Court Upholds Carroll’s $83 Million Defamation Award Against Trump
Again, when have statements defending yourself or denying allegations been defamatory? I just don’t get it.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals once again ruled against President Donald Trump as he tries to overturn the defamation awards for E. Jean Carroll.
Carroll claimed Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman fitting room decades ago.
In 2023, the same court upheld a verdict finding Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation against Carroll, awarding her $5 million.
This ruling upholds the jury’s verdict in Carroll’s second trial awarding her $83 million after finding “Trump acted with common law malice when he made defamatory statements about Carroll in June 2019.”
Trump argued he has presidential immunity or deserves a new trial. He also claimed the amount is excessive.
The court listed the supposed defamatory remarks (pages six to eight) and, well, I just raise my eyebrows.
Carroll is an advice columnist, making her a public figure.
As you know, public figures have a much narrower standard to prove defamation, making it difficult for them to win a case.
Basically, Trump’s statements deny the alleged rape. He described the charges as fabricated and nonsense and the case as fake.
Trump constantly repeated that he has never even met Carroll: “I’ve said it once & I’ll say it again, a thousand times . . . . I never heard of E. Jean Carroll, never had anything to do with her, never would want anything to do with her . . . . The whole story is a MADE UP & DISGUSTING HOAX!”
I…I don’t ever recall someone defending themselves or denying accusations being defamatory.
Immunity
Concerning immunity, the court wrote:
In any event, presidential immunity differs in both origin and purpose from the other “structural” immunities that Trump references. Apart from the Supreme Court’s recognition that presidential immunity is rooted in the constitutional structure, Trump does not draw any comparisons to these other immunities or reconcile these differences. In the absence of any intervening change of law on this issue, adhering to our prior decision would not work a manifest injustice.
Malice
Then the court gets into the malice portion. Trump made these statements before the jury’s verdict. That’s important because the court wrote:
In any event, we find no error in the district court’s ruling. The starting point is the now-indisputable fact that a jury found in Carroll II that Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996, and that finding is entitled to preclusive effect. See supra Discussion Section II.A. Likewise, it is now indisputable that, based on the jury’s findings, Carroll did not lie and that Trump uttered falsehoods in his statements accusing her of lying and acting with improper motivations. See supra Discussion Section II.A. Because Trump’s 2019 statements about his own personal conduct mirrored the statements he made in 2022, a reasonable juror could only conclude that Trump knew that his statements — that Carroll lied about him sexually assaulting her for ulterior purposes — were false or that he acted with reckless disregard to whether those statements were false.
Again…when has statements defending yourself or denying allegations ever been described as defamatory?
Then the court said “Trump acted with, at a minimum, reckless disregard for the truth.”
Why? Well, again, because…I don’t know:
In his deposition testimony, Trump admitted that prior to making his 2019 statements, he never read Carroll’s book or the New York magazine publication, never contacted Bergdorf Goodman’s, never did any research on Carroll, and never had anyone working for him research Carroll. He also admitted that, before issuing his 2019 statements, he had no knowledge of Carroll’s book deal, financial circumstances, or political affiliation.
Am I missing something here?
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This is insane. Even if he was guilty which I doubt 83M is maybe 82M and change too large. She’s an advice columnist and this whole fiasco no doubt elevated her notoriety allowing her to make more money off of it. Didn’t she also write a book? Again if so she made money off of this case. Obscene.,
No, actually. According to the court (I only skimmed it but I saw this), she lost her job, and while she continues to run her column on her own web site almost no one is interested in it. So other than the damages she hasn’t made money of the case. Off her allegations, yes, because they were what induced people to buy her book. But not off the case.
Also, these are punitive damages, not compensatory, so they need bear no relationship to how much damage she actually suffered.
Whatever happened to the counter suit? Countering suing is almost never heard of these days. DJT should have counter-sued Carroll for her false accusations. Why did he not do so?
He tried, if I remember correctly, but the judge denied it
He’s estopped from doing that because as far as the law is concerned it’s an established fact that her accusations were true and his denials were false.
Nope! She claimed rape and the jury determined that she wasn’t
The jury found that he digitally penetrated her. At the time that wasn’t defined legally as rape, but if it were true he certainly couldn’t prevail in a defamation suit for it.
“…when have statements defending yourself or denying allegations been defamatory?”
When you’re Trump and you deny Democrat allegations, that’s when.
Let’s see, New York passes a law specifically to sue Trump over this accusation that matches a Law and Order: SVU episode. Making it possible to sue someone *civilly* for the crimes of rape and sexual assault. Then they come out with these outrageous awards and can run headlines about rape.
We all know what’s going on here, pure corruption of the New York courts. They’re running an operation against him. “Always accuse others of what you do yourself.” They’re aim is defame Trump so of course they’ll get him on defamation.
Seems to me that NY’s Adult Survivor’s Act is unConstitutionally ex post facto in the it retro actively removed a protection, statute of limitations, that Trump had already possessed
Mark – Ex post facto clause prevents the federal government from retroactively changing the law to make something criminal ( potentionaly applicable to the states ). While SC holding is that the ex post facto law only applies to criminal cases, I am of the opinion it also applies to civil fines, etc.
However , this suit is between two parties, neither of which are government entities, therefore the ex post facto law doesnt apply.
The basis of the extension of the statute of limitations for filing a civil suit is that the statute of limitations had not expired at the time of statute of limitations was extended
NY did not pass the law “specifically to sue Trump”. It was an inevitable result of the previously passed act that opened a one-year window into the statute of limitations for plaintiffs who claimed to have been minors at the time of the alleged offense. Once the legislature had done that, which was the result of a many-years-long campaign, it was inevitable that there would be a similar campaign to allow suits by plaintiffs who claimed to have been adults at the time of the alleged offense.
The pitfall was the same; defendants were left with no real way to defend themselves after all that time had passed. All they could do was deny it, and in the case of institutional defendants they couldn’t even do that.
Once it passed many people took advantage of it to sue whomever they decided to accuse. Carroll was just one of them. She was already suing for defamation anyway; now she could sue for the alleged assault as well. Note that although the jury fell for it, she only got $5M total. That case isn’t the subject of this appeal; this is about the original suit, for defamation only, which is what she got those huge punitive damages for.
In any case, the ex-post-facto clause only applies to criminal law. It doesn’t apply at all to civil law.
Truth is a defense against defamation. She is a complete loon – and a dangerous one, at that.
Truth is indeed a defense against defamation, but in this case it’s already an “established fact” that his denial of her story was false. He’s estopped from denying it in court, so he wasn’t allowed to even tell the jury that he still believes she was lying. The jury was told to take it as a fact that the assault did actually happen, and therefore obviously he must have known about it. Therefore when he said it didn’t happen he must have been knowingly lying. Hence “actual malice”, which overcame the fact that she’s a public figure.
The problem here is this weird and perverse application of collateral estoppel. In real life we all know that just because a jury found something doesn’t make it true. But in a courtroom it does.
Consider the fact that a person can be prosecuted for perjury, simply for having denied guilt. There used to be an “exculpatory no” doctrine, but the Supreme Court threw it out 27 years ago. So you’re accused of a crime, you get on the stand and deny having committed it, the jury doesn’t believe you, and now you can be prosecuted for perjury! That doesn’t seem to happen for denying on the stand, but it is the law for statements made to investigators.
I think what’s needed is the restoration of the “exculpatory no”, both in perjury law and in defamation law.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the “evidence” in the original case consist entirely of her anecdote?
It was totally “she said”. I don’t think Trump was allowed to deny her accusations. She couldn’t remember the year, month, day or time at which this occurred in a store in which you get a personal sales person if you are in there. And the jury bought that.
The only way I would not know when something like this occurred is if I was in a prison in a third world country where I was constantly tortured, there were no windows and I was unconscious most of the time.
…and the testimony of a friend that said Carroll told her of the incident shortly after the fact, but neither could give a specific date
Yes, but the jury in the first (filed second) case believed her, so the jury in the second (filed first) case was told to accept it as an established fact, and the defense was not allowed to deny it, or even tell the jury that Trump still believes the first jury was wrong.
“Because Trump’s 2019 statements about his own personal conduct mirrored the statements he made in 2022, a reasonable juror could only conclude that Trump knew that his statements — that Carroll lied about him sexually assaulting her for ulterior purposes — were false or that he acted with reckless disregard to whether those statements were false.”
So if you personally know the jury got it wrong, you are to expected to “know” anything you say to the contrary is a false statement? What ridiculous sh*tlib “reasoning.”
there are rules for Trump and then others for the rest of us
Those seem to be the rules for the rest of us too. It’s collateral estoppel gone wild.
Actually, women getting away with false accusations against men is not unprecedented, and it is ignored by the (legacy) media and undergirded by a worldview accepted over the past 60 years or so: Western Civilization is the woeful result of white males in general victimizing everyone else in general, so retaliation by any non-white-males against any white males is…cool.
Tell the lying Can’t Understand Normal Thinking, pervert to take her “Law and Order” television script and shove it up her front hole.
No money. Not ever. Tell everyone that he will refuse to abide by the decision.
What are they gonna do, garnish his paycheck?
But I know he will take it to the SC.
So here is my commentary. She is a pervert. Her books say she’s a pervert. She even said rape ain’t bad. What kind of fucked up woman is this?
What are they going to do? Seize his assets, just like any other judgment. They just go to his bank, show the judgment, and the bank has to pay it.
Not one piece of evidence. The supposed evidence did not exists when the alleged assault was committed. She doesn’t know an actual date, or have anything to corroborate any of her claims. His defense was not allowed to present evidence refuting the crime. You can’t make it up. Our courts are just refuges for morons that other morons chose to put where no moron should ever be.
She appeared on the cover of New York Magazine, according to her, wearing the same outfit that she had on at the event, however the designer of the clothes, Donna Karan, said that she created the clothing on the 2000s not sometime in the 1990s when Carrol said she was attacked
Mark – humorous comment – “Donna Karan, said that she created the clothing on the 2000s not sometime in the 1990s when Carrol said she was attacked”
I sued a former employer for lost wages in 1996. He produced a document proving an event occurred in 1993. I won the case when another former employee testified the format of that pre – printed form/document wasnt created until 1995.
I think it was allowed to present that evidence in the original trial. It’s just that the jury chose to believe her and not him.
At this trial no exculpatory evidence was allowed, because of collateral estoppel. The “fact” of the sexual assault was established and unchallengeable, never mind how implausible it was. The jury could not be told that Trump still believes it didn’t happen. It’s an established “fact” that it did happen, and since he was there he must remember it, therefore he can’t possibly believe it didn’t happen.
That’s perverse, but it seems to be the law, especially since the Supreme Court threw out the “exculpatory no” doctrine regarding false statements to federal officials.
Any rape without a contemporaneous police report didn’t happen. Simple rule.
Other cases are mind changes or fantasy.
Rape is an obsolete charge in any case Rape is an offense against feminine modesty, which no longer exists. The charge ought to be assault and battery. Then everybody knows what it is, what evidence looks like, and probabilities without having to figure in the feminine mind.
I did not think it was possible for you to be more retarded than your Jewhatred statements, but I was wrong.
Well, even Carroll stated that some rapes aren’t bad.
Around 1980 Wm. Buckley wrote an opinion on a Supreme Court case that had just come up, namely can a man rape his wife. The charge was rape and Buckley said that rape being a crime against feminine modesty, and there being no question of that in marriage, the answer was no. The correct charge is assault and battery.
SCOTUS decided the other way, and today nobody knows what a rape is.
Since then feminine modesty has disappeared altogether, marriage or not.
It’s pretty obvious the whole thing was rigged and I hope that as soon as it’s overturned, Trump sues her, her lawyer and the judicial system who played along…
Anytime a defense isn’t allowed to present evidence exonerating his client to the court, all charges and accusations ought to be dropped and the case dismissed with prejudice…
I think he was allowed to present exonerating evidence in the original trial. Just not in this one, because of collateral estoppel.
Advice columnist? Who would take advice from this loon?
She’s probably no more lunatic than most people in that line of work.
No one has the right to destroy another person’s belief by demanding empirical evidence.
–ANN LANDERS (DIRECTOR, HANDGUN CONTROL)
I have many times in the same time frame been in stores in NY City like the one where this was alleged to have happened. IMO there is no way store clerks would not have been hovering near a celebrity like Trump every minute he was there. Also, from personal experience, every single detail of a traumatic experience gets burned into your head forever. She couldn’t remember anything.
Supreme Court here it comes
Maybe she’ll not make it til then, she looks very long in the tooth
Whether she makes it or not is immaterial. If she is gone, then her Estate replaces her as the plaintiff.
I am doubtful the SC will take this one up??
I doubt SCOTUS will grant cert. There doesn’t seem to be a cert-worthy issue here.
The whole thing is perverse, but I don’t see a clear way out of it.
Maybe what’s needed is to appeal the original jury finding, and if that can be overturned then the second jury finding, which is what we’re discussing now, would surely automatically disappear too. The original finding would be challenged simply by claiming that no reasonably instructed jury could possibly find, on the balance of probabilities, that the assault happened. That’s a very difficult thing to win, but it has to be tried.
I don’t see that happening either. This is as perverse as they come and there is absolutely no chance what so ever Trump will get justice in this matter. There is no way in hell Trump will be treated fairly in this matter.
My plan is to sue E Jean Carroll for raping me in a Macy’s dressing room.
Give me a little time to construct the where and when, shop for a good venue (probably in some Muslim jurisdiction that hates women but will give me a winning verdict), then I’ll collect my $80 million from her and give it back to Trump.
I don’t need witnesses, I can use clothing that wasn’t even sold at the time I allege the rape.
It should be a big win for me.
Totally ridiculous. The failure of the judge to reduce the award is reversible error, among many. For $83 million you’d expect this lady, at minimum, to be in a vegetative state. She better enjoy it while she can. A decision removed from politics dictates an rather obvious change of result.
It’s punitive damages, not compensatory, so it doesn’t need to bear any relationship to the extent of the actual damage she supposedly suffered. So it’s irrelevant that she’s not in a vegetative state.
I read much on this and found the entire thing ridiculous from the start. The unfounded accusations, basically a “he said, she said”, silly and the nut couldn’t even remember basic facts about what happened. If I’m not mistaken the entire thing was bankrolled by a Trump hating billionaire. Are we not now allowed to defend ourselves in public? She claimed he raped her, he said she is a nut and he never met her. I’m inclined to agree with Trump on this one and these sex assault claims decades after they were supposed to have happened should never be allowed inside a courtroom
Lawfare on the civil side. Any deep blue city can create a plaintiff to concoct a story against a conservative politician and be awarded damages. There is little reciprocation that I can see. Even if the citizens red county was willing to go tit for tat, they would need jurisdiction and have to show that the liberal politician was out there in boondocks.
Yes this does appear to have opened a new front in the ongoing lawfare offensive with plenty of potential for political posturing and profit! All it takes is a blue venue with a properly indoctrinated jury pool, and conservatives can be fleeced with impunity. Just watch how this unfolds. Once upon a time the FBI was pretty successful at breaking up such institutionalized corruption, but those were better days.
If anyone thinks the jury considered anything but Orange Man Bad in either trial, I have a bridge to sell you.
There are jurisdictions where Trump could be accused of murder and the “victim” could come in and testify and the jury would still convict.