147
As president he should be held more liable for defamation. You should not be using an official nation wide platform to bash and insult people, deserving or not.
Wait, so is he saying that defaming her was a presidential act?
Will this case then decide if there is a difference between a presidential act and a personal one, and if they rule it was presidential then that seals the king deal?
This motherfuckers extremely fragile ego can't handle any sort of loss, no matter the reason. That's why he can't fucking let go of the 2020 election bullshit along with this. The fucker has drawn this case out for years, and now when all the courts are done with his bullshit and forced him to pay out, he still can't let it go.
Yeah, Trump’s actions make a lot more sense when you view it through the lens of “he approaches every single interaction as if there needs to be a winner and a loser.” And his ego means he is truly obsessed with winning.
The guy cheated at golf against a 12 year old. There's no low too low.
The article burying the facts that it all stems from Trump sexually attacking and digitally raping this poor woman in a department store ladies dressing room. Then using his new money to defame her all over again in the press years later. That poor woman.
He is suing but he is asserting that he can't be sued. Utterly unacceptable. He can't make the excuse that he's too busy when he's already involved in litigation of a case.
This guy is the definition of a vexatious litigant. IMHO, we need a randomly selected pool of judges to determine if any case or complaint he makes can even be heard in court, and if he fails to make it to court, he automatically pays damages to the party he was pursuing legal action against.
We need a special system just to deal with assholes like this.
He is enriching himself on the back of the american taxpayers by the hundreds of millions, if not billions, and he is still too cheap to pay off a court ordered amount. I hope this doesn't become a pattern. /s
Isn't the E. Jean Carroll trial from before he was president? Also isn't the president only immune to litigation when it comes to his duties as president? Like if the president's dog ruins my favorite pair of pants does that mean I can't take him to small claims to pay for a new pair of pants?
After all the hemming and hawing about not being ruled by kings Americans have just gone ahead and legislated themselves a king anyways.
The latest appeal comes weeks after the Supreme Court declined to take up a separate case from Trump in which the president is seeking to unwind a $5 million civil verdict that found he sexually abused and defamed Carroll at a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the 1990s.
Trump has denied wrongdoing in both cases.
The new appeal involves statements Trump made against Carroll in 2019, when he was president, that a jury found were defamatory and ordered him to pay $83 million in damages.
Appears he got in trouble twice: once for the actual rape, and another for defaming her in 2019 when that civil case was ongoing.
To repeat: The President of the United States was found "liable" for a rape he did, then got in trouble for defaming his rape victim and is now using the powers of the presidency to both urge the supreme court to excuse him or make the United States government the defendant in his place for the defamatory comments he made while president against his rape victim.
In addition to raising the prospect that Trump should be immune from the litigation, Trump is also asking the court to review whether the United States government should be the defendant rather than the president.
Unforgivably batshit insane.
Part of his duties as president are to have sexually assaulted people before becoming president.
- Sepreme Court, 2027
He never stops. He is a rapist. An abuser. He has not stopped for so many victims including children
The rapist is persistent.
Immunity for official acts, did he retroactively abuse and defame her in his capacity as ~~king~~ president?
He wasn't in office when that verdict was handed down.
Y’know what? It’s just occurred to me that after reading about this man and then thinking “how did this happen?” for the millionth time…I think Trump is actually a bigger cunt than Hitler. He’s quite possibly the biggest cunt on the planet. And top 3 of all time? Possibly the likes of Vlad the Impaler and Genghis Khan were worse?
I think Trump is actually a bigger cunt than Hitler.
trump is a tremendous asshole having caused permanent damage to the USA and the world along with indirect deaths from cuts in humanitarian aid (USAID) plus the deaths of civilians in Iran in an unnecessary war, but lets not forget that Hitler was the man that caused WWII in Europe and made literal gas chambers for mass killings of millions of Poles, Jews, LGBT, Belarusians, Blacks, Greeks, Italians, Roma, Russians, Serbs, Ukrainians, his political opponents and others.
Hitler is still worse than trump.
Hitler is still worse than trump.
insert Simpsons "so far" meme
He's never paying. He could live to be 300 years old and he'll delay it for the duration while nobody forces him to do it. The big bitch baby will never see consequences for anything and that's why this country is dead.
I don't know for 100%, but my recollection is that Trump was required to put the money in escrow in order to appeal the decision. If that's true, then he's already paid it, and his tying it up in court is just delaying his victim from getting it.
The escrow paid out; E. Jean Carroll has it. Bitch-ass Trump is throwing a tantrum to try to get the courts to make her return it.
Anyone taking bets on which way this falls?
My guess is actually that they refuse to take the case, allowing the original ~$80M judgement to stand.
Their original ruling was that he can’t be sued for actions taken in office, as long as he could argue that the actions were officially a presidential action. Basically, people can’t sue the POTUS personally for things that the POTUS does officially as president. It creates a barrier between “official actions” and “personal actions”, but gives broad discretion to be able to argue that an action is official. The ruling didn’t define what an official action is, and essentially handed that power to the POTUS.
But here’s the important part: Trump didn’t rape Carroll while in office, (it happened in 1995), so it’s not covered under that existing ruling. And even if he did, the SCOTUS isn’t going to want “I raped a woman as an official presidential act” on their record.
This is about the defaming portion, not the rape itself.
He defamed her while in office.
They dont have to worry about saying rape is an official act, only defamation
Have you not heard of Polymarket?
this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2026
147 points (100.0% liked)
News
38540 readers
1924 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS