Former President Donald Trump must pay writer E. Jean Carroll over $83 million in damages for repeatedly defaming her, a jury found Friday.

The nine-person jury began deliberations in federal court in New York at 1:40 p.m. ET and reached a verdict in just under three hours.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 95 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (20 children)
  • [–] [S] 70 points 2 years ago (13 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I'd just love to see this snowball into an avalanche.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 44 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It's already happening. He's probably defaming her on Truth Social right now while OD'ing on McDonald's.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    “Well he a billionaire” [citation needed].

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    In late stage capitalism, having a billion and owing three billion means you in effect still have a billion.

    It's not like with normal people who have to subtract debt from assets and actually pay what we owe.

    So yeah, he's a billionaire in all ways that affect him and will be until he dies, which can't happen soon enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (1 child)