Jury orders Trump to pay $83 million for defaming columnist E. Jean Carroll | NCPR News
By: Ximena Bustillo (NCPR)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
This is the second time Trump has been ordered pay Carroll; last year he was mandated by a jury to pay $5 million for a separate instance of...
Share by Ximena BustilloJan, 26 2024 E. Jean Carroll (C) arrives for her civil defamation trial against former US President Donald Trump at Manhattan Federal Court in New York City on January 22, 2024. Image: ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images
A New York jury on Friday ordered former President Donald Trump to pay a total of $83.3 million to E. Jean Carroll for ruining her credibility as an advice columnist when he called her a liar after she accused him of sexual assault.
Despite the size of the penalty, the verdict was not unexpected. Judge Lewis Kaplan ruled even before the trial that Trump had in fact defamed Carroll. The jury only had to decide how much Trump owed her — not if he was liable. This is the second time Trump has been ordered pay Carroll; last year he was mandated by a jury to pay $5 million for a separate instance of defamation.
The jury's decision comes just days after Trump won the New Hampshire primary and became the GOP front-runner. The case is one of several involving Trump, who is also awaiting a verdict in a civil trial that could result in him paying at least $250 million to New York state for his business practices, which have been deemed by a judge to be fraudulent.
He could also be prohibited from doing business in the state where he made his name as a real estate mogul. In all, Trump faces 91 charges in federal and state trials, ranging from the ones in New York to those at the federal level related to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
What this case is about
In 2019, Carroll, an advice columnist and freelance writer, accused Trump of sexually assaulting her in the '90s. The accusation, which was detailed in her book, was first previewed in a New York m agazine article. After publication, Trump issued two statements in response to reporters, including one in which he outright denied her claim and said she was "not my type."
Carroll then sued Trump for defamation, arguing that his comments ruined her reputation as a trusted source in the media, and resulted in a slew of insults and threatening messages, emails and comments to her social media accounts.
At the time, Trump's Attorney General Bill Barr blocked the lawsuit, arguing Trump had made the comments in his official capacity as president. This caused the lawsuit to be stuck in court for several years.
In 2023, Biden's Justice Department reversed course and allowed the first lawsuit on defamation to move forward. In part because of the 2023 decision that had found Trump liable for assault, Judge Kaplan ruled that Trump had defame Carroll in 2019 and that the former president was also liable.
What testimony showed
Carroll herself was the first witness to take the stand — putting her face to face with Trump, who attended the first few days of the trial.
Carroll testified that she felt as if Trump calling her a liar "ended the world I had been living in."
Former US President Donald Trump leaves Trump Tower for Manhattan federal court for the second defamation trial against him, in New York City on January 22, 2024. Image: CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP via Getty Images
While she used to receive hundreds of emails asking for advice to her column email, she said, she now received fewer than 10 a month. Instead, she said, she received threats and insults. Carroll's lawyer showed the jury several social media posts, messages and emails sent to Carroll in the following days after Trump's statements.
"I sued to get my reputation back," Carroll said.
But Trump's lawyer, Alina Habba, argued damages ought not be traced back to Trump himself. Habba also showed the jury several social media posts, but these were posted in the five-hour "gap" between Carroll's allegations being published and Trump making the comments he is being sued over.
Habba also focused on the praise and support Carroll received for her allegation and questioned the writer's motive for suing and for deleting threats sent to her email.
Trump doubled down on allegations Carroll is lying
After weeks of vowing to take the witness stand in his defense, Trump finally did so on Jan. 25. But it was short-lived — only a few minutes.
In testimony he said he "100%" stood by his previous deposition. Asked by his lawyer if he ever instructed anyone to hurt Carroll, Trump said that he didn't, and just wanted to defend himself, his family and his presidency.
Beyond his testimony, Trump was present for several days of the trial and was vocal about the case outside the courtroom.
During the first day of testimony, he was reprimanded by Judge Kaplan for making comments during Carroll's time on the stand. Carroll's lawyers twice flagged that they could hear him and the jury might be able to as well. Kaplan warned Trump that his right to be present could be taken away.
Trump also spoke out during campaign rallies in Iowa and New Hampshire, and to reporters in New York, about his belief this trial is election interference — often reiterating claims similar to those he was being sued over.
Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.Missing some content? Care to comment? Check the source: NPRCopyright(c) 2024, NPR
Tags
Who is online
109 visitors
This guy is going to lose his mind.
whats left of it
his cult of ignorant suckers will happily pick up that tab...
And I would 'welcome' the 74 million Trump voters (thereabouts) all contributing in redistribution of their wealth and incomes . . to their cult leader. It would be proper under the circumstances if they give Donald welfare checks. I am pretty sure he will take those checks too (and offer them cult swag.)
This is so insane. People are paralysed or killed and get a fraction of that. A few means words is supposedly worth 83 million? this isn't justice.
He's a serial liar, who lies and lies and lies about people and is not held accountable for it. He showed contempt for the judge, jury, attorneys and the whole proceeding, throughout. He got up and walked out during closing arguments. This isn't about compensation. It's about punishment - and well earned.
There's no world where Trump's tantrums justify giving her 83 million dollars and cases where death, literal death is the basis of the suit end up at less than a million. It's just using the legal system for spite and hate. It's something out of a banana republic. It's so far out of proportion as to be a joke.
If he'd accidently ran her over with her car and killed her instead of calling her a liar, he'd have saved 80 million dollars. Makes perfect sense.
He SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER.
He has bragged about sexually assaulting women for literally decades as a casual part of his existence. And when the women complain, he mocks them and calls them liars.
He has the power to reach the ears of hundreds of millions of people. He was President of the United States, and a wealthy celebrity. He owns his own social media platform online. His power to defame is greater than maybe anyone on Earth.
A monetary punishment should actually punish the individual, and that's relative to the finances of the person being punished. So, if we're talking about me, I've never even seen 83 million dollars. A mere thousand dollars would punish me.
But Trump? He's been going around telling everyone how stinking rich he is. Why Mar-a-lago alone - according to him - is worth something like a billion dollars. He should be able to dig $83 million in loose change out of his couch.
Stop crying for this serial liar and rapist. It's not a strong look.
Do you understand defamation and sexual assault are different things? She recovered 5 million for being assaulted. Cheaper to sexaully assault her than call her liar
top crying for this serial liar and rapist. It's not a strong look
Lol. I'm about the least emotionally invested person in Trump on this site. I actually care about the legal system and it not being abused to punish people for partisan reasons. 83 million dollars for calling someone a liar is asinine. There's simply no way to justify it.
It was a New York jury, so the fix was in even before the trial started/
The dollar amount will be drastically reduced when appealed to a more level headed court.
What do you think would be a fair award?
Your comment displays the same level of contempt and disdain for the American people that Trump displays.
Don't be so certain the amount will be reduced. The jury awarded $18 million in compensatory damages. The punitive damage award of $65 million comports with the legal standard that punitive damages at approximately 3 times compensatory damages is acceptable.
One dollar.
Why should she be rewarded for making a false claim? Jury was obviously biased, and this clown show amounts to election interference.
He should sue her for defamation.
Is there any charge against Trump that you do not claim is bogus?
That's really great advice. His suit against her would undoubtedly be found to be a malicious prosecution. Just imagine how much a jury would make him pay for that.
Some people drink the Trump kool-aid by the gallon.
I’ve never flagged any comment and will not start now, but this is the definition of ‘no value’. Good grief.
You can thank your moderators.
If she had been killed, she wouldn't have had to live the rest of her life, year after year, day after day, under the insulting indignity of his slander.
Gotta wonder, right, why people will do cartwheels to defend Trump.
Lol.. There's not a non-suicidal person alive who would rather be killed right now than be called a liar by a known liar and receive 83 million dollars for it. How much would someone have to hate themselves to choose death over being a called a name?
ROFL. You guys all sing the same tune about everything you don't like. "It's fixed!"
And you learned it from this a-hole who just got a judgment for being full of shit. You'd think you'd learn.
I really can't comprehend your comment, but let me say that the majority of the award was punitive damages, meaning a punishment, and if punishment of a billionaire is to be effective at all, it needs to be substantial enough to HURT.
There is nothing partisan about asking a serial liar and committed sexual assaulter to cease defaming the person who brings charges against him. And Sean, E. Jean Carroll is/was not on 'trial' here. In summary: this portion of the case was/is about getting Trump to shut his damn mouth in public about this (one) individual.
I'm thinking the additional $78.3 million was because he kept running over her after the first $5 million judgement...
So all 18 women who have accused Trump of sexual assault over the years were making false claims?
Trump's parents shipped him off to military school in the first place for sexual abuse of little girls.
Yes, you are right about this and here is the proper breakdown on the award: 2 million dollars for the sexual assault; 3 million dollars for the defamation. The defamation amount is higher as you determine by doing the math.
Understanding the 'formula' should have been Trump and his lawyers first clue that he should have kept his mouth shut and not defame her further which Donald did in fact due. It lead to this crippling award and additional punitive damages for the man who has 'everything' including an oversized mouth!
He sexually assaulted someone - and apparently, she's not a liar for saying so.
"A few mean words" my ass!
You understand the award is for defamation, not sexual assault right?
You understand they are punishing a billionaire, right?
According to most liberals, he really is not a billionaire, so is he...or isn't he?
I doubt anyone knows what Trump is worth. I expect that his net worth would be substantially less than what he claims.
u understand they are punishing a billionaire, right?
Yes, but you are the one who denied the verdict was about Trump's words. It is.
So the justification is now actual sexual assault costs a billionaire 2 million, but when a billionaire calls someone a liar, it costs 83 million.
Sure, keep arguing that makes sense.
I’ll take your word on that.
So she claimed with no evidence.
Look, Greg, this is not just banter on media. This is a trial. This is a legal proceeding with judge, jury, and attorneys which has determined liability.
You are indicating that you will categorically reject any finding of wrongdoing by Trump ... even if it is the conclusion of a formal trial.
You understand that donny would have only had to pay 5 million if he could have kept his fucking mouth shut, right?
He fucked around and found out.
Liberals aren't responsible for this guy bragging about his wealth.
Was he lying about sexually assaulting this woman? Or was he lying about his wealth? Or both? Don't cry because his lies get him in trouble.
Keep defending the rapist/liar.
I see. He just lost in court because uh . . . magic, right? The liberal fairies put a hex on him?
We keep waiting to see if his loyal acolytes will ever give up on him.
If he's rude? Nope.
If he violates his oath? Nah.
If he attacks women? No biggie.
If he lies and publicly defames people? What's the problem?
If he is convicted of crimes in a court of law? Still pending, but I wouldn't count on anything changing.
Clearly there will be no change. Trump is an extreme; nowhere close in many dimensions to our history of presidents. Yet they still blindly defend him.
If he is convicted, they will vote to make a convicted felon PotUS. What we are witnessing nowadays is a level of irresponsibility in the electorate that I frankly did not think was possible in our nation.
Very Trump like of you. Calling him a rapist is defamatory. Jury said he's not. For you to disagree with the jury makes you guilty of defamation per the standard applied in this case. Hope he doesn't read this and sue you for millions.
defending the rapist/liar.
You should probably try reading what I wrote again if you think anything I've written is a defense of Trump.
Trump is the "One" mouthing he is worth billions. . . so if he is not. . . then, he should prove his worth to the court with documents.
Your argument is moot. Awards and damages are determined by a jury. It is not changed on the whims of people who like the guy who talks a lot of shit when he should be quiet and has been told to be quiet. The court has 'ways' to break a hard-headed self-labeled billionaire. . . and Trump just got 'cracked'! Now, I bet you this: He won't make the mistake of calling her a "gold digger" —in public or in front of a camera anyway!
There is one loyalty test that has not properly come up yet: Trump has not literally shot "somebody" on Fifth Avenue, New York. Other than that, I agree with you. . .even Mitch McConnell puts his 'strength' into supporting the MAGA "Leader of the Pack" (of political jackals).
Now with this national wake up call we will sooner or later see just how far 74 million citizen supporters of Trump are willing to go on his behalf to fracture and tear this country apart.
Well Sean, you certainly are not defending E. Jean Carroll or the court's truth. And, the rest of us do not have any intention of entering any opening into a Trump alternative reality.
Everything you have written has been a defense of Trump.
Criticizing the excessive nature of the verdict is not a "defense" of Trump. Trump is irrelevant to that. Show me where I condoned his behavior.
What a silly game. You won't own the things you say, and then you play straw man games.
Show me where I said you condoned it.
I said you were defending him. That's different.
You can play games all day if it makes you happy, but you're not fooling anyone.
You won't own the things you say, and then you play straw man games.
Lol. I own everything I say. It's just my brain isn't broken by Trump so I can divorce his name from discussing a systematic failure. But I get it, when you can't get past thinking "anything that is bad for Trump is good" that sort of distinction is probably out of reach.
I said you were defending him.
What action or behavior of Trump's did I defend? You can project about who's playing games all you want, but your failure to support your claim still remains.
There is no excessive nature of the verdict for you to criticize, as you are no more certain of worth of Donald Trump's wealth than we are. . .at least the jury members have access to documents for which to base their findings and conclusion of worth, award, and punitive damages. Subsequently, you are writing in defense of an indefensible position you've decided to undertaken.
“Criticizing the excessive nature of the verdict is not a "defense" of Trump.”
But the verdict is all about trump.
His behavior that brought the charges, his behavior in the courtroom, and his conduct before, during and after only confirms the validity of the juries verdict. He’s actually lucky it was only a monetary penalty…he deserves to be held accountable for so much more.
This is just the beginning of seeing just how far he will fall.
There are a few here on NT who act as if they were actually on Trump's payroll and bucking for employee of the month.
Show where anyone has defended Trump [Deleted]
We are not defending HIM, we are criticizing the extreme hatred of one man so bad that left wingers will go to every length to blame him for everything fucked up in their lives, and do everything they can to keep him off the ballot for president.
[Deleted]
Defending Trump =
It is right in front of you every day.
OK...
I ask again since you ignored the .request
Show us where anyone has defended Trump
Pointing out what you think you see is not defending.
If you cannot see for yourself where people are:
Then you clearly will NOT see.
I will repeat, as it seems to have fallen on blind eyes, that the majority, and it was a very large majority, of the 83 million dollar award was PUNATIVE DAMAGES. Punitive damages are PUNISHMENT for doing something that any well-meaning law-abiding person would not do, and PUNITIVIVE DAMAGES are MEANT to PUNISH. One does not punish a billionaire with a thousand dollar award against him. To punish, it needs to HURT, not just a mosquito bite. Got it yet?
Who are these people? Are you talking about NT members? Other Americans? Who are these members and what EXACTLY have they said to defend Trump.Who are these other Americans and what are they saying, EXACTLY, that truly defends Trump?
What you have posted is nothing more than what you believe YOU see with no actual proof.
Yes it is. Because you see a systemic failure where there is none.
You know he did wrong. You know he should be punished. And when the punishment is money, you know that only an extreme amount of money would actually punish someone as rich as he. But because it’s Trump, you can’t bring yourself to admit any of it here.
“…this isn't justice.”
If one can’t keep their hands in their pockets, they should at the very least, to the tune of 83M, keep their tongue in their mouth.
Perhaps the jury realized he has no conscience, he has no remorse, so hit ‘em where it may somehow make him understand, and at the very least uncomfortable. Hope he has to sign the check.
Maybe he'll have to sell Mar-a-Lago, and maybe even one or two hotels. But I think I read a comment that said his faithful followers will probably take up a collection for him.
What’s it matter? According to him he’s so rich that he wouldn’t even notice it. Oh wait … maybe that’s a lie too.
Trump will likely be dead before he pays most of this.
Or any of it.
My sister, who is a very sweet woman, told me today she hopes Trump drops dead of a heart attack. Be it right or wrong, a lot of people right now are thinking the same thing.
Honestly, I keep wishing Trump would go to Hell (or "just go away") and this going away part (dearly departed). . .well, both place and state are wrong of me to do and so I catch and admonish myself. Blah! I know how your sister feels.
My feelings, exactly...
LOL. Er, even your hatred has hate for Donald. Wow. It's Donald's fault, nevertheless. As he sucks all the goodwill out of others who do not join him in his misdeeds.
[deleted]
Hope the sociopathic narcissist suffers daily for as long as humanly possible for his multitude of sins.
The court and Trump's juror want to test just how untrainable he really is. Can he be made to STOP "it" if it cost him deeply and dearly. Oh and by the way, the fact that a penalty has to be added to the award, is indicative of the FACT that Donald Trump won't take, "NO. Don't. Please NO!" as an answer!
So... Send him your hard earned savings. That'll show her.
More than likely the amount will be appealed and drastically reduced.
I suspect that too. But largely this is irrelevant other than demonstrating, yet again, in a court of law, the abysmal character of Trump.
I care little about private citizen Trump. My concern is the horrible precedent set by Trump as PotUS. Holding him accountable will help mitigate the precedent impact of his wrongdoing.
How so? He was a good president. Being a good person is irrelevant.
The precedent I am referring to are his actions as PotUS.
Trump is the only PotUS who has attempted to steal a US presidential election. He engaged in fraud, lying, coercion, and incitement in his failed attempt to circumvent the CotUS (violating his oath of office) and attacking the foundation of democracy — the vote of the electorate.
If the only problem with Trump was that he is an asshole, your point would have merit. The problem with Trump is well beyond that and into a terrible precedent for the nation that needs to be mitigated by holding him accountable for his actions while PotUS.
His presidency did not offend you because you see yourself in Trump's management style, solutions to problems, and relationship to others—we do not see it that way for ourselves. For us, Trump is not a good person as long as he remains who he is today.
It's just as likely the appellate court will affirm the verdict and allow the amount to stand. Maybe more likely.
Could be, but not likely.
Most honest courts will look at this and say it is a number that does not match the charge. Could be that is will be argued that the sexual assault decision yielded only 3 million, so they will see that defamation at 83 million it outside of what would be a normal verdict for defamation....a billionaire or not.
"Honest" appellate courts do not review a case and attempt to determine what a "normal verdict" would be.
Honest courts will see that this verdict was excessive and reduce it to what may have been precedent in the past.
No way to know.
The more interesting question is if this will be enough to change Trump's irrational behavior.
My guess is that it is not enough. I do not think Trump can change even if he wanted to. He is what he is.
Awarding damages based on opinionated behavior is not grounds for an excessive fine.'
Fines are awarded on the evidence provided by a prosecution team and not successfully defended by the defense, not to get some one to shut up. .
This award was excessive. Should he have to pay something? I'm not going to answer that because my opinion does not matter
Trump still has first amendment rights, to the chagrin of those on the left.
You seem to be confused. At first I thought you were arguing that even though Trump has clearly engaged in wrongdoing, the fine was excessive.
But now you jump to first amendment rights implying that he should not have been found liable due to his first amendment rights.
By the way, you want an example of defending Trump. Here you go. Questioning the excessiveness of the award is not defending Trump. That is a legitimate question that can be addressed by comparing similar cases. But leaping to the first amendment angle is a fine example of defending Trump. A court of law has determined his liability. That is as definitive as it gets in our system. But you are now trying to weakly argue that the liability finding was wrong since Trump has first amendment rights. (I expect equivocation.)
Questioning the amount of the award is not defending Trump. Questioning the finding of liability with an abstract (and weak) cry of 1st amendment is.
There was testimony from a qualified expert witness that the damage to the plaintiff's reputation will cost in the range of $7 million to $12 million to repair. The jury awarded $11 million for that item of damage. When an award is based on competent evidence introduced at trial it would generally not be considered "excessive".
The jury awarded $7 million for emotional distress damages. That is a bit of a grey area. It would have to be shown that the jury acted with passion and prejudice to punish the defendant rather than compensate the plaintiff. Appellate courts are reluctant to overturn the jury's decision, although it happens.
As I stated above, the $65 million punitive damages award is within the legal standard that punitive damages should not exceed the range of about 3 to 4 times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded.
There is no such thing as "precedent" for the amount of a defamation verdict, and no honest court would ever assert such a ridiculous position. It is not a court's job to find past cases and rule that the amounts awarded somehow set a precedent. That is not how it works. You can repeat it ad nauseum but that doesn't make it true.
Incorrect. I would say that about ANY American. Not my problem you, et all, do not like that he still has First Amendment rights, much less still free from prison.
I appreciate the insults, as expected, but my post stands as is. The fine was excessive and will be reduced. under appeal.
Actually, I believe the amount was 18 million.
But I have to admit. I appreciate you explaining it without insults.Can't seem to get that in other conversations.
Thanks
It was reported that the jury awarded compensatory damages of $11 million for reputational damage and $7.3 million for emotional distress damages, which accounts for the $18.3 million.
Ah, I see it now. Missed it before.
Thanks again for the clarification.
True, but we will eventually find out unless Carroll and Trump enter into a settlement before the appellate court rules, which is possible, however remote the possibility.
This is why I am not going to gather links of Trump defense. You will deny every one of them with some lame crap like the above.
And now you move the goalposts. I noted your defense was your vague allusion to the first amendment and now you flip back to the excessive fine which I noted was NOT a defense of Trump.
Just argue then, we should just let you and be done with it. You are not a court; you are not a juror; you don't have jury instructions to follow; and, you are not going to be a part of the appeal process. Thus, your only role here with us is to argue the facts/decisions/judgements of the court! If anything towards Trump has been violated. . . the facts will bear it out. . . but that can not happening on this site!
You wouldn't say it about "any" American, because for one, you would not say it about President Biden (though he is too smart to get hit with a defamation suit-although I can see MAGA 'cogs' turning to the archives to find something they can use to charge the same).
Trump loves anything he can 'chart' as a win, even if it is 'mitigation' payments or a lesser settlement as he would put it to make this go away. Of course, he will likely try to get Carroll to sign a non-disclosure agreement to keep those details out of the media.
If they negotiate a settlement agreement Trump will undoubtedly require a non-disclosure provision.
We all do, but our words have consequences too, clearly.
Walk up to a cop, threaten to murder them. You have the right to say it, but it will cost you. That's just the way shit works. Trump is just a slow learner.
E. Jean Carroll has been so capable against Trump at this point, it is a wonder to me if will thwart him once again. . . or just take a settlement in the interest of her time remaining on this Earth. She is a very capable opponent for him so far. She even managed to alter his conduct in the public sphere.
[Deleted]
The first amendment should be defended at all costs, or else some will start calling the defense of it "vague". That is a dangerous precedent to go down.
Not in the world of leftists. If someone said that to a cop, and actually either tried or succeeded, that person would be lauded as a hero by the left
Not really a partisan issue, it applies to anyone who would do something that stupid....like trump would.
While some will speciously argue he has not been ‘convicted’, there is no argument that he is being held liable…again in the court of law and eventually again at the ballot box. Karma.
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving asshole. He got up and walked out during closing arguments, which I'm sure only added to the amount of the award. What a dumbass.
Trump is bankrupt!
That's hilarious!!
Trump is definitely... not laughing!
Trump is morally bankrupt.
No doubt...
LOL the loud mouth is a billionaire or so he says so what's $83 million, pocket change to a real billionaire?
He'll be sending out fundraising letters soon begging his dumb fuck followers to pay for this and they probably will.
I'd bet that the dumb ass will go out and do the same thing again and she will sue him again and win.
Now we see where Giuliani learned how to further screw himself with gratuitous commentary.
It just never ceases to amaze me that millions of people want this idiot to be PotUS.
He might go for a triple.
So says someone who wants to see the Current Occupant Idiot reelected.
Intellectual dishonesty.
I do not want Biden to be reelected. But it is an order of magnitude worse for Trump to be reelected. Thus if Biden v Trump, I will cast a vote for Biden as a vote against Trump.
I want Haley to be elected. I support her campaign and will vote for her if given the opportunity.
Attempt to remember this.
So if Haley drops out you will vote for Biden ipso facto supporting Biden for president.
You are still dishonestly spinning what I have explained dozens of times.
Not sure I could make this any easier to understand:
I am supporting Haley for PotUS. I would like the opportunity to vote FOR her and I am supporting her campaign.
There is no scenario where I am supporting Biden (or Trump) for PotUS.
Your continued attempts to spin my words 180° does not reflect well on you.
Anyone voting for a person is supporting that person with their vote. If you end up voting for joe you are supporting joe with your vote. Not such a difficult concept. And no way to spin it any other way.
Joe can win, a third party candidate cannot.
You continue to attempt to portray me as a person who wants Biden to be PotUS by playing a juvenile semantics game.
That is a flat out lie. Haley is my candidate, not Biden. If she drops out, I have no candidate ... only the option to vote against Trump.
Your posts are dishonest; blatant lies.
I suggest you cease with this.
[deleted]
Guiliani listed Trumps unpaid legal fees as assets, so Trump may end up
being forced to pay off Guliani's other creditors.
Karma...
Giulani is the Groundhog day of gratuitous commentary.
Giuliani is an enigma. It is as if he lost his friggin' mind. Could very well be what happened.
BS
No one that I know will admit that they voted for Trump because they supported him, they voted for him over Hillary because they despised her or just couldn't come to terms with putting Bill Clinton back in the WH.
Both legitimate reasons for voting for the lesser of two piss poor choices,
Candidate support is when you donate and put b\stickers on the car and placards for your candidate on your own lawn.
Arguing the same thing from thread to thread, article to article, day after day does not look good.
It's almost as if you don't have the self-control to walk on by...
I wonder if he could pass the same cognitive test that Trump "aced".
That cognitive test has killer questions such as showing a picture of a giraffe, bear, and a horse and asking to identify the animals.
Pretty sure Giuliani can handle something like that even though he seems clueless as to when to stop lying in public.
Thank you for your opinion.
I was surprised that they gave me one at the last physical.
I identified a tank, a plane and a combine by model and manufacturer, she called me a "show off", She asked me to draw an analog clock face with 9:35 and memorize a string of animals and objects which I had to regurgitate at the end of the visit.
I made a colorful sentence out of who the animals were and what they were doing to each other with the objects.
Can't wait til next year, lol.
Was he using the coffee to color his hair?
Wow, SP, you "Ace'd it!". You must be a genius!
What were you doing in New Hampshire?
The miracle of TV news and the internet.
Rudy Giuliani the Barista: Trump Pal Serves Coffee to Voters in New Hampshire (msn.com)
I wasn't there, but I saw it with my own eyes, lol
Giuliani helps serve breakfast, advocates for Trump at NH diner (wcvb.com)
[Deleted]
When the case was over the judge advised the jury members to "never reveal you were on this jury".
Wonder why ?
Only trump is fucking stupid enough to turn a $5 million settlement into an $83.3 million settlement. He's just too stupid to STFU.
Because of his financial expertise is why he is a billionaire, oh wait...What a dumb fuck.
E. Jean Carroll. . .you ROCK! I did not believe you had it in you at your age to take on this particular 'cult' leader and his followers. You competed. You won. We are better off for knowing about you and your case against this powerful ingrate of a man: Donald Trump. Rock On!