Appeals Court Upholds Carroll’s $83 Million Judgment Against Trump.

President Trump’s lawyer tired to argue that the S. Ct., immunity decision shield him.

‘Nobody is above the law - except ME!’

Jawohl, Mein Fuhrer!

The same court had previously rejected the immunity defense. Be interesting to see if the SCOTUS grants cert.

I wonder if the US Marshal's will be serving trump a writ of execution in the Oval. I'm assuming all that trash gold shit he has on the shelves is probably 14 carat gold plated but you never know.

I believe it’s spray paint. Pics of identical cheap trim in white from Home Depot are on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
I believe it’s spray paint. Pics of identical cheap trim in white from Home Depot are on the internet.

I think it’s his Midas touch. I’ll bet if you went around the White House lifting skirts you find nothing but gold pussies wherever you looked. He is a Star, after all!

6 years & counting. Make the son of a bitch pay up already.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
I believe it’s spray paint. Pics of identical cheap trim in white from Home Depot are on the internet.

Probably the same shit he sprays on his head.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Appeals Court Upholds Carroll’s $83 Million Judgment Against Trump.

President Trump’s lawyer tired to argue that the S. Ct., immunity decision shield him.

HTF can anyone intelligently argue that past pre-presidential acts are covered by immunity?

Goodness. Even the concept of trying to us "presidential immunity " before he was ever in office is ludicrous

I read somewhere that the interest is accruing on the judgment at the rate of around $20,000.00 per day.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Appeals Court Upholds Carroll’s $83 Million Judgment Against Trump.

President Trump’s lawyer tired to argue that the S. Ct., immunity decision shield him.

HTF can anyone intelligently argue that past pre-presidential acts are covered by immunity?

I think the argument was not that he was absolutely immune from suit but that he was immune from the suit proceeding while he was POTUS.

>>>>Rather, as he argued in his state court motion to stay the proceedings, Trump
asserted an affirmative defense in his answer that "[he was] immune, under the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, from suit in state court while
serving as President of the United States." Answer to Complaint, Dkt. No. 14-69 at 11.
He also asserted that "[t]he alleged defamatory statements [were] privileged or
protected by one or more immunities . . . under the Constitution of the United States."
Id. Trump did not assert absolute presidential immunity -- that he was entitled to
absolute immunity from suit by virtue of being President of the United States.<<<<

https://storage.courtlistener....9ed35bb6.134.1_1.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Appeals Court Upholds Carroll’s $83 Million Judgment Against Trump.

President Trump’s lawyer tired to argue that the S. Ct., immunity decision shield him.

HTF can anyone intelligently argue that past pre-presidential acts are covered by immunity?

I think the argument was not that he was absolutely immune from suit but that he was immune from the suit proceeding while he was POTUS.

>>>>Rather, as he argued in his state court motion to stay the proceedings, Trump
asserted an affirmative defense in his answer that "[he was] immune, under the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, from suit in state court while
serving as President of the United States." Answer to Complaint, Dkt. No. 14-69 at 11.
He also asserted that "[t]he alleged defamatory statements [were] privileged or
protected by one or more immunities . . . under the Constitution of the United States."
Id. Trump did not assert absolute presidential immunity -- that he was entitled to
absolute immunity from suit by virtue of being President of the United States.<<<<

https://storage.courtlistener....9ed35bb6.134.1_1.pdf

AFAIK that is just DOJ policy and not law. Does policy include or equate to immunity? I expect that the bulk of the proceedings did not require his presence or other personal involvement.

ah ah we can see some here still find excuses for that ...

hilarious and shameful.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/t...rroll-appeals-court/

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Appeals Court Upholds Carroll’s $83 Million Judgment Against Trump.

President Trump’s lawyer tired to argue that the S. Ct., immunity decision shield him.

HTF can anyone intelligently argue that past pre-presidential acts are covered by immunity?

I think the argument was not that he was absolutely immune from suit but that he was immune from the suit proceeding while he was POTUS.

>>>>Rather, as he argued in his state court motion to stay the proceedings, Trump
asserted an affirmative defense in his answer that "[he was] immune, under the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, from suit in state court while
serving as President of the United States." Answer to Complaint, Dkt. No. 14-69 at 11.
He also asserted that "[t]he alleged defamatory statements [were] privileged or
protected by one or more immunities . . . under the Constitution of the United States."
Id. Trump did not assert absolute presidential immunity -- that he was entitled to
absolute immunity from suit by virtue of being President of the United States.<<<<

https://storage.courtlistener....9ed35bb6.134.1_1.pdf

AFAIK that is just DOJ policy and not law. Does policy include or equate to immunity? I expect that the bulk of the proceedings did not require his presence or other personal involvement.

DOJ Policy is not to prosecute a setting President. It is a policy interpreting and anticipating how the courts would apply the Constitution.

One would have to have a case to force the courts to formally enshrine the policy or reject it. Again, I think the DOJ policy you are referencing is not to charge and prosecute a setting President. The recent immunity decision says that is the law to about 99 percent.

DOJ does not get involved in civil cases like this.

Trump’s lawyers are not arguing DOJ policy is I cannot be prosecuted (criminal). Trump’s lawyers were arguing that he was immune from civil liability through the Supremacy Clause, privileged (no), or he is protected from civil liability by presidential immunity.

The two concepts 1) DOJ policy not to prosecute and 2) what this is are related but not the same.

This is about civil liability. The ability of a citizen to sue or receive compensation for tortious action when that person becomes president. Note, this appeal is not and does not care about Big T truth. Did Trump defame the lady. That factual finding is done. What we are arguing about is does some substantive due process right confit into Trump protection from the judgment because he became president.

We all should hope the answer remains no. The S. Ct., rejected much of this during Clinton.
Today is a new day. The false conservatives have some hope left.

I have an issue with $ 83 mil for what?
He said she said 30-40 years ago?
There is something wrong with that verdict no matter how you slice it

I would rather just pay her, than give endless money to lawyers fighting it.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
I have an issue with $ 83 mil for what?
He said she said 30-40 years ago?
There is something wrong with that verdict no matter how you slice it

Take it up with the Founding Fathers. It's called the 7th Amendment to the Constitution:

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I would rather just pay her, than give endless money to lawyers fighting it.

I agree but I dunno. He's been doing pretty well with the SCOTUS. They've basically been letting him do whatever he wants. I can see why he would take a shot at it.

Luck only runs for you so long Mike. He isn't going to always win.

If the SC's rulings were based on luck, I would agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
I would rather just pay her, than give endless money to lawyers fighting it.

I agree but I dunno. He's been doing pretty well with the SCOTUS. They've basically been letting him do whatever he wants. I can see why he would take a shot at it.

Wouldn't his appeal be to the SC of NY state and not SCOTUS?

Even jury verdicts can be wrong as we know from the past
83 mil is downright stupid and it comes from envy of people towards people well off…nothing more and nothing less

No, they have already got this in Fed court based on basic application of subject matter jurisdiction.



The defamation case was always a Fed case. A Federal civil case, because of amount in controversy and diversity of the parties. The Fed Court in NY had jurisdiction. Hence, the appeal was direct to the 2nd Circuit.


The Federal District Court they tried the case applies NY state law (in addition to federal 1st Amendment application of the 1st Amendment unto defamation cases), but had subject matter jurisdiction due to 1) the amount in controversy was more than one penny over 75k, and complete jurisdictional diversity of the parties. One was a resident of state a while one was a resident of state b.


As for being wrong, wrong as nothing to do with it. The factual findings of the jury she’ll not be disturbed on appeal when supported by evidence upon the whole record. Trump’s lawyers are not stupid enough to argue that. The issue, stated broadly, is does the Constitution grant some protection from the civil judgment because Trump is now President. Previously, with Clinton the High Court said no.

To day is a new day. Right now justice reigns. Let freedom ring and bad actors pays as the Constitution currently permits.

It's a valid judgment by a jury Trump's lawyers helped select. Barring a successful appeal, it's final.

As for execution on the judgment, Trump continues to run his properties, businesses, and fortune. He hasn't put them in a blind trust managed by someone else, so Trump could focus his attention on being president. No, he does all of it himself--and plays golf to boot.

That being the case, he has time in his business management to pay or settle or appeal (as he's now doing) this judgment.

He deserves no immunity.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Even jury verdicts can be wrong as we know from the past
83 mil is downright stupid and it comes from envy of people towards people well off…nothing more and nothing less

Did you ever think that maybe it came from a jury trying to send a message to somebody that claims he is a billionaire? $65mm of the $83mm was for punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish for past misconduct and deter future misconduct.

A $100,000 or even a million dollar judgment against a guy that claims he is a billionaire accomplishes neither of those goals. An $83mm judgment does. The jury did exactly what it was supposed to do per the law on damages in relation to a defamation claim. Your dumbass hero brought the whole thing on himself by running his mouth. Shit, he defamed her again right after the verdict. It should have been a billion dollars.

All of that said, it wouldn't surprise me to see the verdict overturned at the SCOTUS if they can figure out some reason to accept cert. Typically, the Supreme Court is not going to get involved in a civil case where the claim is that the verdict was excessive in terms of the monetary award. Immunity under these circumstances? Maybe. The current SCOTUS seems predisposed to basically give trump whatever he wants.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Even jury verdicts can be wrong as we know from the past
83 mil is downright stupid and it comes from envy of people towards people well off…nothing more and nothing less

Did you ever think that maybe it came from a jury trying to send a message to somebody that claims he is a billionaire? $65mm of the $83mm was for punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish for past misconduct and deter future misconduct.

A $100,000 or even a million dollar judgment against a guy that claims he is a billionaire accomplishes neither of those goals. An $83mm judgment does. The jury did exactly what it was supposed to do per the law on damages in relation to a defamation claim. Your dumbass hero brought the whole thing on himself by running his mouth. Shit, he defamed her again right after the verdict. It should have been a billion dollars.

All of that said, it wouldn't surprise me to see the verdict overturned at the SCOTUS if they can figure out some reason to accept cert. Typically, the Supreme Court is not going to get involved in a civil case where the claim is that the verdict was excessive in terms of the monetary award. Immunity under these circumstances? Maybe. The current SCOTUS seems predisposed to basically give trump whatever he wants.

If they grant cert it would be pretty evident that SCOTUS is a bunch of crooks who should be trown out. I wonder who is greasing their palms or threatening them behind the scenes.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Even jury verdicts can be wrong as we know from the past
83 mil is downright stupid and it comes from envy of people towards people well off…nothing more and nothing less

Did you ever think that maybe it came from a jury trying to send a message to somebody that claims he is a billionaire? $65mm of the $83mm was for punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish for past misconduct and deter future misconduct.

A $100,000 or even a million dollar judgment against a guy that claims he is a billionaire accomplishes neither of those goals. An $83mm judgment does. The jury did exactly what it was supposed to do per the law on damages in relation to a defamation claim. Your dumbass hero brought the whole thing on himself by running his mouth. Shit, he defamed her again right after the verdict. It should have been a billion dollars.

All of that said, it wouldn't surprise me to see the verdict overturned at the SCOTUS if they can figure out some reason to accept cert. Typically, the Supreme Court is not going to get involved in a civil case where the claim is that the verdict was excessive in terms of the monetary award. Immunity under these circumstances? Maybe. The current SCOTUS seems predisposed to basically give trump whatever he wants.

If they grant cert it would be pretty evident that SCOTUS is a bunch of crooks who should be trown out. I wonder who is greasing their palms or threatening them behind the scenes.

It's a conservative court appointed mostly by republicans. If I had to bet, I'd guess they're going to stay away from it. But, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were all appointed by trump. That gets them 3/5 of the way to a majority, right there. 4/5 when you consider the way Thomas always votes. As always, it will be Roberts who decides things.

This last appeal did not address the punitive damages.

The big issue was Trump lost round one that he sexually assaulted her after calling her a lier in public about it. Then, he kept doing it. Hence, this lawsuit and judgement that reflects Trump’s continued and unabated malfeasance.