Judge Greenlights E. Jean Carroll’s Bid to Seek Increased Damages in Trump Defamation Lawsuit
Trump: “What kind of a woman meets somebody and brings them up and within minutes, you’re playing hanky-panky in a dressing room, OK?”
E. Jean Carroll, the writer who accused former President Donald Trump of sexual abuse and defamation, has been granted permission to amend her original lawsuit against Trump. The new request comes in response to comments made by Trump during a CNN town hall last month.
Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court in Manhattan granted Carroll’s request, despite opposition from Trump’s legal team. Carroll’s lawsuit now seeks at least $10 million in damages. Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, stated, “We maintain that she should not be permitted to retroactively change her legal theory, at the eleventh hour, to avoid the consequences of an adverse finding against her.”
During the CNN town hall, Trump made remarks about Carroll, stating:
“What kind of a woman meets somebody and brings them up and within minutes, you’re playing hanky-panky in a dressing room, OK?” Trump said during that event. “I swear on my children, which I never do, I have no idea who this woman is. This is a fake story, made-up story.”
The judge also set a deadline of next month for the Justice Department to weigh in on whether it still believed that Trump was acting within the scope of his employment when he made the comments in 2019.
The Justice Department under Trump and Biden said that he was, which tied the original lawsuit up on appeal. Following the May jury finding in Carroll’s favor, the Justice Department has asked for more time, suggesting it was reconsidering its position.
"A federal judge will allow E. Jean Carroll to amend her original defamation lawsuit against former President Donald Trump to include comments he made at a CNN town hall."https://t.co/GZ5MkcyI3p
— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 13, 2023
E. Jean Carroll can add Trump CNN town hall comments to lawsuit, judge rules https://t.co/wsAN6B9pKR
— Bo Snerdley (@BoSnerdley) June 14, 2023
A federal judge said E. Jean Carroll, the New York writer who won a $5 million jury verdict against Donald Trump for sexual abuse and defamation, can pursue a $10 million defamation lawsuit case against the former U.S. president. https://t.co/DPB0sCqS98 pic.twitter.com/eHRu3GvbSU
— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) June 14, 2023
Here’s a clip from the CNN town hall:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
A man has a right to defend himself even against a jury. The lady is just adding to her reputation herself in support of Trump’s position.
That is no “lady”, that is a floozy.
“Lady?” Don’t you mean “crazy cat woman”?
They will keep railroading Trump all day long in New York. Orange Man Bad “trumps” due process.
Trump railroaded himself. How dumb do you have to be to defame on something you were found liable for from the previous day. Man Trumps dumb
He rail roaded himself by not touching this mentally ill bint up? Is that how it works in Democrat land darling?
You’d think that would be particularly true after the jury ruled against this loon’s rape allegation in its original verdict. Did the jury defame her, also? But that’s what this country has become with leftists taking over our federal government. If the DOJ comes after you and you have the audacity to defend yourself they’ll call it obstruction of justice.
She is a crank on the order of that ditzy chick at the Kavanaugh hearings. The left will use anyone and everyone to go after Trump. Take a look at Melania, Ivanka heck, even Stormy in her day wasn’t half bad. Now look at the E. Jean nutball. Trumps a billionaire, he doesn’t have to settle for that
He’s also a germaphobe.
Of course, it doesn’t help when Trump gets shown a photo of Carroll in the courtroom and “confirms” it’s his ex-wife. D’oh.
And?
The “defamatory” statements were made after the conclusion of the trial, so how can this be retroactively applied?
The Billyboy nominated federal judges laughs. “Whaddaya going to do about it, chuimp? Hey? Whaddya going to do about it?”
The Kangaroo Court is a gold mine, won once with a Leftist jury so out to strike gold again.
The “Piling On” continues, aided and abetted by DA’s, judges, DOJ, FBI…et al, at the behest of The Administration. This woman is an old hag crank being used as a means to an end.
I just do not understand how the original case was given to Carroll. The Jury did not find Trump guilty in the rape but could find him for “defamation” of the rape. I do not see how you can find Trump guilty and charge him of $5M when the original cause was not found.
Now there is an add on case, which is making judicial law even more weird to me. I have been part of a jury on two trials one a murder and one a civil case, but they made a lot more sense then this.
welcome to jurisprudence as applied to Trump.
IANAL, but two things stand out to me:
1. A case for “defamation” is very different from a case for “rape”, even if the alleged defamation mentions it.
2. The burden of proof for a civil case is much lower than for a criminal case.
On the first point, the difference between “rape” and “defamation about the rape victim” is like the difference between stealing classified documents (a.k.a. espionage) vs. talking about classified documents. Both are crimes involving classified information, sure, but the evidence to prove them is very different. (Which is why they’re separate crimes.)
On the second point, criminal cases must be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” (think: you have to convince the jury such that they’re at least 99% sure he’s guilty). Civil cases are usually “preponderance of evidence” (think: more likely than not the act happened, or 60-70% sure he’s guilty).
Because the body of evidence is different (evidence he committed a rape vs. evidence he bad-mouthed the alleged victim), and the relative burdens of proof are different (“beyond reasonable doubt” vs. “preponderance of evidence”), I could see her case going forward.
Except the ruled that she wasn’t raped.
You can’t defame someone who was raped when they weren’t raped.
But this idiot jury did just that.
And people are acting as if this can be a valid verdict–
No, you didn’t do the crime, but you’re guilty about defaming the woman who falsely accused you when you called her a liar.
But she IS a liar–the same jury said so.
There is no law.
New York Statute of limitations for rape is now 20 years. Still not long enough for EJC to get her criminal charges in. So bring on the defamation case.
Solurce: https://www.cnn.Com/2019/09/18/us/new-york-law-rape-statute-of-limitations-extended/index.html
Ah, but because Trump, NY passed a law late last year to open a one-year window to file suits:
“One suit filed early Thursday under the new law aims to hold former President Donald Trump accountable for allegedly raping then-magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s. Trump has denied the claims.” — https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/24/us/new-york-adult-survivors-act/index.html
Knowingly falsely accusing someone of rape is fine.
Calling the type of person who would do such a thing crazy? That’ll be a couple million
I understand that this is beside the point, but why would anyone interested in fact-based reporting and analysis voluntarily appear on any CNN show? If he is in the middle of one or more lawsuits at the time, why would he say material things that he has not previously said on the record in the legal proceeding? If the legal proceedings are venued in NYC, why would he expect anything other than “piling on”?
Does he need media attention that badly? I don’t think so. I’m confused.
Perhaps someone here will enlighten me.
Because he bitch slapped the fuckers up side the head with a crow bar 😂 The fact the crowd gave him a warm reception was quite surprising and I doubt the rabid leftists expected that.
It was also a win for Trump and you know it was a win when lefties were whining about giving him airtime to spout his “lies” 😂😂
I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but he displays all the signs of a textbook narcissist.
He cannot keep quiet about anything (even going against legal advice), cannot abide people disagreeing with him (sees it as a personal attack), and retaliates against accusations, often with personal ad hominem attacks or gaslighting.
Does he need media attention that badly? Answer: Yes! That craving to be the center of attention is ingrained in his personality, and having been the center of a nation’s and world’s attention, he’ll cling to that as long as he can.
It’s also why I predict he won’t drop out of the Presidential race, whether he gets the GOP nomination or not, whether he’s indicted/convicted or not, etc. He’ll campaign from prison as an Independent if he must; he will not leave the limelight willingly.
As I said, I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but I’ve known and lived with narcissists. I’m familiar with how they operate.
Bandy X. Lee, is that you?
Ever see Bandy X. Lee claim to not be a psychologist or psychiatrist?
Hey, here’s an idea: instead of deflecting with ad hominem attacks, try to prove me wrong.
At the very least, provide an alternate explanation for why he actively seeks attention — even negative attention — and can’t seem to listen to his lawyers’ advice or stay off Twitter while the lawsuits against him play out.
Can you do that?
Yes, I will devote my time to showing why a random person with no clinical training or experience is wrong in their diagnosis (of a person they have never even met) of a psychological disorder.
I can, with equal validity, assert that he’s actually a giant leprechaun. Prove me wrong.
@Dathurtz: Leprechauns, giant or not, don’t exist. Narcissists do.
There, I proved you wrong, and proved your assertion is not equally valid. Without calling names, I might add.
Now, read my post again. I did not diagnose him as a narcissist. I merely said he “displays all the signs of a textbook narcissist,” based on my experience living and working with narcissists (some of whom were diagnosed as such by a mental health professional).
Buzzing gnat says what?
I repeat my challenge to Dathurtz above: instead of ad hominem attacks, try to prove me wrong. I fully acknowledge the possibility I’m wrong, but from my experience it all fits.
If you have an alternate explanation, I’m all ears.
I heard a similar view years ago.
After the 2020 election someone else might have made sure both Senate runoff seats were not lost in GA. IMO Trump appeared focused only on himself, not what the country needed from him in GA, to have Republican Senate control and the failure of the Biden legislative agenda.
Newsflash, Archer. All Presidents and Congressmen are narcissist’s. They wouldn’t be in the spotlight if they were not. Take a look at Obama’s preening. for example
Archer, wait until you meet this fella called Obama! The absolute narcissist in chief!!
However your post is an exercise in turning a blind eye to reality because everyone has known since the creation of politics that one of the key skills required for getting in to politics is the trait of being a narcissist.
Trump is no different to anyone else in politics or in the public eye. In fact the key requirement to being a politician or public figure is a huge dose of narcissism. We have known this for all time yet somehow its only a problem with Trump? Hahahahahhahaa…..riiiiiiiiiiiight!
You are right though, you aren’t a psychologist or a psychiatrist and its also apparent that single brain cell you contain up in that thing you call a brain is awfully lonely.
“Trump is no different to anyone else in politics or in the public eye.”
Man, you could not be more wrong except Gavin Newsome maybe. Trump is in a class all his own and no one and I mean no one comes close to being like him. Most pols know when to keep their mouths closed but he doesn’t. Most pols ignore stupid or damaging questions from nobody reporters but he doesn’t. Most pols lie so he does have that in common with the rest. Most pols have the ability to hire competent staff that keep them out of trouble, he can’t. Most pols if indicted, would not personally attack their prosecutor, he has and is. I agree that all pols are narcissists but just looking at the spray-on tan and dyed hair makes you realize he is a special narcissist.
Saying that Trump shows the signs of narcissism isn’t the same as saying that Obama didn’t. Obama showed all the signs, too.
And yes, most of those who seek power and recognition probably are narcissists as well. I wouldn’t go so far as to paint ALL politicians with that brush, but again, pointing out that Trump might be one does not in any way mean that the rest aren’t, or that only Trump’s attitude and behavior are problematic, and the rest are fine.
The problem comes when Trump’s fandom downplays his shortcomings and portrays him as some kind of Constitutional savior.
Newsflash: He’s not. Like any other politician, he’s just a man, prone to mistakes just like the rest of us. Probably more prone to mistakes since he can’t seem to keep himself from Tweeting comments when he should stay out of things, or making a publicity stunt out of firing bad actors he never should have hired in the first place.
At least Obama had the sense to avoid that kind of trouble.
Not. One. Dime.
Let me see, a crazy woman accuses of rape and you respond that she is not only mistaken but crazy and the jury agrees that she was not raped but because he called her crazy she is entitled to $5,000,000? How can a jury not see that if she falsely accused him of rape, which they believe he didn’t commit, she has to be nuts? On the other hand, DJT hasn’t learned a single thing from this terrible experience. He keeps insulting her. I know it’s hard not to, but it’s going to cost him a lot of money if he keeps it up.
Let her enjoy the sugar rush.
This all goes away on appeal
This was a NYC jury, right? Everyone knows that drinking the water (and breathing the air) stunts mental capacity causing a severe inclination to the left and a strong antipathy towards anyone who can actually think and talk sense at the same time
Hell hath no fury like a woman with memories of unrequited rape and a hope and a dream of a pot of reparations.
I need a “hero”, a Democrat “hero”, and he has to shoot first, and ask questions later, never.
Sooooooo Trumps post trial comments can be taken in to consideration BUUUUUT not her wet dreams about rape?
She should just go straight for $45 billion. If you’re gonna lose, then lose big!