Lawyers file opposition to Trump’s request, telling Supreme Court justices they do not need ‘to bail out this president’

E Jean Carroll’s lawyers are fighting Donald Trump’s efforts to toss her $83m damages verdict in the US supreme court, telling the justices that they do not need “to bail out this president from the consequences of his repeated litigation choices”.

Jurors delivered Carroll the huge award on 26 January 2024, less than one year after the journalist and author won $5m in her sexual abuse and defamation case against Trump. The president has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing in relation to Carroll.

Carroll’s legal team on 30 October filed their opposition to Trump’s request that the supreme court consider his appeal of Carroll’s massive win. Among Trump’s legal arguments is a claim that presidential immunity protects him from liability from conduct during his time in office, including 2019 statements in which he called Carroll a liar.

  • Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Convicted rapist, well-documented pedo who openly brags about sexually assaulting women and is well known for stiffing payments is attempting to stiff court ordered payments to victim he raped because he lost the court case.

    I know I left out some of the minutiae but that should hit the high points.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 hours ago

    That welsher still hasn’t paid? WTF? Is there anyone in the legal world that can force him?

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      5 hours ago

      He paid off the other $5 million judgement. This is a different case that has been on a later timeline.

    • frunch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Right? Why does it seem when someone finally wins a judgement against that asshole it becomes trapped in endless appeals

      • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Because his MO has always been to weaponize the judicial system to the point where the other party either gives up in frustration or can’t afford to continue litigation.

        • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I think this is any rich person’s MO, isn’t it? “Expensive lawyers” are just the ones that kick the ball as far down the road as they can and keep charging six-figure retainers.

          • darkdemize@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Sure, except he has a history of using it to avoid paying contractors for the work they’ve been hired to complete, aside from his criminal charges. Most other rich people will at least honor their side of a contract (citation needed).