this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
983 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19135 readers
2216 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 94 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Wow, 3x the money in punitive damage. Imagine how bad it'd be if this country did anything but fine rich people for being evil...

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 70 points 10 months ago (2 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.

[–] andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 31 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago

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

[–] showmeyourkizinti@startrek.website 16 points 10 months ago (2 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

[–] DaBPunkt@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago (3 children)

“Well he a billionaire” [citation needed].

[–] neidu2@feddit.nl 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I present to you the only proof that he's a billionaire: He said so. That's valid, right? Right? Guys? Anybody?

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 10 months ago

In the instance of the court setting damages, I’m happy to accept the highest valuation Trump has to offer

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months 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.

[–] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

83,000 would be a drop in the bucket. 83 million is more like a water bottle in a bucket.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 36 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 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.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 37 points 10 months ago (1 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.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] mercano@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It’s a civil case, unfortunately, so jail time was never an option. At the time the incident occurred, there was a five year statute of limitations, so Trump has never been charged criminally in the matter.

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There's something truly gross about a civil case being the only recourse for a heinous crime.