this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
613 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
5309 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
 

An attorney representing E. Jean Carroll has indicated the journalist could sue Donald Trump for a third time, as the former president continues to speak about her client publicly.

Speaking on MSNBC's Inside With Jen Psaki on Monday night, Shawn Crowley, an attorney for Carroll, responded to the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination telling supporters at a Michigan rally on Saturday that he had not done anything wrong to Carroll, whom he claimed he did not know, and that lawsuits against him were "unfair."

In January, a New York City jury ordered that the former president must pay $83.3 million in damages to the former Elle columnist, for statements made in 2019. He said she was lying about allegations that he sexually assaulted her inside a Manhattan department store dressing room in the 1990s. That amount includes $7.3 million in compensatory damages, $11 million for reputational repair, and $65 million in punitive damages. He has repeatedly denied all wrongdoing and has said he will appeal the verdict.

Trump was previously ordered to pay Carroll $5 million in damages in May in another civil defamation trial stemming from a denial he made about her claims in 2022. He is appealing that decision and has set aside $5.55 million with the Manhattan Court as part of that process. Newsweek contacted a representative for Trump by email to comment on this story.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Pretty dumb quote.

The bank has an army of lawyers who sure as shit gonna make it your problem.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It hasn't been a problem for Trump before. He's defaulted on many loans.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

He can't pay lawyers without selling real estate.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

... and I'm sure that was a significant problem for him each time.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I've been told by others that New York can start seizing his assets if he doesn't pay up. And PAC money is not infinite.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago

I was curious about the legal options here so did a little research. My first thought was can Trump use his go to move in this case and just declare Bankruptcy. IANAL but via the magic of google it seems like the answer is kind of. Civil judgements can be discharged via bankruptcy, but there's a few gotchas in there as well. To start with while the damages can be discharged, any fines or court fees can't. Furthermore if malice can be shown then damages can also be reclassified as non-dischargeable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand. Your other comment says he defaults on loans all the time and it's the bank's problem rather than his. Now you're saying New York will seize assets if he doesn't pay ?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm saying that's what I have been told by others. We'll see if it's true.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I'm very confident that a court of law will take whatever action is necessary to enforce it's rulings.

Banks have a range of interests and they will weight the direct and indirect costs of seeking settlement for loans. That is to say that in some circumstances they may choose to sit on the debt for a time seeking to preserve a relationship or so.

A court's interest is much more confined. Their only interest is to apply the law and enforce their rulings.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I’m very confident that a court of law will take whatever action is necessary to enforce it’s rulings.

Are you? When is Alex Jones going to be forced to pay that $1.5 billion? Because that case was two years ago.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

That's not really analogous.

A court awarded settlement is not enforced by the court, penalties are.