Donald Trump’s lawyers asked a New York judge Friday to suspend an $83.3 million defamation verdict against the former president, saying there was a “strong probability” that it would be reduced on appeal, if not eliminated.

The lawyers made the request in Manhattan federal court, where a civil jury in late January awarded the sum to advice columnist E. Jean Carroll after a five-day trial that focused only on damages. A judge had ordered the jury to accept the findings of another jury that last year concluded Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996 and defamed her in 2022.

The second jury focused only on statements Trump made in 2019 while he was president in a case long delayed by appeals.

    • Janoose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Motherfucker was defaming her again just last week at a rally in Michigan. 83m was obviously not punitive enough. Hope she sues him again.

      • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        4 months ago

        She, through her lawyer, already announced they intend to, but as of earlier this week her lawyer said there wasn’t quite enough as of yet.

        Trump obviously won’t leave it alone, though, so knowing her lawyer is looking for it means the next lawsuit is pending.

        • aidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          4 months ago

          Doesn’t defamation require damages? At this point how does Trump saying anything damage her more or less?

          • MisterD@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            She can’t have a normal life. She can’t even get groceries be herself without being attacked

            • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              She’s also not a “public person”. She has more privacy rights because of it.

              And no, she isn’t just a “public person” because of the periodic defamation. No court would rule that breaking the law more reduces damages. (Maybe in Alabama?)

      • toasteecup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        4 months ago

        As much as I want trump to hurt, don’t increase it.

        For it to stick permanently, based on supreme Court case law, the amount needs to stay below a particular percentage. (I don’t remember the specifics, legal eagle has a good video on this)

        So if you wanna hurt the Cheeto, hope it stays below that amount.

      • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 months ago

        Her lawyers said “we’re watching, we’re listening” - so, knowing he who cannot keep his trap shut, we just need to wait.

  • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)A
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think this, just like his NY one, are desperate attempts because he doesn’t have the money and cannot find anyone to cover a bond for him. He knows the next step is they start seizing assets, and that’s when we find out how over leveraged he is on all his properties.

    • roguetrick@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      They need to argue that to get them to suspend it pending appeal. They can’t argue for a suspension otherwise. That will get denied, but they’ve gotta try.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    Next week: Trump’s lawyers say to judge, “Is defamation even really a crime? Can you stab someone with a defamation?”

  • Pofski@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    4 months ago

    Just a question as a ignorant European. From what I understand he is now a convicted rapist, right? Does that mean he is entered in the sexual offenders database that you have in the states?

    • cubism_pitta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      4 months ago

      No, he was not actually convicted of rape in a criminal court.

      So even though a judge has called him a rapist he is not “legally” a rapist as he has not been found guilty of the crime of rape.

      Criminal court is where you go when a DA is brining charges against you. Civil court is the place where you and I would go to settle a lawsuit.

      • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        He is legally a rapist now. Adjudicated by the court.

        Just not criminally. (Yet)

        He was close to getting nailed for child rape but he threatened and intimidated the victim out of testifying and she disappeared.