
rodrickheffley
Back
Top