The former president has continued to criticize the journalist in public statements.

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.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    76·
    9 months ago

    New York will seize & start auctioning off his properties. He can’t even appeal without putting the damages fine in escrow.

    I read yesterday that Trump only has ~$550M in liquid assets & $50M of that he can’t touch without it automatically recalling a loan that he currently cannot pay.

    I’d like to point out the last part is no one’s problem but Trump’s & whatever bank gave him that loan.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      372·
      9 months ago

      Not even Trump’s problem, I’m afraid. As J. Paul Getty famously said-

      If you owe the bank $100, that’s your problem. If you owe the bank $100 million, that’s the bank’s problem.

      That’s true for $50 million as well.

      • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
        22·
        9 months ago

        thing is: he doesn’t owe it to a bank-- he owes it via judgements to Carroll and to the People of the State of New York, and, on their behalf, the State of New York will start seizing Trump’s assets and auctioning them off to cover the judgements.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        19·
        9 months ago

        Depends on how the loan is secured. If he put up some of his property as collateral then the bank can just seize it and it’s not their problem then.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              41·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • orclev@lemmy.world
                4·
                9 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.

              • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
                2·
                9 months ago

                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 ?

                  • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
                    1·
                    9 months ago

                    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.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        21·
        9 months ago

        That’s not an issue when your debtor owns some of the most valuable real estate in the USA & can’t pay lawyers without selling those assets to start with.