The comments were made at the CNN town hall last night. Here's the transcript. Here's the section that might contain material that could become the basis of another defamation suit:She was asleep and did not learn of his comments calling her claim of a decades-old sexual assault “fake” and a “made-up story” until Thursday morning, when her lawyer sent her a transcript, she said.
This woman, I don’t know her. I never met her. I have no idea who she is. I had a picture taken years ago with her and her husband, nice guy John Johnson.... She called him an ape, happens to be African-American. Called him an ape – the judge wouldn’t allow us to put that in. Her dog or her cat was named Vagina, the judge wouldn’t allow to put that in. All these things, he – but with her, they can put in anything, “Access Hollywood”.... I never met this woman. I never saw this woman. This woman said I met her at the front door of Bergdorf Goodman which I never go into other than for a couple of charities. I met her in the front door. She was about 60 years. This is like 22, 23 years ago. I met her in the front door of Bergdorf Goodman. I was immediately attracted to her and she was immediately attracted to me. And we had this great chemistry. We’re walking into a crowded department store. We had this great chemistry. And a few minutes later, we end up in a room, a dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, right near the cash register. And then she found out that there were locks in the door. She said, I found one that was open. She found one, she learned this at trial. She found one that was open. What kind of a woman meet somebody and brings them up and within minutes, you’re playing hanky-panky in a dressing room, okay? I don’t know if she was married then or not. John Johnson, I feel sorry for you, John Johnson.... ... I was very famous then and I owned the Plaza Hotel right next door and I owned the buildings around it. I’m not going into a dressing room of a crowded department store. Then I say, if she was being raped – and by the way, they said she wasn’t raped, okay?... And I didn’t do anything else either. You know what? Because I have no idea who the hell she is. I don’t know who this woman is.... This is a fake story, made up story. We had a horrible Clinton-appointed judge. He was horrible. He allowed her to put everything in. He allowed us to put nothing in. This is a fake story.... This is fake story.... I have no idea who the hell – she’s a whack job.
Is Trump not going to be able to say the story is a lie? Every time he's asked about it, he won't be able to deny it, because it will be a new defamation?
Perhaps any new lawsuits will be easy to defend against, because Carroll has (to some extent) recovered her reputation. Everyone ought to know by now that she won her defamation lawsuit, but that only means that one jury decided to believe her (and only to believe part of her story, the claim of sexual abuse but not the claim of rape).
If Trump goes about saying over and over that she's a liar (and she's nuts), it will still hurt her reputation in some quarters. Many people will believe that he's the liar, but it was always the case that many believe he's a massive liar. For some, but not all, his remarks had no negative effect on her reputation.
But shouldn't the lawsuit mean that he's got to stop calling her a liar or he'll need to pay new increments of damages? How do you get someone to stop lying about you?
Why not bring a new lawsuit? It should be much easier to litigate, since Trump should be precluded from relitigating the factual questions about what, if anything, happened that unspecified day in Bergdorf Goodman. That's a matter for collateral estoppel.
Posts
61 comments:
You get damages for damages to your reputation. Surely after the initial defamation hearing is settled, there can be no further damage to your reputation by those comments being repeated ? The damage is already done and "repaired".
Otherwise every reporting of those comments would also be a republishing of the defamatory material subject to an additional damages claim ?
Yes, now that the jury found he did not rape her but she was defamed when he denied he raped her, have another go at the wheel of fortune.
I think Ann is right about tort law and she is certainly right about collateral estoppel.
But what if an appellate court reverses and dismisses because Trump’s right to due process was violated because this woman was allowed to file a tort case 20 years after the fact?
There have been a lot of criticisms of CNN for its editorial judgment in arranging this shitshow. Some criticisms of Kaitlyn Collins; some criticisms of Chris Licht, the new CEO at CNN. I agree with some of the criticisms, disagree with others; there are so many it's impossible to address them all individually.
But there's one thing that has struck me as the dust settles. That is, that CNN owes E. Jean Carroll a profound apology, for hosting Trump along with an audience of Trump fans who were shameless about laughing out loud as Trump called Ms. Carroll a "whack job." CNN should have known of that risk. And now, every media platform knows of that risk.
I just don't know how any other major media platform can host Trump again after this. Because the chances that Trump will again re-injure Ms. Carroll with defamatory commentary are too great. An unacceptable risk. Or at least a risk that should be unacceptable.
I do wonder if Reid Hoffman, billionaire and Epstein Island visitor will fun her again.
Dick Stepping - full course load.
Not sure collateral estoppel applies until affirmed on appeal. Procedural matter so federal and state rules may differ.
Argument for sizable punitive damages award may be stronger, but usually limited based on size of compensatory damages award. USSC indicated ten times max. But perhaps the ratio can be based on original multimillion compensatory award.
Apparently there is a still pending claim based on the denial he gave as president, where at trial, per recent ruling of DC Circuit on referral from 2nd circuit court, there would be a jury issue as to whether he made the statement in the course of his employment and so claim is against USA, which has sovereign immunity. I suspect Carroll was going to drop that, but this latest insult may change thinking there.
How is denying someone's unproven allegation "defaming them"? In order to stop "Defaming her", Trump would have to stop denying her version of the events. But she hasn't proven her version of the events. And Trump never agreed with her version.
It was an insane verdict. And all this happened in 1995/1996 (she cant remember the year) and that was more than 25 years ago!
BTW, was this trial done in NYC because 'the crime' supposedly happened in NYC? or is there another reason? I'm shocked at how many of these famous trials end up in Manhattan or DC. Republicans better do something about that, because they can't get justice in these Democrat run hellholes with leftwing juries.
The majesty of the law is in serious trouble. Anyway the jury said she's a liar too.
"It was an insane verdict."
A judgment is a judgment (unless you can say there was no full and fair opportunity to litigate, which you clearly can't in this case).
It won't be overturned on appeal on the ground that it's "insane" (which I take to mean that no reasonable jury could decide it the way they did).
Flip-side Inga: "Dick Stepping - full course load."
GOPe-ers don't like it when conservatives push back on lefty lies.
And gain and again and again. Law fare has no res judicata allowed.up the Attis fees ante until poorest man drops out.
It's pretty cool that a broadened statute of limitations and TDS jury can extract millions for a crazy columnist without evidence.
Can Bergdorf Goodman sue Carroll for making their store a scary place where sexual assault victims are ignored?
Oh..wait. She just walked out of there, maybe stopping to pick up some new tights and food for Vagina.
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-only-held-accountable-because-235557737.html
"How do you get someone to stop lying about you?"
If you are a righty, you can't--in fact, you risk insane verdicts in favor of the liar.
Surely this is not the first time for this, there must be a previous ruling. The suggestion is that you get a podunk jury to find for you and that extinguishes someone’s first amendment rights. A claim that she is a liar may be supported, because she lied about the rape as opposed to harassment. Could Trump sue her for claiming rape when she was only found to be harassed?
https://youtu.be/IArLkWNDw7U
Whoops. Bad memory..,
Is Trump not going to be able to say the story is a lie? Every time he's asked about it, he won't be able to deny it, because it will be a new defamation?
Just because it's Kafka-esque doesn't mean that isn't the result under our legal system. But I wonder whether he gets to countersue her for claiming in interviews that he raped her (a much more serious reputation-injuring claim than either lying or sexual assault) when her evidence didn't convince the jury.
I was going to write that her evidence wasn't enough to show it was more likely than not that he raped her (i.e. >50%), but I actually don't know what the jury instructions were or what evidentiary standard was applicable.
Trump should have sued Carroll for defamation from the very start.
Consider it- Trump sues Carroll thereby putting into the court record that she is lying- the basis of the suit itself. Could Carroll have then countersued for defamation?
This trial is a terrible precedent. It means one can find a rich target, accuse that target of heinous personal assault in some fuzzy past, and when that person denies it publicly, one can then sue for defamation. This is a clownish judicial system.
"How do you get someone to stop lying about you? "
Hmmmm...maybe stop lying about them first??? When you bring up something that happened over 2 decades ago, and you don't have any evidence, or knowledge of when it actually happened, and no witnesses, don't be surprised when you are called out for it.
Would collateral estoppel apply in a new suit over a new complaint? A new claim of offence?
In any case, what factual questions were settled? He was found not guilty of rape, so he gets to say she lied about rape. The guilty verdict came in sexual abuse and defamation. The defamation verdict isn’t relevant because it would be a new claim of defamation. What does a finding of “sexual abuse” actually preclude him from claiming?
Her cat should sue her.
Yancey Ward said...This trial is a terrible precedent.
The verdict is mind boggling. She claims he raped her long ago, and “can’t remember” any detail that would enable him to mount a defense. It was in a somewhat public place and so didn’t have to be he said/she said. It was her choice to make it that.
The jury doesn’t believe her, but awards her $5 million anyway. How is that possible? How did they decide the rape didn’t happen but this other thing did? On what facts? What rationale? I hope Trump’s lawyers moved for a directed verdict to preserve the appeal because he deserves one. No reasonable jury could have come out the way this one did.
LOL
Has anyone considered that Trump doesn't really care about the money, and he's going to keep this insane woman and this insane verdict in the public eye as the face of his detractors as much as he possibly can?
It has been his style from the beginning. No doubt that his lawyers and political advisors have been telling him for years not to talk about various things--not the way he does things.
I was going to write that her evidence wasn't enough to show it was more likely than not that he raped her (i.e. >50%), but I actually don't know what the jury instructions were or what evidentiary standard was applicable.
========
do jury have to follow instructions even if they find them ridiculous/nuts? how does judge enforce? are the jury not independent?
I was going to write that her evidence wasn't enough to show it was more likely than not that he raped her (i.e. >50%), but I actually don't know what the jury instructions were or what evidentiary standard was applicable.
========
do jury have to follow instructions even if they find them ridiculous/nuts? how does judge enforce? are the jury not independent? unless they feel intimidated?!
IOW are any of your concerns relevant?
Dave Begley wrote: " ... this woman was allowed to file a tort case 20 years after the fact?"
And she was allowed to do that only after a special law was passed in the New York legislature and signed into law by the Democrat Party governor of New York, specifically to allow - for one year only - this woman to file this case. A law that she herself campaigned for in order to extract this free money.
We are no longer a nation of laws and to pretend otherwise is silly. This woman can sue for rape and need not provide the day, week, month or year that the rape occurred. Specifically to deny to this accused the opportunity to prove that he could not have done so because he can prove he was elsewhere at the alleged time of the "rape."
I believe the appellate courts, because it's Trump, are going to find they have no standing to challenge this ruling, or some other nonsense never-before-heard-of ruling to allow her case to stand on some BS technicality.
We had all better start understanding what kind of a cockamamie country we live in now, or we will surely regret it. American was a nice idea. But it's lost, probably forever.
Dave Begley wrote: " ... this woman was allowed to file a tort case 20 years after the fact?"
And she was allowed to do that only after a special law was passed in the New York legislature and signed into law by the Democrat Party governor of New York, specifically to allow - for one year only - this woman to file this case. A law that she herself campaigned for in order to extract this free money.
We are no longer a nation of laws and to pretend otherwise is silly. This woman can sue for rape and need not provide the day, week, month or year that the rape occurred. Specifically to deny to this accused the opportunity to prove that he could not have done so because he can prove he was elsewhere at the alleged time of the "rape."
I believe the appellate courts, because it's Trump, are going to find they have no standing to challenge this ruling, or some other nonsense never-before-heard-of ruling to allow her case to stand on some BS technicality.
We had all better start understanding what kind of a cockamamie country we live in now, or we will surely regret it. American was a nice idea. But it's lost, probably forever.
Suing Trump is sort of this woman's hobby. And how long should we or the courts indulge her hobby?
Chuck: If the MSM morons would stop bringing the woman up, Trump would not have to give his version of the encounter.
Trump asked for this
You get damages for damages to your reputation
=======
is Streisand effect = damages to your reputation
is it taught in law schools?
The defamation tort accrued well within the applicable statute of limitations (always short statutes in defamation causes of action) because Trump defamed Ms. Carroll while he was president, after he was president, and even after she filed lawsuits against him.
Those claims were not decades old.
If Carroll sues Trump again for defamation for his claims that she is lying about him assaulting her, the doctrine of collateral estoppel will apply. What that means is that Trump will not be permitted to contest the fact that he assaulted Carroll. That fact was decided by the first case and he doesn’t get to relitigate it. The only issue would be damages which, as Anne notes, might be hard to prove.
If Trump goes about saying over and over that she's a liar (and she's nuts), it will still hurt her reputation in some quarters.
For example, many people commenting here.
As for the "rape" thing - my understanding of the case is that the plaintiff said that she was penetrated, but was unsure if it was a finger or penis. "Rape" of course is by definition penile-vaginal penetration. That the jury could not make an evidentiary finding that a penis was involved, but that a finger was, hardly exonerates the defendant in this case.
I said before, the day of the verdict, that she should sue again. Because he and his people again defamed her, calling her crazy and a liar.
It would be good for her to sue again -- not because I particularly care about her or because of the false accusation that I (who voted for Trump twice and am eternally grateful for many of his presidential actions) am somehow anti-Trump or a NeverTrumper -- because maybe FINALLY Trump would learn some discipline and keeping his effing mouth shut.
Just because he's been a blowhard all his life, and even though Joe Biden was an insufferable blowhard decades before Trump came on the scene, does not mean that Trump must always be one. Trump would now be serving his second term if Donald Trump had just been a normal person with some self-discipline. But thanks to HIS inability to control himself, we have Joe Biden.
You get damages for damages to your reputation. Surely after the initial defamation hearing is settled, there can be no further damage to your reputation by those comments being repeated?
You can get nominal damages, e.g. one dollar.
But what if an appellate court reverses and dismisses because Trump’s right to due process was violated because this woman was allowed to file a tort case 20 years after the fact?
Where have people been?? States have reopened their civil statutes of limitation for decades. And the courts have upheld them.
Awfully late in the day for people to start noticing the statute of limitations issue.
Literally THOUSANDS of cases that were previously time-barred have been filed around the country the past few decades. In New York alone, about 10,000 cases alleging sex abuse have been filed, with many of the defendants and witnesses long dead. And the constitutionality of the revival statutes allowing such lawsuits has long been settled.
He was found not guilty of rape, so he gets to say she lied about rape.
And she could sue him again - and win. For him to say she "lied," he has to prove that she knowingly said something that is false.
And, again, the testimony as I understand it is that she said she was penetrated by something, whether it was a finger or penis she is not sure. That does not make a claim of "rape" an intentional falsehood.
" No reasonable jury could have come out the way this one did."
You're looking for "reasonable" in the age of Biden? Look around you. Do you see anything "reasonable" going on today? A reasonable man or woman wouldn't have voted for this mess. But here we are.
She will never get a dime from Trump, and he will never stop calling her what she is, a liar.
That the case was ever brought to trial when this lying woman can't even recall the YEAR it happened is a travesty. Why should the courts, and their judgements, be respected, when this is the kind of nonsense they allow and produce? We are losing item after item in our civic heritage, and in return what do we get? The "destruction" of some 76 year old man who looks suspiciously undestroyed.
So it's illegal to have an opinion now?
"Crazy" is an opinion and Carroll is a public figure...but why pretend anything has to follow rules or established precedent? That's not where we are.
We had all better start understanding what kind of a cockamamie country we live in now, or we will surely regret it. American was a nice idea. But it's lost, probably forever.
We have to hold on until SpaceX makes space colonization possible, and then set up independent Heinleinian nations in space with more explicit Constitutions.
She was asleep and did not learn of his comments calling her claim of a decades-old sexual assault “fake” and a “made-up story” until Thursday morning, when her lawyer sent her a transcript, she said.
Terrible response.
Better: She bolted upright from her deep sleep the moment he uttered the harmful words. And she has been unable to sleep soundly since, despite help from the world's leading sleep experts.
gahrie: "So it's illegal to have an opinion now?"
Ding ding ding ding!
You have precisely identified the democraticals/leftists/LLR-democraticals objective.
She'll have to get in line. Kaitlan Collins announced she's going to sue Trump in a NYC court for abuse.
HoodlumDoodlum said...
"Crazy" is an opinion and Carroll is a public figure
--
Who went on Cooper and demonstrated it.
Better watch out Mark...lonejustice will count your comments and make a snide comment saying you should be censored because it isn't your blog.
In her pleadings, item 1 in her prayer for relief was, “order Trump to retract his defamatory statement.” That’s something a judge rather than a jury would have to order. But can a judge issue that type of order?
item 1 in her prayer for relief was, “order Trump to retract his defamatory statement.” That’s something a judge rather than a jury would have to order. But can a judge issue that type of order?
No (see U.S. Const. Amend. I).
If this verdict is upheld on appeal, Trump will pay every penny. That’s because he owns lots of assets that can easily be seized and sold to satisfy a judgment. The only question I have is whether the federal courts will require him to post a bond for the amount of the judgment to stay execution pending appeal. I believe that’s the rule in the NewYork state courts but I don’t know about the federal courts.
Drago, you might want to spend some time studying the difference between an assertion of fact (“I did not sexually assault X. I don’t even know who she is”) and a statement of opinion (“Lobsters taste better than steak” or “Biden is a bad president”).
@Ann: A judgment is a judgment (unless you can say there was no full and fair opportunity to litigate, which you clearly can't in this case).
Full disclosure: I am not a lawyer.
That said, "full" and "fair" seem to be doing an awful lot of work in that sentence.
Hypothetical: Carroll finds out a few facts about me: I can cover a $2M judgment, and that in the mid-2000's, I had been to New York several times.
She accuses me of raping her in a Bergdorf dressing room. No idea when, other than that it happened in the mid-2000's.
In response to this public accusation, I assert she is either a liar, or delusional.
She takes me to court. Why do I not lose $2M?*
My non-lawyer brain simply cannot comprehend how there can anything remotely approximating a meaningful litigation in the absence of even one rebuttable fact regarding the charge.
*And why does Brett Kavanaugh not have his reputation destroyed. Guilt by accusation is a moral atrocity.
Another instance of Wolf's Law:
"If it rings true, it is true"
(Even when it rings ridiculous)
"Pedo Pete" laughs as he orders another ice cream cone.
DB Levene: Trump has to post a bond or file for bankruptcy to avoid execution on his assets. The one procedural step for Carroll is that if she wants to go against assets outside NY State she will have to move before J. Kaplan to register the judgment in those states, which generally requires establishing that he has insufficient assets in NY and has assets where she seeks to register. Here, he has sufficient assets in NY, unless he has been busy putting his stuff in others' names. But there is already a court order against doing that in the pending civil fraud case by the NY AG, which goes to trial this fall.
And she could sue him again - and win. For him to say she "lied," he has to prove that she knowingly said something that is false.
And, again, the testimony as I understand it is that she said she was penetrated by something, whether it was a finger or penis she is not sure. That does not make a claim of "rape" an intentional falsehood.
Lefty Mark is more of a lawyer than I am. In fact, I despise lawyers even though two of my kids are lawyers (and lefties like Mark) I would suggest that the definition of "rape" be consulted before opining. Even in NYC rape does not require a penis inserted, I believe.
Douglas B. Levene: "Drago, you might want to spend some time studying the difference between an assertion of fact (“I did not sexually assault X. I don’t even know who she is”) and a statement of opinion (“Lobsters taste better than steak” or “Biden is a bad president”)."
To put it in Einsteinian terms, you and I are not operating in the same communications reference frame.
If I'm Trump, I just keep plowing forward with calling this obvious and transparent liar a liar, over and over again, whilst calling the judge corrupt, which he is, and labeling this entire exercise part of the undeniably rigged system, which it so clearly is.
That's easily worth as many millions in fines as the New Soviets demand given the potential political upside.
Counselor, your time would be better spent figuring out why you are such an easily duped patsy for obvious FBI false flag ops like supposed "secret" Jan 6 hoax "insurrection" "nearby" "weapons caches" (wink wink) and hoax "pipe bombers".
Looks like we both have some work to do...but some "growth" tasks are more...fundamental... than others. No?
Post a Comment